Talk:Performance studies

Anthropology?

I'm not certain that Performance Studies fall within the scope of Anthropology. Most Performance Studies programs and departments are housed in schools of Arts or Communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrofuturist (talk • contribs) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure of sections

Perhaps breaking the first section into two sections would be a fruitful way to proceed; for instance, "origins of" and "basic concepts." Thoughts? --Eastinson (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What about "Origins" and "Concepts"? --Eastinson (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys sure that a meta-discussion about the performativity of writing a wiki entry is what should be in a wiki entry about performativity?

"The process of defining it becomes a practice in performance studies itself. How is it being inscribed? What does it mean or do to engage in this process of creating a wiki entry? Does it impose an ideology, an abjecting frame of assumption or logic? What does it perform? How is it performative? Perhaps once we have defined it, we have already pinned it down?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.78.123 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Maybe too, there could be a references section for the footnotes, and another section for a bibliography. --Eastinson (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarity of intro paragraph

The leading paragraph does not do a good job of conveying what performance studies is, other than that its definition is ambiguous. From the rest of the article, it appears that the field can be summarized as an interdisciplinary mixture of theatre studies with other (mostly humanistic) disciplines. It is also partially connected to the philosophy of J.L. Austin and Judith Butler. The intro should clearly summarize such common threads, and add a statement about the ambiguity and fluidity of the definition if necessary. (Simply indulging in the ambiguity/fluidity is not informative to the reader.) DarwinPeacock (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree here. As written, the article is vague, muddled and unstructured. It seems to obsess about elaborating details without actually getting around to describing the subject itself. Requires a total re-write. Wellspring (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in agreement as well. Introduction's performance of the field's own ambiguities totally unencyclopedic.Furste (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I shared all the above concerns, and rewrote the lead paragraph for clarity and tone. Spoonriver (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)