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?
↧
Post by emilyw
↧