Recently, on a widely used clown forum, a question posed by
the daily newspaper Le Monde was discussed in reference to our own specific
artform:
‘Will we ever be close up together again watching a show?” What
do you think?
My own answer was this:
I do not know. But I would rather ask the question: what is
most important for clowning? A live audience present together in the same
place? Or being in the here-and-now moment (but online)? Because both are not
possible at the same time right now. And if both things are not possible, then
maybe both things are not essential for clowning to happen. Otherwise, clowning
would not be possible.
The original question is entirely comprehensible. But it
feels to me that it runs the risk of pointless speculation, driven by an
attachment to certain ways of doing things. Those ways of doing things are not
available to us at the moment, so any clinging on to them will be likely just
to generate anxiety. Attachment leads to suffering. Also, asking this question suggests
that this, unavailable, way of clowning is the only way we can imagine it: with
a bunch of people all close together in one place watching the performers who
are also right there in that place in front of us.
If we can only imagine clowning under these conditions, then
we are left with nothing. No clowning.
But what if we were to assume that these conditions were not
necessary? What if we assume, instead, that clowning was possible under any conditions?
Then we’d only need to find out how that clowning looked under these current
conditions, right?
This question takes us right to the heart of the problem of
prescriptions versus descriptions of clowns and clowning. Over the several decades
since the 1960s when clown workshops have come to prominence in our artform, clown
teachers and their students have played a large role in defining the narrative
of what clowns are supposed to be, what they are for, and how we are supposed to
understand them. Clown teachers generally love to make prescriptive statements,
that begin: “the clown always/never ….” Whereas previous eras were more prone
to descriptive statements, that began: “clowns do x, y, z …”
Within that world of clown teachers, there are many elements
of this narrative which go pretty much unquestioned by most people. Strangely, given
the supposedly free-thinking nature of clowns, not much self-critical thinking
goes on about our own thinking about ourselves. This, despite the fact that previous
historical periods had very different ideas about what clowns are, or should be.
The historical specificity of contemporary ideas about clowns has gone fairly
unnoticed. Until our historical circumstances suddenly change radically, and
put those orthodox ideas under huge strain.
The question above seems to ask about only one condition, that
of ‘liveness’. But implicit in that question are two of those tenets of contemporary
clowning:
1.
Clowning happens only when performers and
spectators see, hear, and sense each other in the same space, allowing for unmediated
responses.
2.
Clowning happens only when performers and
spectators see, hear, and sense each other in the same moment, allowing for immediate
responses.
Now, the options for ‘being in the same space’ are severely
restricted. But ‘being in the same moment’ is amply available through online
technology. (Let’s not even mention that whole golden age of clowning, the
silent movies, which willingly gave up on performers being in the same place
and time as their audiences.)
If we insist on having both conditions then, okay, let’s
give up clowning. Personally, I prefer to continue, for the moment exploring the
online options of the remaining condition. Or to give up insisting on
conditions for clowning. To give up on prescriptions for clowning, which now
are not only tedious (they have been for a while), but plainly ridiculously
untrue.
I mean, if we can’t even adapt to this, what would we do if,
one day, the conditions for being in the same moment were also removed (internet
lockdown)?!
1 comment:
Thank you for this blog. I think that Clowns have been effective even in TV shows. Have you thought about the purpose of this point? If we have received the primary purpose of the clowns in the daily morning or mid-shows, wouldn't it be a great source to adapt to the online world?
I just remembered when I was a child to see Remi from Puerto Rico, and Payaso Tatin from the 1970s. This can help you understand that Clowns are a great way to interact with other social, emotional with a direct purpose.
Wish you the best of luck
Rosana Gonzalez
Dance teacher, blogger
Post a Comment