Intentional humor is often more casually described as "joking". And this may be important since much has been made in this discussion of intentional vs unintentional humor. With this distinction in mind we start cycling back to prior discussions on what makes or breaks a performance.
So it seems we all want the usual. Sincerity. Authenticity. Genuine artistic commitment. No bullshit... all the things that the intentional use of humor may put in question. Question the sincerity of the performance and we question its very integrity (and that of the performer).
Case in point, FreakAnimalFinland's recent review of the UNITED FORCES OF INDUSTRIAL II festival. While several comments brought a smile to my face, at only one point did I laugh out loud:
QuoteSelf mutilation, tension of vocals and experimental sounds. Only braking atmosphere by moments of man drinking beer in middle of songs. Don't really get the idea of right after moment of self mutilation and intense atmosphere to step down to moments of.... satisfying thirst for beer...?
This works especially well in the context of the review, which establishes early on the excess indulgence of alcohol as a kind of leitmotif. True comic wit there. Freud thought the only legitimately "funny" (laugh out loud) humor was "tendentious", that is to say aggressive – complete with aggressor and victim- but 18th c British satirist Henry Fielding proposed that "the only source of the true Ridiculous is affectation"; that is to say, based upon the affectation of a character that is so clearly at odds with the audience understanding of the "actual" facts of the situation as presented. Another word for affectation is hypocrisy, and like many great humorists Fielding's humor is not presented simply for its own sake. There is a fairly harsh social element at work.
"A comic writer should of all others be the least excused for deviating from nature, since it may not be always so easy for a serious poet to meet with the great and the admirable; but life every where furnishes an accurate observer with the ridiculous."
So it seems even in those days, among the humorists of the (upper class English speaking) world, they all wanted the usual. Sincerity. Authenticity. Genuine artistic commitment. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of the (often highly) critical audience, the intentional use of humor could be regarded as a risky move- particularly in an international forum where the particular sense of the humorous employed may be rather... particular... to a particular (sub-)culture. Henry Fielding was an English gentleman writing for other English gentlemen.
Relatively "safe" humor might then be of the sort that takes more "classical" risks- eg socio-political, the sort that writers like Fielding worked with.
cantle writes:
QuoteMilovan Srdenovic supporting Whitehouse many many years ago was hilarious... the 'Islam Uber Alles' cover was very well placed...
And this I think could safely fall within the classic definition of "political satire", which is, of course, political first; satirical second. At the very least it would qualify as genuine (authentic, sincere) social commentary. So safe then, from the standpoint of the (often highly) critical audience- partly because the audience may acknowledge that other (possibly more serious) risks are being taken.