Artefact 6 Evaluation

For this artefact, two monologues were compiled from stand-up routine excerpts. A few lines from Nazi speeches were slipped into the text. A first group of respondents read the monologues highlighting any lines they found out of place within the general tone and context. A second group read the monologues while listening to different audio sample (these were to provide the context and style in which the monologues were presented). The aim was to explore the ways in which a certain context shapes our reception of the comedic content and delivery. They were meant to test some of the presuppositions voiced within the previous interview.    

Group 1 focused on the text and they identified some of the rogue excerpts. They also found some comedy excerpts to be overly aggressive for their declared purpose.

One of audio samples presented to Group 2 was an interview recorded in a studio and had no background noise. The slightly inciting tone of the speaker in the studio interview made respondents associate the monologues with an agenda, unlike those reading it while listening to other audio samples (lecturer, comedian). 

The impact of a single persistent background noise (a saw) audible in the second interview shaped all responses:

1) It created an uneasy atmosphere, made the speaker look nervous, as if saying something subversive.     

2) Seemed like criticism within the rules of the system, maybe a union leader`s speech (although the tone wasn`t passionate enough at times)

3)The subject of an exhibition depicting a community. Emphasis not on the monologues (which sound like unfounded opinions) but on his dissatisfaction with his place

Identifying potentially violent discourses (especially given the use of aggressiveness on stage as part of an act) depends on the speaker`s involvement and the agreed context into which the content is delivered. 

Artefact 4 Evaluation

The immediate aim of the artefact was to make users resort to paraverbal and nonverbal signs in order to identify between a true and false scenario where the visual information was the same. The indirect aim was to observe how the impact of what the performers say depends on the impression these performers leave on their audience through the way they present their message.

When asked about the plausibility of the two scenarios, respondents found both could pass the test. The correlation between subtitles and actions on screen was sufficient, but when it came to guessing which of them is an actual sequence from within a film, the audience`s arguments for their choice started to fall back on paraverbal signs. They worded their arguments like this: `[that character] “sounded” embarrassed`, the way they spoke, it wasn`t aggressive but calm...`

Those relying solely on visual information and subtitles chose the wrong version. They focused on pattern recognition, i.e., similar scenarios played out in gangster films and consequently interpreted the following scenes to fit that scenario.

The artefacts so far looked at how different components that make up what Hodgart termed the aesthetic dimension of comedic performance contribute and influence the audience`s understanding. For the following artefacts I want to look at why parodies of Hitler seem to need less use of comic exaggeration than other historical characters and how does that affect the efficiency of the comedian`s criticism.   

Artefact 3 Evaluation

The aim of this artefact was to gauge how the attention of the audience can be maintained and directed strictly through the use of audio means. A sketch especially conceived for this purpose was recorded and played to two focus groups that had no previous knowledge of the subject or characters of the sketch.

There were difficulties in deciphering the content of the sketch as well as identifying the characters. A number of cues and supplementary questions were asked in order to aid the audiences understanding. Asked to picture the characters, they could identify the broad picture, but didn`t make connections between the verbal and the paraverbal initially. Asked to describe the plot, the first group was much more effective, while the second group complained about the poor acoustics of the room and needed two re-runs of the material to get even a basic understanding of the subject.  They also mentioned receiving the content in a fragmented manner (“I would hear the odd joke”).

The focus of the participants’ attention seemed to lay on getting an overall picture of the plot and characters from listening to the dialogue, which they would later (presumably) flesh out with the aid of visuals. Given the lack of visual aids, the only source of supplementary information would have been paraverbal cues.  As one respondent noted, our current reliance on mainly visual information has made audiences relatively desensitised with regards registering the subtle signs provided through paraverbal language. The next artefact will look at a specific situation in which audiences might voluntarily rely on paraverbal language to distinguish between a genuine or a false message. 

Artefact 3

Artefact 3 gave me the possibility to go beyond the process of theorising and actually getting to experience some of the aspects I was interested in first hand. 

Taking a keen interest in recordings of stories, books, plays and comedy sketches over the years, I was very much taken with the amazing capabilities of the act of speaking, from vocal timbre to the art of paraverbal communication. Although initially I had planned to ask students active within the Drama Society to perform the comedy sketch I had written for the purposes of this research, I ended up doing it myself, accompanied by a friend who had no previous acting experience. I told myself, performing the material will force me to be aware of the nuances and ultimate difference even a slight change in the interpretation of the material might have. 

Another interesting thing to observe was the negotiation going on during the recording of the material. I remembered the statement of a comedian about how as the author of a routine, the only way to avoid getting so bored with your material as to affect your performance was to try new ways of delivering it. Indeed, our characters also underwent significant changes. Some of these changes focused on different dominant features for a character; others focused on reactions to another character`s line without actually changing the script. 

Here is the script:

"(the sound of papers and pens being re-arranged on a desk)

NIECE: I keep telling you, uncle...anybody who is anybody is up there, on billboards, the internet or at least the local radio. It`s the only way one can survive on the market nowadays...

MR. ROTH: Well...if there is anything that could kill a long-running profitable crematorial business, it`s survival!

NIECE: Fine. Crack your jokes now but you won`t be having half as much fun when the bills roll in.

MR. ROTH: Threatening me with a doomsday scenario, are we now?

NIECE: Anyway...look, what I`ve done is I`ve posted a job ad online for a marketing position. I mean, these guys know how to sell the useless crap that gets people here in the first place. So, they might as well sell th

e idea of a person`s last shopping spree.

MR. ROTH: Shop till you drop! Hmmm, I like that idea...

NIECE: Sooooo...being the ever helpful niece and all, I`ve already sifted through the CVs and have arranged for an interview tomorrow.

MR ROTH: Uhm...but...

NIECE: Ok, so we`re settled then. (mobile beep) Oh, gotta run now, good luck tomorrow!

MR ROTH: Uhm

NEPHEW (just as he is about to disappear behind the door) Oh, and uncle...tweet me the results, will ya?

MR ROTH: Hmmhmph!

Next day...

(knock on the door)

Mr Roth opens door...

MR ROTH: Good afternoon!

LOLA: Well, hello! How d`you do?

MR. ROTH: Please, come in. Take a seat.

LOLA: Thank you!

MR ROTH: So, my neph...ahm...my associate told me you had a most flattering CV to recommend you.

LOLA: I believe my references are my forte...

MR ROTH: So, missus...

LOLA: Cocteau! Lola Cocteau!

MR ROTH: Oh...what part of you is French?

LOLA: Whichever part you might is needed..

MR ROTH: Well, then...should we start?

LOLA: Certainly...

MR ROTH: Tell us a bit about what you think you can do for our business.

LOLA:   Oh, I see. You want us to use the lingo. Very well. After many years of working directly with people –in professional settings, naturally - I decided to employ my experience in a customer service position within a company.

MR ROTH: I`m afraid there`s been a misunderstanding. We are looking for marketing people. My neph...my associate argues that our services need to be more visible on the market.

LOLA: I know that full well, Mr Roth. Except, my approach is as follows: no point in being in the limelight if your...customer service isn`t up for the job...if you see what I mean...

MR ROTH: Certainly...I mean, we`ve always thought that doing a good job will be the best advertising but...you know...people can be very touchy about these kind of things...

LOLA: I understand you perfectly, Mr. Roth. Just a case of  `the love that dare not speak its name`.

MR ROTH: Mmm...I`m not sure our clients are too concerned with romancing.

LOLA: Then again, neither are we. Everybody`s in it for the money.

MR ROTH: True. Before we go on, I have a confession to make, Mrs Cocteau...one of the reasons I hesitated about this whole marketing thing is that I have many a time been given the odd look from people because of my job and the nature of my interests.

LOLA: Oh, I think we both share this experience. I mean, people are just so judgemental, not to mention hypocritical. We know everybody`s doing it...even those who preach so strongly against it. Believe you me, deniers are actually the most obsessed with it.

MR ROTH: Yes, I was under the same impression as well. And by all means, it`s not like we urge people to do it, it just happens and so, what we`re saying is, let`s make sure that at times like these, when we are overcome with sentiment, some things are taken care of by conscientious people like you and me, who are able to hold a stiff upper lip and do what needs to done. 

LOLA: You speak from the heart, Mr Roth.

MR ROTH: From its deep and dark recesses, indeed (chuckles).

LOLA: Can I ask you a few questions?

MR ROTH: Go on...

LOLA: This is about the online ad. It didn`t make it clear, what are the basic prerequisites that you demand of your clients?

MR ROTH: We just make sure they`re stiff before they`re sent in.

LOLA: Oh, Mr Roth! Finally, a company that has high standards, not only in terms of their own work force, but of their clients as well!

MR ROTH: `Tis well understood, I should think. I must talk to my associate about the phrasing of that ad.

LOLA: And...what are the...`credentials` of the girls I`m going to be working with?

MR ROTH: Well, actually, we have a mixed team in our company. The gender distribution is fairly equal and of course, we did our best to provide equal opportunities for minorities.

LOLA: Oh, you never cease to surprise me Mr Roth! I must admit I haven`t yet had the experience of working together with such a colourful team.

MR ROTH: You need not worry, ma`am. All our employees have been with us for many years, we have established strong bonds with all of them....

LOLA: I bet you did, Mr Roth...

MR ROTH: ...we are like a big family. We love our job and whoever helps us keep the business afloat will be welcomed.

LOLA: That sounds lovely! I find myself simply enthralled by the alluring picture you`ve painted of your company. 

MR ROTH: I`m very glad. I say...how about we forget the formalities and I show you around. Just so you get to know everybody and learn the ins and outs of the company.

 LOLA: Wonderful!

MR ROTH: Now, I must warn you before we proceed, that even though I`m sure you are a professional and are somewhat familiar with the scenery you are going to be introduced to, the imagery might still come across as upsetting.

LOLA: I can take it, Mr Roth. Whatever it is, bring out your dead!"

Artefact 2 Evaluation

Artefact 2 was concerned with testing how the performer`s appearance and bearing on stage directs or distracts the audience`s attention from his argument. Participants were given a transcript, an audio and a video version of a segment and asked to specify the subject of the talk, their perception of the character whose role the performer assumed on stage, and to rank elements of his performance (nonverbal and paraverbal) throughout the three stages.

Results showed that every single respondent described the comedian`s argument differently. Even when some similarities did emerge (politics and lying, imperialism), what respondents felt the comedian lay emphasis on in his routine differed.

The ranking of paraverbal and nonverbal means of expressions revealed that in the piecing together of the performer`s image, vocal cues play the role of the adjectives, which are then attached to the noun that is provided most strongly by the visual impact. For instance, words like “smug”, “sarcastic”, “moralistic”, “guilt-ridden” and “disappointed” have all emerged after the audio recording, followed by labels attached to the subject: teacher, eye-catching performer, history teacher.

Another interesting aspect the experiment has revealed is that most respondents were tempted to contradict their previous responses after seeing the video version, showing that they trusted their eyes more than their hearing in giving their verdict, despite the fact that the bulk of their initial information was provided by the audio version.

Artefact 3 will leave out image in favour of sound. The characters will be fictional rather than known performers. The objective is to see how well can performers gather the audience`s attention and direct it towards the points they wish to make within their material. The subjects will have no prior knowledge of the theme of the sketch or its characters.