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!
by lukeburrage, in response to this post 2015-12-18 11:46:08