1996
DOI: 10.1353/ecs.1996.0028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Garrick's Body and the Labor of Art in Eighteenth-Century Theater

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 20 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…But the volume is not yet a study of Garrick’s celebrity . Those who extend biography to analyze celebrity include Denise Sechelski who identifies Garrick as ‘culturally multivalent’ (372), involved with the ‘low’ theater world as well as with aristocratic circles, and Peter Thomson, who unpacks the commonplace of Garrick’s rivalry with James Quin to show how each nurtured his popularity differently in the theatrical space of the time. Other pieces exist, but a study of Garrick‐as‐celebrity (yet to be written) would address his ambitious rise to prominence in acting (how individual effort – a main component in heroic ‘fame’– contributes to celebrity); the fortuitousness of his managerial opportunities (how business arrangements contribute to celebrity); his regulation of his image through choices of roles, writing, and self‐presentation in the press; his responses to audiences in theaters and in private life; and the mechanics of circulation: what was published about him, by whom, and why; how friends, colleagues, and patrons adjusted his image; how his image related to those of others (Shakespeare, female co‐stars, royalty); what was done, consciously or not, with his image; and even how earlier Garrick images ghosted later ones.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But the volume is not yet a study of Garrick’s celebrity . Those who extend biography to analyze celebrity include Denise Sechelski who identifies Garrick as ‘culturally multivalent’ (372), involved with the ‘low’ theater world as well as with aristocratic circles, and Peter Thomson, who unpacks the commonplace of Garrick’s rivalry with James Quin to show how each nurtured his popularity differently in the theatrical space of the time. Other pieces exist, but a study of Garrick‐as‐celebrity (yet to be written) would address his ambitious rise to prominence in acting (how individual effort – a main component in heroic ‘fame’– contributes to celebrity); the fortuitousness of his managerial opportunities (how business arrangements contribute to celebrity); his regulation of his image through choices of roles, writing, and self‐presentation in the press; his responses to audiences in theaters and in private life; and the mechanics of circulation: what was published about him, by whom, and why; how friends, colleagues, and patrons adjusted his image; how his image related to those of others (Shakespeare, female co‐stars, royalty); what was done, consciously or not, with his image; and even how earlier Garrick images ghosted later ones.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%