I wanted to take this time to talk a bit more about the other article that we read for class on Thursday, but didn’t get to, Beverly Moss’s study of “alternative ‘sista’ spaces”. I really enjoyed this article, and thought that it tied in nicely to Becky’s talk about clients at the GPLC who were American-born, focusing on their literacy for a variety of reasons. While the women in PW, Inc. are by no means illiterate, it’s really interesting to see how a women’s club has plenty of literacy exercises, whether on purpose or not, for the benefit of learning about one’s cultural history. What I mean by that is, the readings of Obama’s book and the passages about important Blacks in history weren’t intended for literacy purposes, but it still became a literate “safe space” where people can gather and talk about their culture while exploring it through various texts and forms of literacy. Additionally, PW, Inc., is very involved with the literacy community in Columbus, doing a lot of volunteer work for the Columbus Metropolitan Library and its other urban branches, so not only do they foster literacy within their club, they spread it out into the community as well. I just found this mesh of literacy and culture really interesting, partially because it seemed serendipitous and partially because it’s one of the first texts that deals with literacy in minorities that aren’t immigrants.
My question is, what are some non-obvious literate safe spaces that you know of? PW, Inc.’s goal has nothing to do with literacy, yet through their exploration of texts they not only become more literate, but they delve further into their culture. The safe spaces you know of don’t have to deal with certain minorities or cultures, I’m just interested in places that foster literacy without initially intending to.
On Tuesdays I take an improv class. When the session is over, my classmates, the instructor, and I hold “office hours” at a nearby bar. Each night I end up leaving with a pocket full of paper scraps with jotted down book titles. Most of the recommended readings, supplied from nearly everyone in the group, are improv guides or (auto)biographies of comedians.
In class, there’s no writing or reading whatsoever–everything we do is done in the moment and never documented. To pull off a scene well, however, you need to put in some serious outside work. This work includes a lot of reading and a lot of writing.
I don’t intend to become a professional improviser or comedian–I’m taking this class because I have problems speaking in front of people when I don’t have prepared material like a presentation or a lesson plan. When I engage with an art form, I’d like to do what I can to do it well. Reading about the process of other performers or responding to comedic writing prompts enhances my abilities as an improviser, which in turn enhances my skills as an educator.
One thing compels me especially here, and I’m not sure at what level the phrasing was intentional: “When I engage with an art form.”
I’m not even sure why I’m compelled. The situation: On one hand, most of the time, I consider the art to be between at least two things. I’ve read/written a lot about that. On the other hand, I’ve also thought sometimes about the two gaps there; one between ‘thing’ and art, and another on the other side, between art and ‘second thing’.
What does this have to do with literacy? Well, as I say, is literacy in a gap, or is it one? I think we can say that neither “Shannon” nor “audience” is, itself, literacy. (Let’s not pretend that I know what I’m saying from here forward.) So are there literacies of “improv” (Improv is in the gap between you and the audience), or is literacy the gap between you and improv–and between improv and audience?
I guess it comes down to this, which I’ve only just now realized: are all interactions art? Or is it possible to interact without (some kind of) art–directly between two things? (and, thus, is it also possible to interact directly with art?)
I guess no. But…?
If I understand your comment, you’re interested in how knowledge of an art form enhances or prevents a person from experiencing it?
From personal experience, learning more about improv has made me realize why certain things are funny, and I tend to laugh at forms of comedy that I wasn’t as receptive to before. For example, there was a comedian, Andy Kaufman, in the early years of Saturday Night Live. Most people were not huge fans of him–he did a lot of more abstract, non structured (and seemingly unplanned) sketches.
One of his more well known performances involved him playing the theme to Mighty Mouse, a popular cartoon during the 50s and 60s, on a record player and lip-synching the lyrics while miming exaggerated heroic poses and gestures. It goes on for about 6 minutes and the audience seems more uncomfortable and laughing out of nervousness more so than entertainment.
The first time I saw that, I thought it was unfunny and dumb because it didn’t make sense. Studying comedy though, I realize that this nonsense is actually highly structured and practiced. It took a lot of work and skill for Kaufman to synchronize himself with that recording and maintain composure throughout the scene. Knowing the amount of technique involved, it did become funny to me–it’s not that the record paired with his gestures is itself particularly funny, but the fact that he puts so much effort and sincerity into something that’s unfunny.
Mark Twain said something along the lines of “Figuring out why a joke is funny is like dissecting a frog–sure you know how it works, but now the poor thing’s dead”.
In short, in my experience, being literate in comedy made me see it in a new light and appreciate scenes I didn’t previously understand. In the same concept, when I didn’t have this knowledge of comedy, I was left out of the joke and couldn’t enjoy that sketch.
It raises a question–is it “good” art if it’s inaccessible? When a piece requires a lot of outside knowledge to be considered well made, is it a valuable work of art or too esoteric or contrived to resonate strongly or widely enough?