Live
Apologies for leaving early - had a meeting… but before I lose internet access for two weeks or so, I’ll make a ‘day 4′ contribution. This won’t have any sound or images in it due to the lack of speed of internet at my flat, but there are a few thoughts I’d like to put down in writing!
There was quite a few things that I found quite pertinent today, but mainly the court cases of the performances in the morning. The most significant thing for me was the fact that the representations were not accurate at all for the most part - in fact, the representations were hardly ever played out - there was very little documentation of the actual performances. There was more focus on utilising the courtroom as a novelty light-hearted performance. While this didn’t really engage with the question of documentation as overtly as it should have done (with the court scenario being the focus rather than the issue that was being dealt with) it did make me think that each of these ‘representations’ were relying on two layers of obstacles, if you will. First, you had the witnesses who would observe the performance, they then described the event to another party of investigators - documenting documentation. They were then relayed in a stylised fashion to the rest of the group in a courtroom scenario - very far removed from the documentation of the event itself - I’d like you to write a bit about this to clear this up for me, Paul, if you would! Thanks!
There were other smaller things that I would like to write about, but they don’t really pertain to documentation, just the event - such as our group’s choice to perform where there wasn’t already an intervention, in the ginnal (I’m suprised the spell checker hasn’t picked that up - must be a northern spell checker!). The performance itself was a strange experience, as we each had our different reasons for performing. I disagreed quite strongly with Ale’s reasons of it being a ‘funeral march’ for the old lady in the flat next to the ginnal - my own reason was simply to make an intervention in the only space (that wasn’t the staircase!) that didn’t have an intervention in it already - to use the resonance of the ginnal and I quite liked the fact we were walking underneath the whole of the building - our performance spanned the building - in a non-place that is perhaps associated with place the most! A very significant thing to me.
I have very much enjoyed working with everyone and hope that the documentation discussion is carried on into the future!!! I’ll add to this when I have the ability to!
Related Posts:
- None
April 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I think that the focus on the courtroom correlates with the focus on documentation of ephemeral events. The performance in the courtroom became more important than the event that was being investigated. The performance in the written article becomes more important than the ephemeral event being reviewed.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Representation is a tricky issue in the judicial context, too. Law enforcement agencies only enact reconstructions of events (as one of the courtroom presentations did) in order to jog potential witnesses’ memories of events; that is, to produce people as witnesses for the purposes of the investigative and judicial processes. For the agents of the law, the event as experienced in time and space is only there to enable the secondary form of event that is the investigation and (possible) trial.
As Paul said, the courtroom is one of the only places in our society where spoken language — testimony — is given priority over more mediated forms of language such as video links and written statements. The documentation that matters in the courtroom is not so much the evidence presented but the documentation of the proceedings themselves: tape recordings of interviews, stenographers’ transcripts, judges’ summings-up. Distinct from the French model, where the court is an instrument of investigation, the British and American courtroom is a temple of guilt in which an accusatory ritual is played out whose ultimate purpose is to publicly reveal that which is, in our society, most private: memory. The court is not so much a space in which the truth of events are reconstructed as a theatre of memory.
The court is also, incidentally, a place to demonstrate the performative efficacy of language. A performative utterance, in linguistics, is one that does something rather than simply stating it. Courts are full of them: “The court is now in session”; “I promise to tell the truth”;”Court is dismissed/adjourned”; “We find the defendant guilty/not guilty”; “I sentence you to…” The jury’s finding of guilt or innocence, and the judge’s sentence, are examples of such: it is by the act of pronouncing sentence that the judge condemns the accused to their fate, a fate that is always referred to as a sentence, to emphasise the sovereignty of language over the individual.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I wonder how private my memory is, if I share so many memories with others? I really enjoyed converging childhood images of Labyrinth with a LAW-goer in the pub (can’t remember who it was now…), and that seems like a shared cultural memory that many people my age from the UK/USA might have.
Also, if it can be demanded in a court, is my memory my own?
[sentence:
Origin Middle English: via Old French from Latin sententia ‘opinion’ from sentire ‘feel, be of the opinion’]
April 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Exactly! Memories really aren’t so private, are they? They’re a sort of special category of feeling or opinion: opinions about the past; and there’s nothing more socially or culturally overdetermined than an opinion. I think I was trying to get at something similar with my comment on Emily’s post.