While this article did bring to light some valid and perhaps overlooked points about remediation and the growing popularity of Asian culture in America I don’t know how I felt about the writing style. It was very accessible and easy to read but something about it sounded oddly like a term paper rather than a form of ethnographic study. I suppose this just goes back to the old debate about what qualifies as an ethnography and if it’s possible to even define one in structured terms, but this article seemed like a bit of a stretch.
I did, however find the point about remediation to be very relevant and interesting. In class we’ve been discussing forms of media as pertaining to their reliability and legitimacy as forms of ethnography. This article further discusses the advantages and drawbacks to recreating and evolving a form of entertainment through a new lens. Different forms of media have struck up debates in many genres over the benefits of using one type of form over another, as well as how performances can translate through one medium to the next. This discussion is becoming increasingly prevalent and relevant to many fields of study. In one of my other classes we were recently discussing this as well. While a trend of making movies out of musicals and live performances has been evolving for a while now, a newer form of remediation that’s been occurring is incorporating elements of film or redevising videos into live productions.
One criticism I have on Novak’s thoughts about remediation is it seems kind of obvious and straightforward. Clearly something is going to be rediscovered and transformed through a new element of media. It also seems somewhat obvious that this isn’t always a bad thing, and that the art form is becoming something entirely new rather than just losing elements of the original. Also, whenever a performance is recreated, even if it isn’t being remediated, such as in a revival of a show, it’s generally re-envisioned and changed in numerous ways.
I found the part of this article discussing the Heavenly Ten Stems performances and protest to be especially interesting. From the description of the group it is made out to be incredibly offensive, yet it’s confusing to a get a grasp on the intention of the performers. Kearney insists that the intentions were harmless and simply out of appreciation for the art form, yet they seem to have missed their mark by a lot- One of their questionable decisions being to wear gold face paint. What deems an action to be offensive towards someone? If the intention behind the act is malicious, or is that irrelevant?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of HTS, whose alleged opinions you paraphrase above, I wanted to make a couple of quick points.
ReplyDeleteOne of their questionable decisions being to wear gold face paint.
In fact, one band member wore metallic gold paint at one show, and he didn't do it in order to look "Asian." Maybe that individual decision was questionable, but the implication that the entire band performed in gold face paint is incorrect.
Kearney insists that the intentions were harmless
Not really. I've acknowledged publicly and at length that there were legitimate grounds for concern (though not, IMO, for a physical attack). Having good intentions doesn't automatically acquit a person or a band of being offensive, and I'd never dream of claiming otherwise.
That said, being offended doesn't automatically give someone the right to attack people, tear their clothes and flesh, and throw water-based paint on them while they're playing electrical instruments. Furthermore, many of the offensive things we're supposed to have done never actually happened (e.g., singing faux-Asian nonsense syllables, taping our eyes to make them look slanted, wearing yellow paint on our faces, etc.).
If "it’s confusing to a get a grasp on the intention of the performers," perhaps that's because the author of the paper you're reviewing never spoke to any of us. What I find troubling about HTS, then and now, is not just that our performances raised ethical questions, but also that so few commentators have shown any interest in establishing what we did and didn't do and say.
You'd think it'd be pertinent. And you'd think that people whose interest in this controversy is essentially sociological would have a better sense of the pitfalls of narrative and representation.
Suffice it to say that the actual event -- which, among many other things, involved a white protester tearing the traditional clothing of a Pakistani musician -- was a bit more complex and ambiguous than a lot of commentators seem to realize.
I don't mean this as an attack, nor even a complaint. It's really just a friendly reminder that "history" and reality don't always coincide.