"Post-circus" sounds like someone trying to claim new territory that is actually already occupied.
When the New Circus movement started in the 1970s it aimed for a lot of what these guys are claiming - non-commercial, move away from pure spectacle, make the viewer think, raise questions etc. Also the DIY component - I'm assuming that means making circus happen themselves, as opposed to working for an existing circus.
In that sense they are 40 years behind.
For the rest:
- main accent on the inner world, personal conflicts and moral dilemmas - perhaps what makes this different is the 'main accent', but I would still say that plenty of circus artists are already exploring this territory.
- deliberate drift from the mass audience. Why would that be a goal? If the focus is on making 'internal' 'morally-conflicted' work I suspect the audience will drift away of its own accord ;)
Perhaps they mean 'not attempting to appeal to the mass market' but that's kind of the same as non-commercial.
Good on 'em for having a philosophy with stated goals. I am a huge fan of people attempting to break new territory, although I do tend to be rather suspicious of self-created labels - they just sound like marketing to me.
It's a really interesting topic, though - acts that actually achieve emotional or thought-provoking response. I can already think of a couple of aerial acts and quite a few duo-acro acts (they obviously lend themselves to 'personal conflict' themes). Can't immediately think of any juggling acts that qualify - I'm gonna have to think on that one. I might start a new thread, so as not to confuse this one.
↧
Post by bad1dobby
↧