Why do some clowns want to discredit
some other clowns?
In a blog article entitled “When
is a Clown Not a Clown?” Katharine Kavanagh reflects on how
some divide clowns into two groups. On the one hand there are clowns
possessing these qualities: normal-looking, beautiful, ambiguous, nuanced,
artist, communicating something of the human experience, bring joy and
lightness, highly trained, true skill. And on the other hand are these kinds of
clowns: heavily made-up, bewigged, inhuman characters, visual spectres, lazy
reliance on visual image.
As with most binary oppositions, this claim that the two sides possess
opposite characteristics is not the end of the story. One side will be awarded
the privileged status, the other denigrated. Value is ascribed to one side at
the expense of the other. In this case, the first group is deemed ‘true
clowning’, and superior as it is supposed to characterise the qualities of
clowning known ‘to performers familiar with the clowning tradition’, whilst the
second group are denigrated as ‘bad’ or ‘non-clowns’, and are known ‘to the
layman on the street’. This baddies vs. goodies value judgment is then
completed by claiming that ‘many
people don’t know what contemporary clowning means’. This divides the
population up into those (the public, the majority) who ‘don’t know’ and those
(the performers, the minority) who ‘know’.
This leads to some ‘finding it terribly sad that the word [clown] has become so misunderstood’. Personally,
I find it ‘sad’ that some clowns like to criticise other (unnamed) clowns based
on nothing more than having a different aesthetic to them. Actually, rather
than sad, it makes me mad.
This kind of dismissal of others is widespread in some parts of the
clown world. It is rarely countered, maybe because those who are dismissed have
little interest in attacking others just because of their different approach.
In my personal opinion, this lack of attack is a sign of good clown values.
However, as someone who not only performs but also writes and analyses
clowning, I feel compelled to make these points.
The ‘just because’ argument works both ways. Saying it doesn’t make you
a clown just because you ‘dress in the familiar garb’ might
sound reasonable. But I could equally say: it doesn’t make you a clown just
because you don’t wear clown make-up, or just because you have trained with such-and-such a teacher, or just because you believe that the ‘key
tenets of clowning are improvisation, spontaneity, a sense of being present in
the moment’.
But I won’t bother arguing that, since to claim superior clown-ness by
these means is pointless. I can only judge the quality of the clowning on a
clown-by-clown basis. Otherwise, I could say that, given that a large number of
the type of clowns who claim greater truth who I have seen have also been extremely
mediocre or bad clowns, then I would be justified in claiming that all
these kinds of ‘truth-claiming’ clowns are bad. And that would be
ridiculous. So, if you want to criticise
some clowns, please do so on an individual basis, giving reasons. Otherwise,
this is nothing but snobbery.
Jon Davison
Co-founder of Escola de Clown de Barcelona and author of ‘Clown:
Readings in Theatre Practice’.
(This article was edited on 10/5/2014 to reflect the fact that the views expressed in Katherine Kavanagh's article were those of her interviewees.)
(This article was edited on 13/6/2014 to reflect the fact that the interviewees in Katherine Kavanagh's article had not given their permission for their words to be published.)
(This article was edited on 13/6/2014 to reflect the fact that the interviewees in Katherine Kavanagh's article had not given their permission for their words to be published.)
