This is my response to Anna Kathleen's lead blog post.
Anna Kathleen's post centered around the distinction between something's being "funny," and something's being "comedy." According to Anna Kathleen, comedy is a subset of that which is funny. That is, something that is comedy can be funny, but not all things that are funny are comedy. Something which is funny is simply an thing or event which causes laughter. This can be in nearly any context in everyday life. What sets comedy apart from everyday funny things is the fact that comedy is institutional. That is, when something is designed primarily to make larger groups of people laugh (such as a standup routine or a movie) then it is comedy.
I believe the distinction of the comedic from the funny is, in the main, perfectly correct. I also find that whether something makes us laugh or not is often dependent on whether it occurs in everyday life or in comedy. Oftentimes, we find ourselves must more inclined to laugh at the same event if it is in the context of something comedic like a standup routine. Why is this? The first reason is that something's being designated comedy tells us ahead of time to look for funny material. For example, in a stand up routine, we are there for the purpose of being presented with humorous material. Due to this, we notice something's being funny much more than we usually would. I think the second reason can be understood using the Benign Violation Theory. By something's being designated comedy, it is already to some extent validated in society. If we are in a room of other people laughing(as in standup) we already understand that whatever violation that occurs will be benign. In other words, by everyone else laughing, we confirm that it is benign violation as opposed to being a violation as such.
So, the distinction between something's being funny, and something's being comedy can help us understand the contextual nature of humor. It also relates quite neatly to the benign violation theory.
Anna Kathleen's post centered around the distinction between something's being "funny," and something's being "comedy." According to Anna Kathleen, comedy is a subset of that which is funny. That is, something that is comedy can be funny, but not all things that are funny are comedy. Something which is funny is simply an thing or event which causes laughter. This can be in nearly any context in everyday life. What sets comedy apart from everyday funny things is the fact that comedy is institutional. That is, when something is designed primarily to make larger groups of people laugh (such as a standup routine or a movie) then it is comedy.
I believe the distinction of the comedic from the funny is, in the main, perfectly correct. I also find that whether something makes us laugh or not is often dependent on whether it occurs in everyday life or in comedy. Oftentimes, we find ourselves must more inclined to laugh at the same event if it is in the context of something comedic like a standup routine. Why is this? The first reason is that something's being designated comedy tells us ahead of time to look for funny material. For example, in a stand up routine, we are there for the purpose of being presented with humorous material. Due to this, we notice something's being funny much more than we usually would. I think the second reason can be understood using the Benign Violation Theory. By something's being designated comedy, it is already to some extent validated in society. If we are in a room of other people laughing(as in standup) we already understand that whatever violation that occurs will be benign. In other words, by everyone else laughing, we confirm that it is benign violation as opposed to being a violation as such.
So, the distinction between something's being funny, and something's being comedy can help us understand the contextual nature of humor. It also relates quite neatly to the benign violation theory.
That is a great point that we have conceptions of comedy that deal with the institution and the genre as much as the concept of funniness. The question I have sometimes is whether there is an essence to the comic that is irreducible to genres and institutions (such as stand up) or to funniness per se.
ReplyDeleteThis is also a great point that knowing that something is a skit or stand up changes whether we think it is funny.
You have an interesting point on the psychology of whether something will be perceived as comedic or hostile. Maybe comedy is a self-fulfilling prophecy in that things that we expect to be funny will be more likely to be perceived as funny and things that we don't expect will be less likely to make us laugh. Just another reason that context is a major factor in something's funniness, no matter what theory someone believes to be the best explanation
ReplyDeleteI love how you talked about the contextual nature of humor. I definitely agree with comedy having more of a designated role than something being funny. I think the predictability of something can often times make it funnier depending on the situation.
ReplyDelete