The article argues that contemporary reenactment is indicative of history's recent affective turn, i.e. of historical representation characterized by conjectural interpretations of the past, the collapsing of temporalities and an emphasis on affect, individual experience and daily life rather than historical events, structures and processes. The affective turn signals a break with the kind of ethical and political responsibilities that adhered to some postwar historiography. The article makes this argument in reference to recent German historical reality television series, including Abenteuer 1900, Abenteuer 1927, and Windstärke 8: Das Auswandererschiff. While their format is similar to that of the Wall to Wall House series, resulting in a certain leveling of historical and geographical specificity, the article shows that the German reenactment series use history as a conceit for performing a particular form of cultural and political work-the attempt to reconcile current economic and social conditions in postunification Germany (Gegenwartsbewältigung). The article concludes by emphasizing the necessity for continued scholarly interrogation of reenactment's epistemological and political claims.

No abstract

Notions of performativity are thus crucial to examining the many practices that can be considered reenactment. 'Performance' and 'performativity' are, however, equivocal words and concepts, with diverse denotations and connotations in different fields and contexts.Perceptions of reenactment's performativity (both within the practice and in academic and news media representations of it) thus vary considerably. Although perhaps most commonly associated with costumed history buffs restaging a historic battle or playfully competing in a tourney, reenactment actually encompasses a range of performance styles and methods, facilitating different ways of engaging with history.So, with all these variations of perspective and approach, what exactly is meant by 'performance' and 'performativity', in this context? Performance and theater (and their adjective forms) are often used interchangeably; indeed, reenactment has more frequently been discussed in relation to 'theatricality' than 'performativity'. In theater and performance studies and the cultural industries, however, the term theater usually refers to script-based productions that centre around (verbal) dialogue, narrative and a character or characters. Also, while efforts to widen theater's accessibility are slowly changing the convention, it is generally still performed in purpose-built venues. 'Performance', on the other hand, can include theater but also encompasses devised performance, physical theater, live art, performance art, movement-based practices and post-dramatic theater. The term can also be used as a demarcation from theater, framing work as beyond the conventions of the theatrical form. This distinction is important, for while all forms of reenactment can be productively analysed as performance, many reenactments are not theater, in the above sense of the word.

No abstract

Disagreeing with contemporary scholarship that posits an aesthetic break c.1800, this chapter argues that the ancient discourse on musical utility did not come to an end with end of the 18th century. It shows that music's instrumentality is preserved within Romantic and later conceptions of aesthetic autonomy. Writers and music scholars adopted Orphic claims about the power of music in order to promote serious music, professionalize music scholarship, and advance various social, cultural, and political agendas. The parts played by E. T. A. Hoffmann, Karl Philipp Moritz, and Immanuel Kant are mentioned in the chapter. This came at the price of both other kinds of music and other forms of musical knowledge making. The book concludes with an appeal for disciplinary reconciliation within the present study of music. It also makes a case for broad and dangerous listening.