14 EXPERTISE AND AMATEURISM

Anne Brxdder

Questions of professional authority, credibility, and standards have long preoccupied historical studies. Beginning in the 1970s, public historians took traditional historians to task for what they saw as an elitist approach to historical inquiry.

Important in establishing terminology within the field was Strauss’s pioneering work on the behavior and dress of American Civil War reenactors. Strauss combined techniques from visual anthropology and visual analysis with ethnographic studies of Confederate reenactors. He showed that Civil War reenactors typically fall into four distinct categories that vary accord­ing to levels of perceived dress (authenticity). In order to arrive at this typology, Strauss asked a review panel of three experienced reenactors to analyze photographs he had taken of other Civil War reenactors, and to classify the subjects according to categories they themselves had devised—“hardcore,” “progressive,” “mainstream,” and “farb.” According to Strauss, these catego­ries were in widespread use among Confederate reenactors (2002, pp.

Reenactors classified as “hardcores” by Strauss’s review panel were those whose imitation of the past was perceived to be nearly flawless. The photographs taken by Strauss in 1999 looked like genuine period photographs because the reenactors wore almost perfectly reproduced, con­vincingly “weathered” period uniforms and accoutrements, and topped this offwith period hair­styles and facial hair and studied postures (2002, p. 103). Following Strauss’s typology, reenactors who were classified as “progressives” were slightly lower on the scale of dress authenticity. The panel argued that these reenactors differed from the hardcores because of minor flaws in their uniforms or personal appearance. Examples included reenactors being deemed “too clean,” “too neat,” or “too together.” Their uniforms did not accurately correspond to historical examples. A reenactor’s jacket cuffs, for example, were found to be “a little too big” or his hair “too long.” Notwithstanding such departures from historical fidelity, to be considered a “progressive”, only minor details tarnished their otherwise faithful simulation (Strauss, 2002, pp. 103—104). Within Strauss’ study, the review panel classified the majority of reenactors as “mainstream.” These indi­viduals were equipped with standard uniforms and equipment but were found to exhibit “seri­ous authenticity flaws in their impressions.” Examples included the use of inauthentic materials, such as stainless steel for canteens, incorrect fabric color on uniforms, and inappropriate foot­wear. Other “authenticity flaws” related to behavior. Uniforms and other accoutrements were worn incorrectly—too low or on the wrong side of the body, for example—or uniforms were adorned with inappropriate embellishments (Strauss, 2002, p. 105). Lowest in the typology were “farbs,” who could be categorized as amateur reenactors. Individuals in this category showed “seriously compromised forms of dress authenticity,” and, according to Strauss’s informants, perpetrated “egregious” flaws (p.

The term “farb” is well known to many other kinds of (English-speaking) reenactors, with “farbism,” “farbfest,” “farbicity,” and “farby” all deriving from it. Strauss (2002) writes that “farb” is a shortened form of the expression “far be it from me to criticize your impressions” (p. 105). The etymology is, however, contested, with other reenactment scholars arguing that it is shortened from similar expressions, such as “far be it from me to tell them what they are doing wrong” (Gapps, 2009, p. 399), “far be it from authentic” (Daugbjerg, 2014, p. 737), or “far be it from reality” (Thompson, 2010 [2004], p. 291). Among American World War II reenactors, Thompson also encountered another—albeit less widely accepted—etymology of the term, which has “farb” coming from the German word “Farbe” (color), referring to wearing uniforms of an incorrect hue (p. 291). Scholars agree that the origin of “farb” has been much debated among reenactors, although no one seems to know exactly where the term originated (Gapps, 2009, p. 408; Daugbjerg, 2014, p. 737; Thompson, 2010 [2004], p. 291).

Like Strauss, Thompson (2010 [2004]) conducted in-depth analyses of reenactment practices, with research that built specifically on ethnographic studies of American reenactors of 20 cen­tury wars. Her book Wargames (2010 [2004]) dedicates an entire chapter (pp. 206—230) to the question of how World War II reenactors position and judge one another on issues of authentic­ity. Thompson’s hierarchization similarly contrasts “hardcores” with “farbs,” but she also employs categories like “stitch Nazis” and “moderates” to explain how questions of professionalism, authority, and historical credibility are handled within World War II reenactment communities.

Thompson argues that World War II reenactors do not have established criteria for identify­ing “farbs” (pp. 210, 212). Nevertheless, she settles on this definition: “A farb is a reenactor who is judged as having failed to establish a legitimate link to history” (p. 216). As in Strauss’ 2002 study of American Civil War reenactors, the designation farb denotes a level of amateurism in respect to representing the past. Accordingly, World War II reenactors are judged to be farbs if they commit a whole range of infractions—sport a beard and hair that is too long, wear modern eyeglasses, improper footwear, and digital watches, smoke filtered cigarettes and eat chips, or are too clean and appear insufficiently tired. Donning flashy medals or representing themselves as high-ranking soldiers might also be described as “farby,” since medals and rank are considered distinctions to be earned within a reenactment group. Reenactors are also criticized for being amateurish if they make errors like wearing anachronistic equipment from late in the war when the reenactment event calls for “early war impressions,” carrying arms while portraying a medic, or carrying a weapon belonging to a nationality that differs from that of the reenacted soldier (Thompson, 2010 [2004], pp. 212-214).

Within this hierarchy, “hardcores” are contrasted with farbs. To most World War II reenactors, being a hardcore is considered in a positive light, because the hardcore possesses considerable reenacting expertise. “A hardcore reenactor... is concerned with authenticity, takes reenacting seriously, and/or puts the most time, money, and energy into reenacting” (Thompson, 2010 [2004], p. 215). The alternative moniker, “stitch Nazi,” is a category closely related to hardcore, but with a negative connotation. Contrary to its apparent association with National Socialism, the term is not limited to, nor does it derive from, the portrayal of German soldiers within historical reenactment. It designates reenactors who are highly preoccupied not only with their own appearance, but also with that of other reenactors, and who attach undue significance to both the look and materiality of costume.

Clearly, historical accuracy is one of the primary concerns within reenactment communities and the negotiation of authenticity is a topic of regular debate. Thompson argues that authentic­ity is often judged as the ability of reenactors to have an experience so impactful that it seems to somehow place them in the actual past they are reenacting—or to have a “magic moment” as reenactors often term it (2010 [2004], p. 207). Thompson defines “magic moment” as the “illusive pinnacle of the hobby, when a reenactor experiences a completely ‘authentic’ moment while reenacting” (2010 [2004], p. 293). This might be one of the reasons why a reenactor’s appearance is not of sole importance to him or herself. The performance has significance to other reenactors, to the community they establish, and to their audiences. This is also why some reenactment groups hold inspections (2010 [2004], p. 209), with implications for establishing the criteria by which reenactors may be judged (Figure 14.1).

Strauss’s (2002) and Thompson’s (2010 [2004]) studies were among the first to explicitly tackle the issue of historical fidelity—as it applied to reenactors’ superficial appearance—and to associate this with markers of credibility and authority. While the terminological questions may have been largely addressed, professionalism persists as a significant issue within reenactment.

A key question for scholars of reenactment interested in quasi-professional gradations involves determining what is perceived as authentic within any given reenactment community.

Figure 14.1 In the Danish World War II reenactment con­text, the group “Regimentet” is considered highly expert due to their convincing represen­tation of German Wehrmacht soldiers in Denmark, 1942­1943. Among other things, the group has restored the vehicle depicted in the photograph, contributing to their expert status. Source: Anne Brxdder, Bunker Museum Hanstholm 2014.

In the communities studied by Strauss and Thompson, authenticity was closely connected with appearance, which is why expertise was primarily negotiated through the accuracy of the reenactors’ costume and the impressions they made on their audiences. However, stand­ards of authenticity in reenactment are not always related to appearance. Research has shown that ideas about authenticity are constructed and negotiated differently within different reen­actment milieus (Brxdder et al., 2017). While some reenactors might judge authenticity in relation to convincing, functional fabrics (Esmark and Nielsen, 2015), others do not care as much about materials, attaching greater significance to the proper use of period tools and the mastering of manufacturing techniques from an earlier time (Brxdder, 2016). For yet other reenactors, imitating the past has to do with feeling connected to what they perceive as past and authentic values regarding family life. This has been studied among Iron Age reenactors (Warring, 2015).

Reenactment expertise is such a hotly contested issue among reenactors in self-organized leisure reenactment activities, as there is no one else but the reenactors themselves to ensure and adjudicate the quality of their reenactment. In open-air museums, where living historians simu­late past lives, the museum is the professional institution that guarantees that reenactment exper­tise is practiced. In theater performances and reenactments staged for fictional or documentary film, the director, historical advisor, and production company all help establish professional standards. This coheres with reenactment scholar Bruner’s argument (1994), when he stresses the importance of questioning who has “the authority to decide which version of history will be accepted as the correct or authentic one” (1994, pp. 400-401). Authorities may be formal and institutional, but they can also be shared among “multiple competing voices” (1994, p. 400), as Strauss’s and Thompson’s research showed. In the end, public historian Samuel’s implication that everyone is potentially a historian provides a guiding voice: all historians (whether aca­demic historians, museum professionals, or self-organized hobby reenactors) should discuss their interpretations of the past and evaluate their own criteria of what counts as historical expertise.

Further reading

Amster, M. H., 2008; Ashton, P., 2010; Ashton, P., and Kean, H., 2012; Bruner, E., 1994; Br≈dder A., Esmark K., Kruse T., Nielsen C. T., and Warring A., 2017; Daugbjerg M., 2014; Esmark K., and Nielsen C. T., 2015; Farmer J. O., 2005; Gapps, S., 2009; Hart, L., 2007; Kean, H., and Martin, P., 2013; Strauss, M. D., 2002; Thompson, J., 2010.