Heavy going article from Bauke Lievens addressing her concerns about the lack of development in circus:
First Open Letter to the Circus: “The need to redefine”
It talks about a few concepts which we've touched on recently here on the Edge. It took a long time to read this because I had to stop & think for quite a while after almost every paragraph.
Juggling Edge vocab watch:
A dramaturge or dramaturg is a professional position within a theatre or opera company that deals mainly with research and development of plays or operas. Its modern-day function was originated by the innovations of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, an 18th-century German playwright, philosopher, and theorist about theatre.
via Circus Geeks
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I think your link is broken.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
This post is source #5 that forwards this article to me in some way. Initially I failed to see why this article is that important.
I am all up for opening a wide dialog, as she suggests. The 'fame' that this article receives is probably a sign that the discussion is indeed not as active as it should.
Besides of that, I don't think much of it. There were many things I did not understand, and would require clarification before I could clear up my opinion, and a few things I disagreed with.
I wish there were more articles like this. Therefore she made a good start, just not from a position that I can understand.
Perhaps I'll post the comments which I've emailed to Bauke here bit by bit when it seems fitting.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I liked the letter/article but, like you, it's from a position I either don't agree with, or if I do, just don't care enough about it. Or if I do care about it, I don't care about it for my own work or artistic expression.
The major premise is that circus needs to evolve, or needs to become a more serious artistic endeavor, or needs to appeal to more people, or needs to appeal to a more select group of critics/funding bodies/national associations, etc. If I agreed with that premise, I'd find the article a compelling addition to a conversation about the topic. But I don't agree with that premise, because I'm not exactly a huge fan of the concept of circus itself. It's just a thing that is adjacent to my current profession and hobbies and interests, not central to it.
That said, I do agree with most of the points about mixing character and story with circus skills, and how they normally interrupt each other. Some of the near-best full length circus shows I've seen acknowledge this implicitly or explicitly, and work around it. Then the best full length circus shows I've seen don't have the problem at all, and that's one thing that makes them stand out. But those are very, very few indeed, and are generally only juggling shows, not general circus shows that include more acrobatic and/or aerial skills.
But the general format of circus is a series of acts. It's a show of variety, and I want the best expression of each thing. Most of the best acrobats won't be good actors, so why should I see them play out painfully bad stories or emotions? Most jugglers won't be good dancers, so why should I want to watch them try to keep up with the beautiful aerialist who have worked for years at being graceful?
Of course the clowns come back throughout the show, and become the embodiment of character and story and emotion. It's their job!
The major premise is that circus needs to evolve, or etc.
I think the author missed a trick when they said "If we want circus to become more [whatever], we need to [do things]".
Most of the article is about developing a kind of framework for integrating circus into traditional art criticism. They are describing a different way of relating to circus performance or of thinking about it. And I think that is all super interesting, it's not "redefining circus" in the sense of changing it into something else, it's just another framework for thinking. I like having more frameworks for thinking. But because the author added, almost in passing, this idea that there is a moral imperative for change via alternative thinking, they have set everybody here off but-but-ing the whole thing. There is a huge mine of interesting ideas in this article about circus history and development and its relationship to art criticism and development, but here we are on the alternative and well trodden topic of "what is the point of circus", which is a rabbit hole and also a tangent to the point the author seems to be trying to make.
Does circus do postmodern, never mind post-postmodern? Is postmodernism (and so forth) a useful lens through which to think about circus? If not why not? Does it benefit the art world to have a well-developed critical theory or does it just send everybody up their own arse? Does art theory have anything to offer Gladys who paints watercolours of flowers and sells them on a market stall?
Well stated, emilyw.
I must admit, the point at which I completely parted company with the article was "post-human experiences"... there's a level of wanky-bollocks beyond which I will not go!
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I love some wanky-bollocks discussions and theories.
One does has to "suspend disbelief" a little sometimes. I find there's a big problem when wanky-bollocks approaches the issue of real people and what they should do or think or how they should regard themselves, because disregarding people's personal lived experience in favour of some arty-bollocks framework is a good way to get a punch in the snozz.
I suspect that this author is being confusing with their hyphens and that "post-human" is referring here to posthumanism (they also say "post-modern" to refer to postmodernism). Posthumanism which is just a movement that critiques or responds to the humanist movement, not like "what if we were all robots" or something.
Thanks for the helpful explanation :) That does make more sense than robot circus.
Even so, any movement whose primary raison d'etre is as a response to another movement seems to me the definition of wanky-bollocks! (Yep, I'm not a fan of postmodernism either)
I would be the first person in line for tickets to the robot circus.
I also think we should have robot Formula 1 so they could stop being so worried about crashing into each other.
.. and them plockheads fight out their stupid wars with robots on mars instead real soldiers here on earth when it's xmas.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Formula E & Kinetik announce driverless support series
UK|27 Nov 15
Formula E and Kinetik today announced a partnership with the intention to launch a global race series for driverless electric cars. This new championship called ‘ROBORACE’ will provide a competitive platform for the autonomous driving solutions that are now being developed by many large industrial automotive and technology players as well as top tech universities.
The plan is for ROBORACE to form part of the support package of the FIA Formula E Championship, with the first race intended to take place during the 2016-2017 season. ROBORACE is aimed to take place prior to each Formula E race, using the same circuits in major cities across the world. Ten teams, each with two driverless cars, will compete in one-hour races over the full championship season. All the teams will have the same cars however will compete using real-time computing algorithms and AI technologies.
Denis Sverdlov, Founder of Kinetik and ROBORACE, said: “We passionately believe that, in the future, all of the world’s vehicles will be assisted by AI and powered by electricity, thus improving the environment and road safety. ROBORACE is a celebration of revolutionary technology and innovation that humanity has achieved in that area so far. It’s a global platform to show that robotic technologies and AI can co-exist with us in real life. Thus, anyone who is at the edge of this transformation now has a platform to show the advantages of their driverless solutions and this shall push the development of the technology.”
The mission of ROBORACE is to demonstrate that the future of automotive and information technology is already here and can even work in extreme conditions. ROBORACE believes that there is a lot of independent talents in the world that might contribute to this initiative. That is why one of the race teams will be organised as a crowd-sourced community team open for enthusiastic software and technology experts all over the world.
Further support for both Formula E and ROBORACE shall come from Charge, an automotive start-up founded by Kinetik that develops revolutionary range-extended electric powertrains for commercial vehicles. Charge will become Official Truck Partner of the FIA Formula E Championship and will provide electric trucks for the drivers’ parade, towing trucks for emergency recovery of the racing cars and shuttles for transportation of guests and visitors of the championship around the eVillage.
Alejandro Agag, CEO of Formula E, said: “We are very excited to be partnering with Kinetik on what is surely one of the most cutting-edge sporting events in history. ROBORACE is an open challenge to the most innovative scientific and technology-focused companies in the world. It is very exciting to create a platform for them to showcase what they are capable of and I believe there is great potential for us to unearth the next big idea through the unique crowd-sourced contest.”
Further details and announcements about the teams and technologies to be used will be made early next year.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Sounds great. Still I am not very interested in post-human circus.. :p
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
How many years until a machine makes it on the top 40 jugglers list?
Little Paul - - Parent #
7
Maybe that depends on how many years it is until robots are allowed to vote for the top 40 jugglers.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Like I said, I agree with much of the article. And I would think it an important discussion if I thought circus needed to evolve or change or whatever. But if it does or not must be decided first, before anyone starts putting in massive effort into causing an entire movement or art form or entertainment industry to change direction.
I think if the ideas that the author thinks are so important are really so important, and would lead to much greater audiences/critical acclaim/other metric of success, wouldn't this play out in the general entertain market or art world?
Personally I think these things ARE important, and the shows that do consider and address them are more likely to be successful. But you know what? It's HARD. It really takes the best in the world at a specific circus skill to also be a world class director, or let a director have complete control over world class circus performers.
This kind of evolution has worked before, and now "Cirque du Soliel Style Acts" are categories in entertainer agent and booking websites. In juggling it has worked before, and now "Men in tight black clothes doing emotion-free object manipulation with weird shapes" is just a genre. "Kiev Style" is now so formulaic it can be applied to any skill, and seems to be successful both commercially and with other jugglers. Sean Gandini is producing new hit shows every year, and has residencies in opera houses and such, and his structuralist postmodern approach is the solid backbone that allows it to happen.
People charge ahead, and the scene is generally playing catch up.
Very long article .. just flew over it briefly. Also, I know few about circus other than what gets shown on TV and very few live visits. I'm every year especially keen on watching the Monte Carlo Festival.
Still, I read mainly about what Bauke Lievens wants circus to be, sort of reaching out for what circus is meant to be in the future, maybe circus philosophy, but not a word of they who it's done for: the visitors, the audience. And that is mainly families with their kids. And they do it in a row with going to the zoo, to a fairy, to a christmas or mideval market, to public soccer viewing, to riding ponies, and what all undertakings there is to provide kids with input they like.
Circus trying to (re)find itself can't go without asking: What do we want to offer? And: Why and to whom? Instead: What do I (or: we) want it to be, want it to convey, which elaborated development to take etc.
The article reminds me of young artists, painters, musicians still finding themselves, maybe wondering why no one cares for what they're doing, in any case not doing their art for someone (audience, customer), but only in search of the best way to express themselves. Express what and why? And for the sake of the (they think) best or highest possible or the very art itself only.
But maybe I missed a meta level taking kids and families as audience for granted.
The whole point of art is self-expression - it's not about appealing to an audience. Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime, yet we now recognize him as one of the greatest artists ever to have lived.
Circus comes from populist roots, but that doesn't mean audience appeal must be considered when treating it as an art form. It's the difference between making Riverdance and Pina Bausch.
Yeh, but circus is (by nature? in reality? in the end?) meant to be shown for an audience. So soon or late the two will have to come together if what circus you're doing is not merely done for your own ideals or to please your personal circus god. Surely you want a philosophy (why you're doing it, and how you think best it's to be done), a style (express yourself, give it your character or personal style), something more than just showing off trained skills learned by heart, at its best a spark to spring over to the audience. So it's an everlasting dilemma in those arts that are in the end meant to be shown or sold, that the artists put their ideas and ideals into acts, but then want (palpable) feedback for it. As soon as you sell or show, you will need to take into account who will be watching and providing for your living and what (elaborated ideas and ideals) they can take and come to see you for.
Redefining a circus then can't go without asking what you want to give to whom.
I think maybe "diversity" might be a good answer. Not defining "the future circus" too tight. Maybe there is no need to redefine. Circus directors are necessarily and constantly doing it. But it's really difficult, if not impossible, to take it all down to a formula or to a main direction to be followed or to a main intent. It's always been a more or less open stage and inventing itself anew by times and means (gear, props, stories told) changing.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Expression is meant to be shown for an audience, and circus is indeed not different.
What's against pleasing your personal circus god?
Though it is also besides the point. If Bauke believed that everyone should just please themselves, there would be little need for her article.
The real issue is that 'direct pleasure' or 'entertainment' is the not only purpose of a circus performance.
Bauke suggest she doesn't want to communicate 'craft', rather 'art'.
It could certainly be argued that all of the performing arts are intended to have an audience, but it does not automatically follow that the audience needs to be a consideration when forming the work.
A purely "art" approach would be to make the work and let the audience respond as they will.
If "entertainment" and/or "commerce" are goals, then the audience becomes important in the making process.
I agree completely with your third paragraph. Like you, I see no need to formally redefine circus, hence Bauke's article fails for me at its fundamental premise.
I read the whole article now. A lot of (constructed?) criticism e.g. "mere(??) repetition of old traditional schemes", the "apparatusses or physical trajectories `dominating´ the artists"(??) or vice versa. Queer onsights. Rather: "mastering" or "playing with" or "flowing with" their gear, apparatus and physical laws (not "dominating").
Just a few more (pure art & circus related) keywords maybe help define circus: "sensation(al)", "creativity", (why not:) "arena", (show-) "act" .. ? Maybe find shared aspects with and differences to e.g. varieté (entertainment, stage, audience, show, talk, ..) and to e.g. sportive events (arena, spectators, skill-competition, ..), in order to define and or distinguish circus from.
I don't see circus become story-telling like theatre.
And not artists committing to a general intent or direction, circus `should´ take. Also not a philosophical elite providing for aims or change (of what exactly?) to be achieved.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Some of the critique on this article might stem from the issue that we still try to see and define circus as a whole.
I've never heard of anyone commenting on dance as a whole, or theatre as a whole.
The circus of today comes in many forms and genres, but they are not very well defined besides some vague meaning to "traditional circus".
I think this article is very valid for a specific genre of circus, and not so much for others.
Would it be beneficial for circus (oh the irony, commenting on circus as a whole) to become more aware of the distinctions between circus genres/styles? And giving them names?
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post