Thread: Thank you and just to add

First can I just say how unbelieveably helpful you have all been. It really has been fantastic, and you have given me so much to think about so I can go off and do so much more research which I would never have thought about before coming on here.

But I do have some final questions I hoped you could answer for me please.

1. As you obviously know, burlesque means to parody or imitate. Is this the type of performer you are, someone who ‘sends up’ different topics?

If yes, what? And why?

What would you say is your actual genre or style of burlesque?

Do you think burlesque is a form of performance art?

Would you call your work performance art?

Thank you again

WARNING

Warning: This is an Old Thread This discussion is older than 60 days. information contained in it may no longer be current

Most of my answers can be found here:

Kittie Klaw - British Burlesque Specialist | Kittie: Belle Esprit & Burlesque Specialist

Ministry Of Burlesque Resources :: What Is Burlesque?

1. As you obviously know, burlesque means to parody or imitate. Is this the type of performer you are, someone who ‘sends up’ different topics? If yes, what? And why?
Almost all of my acts have an element of mick-taking or irony in them. However this is in varying degrees, and not all of them directly set out to send up themes as their sole intent. Examples:
"The Last Temptation" (nun act), isnt intended to send up religion (though it inevitabley does a bit), so much as it sends up the whole "naughty sexy nun" theme that you see everywhere. I am not sexy in this act. I also wanted to evoke big, bawdy OTT humour.
"Tiger Tiger" I made this with the direct intention of taking the mick out of burlesque, the standard moves, burlesque-by-numbers (taking your gloves off, stockings off etc) and the proliferation of sexy female cat acts you get. No disrespect to sexy cat acts, they can be cool, but I just thought it would be funny. In not entirely sure if everyone gets that Im taking the piss though, they always seem preoccupied with the costume.
"Washing Day" mimics and pokes fun at 1950s cheesecake and cheesy advertising, Good Housewife kind of stuff. However I would say I am sending up and recreating these in equal measures.
"Painter" In this I send up the fact that I cannot paint for toffee, and also the whole "girl and paint" sexual fantasy that people seem to have. Again, I both mock this and enact it. This is a quite a sweet, cute little act. Burlesque-lite.
"Woman Scorned" I did this as homage to my gothic roots, which dont really come out in my burlesque life. However, it evolved more into something else, probably my most sexy act, if you could call it that, a bit of woman power, not really much send-up.
"Trampoline Striptease" This is my take on an act called "the flea" that 19th Century prostitutes would perform on the street, pretending a flea was in their clothes, jumping wildly while disrobing. So no send up there.
"Phoenix" This is my only straight act, with fire, Im not taking the mick of anything

Hope that is helpful in some way!

What would you say is your actual genre or style of burlesque?
I call my self a comedy burlesque performer. This allows for the variety of types of comedy, but its a running theme.

Do you think burlesque is a form of performance art? Yes. I really dont see how it could be anything else, or how anyone could viably argue otherwise. Comedy, singing, dancing, costumes, visual impact, creative ideas, music, acting, striptease, performance, entertainment. Its theatre.

Would you call your work performance art?Yup.

Do you think burlesque is a form of performance art?

Would you call your work performance art?

[/QUOTE]

I can't speak as a performer, but whenever I hear/read the phrase 'performance art' I think of the grainy black and white photographs I was shown when I was at Art School decades ago of 'performance art' - mostly taking place in dingy Parisian dives in the '60s, often involving various bodily fluids ( I remember one particularly 'challenging' piece where a naked man bled himself and used the result to make a kind of black pudding, which was then cooked and shared amongst the audience, as a kind of communion. )
Now I get at least a few of the many points the artist in question was undoubtedly setting out to make,( and I do realise Performance Art has developed since then) but really, it's not my idea of a great Friday night out. And neither on the other hand is a strip-club.

For me Burlesque is not performance art, nor should it aspire to be so - it's entertainment, pure and simple. Or should be. But as everything else, entertainment is also subjective.

Personally, I find that for something to 'entertain' me it should do any or all of the following :
Make me think. Toby Stephens in Dantons' Death at the National, or Dirty Martini's Proud to be an American
Enthrall me - the Pina Bausch company in 'Nelden', or Vicky Butterfly
Make me cry - Netrebko as Violetta, or Beatrix von Bourbon's Winter
Make me laugh - Stavros Flattley, or I'm so sorry I can't remember the artists' name, but if I say Pole-Dancing Granny that may help.
Turn me on - Carlos Acosta as Romeo, or Catherine D'lish.
Shock me - Richard Strauss' Salome, or Mr. Joe Black.
And sometimes it's just a live-action substitute for the television, and while I can't claim it has had any lasting effect has passed the time pleasantly, and made me think it was worth the ticket price ( the musical Legally Blonde, or Elle Amour at High Tease the other week).

If you ask high-level dancers/actors/singers what they are, then 9 times out of 10 they will tell you they are dancers/actors/singers. They are very unlikely to describe themselves as 'artists', let alone 'performance artists'.

If as a result of their work ( as dancer/actor/singer) they have not only exhibited their own virtuosity in their specialist field but also made me think/laugh/cry etc, or even just presented me with pretty images/ well-sung songs, then isn't that enough? And yet if you ascribe the title 'Performance Artist' to Burly girls and boys, then by default it must also apply to anyone who gets up on stage, surely?

Burlesque by its' very nature is a 'low-brow' form of culture, and none the worse for that. For me, calling it 'Performance Art' is inappropriate, flies in the face of its populist roots, and is asking for trouble - there's little enough money to go round these days as it is, without alienating those members of the audience who would run a mile on hearing the phrase, with all its attendant connotations of elitism, pretention, and, dare I say, onanism? Yet they may come to see Kitty Klaw and Jim Devereaux in 'Piccadilly Prowler' and go away thinking about their own attitudes to homosexuality, as reflected by the mirror of a C19th 'spoof', or reconsider their personal take on the 'size zero debate' after being wowed by Immodesty Blaize.

You have lucked-out in sparking off some interesting debate : hope the dissertation goes well!

Vx

What a super discussion! (PS Glorian - I'm stealing your act list format!)

. As you obviously know, burlesque means to parody or imitate. Is this the type of performer you are, someone who ‘sends up’ different topics? If yes, what? And why?
Most of my acts are humorous and like Glorian they have parodying or gently teasing (in the mocking sense of the word, rather than 'The Tease') qualities but it isn't the main focus and these parodying elements usually arise as a by product of the main point of the act, which for me is usually character or narrative driven. On an act by act basis:

"The Octopus Woman" This act was made purely in reference to my love of hybrid creatures and the idea of an Octopus Woman. It was never intended to poke fun or micky-take. However, I think it could perhaps be read by people who didn't know that, as a parody of the whole 'sexy mermaid' trope, especially as the act has a false start - appearing at first as if it is going to be a slinky, sexy act before launching into the slightly wacky narrative.
"Rubber Ducky" This act was much more of a parody act - it was supposed to mimic the idea of the vintage 'bathing beauty' and also the whole 'astride a giant lipstick/compact/drinks glass' image as I spend a lot of the performance sat on a giant rubber duck. Interestingly enough I have never been entirely happy with this act (it is currently about to be retired, possibly for re-working) as I felt it lacked substance and a definite character.
"The Strong Woman" This act references and homages the traditions of silent film and slapstick humour and of course, the character is straight from the world of the circus. However, I don't really think the act parodies these things, rather that it celebrates them. However, I do feel this act has a huge amount of self-parody. The jokes in it that get the biggest laughs are both referencing my body type and (gently) mocking it. Using my body in this act as a source of humour is great fun and I feel that women in the audience especially, often laugh loudest at these parts.
"The Last Jackalope" This act is totally straight and doesn't have humour of the parodic kind, or of any kind at all. I don't really class it as a 'burlesque act' as such although it was made with a burlesque audience in mind. I kind of sell it as a narrative equivalent to a straight fan dance or wings of Isis act.
"The Emotional Strip" This act is parody, mocking and humour all the way! In this act I scroll through a little rainbow of emotions and strip in the style of each mood, with appropriate music selections. There is so much parody in this one, it gets silly! Firstly, each little sections is meant to be an over the top, hyper-real performance of that emotion - mocking it with its exaggeration. Secondly, the overall theme of the act is to mock the idea of the moody, emotionally changeable, diva performer - 'a slave to her moods'. Also, a lot of the music selection is meant to be micky-taking, I wanted the audience to chuckle at some of my music selections just because of the cheese-factor or silliness of it. Finally, the act ends with what I consider a parody of tassel twirling. I love tassel twirling, but when you sit and think about it, it is a bit ridiculous and I just wanted to take that to the nth degree and really exaggerate the silliness.

So those are my acts.

What would you say is your actual genre or style of burlesque?
I generally go with 'comedic and character burlesque'. This is because generally (although not always) a lot of the humour in my acts comes from character and situational stuff, but it also leaves me room to throw in the odd straight/non funny act if the characterisation appeals to me.

Do you think burlesque is a form of performance art?
This is a really interesting question! I can totally see Viva's point that waving around the Performance Art label could alienate people and I would never want to scare any potential audience members away by making them think that if they come see me I'm going to fling my poo at them or whatever the avant garde are up to these days. Having said that, I do think that what I do is closer to performance art than not. I'm not a dancer (it always amuses me when people refer to me as a burlesque dancer - I warn them that they will be in for a rude awakening), I'm not an actress (anyone who saw that McNeil and Pamphilon thing will vouch for that), and although I do sing, and have done in the context of a burlesque show, I have not (yet, you never know in the future) combined that with a burlesque performance. I do think of the performances I create as little windows into my mind and I guess that makes me think more performance art.
Like Glorian, I think the fact that a performer creates a whole piece, selecting or creating everything as an auteur; from music, to costumes, to character, to movements, to narrative suggests that what you are looking at is art, performed.
On the other hand, I do agree with Viva, that the name 'Performance Art' can carry negative connotations and I would never want to put people off by being a stickler for such a name.

Would you call your work performance art?
I think it would depend on the company I was in. If I thought that people would understand where I was coming from when I used that term and not be turned off I probably would. If I were talking to people who are not particularly versed in the performing arts I would probably try to find another way to describe it. Either way, 'Performance Art' is a loaded term bogged down by the mainstream perception of it, but so is 'Burlesque'.

I agree with what Viva has said when considering Performance Art to be defined in that particular way.

What I do personally as a performer is firmly in light entertainment - nothing more - and to me burlesque itself is light entertainment. It always has been - until a recent lexical stretching where burlesque has come to apply to more than it's original meaning.

Burlesque has grown to become so vast and varied that some performers definitely are more 'performance art' than light entertainment. Narcissister comes to mind - Narcissister. Also those acts you might find at Torture Garden and Wasteland.

What others do within what is now the wider genre of burlesque varies considerably so I'm comfortable using the phrase 'suggestive performance art' or 'provocative performance art' as umbrella terms which I feel actually describes the more full on adult style much better than the word 'burlesque' actually does. This phrase also encompasses those more 'edgy' or avant-garde pieces too which are also increasingly prevalent.

The word 'art' when applied to anything is always going to cause debate. Personally, I would apply 'art' to Catherine D'Lish but not to myself (or the majority of burlesque or striptease performers).

There is also room of course to debate the meaning of 'performance art' - perhaps it's a thing of the 80s but I too associate performance art with monochromatic pieces which veer dangerously close to the edge of self-indulgence and pointlessness. Then again, I've seen plenty of burlesque acts which definitely cross that edge too. However taking the words literally and just as they are, it is an apt term in the most part.

The difference to me is in a person declaring that they are either a 'performer' or a 'performance artist' - now the choice of expression suggests a huge difference in ability and intention.

Like Glorian, I think the fact that a performer creates a whole piece, selecting or creating everything as an auteur; from music, to costumes, to character, to movements, to narrative suggests that what you are looking at is art, performed.

I'm really liking 'Art, performed'. Much less loaded as a definition, but gets the point across. I'd never actually considered before that most burlesque artists ( with the exception of the Polly Raes and Ditas of this world) are some of the few performers who take on total responsibility for every aspect of their act - from music to costume to prop to choreography. Hadn't thought about it from this point of view. The only other type of performer I can think of who would do the same is the street performer - be that mime, clowning, one-man-band... Which brings us back rather nicely to burlesque as 'poor mans' high art', if you like.

I also take Kittie's point when talking about how 'burlesque' might be an inappropriate term when considering the type of act which could feature at TG et al( although when I think of all those girls taking angle-grinders to their crotches, I wonder whether maybe they're actually parodying [i.e. performing a 'burlesque' of] Flashdance - probably unwittingly! Which makes me smile and shows my age! And how long it is since I've been to Torture Garden!)
Actually, quite a useful example - I think I would define those rather self-conscious projections of piercings and extreme body manipulation/alteration as 'performance art'. But I absolutely wouldn't call them entertainment!

A bit of an aside which isn't directly relevant to this thread, and relates to another recent one about giant props :
Emerald, do you think one of the reasons for your dissatisfaction with your rubber ducky act is that the whole act was more about the prop and not about you, and that ( this is going to sound either deeply pretentious or really stupid!) you ended up being defined/constrained by your giant rubber duck?

Vx

P.S.

Catherine D'lish as artiste? - I'm with Kittie all the way. Yes yes yes!
Vx

Originally Posted by Viva La Belvoir

A bit of an aside which isn't directly relevant to this thread, and relates to another recent one about giant props :
Emerald, do you think one of the reasons for your dissatisfaction with your rubber ducky act is that the whole act was more about the prop and not about you, and that ( this is going to sound either deeply pretentious or really stupid!) you ended up being defined/constrained by your giant rubber duck?

Vx

Totally.
It was one of those things I had heard discussed before I made the act, I was aware of people saying that acts with large props were tricky because they can end up being an albatross that limits what you can actually do onstage if you aren't careful, but at the time I felt confident that I could make it work. In the end, it ended up feeling like, to me at least, I was just fannying around onstage in a pretty costume, around a large duck!
It took me a while to see that that was what was bothering me about the act though, and every time I broached retiring the act with friends and other performers they all said that the act was fine, some even said they particularly liked it, but it just never sat completely right with me. The prop dominated the whole thing and as yet I'm not sure how to work around it as it started to feel as though the act had little substance apart from the duck.
Seems to be a common problem with these oversize prop acts!