Critique of Hunter's Performance

            Pelias and Shaffer explain one of the models of critic as a textual study. In this model they focus on the “power of performance to explicate aesthetic texts”(185). In other words they want to performer to follow the texts because the performance is based off the words and content. Hunter’s piece is about an argument with a girlfriend. He states, “I saw it was a guy who just stormed out of his house after a fight with his girlfriend, he is venting a friend or even to himself.” Under this context, the performance could use more emotion. Hunter has great loudness and delivery of the words, but it lacks the emotion of the piece. He could be angrier or frustrated because of the fight with his girlfriend. Going into the next performance just be aware of the emotion of the piece and try to convey that emotion through actions or tone.

            Another model of critic Pelias and Shaffer discuss is performance as a communicative act. This means the performance is interchangeable between performers and listeners (185). They expand on this idea by stating, “whether genuine understanding emerged as a result of the exchange” (185).  Hunter’s performance could be viewed as interchangeable between the audience and speaker because the audience is involved with laughter and asks questions. Overall, Hunter does a great job of continuing his tone and voice although the audience is laughing. He is not distracted by the audience, and did a great job focusing on the delivery. At the end of the performance, when the class comments and asks questions, he answers the questions effectively and true to the context of the piece. However, when Hunter is quoting Dodgeball, his voice becomes slightly higher and less serious. Although the lines are from a comical movie, the overall nature of the piece is serious because it is a man venting after a fight with his girlfriend. For the next performance he could remain serious and follow the emotion of the piece, even though certain lines may come off funny since the audience has began laughing.

            A third model Pelias and Shaffer elaborate upon is performance as a cultural process. This means the performance indicates some background information of the culture. Following this model, Hunter did a good job because of the classroom setting. Obviously he did not just storm out of his house after a fight with his girlfriend because his performance is light-hearted. This gives the audience more insight into Hunter as a person than the background of the performance. He comes off very light-hearted, but this does not follow the context of the piece. As previously stated, he should be more connected to the words of the piece. He should convey the emotion of the words.

            The last section of chapter 12 explains performing and ethics. They discuss how the performers can alter the creator’s text, respect the audience, enter into lives of others, and if anything can be viewed as unethical in performance. Hunter’s performance is extremely ethical. He merely states he is reading Carlos’ piece, but the interpretation is completely original. He does not impose on anyone’s boundaries or make the audience feel uncomfortable in anyway. The light-hearted delivery of the words makes the audience feel comfortable. Hunter also states that he made changes from the original piece. Following Pelias and Shaffer, Hunter has every right to do this because he is not obligated to follow every word exactly. He has the right to make changes and convey the message under his own beliefs and predispositions.