Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Are dark tourism performances of gulag life educational – or voyeuristic?
theconversation.com: Dark tourism – involving travel to places historically associated with death and tragedy – is on the rise worldwide. Increasingly, this does not involve only visiting such places, but also witnessing certain performances of dark pasts.
I'm not really sure how I feel about this. On one hand, education is a good thing, but I don't think this is the only way to educate people. It's okay (and usually good) to show difficult things onstage, but with all things considered, this seems a lot like trauma porn. There's a lot of reasons to write a play based on these experiences, but I don't see any reason for a plotless display of trauma inflicted on others. Especially when this takes place at the actual site, it's just needlessly morbid and I think it just exists to make people feel uncomfortable, which is a tactic that can be used in a play, but this isn't a play at all. These aren't really scenes and this has no plot. It's just a depiction of violence for no apparent reason. I'm sure that the creators of this experience believe that they are doing something educational, but from what I know about dark tourism, that's not why people do it. It seems to me that most people who participate in dark tourism do it because they like the macabre aspect of it. So, I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about educating people about the gulags.
I understand the two arguments the author presents in this article for and against these kinds of reenactments in museums – making the tragedy more visual for the visitors but also walking the fine line of being offensive and voyeuristic rather than educational. When I think about it, I think that these performances ultimately do feed into a voyeuristic hunger for violence that I think Western culture is almost addicted and numb to. I can see why someone would predict that this kind of performance would be attractive to tourists from the Western hemisphere given the vocal cry for the abolishment of fake news, but I think that given the frequency of shootings and large tragedies, Americans – and honestly maybe a larger portion of the world as well, given the current political climate – have become desensitized to violence to a certain extent and I think that that makes exhibits with live reenactments like this feeds a subconscious hunger people have for viewing violence. Ultimately, I think that performances like this are too overwhelming, and borderline disrespectful. I do not think we need to relive, even in a benign and harmless scenario, to understand how truly awful a piece of history was. I think the physical evidence speaks for itself.
I have never heard of dark tourism before, and there is definitely something attractive about in situ reenactments of the historical eras, but the depiction of violence and misery has always been a point of contention. When I think of historical reenactments, I think of battle plan reenaction and women in frilly skirts churning butter in a cottage and people smithing away on an anvil and forging swords, not cruelty. I can certainly understand why Lennon believes this specific destination would attract Western audiences, because, just looking at America (and we cannot divorce this idea from white men specifically), we have an almost pornographic inclination toward violence and violence passed off as an artistic decision, or exploring the psyche, or that type of bullshit. I think the time of the gulags was gruesome enough, with plenty of evidence (and doubtlessly documentaries) to support it. I don't think this kind of dark tourism is necessary.
While I do think that it's important to spread the word about a terrible evil that had spread across Europe, I'm not quite sure how I feel about these graphic reenactments of life in these prisons. I feel like there is definitely a line between putting on a performance for educational purposes to teach about the hardships faced by the people in a certain community at a time and doing so just to attract tourism. I believe that the same goes for the people watching these performances and taking place in these "night at the museum" events. I had never heard the term "dark tourism" before reading this article, and to be completely honest, I'm still not quite sure exactly what it means, but from my understanding, I can't decide whether or not exhibits or performances such as these are appropriate or not. I feel like there are many different factors that would have to be in place in order to make that decision.
I first learned about dark tourism from a Netflix special and it seemed very much to be a voyeuristic enterprise and so I wanted to read this author had to say. Besides learning a lot about gulags from this article, I found it very interesting that people actually signed up to go to these museums. I think it is interesting reading how the management of these events thinks this is a way to stop people from forgetting what happened in the gulag. I don’t necessarily think this is the case. People do remember traumatic events more than what might be a somewhat mundane visit to a museum but are retraumatizing people really a healthy approach to getting them to remember how the gulags functioned. I think Steven Barnes brings up a great point about how these museums are now being turned into entertainment venues rather than just memorials to the tons of people who died.
Honestly I feel like any time one is experiencing or learning about the hardships of another people or another culture, the experience is inherently voyeuristic. The only difference comes from whether one is deriving pleasure or entertainment from the experience, or using that experience to learn and better oneself. I think that it is for this reason that dark tourism should not only be stopped. It should rather be encouraged, albeit in moderation. The only way to never repeat the mistakes of the past is to learn about them, and hwat better way to learn about them than in visceral experience such as the ones that can be foudn in these museums about the gulags, or at the holocaust museums in Washington DC, and Berlin, or at the Auschwitz concentration camps. ONe must remain wary of desensitization, however, as I think too much exposure could lead to an impression that this type of thing is normal and to be expected from normal society.
This article is very conflicting for me because I see the two sides of the argument that are being made, and I see why there are people who so strongly support these types of museums and why there are people who are so strongly against it. On one hand, I see the benefit of these types of museums because the voyeuristic behavior allows people to get a deeper understanding of the true trauma that happened, and this experience is, in a lot of ways, more memorable than just walking through a museum. On the other hand, this dark tourism exposes the deep traumas and suffering that people faced who actually had to live- and die- through these circumstances. Ultimately, I do not agree with the idea that we should continue to support these type of museum experiences, because they can be triggering for people, but I think it is important to find another way, a less toxic way, to properly remember these types of events, so we don’t end up repeating history again.
7 comments:
I'm not really sure how I feel about this. On one hand, education is a good thing, but I don't think this is the only way to educate people. It's okay (and usually good) to show difficult things onstage, but with all things considered, this seems a lot like trauma porn. There's a lot of reasons to write a play based on these experiences, but I don't see any reason for a plotless display of trauma inflicted on others. Especially when this takes place at the actual site, it's just needlessly morbid and I think it just exists to make people feel uncomfortable, which is a tactic that can be used in a play, but this isn't a play at all. These aren't really scenes and this has no plot. It's just a depiction of violence for no apparent reason. I'm sure that the creators of this experience believe that they are doing something educational, but from what I know about dark tourism, that's not why people do it. It seems to me that most people who participate in dark tourism do it because they like the macabre aspect of it. So, I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about educating people about the gulags.
I understand the two arguments the author presents in this article for and against these kinds of reenactments in museums – making the tragedy more visual for the visitors but also walking the fine line of being offensive and voyeuristic rather than educational. When I think about it, I think that these performances ultimately do feed into a voyeuristic hunger for violence that I think Western culture is almost addicted and numb to. I can see why someone would predict that this kind of performance would be attractive to tourists from the Western hemisphere given the vocal cry for the abolishment of fake news, but I think that given the frequency of shootings and large tragedies, Americans – and honestly maybe a larger portion of the world as well, given the current political climate – have become desensitized to violence to a certain extent and I think that that makes exhibits with live reenactments like this feeds a subconscious hunger people have for viewing violence. Ultimately, I think that performances like this are too overwhelming, and borderline disrespectful. I do not think we need to relive, even in a benign and harmless scenario, to understand how truly awful a piece of history was. I think the physical evidence speaks for itself.
I have never heard of dark tourism before, and there is definitely something attractive about in situ reenactments of the historical eras, but the depiction of violence and misery has always been a point of contention. When I think of historical reenactments, I think of battle plan reenaction and women in frilly skirts churning butter in a cottage and people smithing away on an anvil and forging swords, not cruelty. I can certainly understand why Lennon believes this specific destination would attract Western audiences, because, just looking at America (and we cannot divorce this idea from white men specifically), we have an almost pornographic inclination toward violence and violence passed off as an artistic decision, or exploring the psyche, or that type of bullshit. I think the time of the gulags was gruesome enough, with plenty of evidence (and doubtlessly documentaries) to support it. I don't think this kind of dark tourism is necessary.
While I do think that it's important to spread the word about a terrible evil that had spread across Europe, I'm not quite sure how I feel about these graphic reenactments of life in these prisons. I feel like there is definitely a line between putting on a performance for educational purposes to teach about the hardships faced by the people in a certain community at a time and doing so just to attract tourism. I believe that the same goes for the people watching these performances and taking place in these "night at the museum" events. I had never heard the term "dark tourism" before reading this article, and to be completely honest, I'm still not quite sure exactly what it means, but from my understanding, I can't decide whether or not exhibits or performances such as these are appropriate or not. I feel like there are many different factors that would have to be in place in order to make that decision.
I first learned about dark tourism from a Netflix special and it seemed very much to be a voyeuristic enterprise and so I wanted to read this author had to say. Besides learning a lot about gulags from this article, I found it very interesting that people actually signed up to go to these museums. I think it is interesting reading how the management of these events thinks this is a way to stop people from forgetting what happened in the gulag. I don’t necessarily think this is the case. People do remember traumatic events more than what might be a somewhat mundane visit to a museum but are retraumatizing people really a healthy approach to getting them to remember how the gulags functioned. I think Steven Barnes brings up a great point about how these museums are now being turned into entertainment venues rather than just memorials to the tons of people who died.
Honestly I feel like any time one is experiencing or learning about the hardships of another people or another culture, the experience is inherently voyeuristic. The only difference comes from whether one is deriving pleasure or entertainment from the experience, or using that experience to learn and better oneself. I think that it is for this reason that dark tourism should not only be stopped. It should rather be encouraged, albeit in moderation. The only way to never repeat the mistakes of the past is to learn about them, and hwat better way to learn about them than in visceral experience such as the ones that can be foudn in these museums about the gulags, or at the holocaust museums in Washington DC, and Berlin, or at the Auschwitz concentration camps. ONe must remain wary of desensitization, however, as I think too much exposure could lead to an impression that this type of thing is normal and to be expected from normal society.
This article is very conflicting for me because I see the two sides of the argument that are being made, and I see why there are people who so strongly support these types of museums and why there are people who are so strongly against it. On one hand, I see the benefit of these types of museums because the voyeuristic behavior allows people to get a deeper understanding of the true trauma that happened, and this experience is, in a lot of ways, more memorable than just walking through a museum. On the other hand, this dark tourism exposes the deep traumas and suffering that people faced who actually had to live- and die- through these circumstances. Ultimately, I do not agree with the idea that we should continue to support these type of museum experiences, because they can be triggering for people, but I think it is important to find another way, a less toxic way, to properly remember these types of events, so we don’t end up repeating history again.
Post a Comment