When Caty Borum Chattoo, co-director of the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University turns to stand-up, she begins by defining it and giving some history of the form. I’ve written a similar document using some of the same sources (it was part of chapter one of my dissertation), so I’ll take some partial credit for this expanded version.
Definition of stand-up
Folk art
Stand-up comedy is a vulgar art. It can be vulgar in the usual way we use that word. But vulgar really means ‘of the people.’ It’s the people’s art. – Comedian George Carlin
Another word for vulgar that we could use here is folk art or folk culture. As opposed to high art/culture, which is elevated to its status by the elite, or mass art/culture, which is produced by industry elites for the people, folk art/culture is produced by the people for themselves (Strinati).
These lines are fuzzy and permeable. Elite critics can still say Carlin was one of the best stand-ups, thereby elevating him to high art. Comedy clubs might do more than nudge comics into “stock” character and humor types, thereby manufacturing mass art.
As just a brief example, my local club gives open mic’ers three minutes, and says they want to see straight setup-punchline jokes. This greatly limits what humor is to a small, preset category. The time limit alone would hamstring any attempt to tell stories, work the crowd, build rapport, etc.
Nevertheless, stand-up can rightfully be said to be a vulgar, folk art.
Form
Chattoo gives a definition of the form of stand-up that is partial, but decent. Stand-up is when:
A comic stands on stage and entertains a live audience with jokes and social commentary, with minimal or no props.
She somewhat misses duos like the Abbott and Costello, Burns and Allen, and the Smothers Brothers – though it could be argued these were more sketch comedy and less stand-up. The same cannot be said of the Sklar Brothers or the Lucas Brothers. Further, some comics sit down from time to time.
The live audience is non-negotiable, but stand-up’s material is broader than strict jokes and commentary; it includes musical acts including parodies, slapstick, impressions, ventriloquism, stories – there are lots of forms. This is why Lawrence E. Mintz expands his definition to include the comic “behaving comically and/or saying funny things” (71).
Finally, while the standard props are the microphone and a stool, and frequently a drink or cigarette is used, there are also those musical instruments, puppets – and what do we do with Carrot Top and Gallagher? Stand-up has no clear and easy limitations.
From my own dissertation, I would add with Robert A. Stebbins that stand-up is primarily verbal (though augmented by theatrical embellishments), often memorized (although the performer is free to ad lib) and expressed in a conversational manner. Thus, the stand-up routine tends to be a one-sided conversation with the possibility of more extensive audience interaction than their resultant laughter (which is assumed), although this interaction is not always welcomed by the comic.
Finally, the routine is usually written (and therefore owned) by the performer, a condition very different from the norm in other forms of entertainment (e.g. television and film). This has important repercussions in terms of copyright law when it comes to joke stealing.
Reach of stand-up
I agree with Chattoo that stand-up is the basis for much of the humor we see everywhere else – most of our performers in T.V. and film were stand-ups – and we have access to it like never before:
Digital-era stand-up comedy audiences are no longer limited to live experiences alone, expanding stand-up’s reach and potential social influence.
So we have access to it, but moreover we desire it: stand-up offers rewards in the form of pleasure, an effect that is well documented.
However, I find that, in separating out forms of humor, Chattoo does stand-up a disservice in terms of representing its reach. If most late night hosts and satirical news hosts are former stand-ups, if most of our T.V. and film performers were stand-ups, then where does stand-up end and something else begin?
For instance, she notes that entertainment storytelling differs from stand-up in its ability to develop para social relationships over an extended period of time. Through these para social relationships, we identify with characters and react emotionally to their situations. However, what if the actor also does stand-up (since we can view their stand-up and shows outside their original timeline, the timing of each doesn’t matter); if the stand-up and character are aligned, doesn’t the stand-up garner the same results? Is this only true when they tell stories or act in sketches in a similar character, or do the jokes accomplish it too?
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Mintz, Lawrence E. “Stand-Up Comedy as Social and Cultural Mediation.” American Quarterly 37.1 (1985): 71-80.
Stebbins, Robert A. The Laugh-Makers: Stand-Up Comedy as Art, Business and Life-Style. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1990.
Strinati, Dominic. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge (2004).
Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.
