Distance Reading, Question # 1

1. What are the political implications of defining "distance" as an essential component of the aesthetic experience?

Epiphanal moments under a star-studded midnight sky is an aesthetic experience. The aesthetic experience is characterized as a "separation of thought from reality that was essential for the creation and appreciation of art" (Long, 1). Further, the pleasure and awe that individuals derive from art comes from the "physical processes constituting the aesthetic impression" (Long, 1). This detachment necessary to understand art was also characterized by the synchronous separation and involvement, a term called distance.

Distance cannot be an essential component of the aesthetic experience. Distance only limits the self from understanding. Distance, characterized as simultaneous separation and involvement, does not necessarily permit itself to work well within the aesthetic experience. If aesthetic is defined as a" critical analysis of art, culture, and nature", distancing the self seems harmful. That is, to have a practical detachment from the said experience would actually limit the self from complete experience, as everything is subjective. The individual rarely understands the world through a lens that is not their own. The negotiation of self within the larger context of society is made possible by the individual experience. Lived experiences always seems to be reflective of art. Art seems to be an extension, a temporal experience of the self. Perhaps this quality could be characterized as a form of distance, but with this distance, individual subjectivity is always present. Even with distance characterized as imaginative, the imagination still functions through self and the experiences of the self. As Long stated, " Readers do not present an imaginative world...they maintain their own identity in the same world of reality as that of the listener, inviting an audience to to participate imaginatively in the fictive world of the text, a participation guided by clear and vivid reading" (4). Distance is not attainable.

In fact, "distancing became of little assistance to the interpreter who major objective was to know the dymanics of the literature by performing it" (Long, 7). Distance, requiring multiple distinctions, started to become a problem during the mid-20th century when a paradigmatic shift from modernism to postmodernism characterized our culture. These distinctions "could become a problem when one aimed to study experientally a literary text that made its point precisely by ignoring, overlapping, shifting, or confusing those distinctions" (Long, 8). These four qualities are inherent of postmodern society. Art becomes nothing more than art.

The Lady Actress, Question #2

2. Why were first person narratives by female authors considered inappropriate? How did Mowatt get around this difficulty in her autobiography? What sort of successful strategies of self-creation did she employ?

Writing during the Victorian era as a female author was already a daunting task. Some women were writing during this period but relatively few compared to present day. Using a first-person narrative, a authorial voice, was considered lacking couth during this period because women were viewed as 1.) inferior to men on the socio-evolutional level, and 2.) they were viewed by men as pure, fragile, virginal creatures who were used for procreating and domesticity. In her autobiography, Mowatt even gives an apology for the "degree of egotism in the constant use of of the first person singular. Writing with an authorial voice would overthrow traditionally held norms and values of Victorian culture, where any type of change was frowned upon. However, the narrative authority and rhetorical agility in her writings allowed her to create a space within the Victorian era for herself and paved the road for future female authors.

All of the rhetorical strategies Mowatt employed within her writings such as performance and fiction presented herself, her desires and motivations in a way that "would mitigate the effects of her society's prejudices without alienating her auditors". Her narrative authority includes 1.) speaking from first-hand knowledge and personal experience, 2.) she viewed her work as the fulfillment of a responsibility to inform her readers who viewed her as a potential role model, and 3.) she had statements from men in positions of conentional respectability to corroborate her assertions made in her texts. Her greatest argument for narrative authority is stated in the last chapter of her autobiography, "My Claims to offer a Defense of the Stage". In this chapter, she argues her knowledge and experience with acting and theatre grants her the position to argue for the the value and respectability of acting and theatre. For Mowatt, acting was the "truth and an innate love and reverence for a dramatic art".

Mowatt created an authorial persona that was non-feminine and non-threatening. By doing so, she created/ allowed herself a position within the narrative cirlce by not subervting the gender and social hierarchy that characterized the Victorian era. There was also once instance in which Mowatt published under the pseuodonym of a male author. This was the most common form of publishing for women during this time and the past. Readers, typically aristocracy, religious leaders, and intellectuals (men), would be more willing to read works that were published by men versus women. Also, women of her time would write under the vision of God. That is, women authors would argue that they were simply re-writing the words of God in their works. By doing so, they hoped to legitimize their works in such a rigid, religious moment in time.

Platform Readers, Question 5

5. Did the performances of the various platform performers mentioned in these articles encourage awareness of the diversity of political, social, economic, and intelllectual extant in their American audiences or did they reinforce the existing regional sterotypes and class/gender/racial prejudices?

Yes, I believe the platform humorists encouraged awareness of the diversity of American culture. Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby (David Ross Locke) created a character that embodied familiarities such as bigot, racist, and womanizer to his audience. However, he would always counter each of his characters act with his own actual thoughts on social and political issues saturating the day. For example, "Cussid Be Canaan" summarizes the theological, legal and economic reasons for slavery. The last line of this act states "if [the Negro] is not a man, he is a most excellent imitation...[His rights] must be secured by law." With this statement, it is clearly obvious Nasby turned his political satires into political rhetoric. He was known to transition from character to Locke without any cues to the audience.

Locke was also a supporter of women's rights. In his "The Struggles of a Conservative with the Woman Question", Nasby addresses and argues a place for women in society. He started with " I adore woman, but I want her to keep her place. Her place has been either as a beast of burden or a toy". He concluded by saying "What shall we do with the woman question? and explained that the only solution was the give women the vote and pay equal that of men". It is once again obvious that Locke does see the necessity of women's rights thus encouraging a type of awareness for the whole of American society.

Nasby also adovcated reforms that are were incorporated into six ratified or proposed amendments to the Constitution including the 13th (abolish slavery), 14th (equal rights), 15th (right to vote), 19th (vote for women), 24th (barring poll tax in federal elections), and 27th (women's rights). He definitely advocated for reform and change within American society through his humor, satire and wit.

On a different note, I do not believe that all or the majority of platform humorists were dedicated to social change. For many, it was simply a job, a means to an end, a way to earn a living when American culture was experiencing a paradigmatic shift from an egrarian to industrial culture. For example, Bill Carleton once exclaimed that when they say "You're a genius," I say, "No, it's my job".

Reading 3, Question 3

3. How ‘rhetorical’ were the chambers of rhetoric? What groups were free to use this performance venue as a medium for social critique and self-expression? Were these organizations capable of true subversion of dominant contemporary values and institutions?

The Chambers of Rhetoric were quite rhetorical. Not only did the Chamber s of Rhetoric serve a form of entertainment for the audience, they also provided a forum to discuss the moral, philosophical and social issues that were dominating their times. Each Chamber of Rhetoric would perform their play. Many of the Chambers of Rhetoric were quite anticlerical and often spoke out against the hierarchical and dominating position of the church. Or, there was some type of reformation propaganda within their play. In fact, the readings argued that what united most of the Chambers of Rhetoric were their anticlerical sentiments. However, they could not be too anticlerical because they were funded by the Church and State.
Most members of the Chambers of Rhetoric were merchants, professionals, higher members of the artisan class and some guild members. Thus, many of the Chambers of Rhetoric performances paralleled the views of the middle-class urban Dutch society. The goal of the Chamber of Rhetoric was to create a literate society and encourage creativity. As they were the ones who also wrote the plays and performances, these members heavily shaped the public opinion during this time as many of the performances were held in large public arenas easily available to a large audience.
Yes, it seems that the Chambers of Rhetoric were somewhat able to subvert the dominant contemporary values and institutions. This is mainly due to the fact that the Chambers of Rhetoric performed to large public audiences made up of a variety of low, middle, and upper class individuals. Thus, it is presumable to say that their message was easily disseminated to the other classes. However, their messages were usually highly metaphorical and perhaps people could not understand the anticlerical statements intertwined within their performance. Maybe it was more like a half-true subversion.

Reading 1, Question 1

1. What fault does Socrates find with Ion's art?
Socrates thinks Ion's art is not really an art at all. I agree with Socrates. To know and understand an art, you must be fully versed in that art not just specific poets. Near the beginning of Ion, Socrates asserts Ion speaks of "Homer without any art of knowledge. If you were able to speak of him by rules of art, you would have been able to speak of all other poets; for poetry is a whole". To completely understand an art and be an expert of that art, it is absolutely essential that all aspects of that art are known and understood whether high or low. For Socrates, rhapsodes were wise men who recited only portions of others poetry to gain fame and financial security. Wise men seek such professions while common men (like Socrates) seek the Truth.
Next, Socrates gives numerous examples of how experts must understand all of an art such as painters, sculptors, and musicians. For example, a great sculptor would know how to sculpt more than just one piece to be considered an expert of the art. I agree with Socrates. You cannot know only bits of an art if you are a supposed expert. In fact, Socrates calls Ion's art an "inspiration" that he simply utters for notoriety while a true poet sings from the "power divine". He goes on state that if Ion "had been taught by the rules of art, he would have known how to speak of all themes of the art". Socrates goes on to ask Ion if he is an interpreter of interpreters and he agrees to that title.
In fact, Ion admits to his deceptive behavior. He says that when the "audience cries I shall laugh and when they laugh I shall cry while taking their money". This becomes a clear indicator of the fault which Socrates sees in Ion's art. Rather than being an art it is much akin to Sophistry. They know just enough to entice, entertain and persuade their followers to continue to support their art. At the end, Ion agrees with Socrates that his art is actually not an art at all but rather a "Homeric inspiration" or infactuation.