Louis Armstrong and The Salvation Army

I came to the readings this week hoping to discover something to ease my mind from the troubling images I encountered in viewing the week's films.

As I mentioned in class last Tuesday, before I took this seminar I'd been assigned readings in previous courses that described Louis Armstrong's performance in Rhapsody in Black and Blue. I had automatically reacted negatively towards those who'd criticized Armstrong for his participation in the film, calling him an Uncle Tom. It made me flat out angry. What right did anyone have to dictate another individuals decisions? What did it matter what he was wearing, this was Louis Armstrong. It was unfair that he be expected to put his own personal convictions aside in order to make his entire race happy. Now, having seen the film for myself, I realize it isn't such a black and white issue (no pun intended).

To be perfectly honest, I was taken aback by his performance in the film. Here is a man who I've been taught to respect as a serious musician, a leading trumpet performer, dressed in leopard skins and wearing a tail. He's certainly nothing like the Louis Armstrong I'd first seen wearing an elegant tux with a different kind of tail while singing "Hello Dolly." And, I've been struggling with this since.

Two of this week's readings were particularly insightful on the matter: Philip Auslander's Personae (which I won't discuss here as it is the basis for my presentation tomorrow and I don't want to bore anyone twice) and the second chapter of Marvin Carlson's Performance: A Critical Introduction, more specifically his explanation of Umberto Eco's ostentation.

The image of the drunkard standing by The Salvation Army helped me to better grasp the range of meaning that one could bring to the Armstrong film, as well as any given image. Not only did it serve as a useful tool of reference with which to contextualize an idea that might otherwise be a bit too abstract to grasp easily (at least for me), but, also, it allowed me a "hands on" approach to the material. I should explain.

According to Carlson's explanation of Eco's ostentation, any meaning attributed to the drunkard standing by The Salvation Army only exists as a product of some interpreter recognizing signs in that image. And, quoting another theorist, that primary sign only exixts "because it is interpreted as a sign of something by some interpreter." In turn, I took this to mean that the range of signs, and therefore meaning alloted to those signs, is wholly dependent on the individual observer. In the case of Armstrong's film, the audience.

Back to Carlson's image. Your average American, upon seeing a drunkard by The Salvation Army might be lead to intrepret the sings in the following manner: Drunkard = representation of vice; Salvation Army = social service agency to the rescue. I bring the image to mind and think: Drunkard = soul in need; Salvation Army = Faith in action. The same two signs (drunkard/Salvatin Army) lead to completely different conclusions/reactions. Why? Well, in this particular case, my interpretation of those signs comes from my family upbringing. I'm a fourth-generation Salvationist. That means I see a Salvation Army sign and automatically think Church first, Christian service second--either way, the sign is always connected to my Faith. Next, I see a drunkard and automatically think: icon of Salvation Army history.

So, why am I sharing all of this? Well, as I understood the whole idea of ostentation (despite the fact that I feel like I'm talking in circles and have a nagging suspicion that this makes no sense to anyone but me), the reason one thing means something to me and something completely different to someone else, especially where visual spectacle is concerned, is due to the fact that, althought we both see one image, we each recognize different signs in that image.

Okay, stay with me just a little longer. Two people watch one image: A Salvation Army building. Each person thinks they see the same thing as the other. Are they? Physically speaking, Yes. Does that mean they see the same 'sign?' Absolutely not. One image; Two signs. You see social services; I see church. Does that make any sense?

Alright, so all of this to say...

There can be two ways of interpreting Armstrong's film. The key lies in what the audience interprets as signs. And, why does this matter? It matters because it means there's hope. It means that Rhapsody in Black and Blue doesn't automatically mean that Louis Armstrong is an Uncle Tom or a sell-out or anything awful like that. And that is important.

The End.