While Della Pollock’s entire article was insightful, I found her argument about the process of making history into dialogue particularly captivating (Pollock 2). With this in mind, she explains throughout the piece how both the performers and the audience are involved in this process. Pollock describes how change is possible through performance because it causes audiences to imagine other possibilities of how the world should work. In this way, the audience members are not just left with the tone and memory of the performance but rather the responsibility of taking the performance and transforming it into change.
Pollock continues by discussing how no one can own a story and so the story is told over and over again in history. With this in mind, the story changes from situation to situation allowing the performer to demonstrate how history can alter the meaning and the audience’s reaction to it as well. She continues this argument with the discussion of Rivka Eisner who used “doubling” to reveal that “performance is a repetition” (11). With time always changing, the performance changes as well from moment to moment. This notion reminded me of 30 Rock‘s Tracy Morgan who can never do the same thing twice. While this proves to be difficult when he has to perform the same play again, Tracy finds this keeps him creative and original. However, if he was to study Eisner’s aesthetic views he might find that each performance is unique since time has altered it.