PREFACE TO ONLINE EDITION
Next Home
The orginal version of this thesis on disk perished in the same year that I graduated and finally I have managed to scan in a hard copy and convert it into an editable file. I have used a rather old version of TextBridge to scan the work and consequently there are a few curious typos that have emerged. Having proof read this work many times already, my enthusiasm for doing so again has been less than overwhelming. Consequently, I have decided to take an interactive approach. If you find a typo (on this page or any other) you can email me and I will fix it. With your consent I will include your name on a typo honour role which I will publish once I get an overwhelming response to this request. If you have any other requests or comments, you are also more than welcome to contact me.
Glen Ryman, January 2002
 

ABSTRACT
Next Home
Over the past two decades two different categories of circus have begun to emerge in Australia. The form and content of traditional circus were challenged by a new approach to circus informed by the radical arts practice of the late 1960s and 1970s. The purpose of this paper is to identify and analyse the core issues that define these two types of circus practice, and to assess the extent to which they constitute the a single field of endeavour. The issues that have emerged are the use of performing animals in circus, the nature of circus training and performance, the development of narrative in circus performance, the origins of non-traditional circus in radical arts practice, and the nature of circus culture.
 

1. INTRODUCTION
Next Home
Circus has proved to be one of the most significant and enduring performing arts in Australia. The oldest circuses are some of this country�s oldest arts organisations. Circus is still a very significant part of Australian culture, influencing mainstream, avant guarde, and community theatre practice. It is one this country�s major cultural exports: Circus Oz, Rock�n�RoII Circus, and many traditional circuses have toured internationally. In spite of the important role that circus has played in Australia�s cultural life, there has been little research conducted on circus.

There are two separate circus cultures in Australia. For the purposes of this paper, these cultures are referred to as traditional and non-traditional circus. The name �non-traditional� for this later culture is far from satisfactory. To define it in negative terms does not accurately reflect the ingenuity of a movement that has inspired a renewed interest in physical performance.

Non-traditional circus has been referred to as "new�or "contemporary� circus. Neither of these titles, however, are satisfactory. This circus culture has been in existence for more than twenty years and therefore can no longer be considered "new�.  Many individuals within this culture identify their practice as �contemporary� circus. This title, by implication, denies the contemporary relevance of traditional circus. While it is true that this type of circus has been in decline in recent years, it maintains significant audiences, especially in regional Australia, and represents an industry large enough to support several commercially viable enterprises. It may be accurate to distinguish these two circus cultures in terms of revenue, with non-traditional circus relying largely on public funding, but such a distinction does not accurately reflect the breadth and complexity of the cultural divide that separates the two forms of circus.

This research analyses the relationship between these two circus cultures from the following perspectives: the presence of animals in circus, the nature of circus performance and narrative structure, the influence of community arts theory and practice on contemporary circus, and the cultural context of circus practice. The aim is to develop a comprehensive portrait of contemporary circus by representing the interrelationship between these areas. Perhaps each of these areas represents a separate area of research, but to pursue one at the expense of the others would fail to satisfactorily express the relationship between the two circus cultures, which has hitherto remained unresearched.

Another drawback, which also relates to the sheer size of the project undertaken, lies in generalising the two circus cultures. While care has been taken to conduct analysis with reference to specific circuses, a degree of generalisation has been unavoidable. While an impression may be given that traditional and non-traditional circus are monoliths on either side of a cultural divide, in fact a complexity of relationships between circuses and individuals exist, and some issues within the respective cultures are dealt with summarily and identified for further research. Furthermore, there are specific relationships between traditional and non-traditional circuses that are referred to but not studied in depth (the contact over the years between Ashton�s Circus and the Flying Fruit Fly Circus is an example). An effort to redress this has been made by selecting circuses from each culture to reflect a range of practice. There have also been specific methodological problems associated with the research of traditional circus that are discussed in detail later.

The main thrust of this thesis is to provide a broad sketch of contemporary circus in Australia. It stands as the first attempt to appraise a significant sector of the performing arts in this country, and as such is necessarily broad. Hopefully, it will inspire more detailed work on the issues raised, and a reappraisal of the significance of these issues in understanding contemporary circus culture.
 

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Next Home
Circus is not a fixed category of performance. In fact, from the Latin definition of the word, meaning circular line or circle, it refers to the site of performance rather than the performance itself. Circus performance, therefore, is an eclectic mixture of performance traditions that meet in the ring. The openness of the category of circus has always allowed the constituent performances of circus to be open to frequent review and change.

Circus is often considered to be a descendant of the Roman circus, but this is at best questionable. The Roman circuses were architectural structures, such as Circus Maximus, designed primarily for chariot races. Burgess (1974:65-66) says:
 

�Some confusion arises from the frequent translation of �panem et circenses� as �bread and circuses� when, in fact, it means �bread and races�. While circus-type performance probably did take place in the circuses, they most likely also took place in the theatres and amphitheatres. These ancient performances, in any case, were not called �circuses�.�

Circus Maximus was a symbol of authority in Rome, evident in Brotier�s assertion that if Julius Caesar wanted to change the form of government, he began with changes to the circus (Guy:1991:2). These performance traditions, however, are not intrinsically linked to the figure of political authority contained in the image of the Roman circus. Guy (1991:3) says:
 

�Significantly, both inside and out of the Roman arena, jugglers, acrobats, mountebanks, magicians, clowns and trained animals performed before the Roman people, just as they were to do throughout Medieval and Renaissance Europe at religious feast days and at fairs and carnivals, thus demonstrating the ancient origins and characteristics of the modern circus act.�

Following from this, circus can only be understood in terms of its constituent elements. For this reason, a number of dimensions of circus have emerged from the research to create the conceptual framework. These broad conceptual domains are performing animals, narrative and the performer, community and culture.

Performing animals have been a popular form of entertainment for many centuries. They appear at Circus Maximus, according to Bouissac (1985:12):
 

�The animal acts were numerous: groups of wild animals performing together under the firm authority of a trainer; bears dressed as humans, or playing ball with their master; herds of elephants dancing ... elephants playing musical instruments; elephants at dinner.�

This anthropomorphic role of the animal is also evident in the modern circus as a theatrical expression of control and domination of nature.

The concepts of narrative and performance are identified by Schechner (1990:19-49) as magnitudes of performance. He (1990:44) identifies seven magnitudes of performance, which fall into the three basic categories of performativity, theatricality and narrativity. While performativity is present in all magnitudes of performance, its formulation occurs between what Schechner (1990:44) calls the �brain event� and the �bit�. He (1990:30-32) cites Ekman�s findings which show mechanical manipulations of the facial muscles can induce corresponding emotions, detectable in changes to the autonomic nervous system. Schechner (1990:32) concludes:
 

�This �language of emotions� is non-verbal and consists mostly of facial displays, vocal cries, body postures (freezes) and movements (stamping, rushing, crouching).�

The formative process from the brain event to the �bit� (which is the �smallest unit of repeatable behavior� (Schechner:1990:44)) represents a common culture-specific link between traditional and non-traditional circus performance.

The differences between these two forms of circus begin to emerge at the level of theatricality, where bits are assembled into signs, and signs are composed to form scenes (Schechner:1990:44). A sign is a �piece of discrete information�, and represents part of a sequence that is �a whole unit of interaction� which Schechner (1990:44) describes as a scene, but which could also be describes in terms of circus as an �act�.

This is the basic level of narrativity, and often represents the final stage of conscious composition in traditional circus. It is the point of departure for narrative construction in no traditional circus. Because there is no tradition in recent Australian circus to provide conventional boundaries for this type of narrative construction, non-traditional circus has often look towards theatrical convention, and has encountered cultural differences between the two performance traditions of circus and theatre. The inherent difficulties in avant-garde and experimental performance are encountered in this grey area between circus and theatre. Schechner (1990-32) says:
 

"[originality] is how far a work can speak its own language without becoming unintelligible. Works called avant-garde or experimental sometimes go beyond this boundary, are rejected, only to be later incorporated into the cannon as mainstream codes catch up with the avant-garde and critics and public learn what the previously rejected work is �about�. That is they learn to context the works, relocating the boundaries of accepted conventions to include works that were previously out of bounds. If this doesn�t happen, the works are forgotten.�

The community theatre movement in Australia has not been immune to this process of selection. Such selection is not ideologically neutral; it operates in a manner that installs �cultural hegemony� which Watt (1991:57), citing Gramsci, describes as:
 

�a dominant class, and those subaltern classes who see their own best interests served by the maintenance of a capitalist class structure, reproduce and legitimate this class structure at the level of �culture�.�

Non-traditional circus challenges cultural hegemony in traditional circus and mainstream theatre, in terms of both aesthetic decisions and management structure. Non-traditional circus represented the �emergent elements of a culture�:
 

�those which point forward to new possibilities of social organisation, are continually subject to the assimilative pressures of the dominant.� (Watt: 1991:58)

These assimilative pressures have caused the current hiatus in community theatre, and have resulted in non-traditional circus moving closer to the ideological position inherent in notions of artistic �excellence� promoted by mainstream theatre and funding authorities.

The complexity of the concept of �culture� is reflected in contemporary circus culture. Williams (1983:1 3) identifies a convergence of the concepts of culture:
 

"between (I) the anthropological and sociological senses of culture as a distinct 'whole way of life' ... and (ii) the more specialized if also more common sense of culture as 'artistic and intellectual activities'�.

An awareness of this convergence is particularly useful in appreciating traditional circus where artistic activity is closely linked with the whole way of life of the traveling circus community. It also encourages an analysis of the growth of nontraditional circus forms in anthropological and sociological terms.

There is another apprehension of culture is useful in identifying the separation between traditional and non-traditional circus, whilst acknowledging the basic cultural similarities between these two fields of practice. Williams (1989:4) says:
 

"A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see them through the nature of a culture: that is always traditional and creative.�

This conceptualisation of �culture� enables an explanation of the intransigence of traditional circus and the innovation of nontraditional circus, whilst viewing them as part of the same performance culture.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws