If you’re an actor and you get cast on Broadway, it’s my impression that most actors, even relatively avant garde ones, will recognize that what you’re doing is reasonably cool (assuming that you’re cast in something nifty).
If you’re a dancer and you get a part in Riverdance, it’s my impression that most avant garde dancers will think you’re a big dork sellout.
What about Cirque du Soleil? Do avant garde acrobats and clowns think it’s a cool thing to do or a big dorko sellout thing to do?
If this question makes no sense, i apologize. My wife and I were talking about it last night in conjunction with someone we know who’s going to clown college (but not really clown college–I think it’s Commedia del Arte).
I have been accused of artsiness–pretension, snobbery, etc. With which I disagree of course. I think that just because someone puts a lot of effort into figuring out what they like or don’t like about a particular artwork, this doesn’t make them a snob. “Artsy,” to me, means someone who is *insincerely *discriminating in their expressed judgment of art; someone who will pretend to like something they don’t, or vice versa, to *appear *to be wise or hip or unique. Since I make an effort–especially around here–to avoid such insincerity–I’ll object, on principle, to your use of the word “artsy.”
Unless you specifically mean people who pretend one thing when they say another, can I assume that the people you’re asking about are people who identify themselves as artists, or who put a lot of effort into understanding and appreciating art, or who take art seriously?
In that case, I will tell you that I, personally, find *Cirque *pretty dang cheesy. I might even go so far as to call it, no really, pretentious. Frankly, the subject doesn’t come up that often, so I can’t actually say that I know anyone who agrees with me on this. The only people I know who have an opinion on the matter–two people–love the thing. But they don’t consider themselves artists or artistically sophisticated, so I’m not sure they’re who you’re asking about.
Rereading your OP, I will say that I have no idea what the perspective of other acrobats, etc., might be. My criticism of Cirque is on its overall cheesiness; its art direction, etc. Especially the “music.” The skill of most of the performers is beyond criticism, as far as I have seen.
My friend is a gymnastics coach and one of her clubs students got accepted into Cirque du Soleil. It was seen as a great accomplishment, since he can now turn a hobby (albiet an incredibly time consuming and demanding one) into a career.
I tend to think of Cirque de Soleil as a display of athleticism more than artistry. It can also depend on the show. In general I rate Cirque de Soleil right alongside Chinese Acrobats. Chinese Acrobats are beautiful to watch, but they’re athletes first, artists second. It’s not like they said “I’ve got this vision of what I want things to look like, so let’s train the bodies to make it happen.” It went the other way around. “We’ve got atheltes capable of all these amazing physical feats, let’s put some pagentry around it.”
Bravo had a series on the making of one of the Cirque du Soleil shows and the audtion process. I think it is somewhat generally well thought of. I think it is both cheesy and cool at different times. It is unique and not for everybody. I think artistic people find more coolness than not in it.
But that’s just an opinion with nothing other than one show–probably designed to favor the troupe–to back the assumption up.
Anything post Mystere lost a lot of class, and it’s become a good bit of a money machine. Anything previous to that had some bits that were still cheese-whiz circus stuff and other bits that were quite artsy.
So pretty much, Mystere is about it for if you want a consistent show that is (or was) avant garde. Still circus, so I don’t know that hardcore artistes would be willing to view it in a good light regardless of anything, but it did definitely have class.
Just buy the Mystere soundtrack. Allegria is the next best soundtrack.
Most of the performers are ex-olympiads and such, I believe. And really, if you want to stay in the gymnastics profession past competing and not move into a “real” profession, then your only option is circus. You don’t go to artsy-fartsy “clown” school and then get hired by the circus, rather you lose the olympics, find out you have no job skills, the circus picks you up and teaches you how to entertain people with your gymnastics–and once you’re too old to still perform as an acrobat they teach you how to make people laugh and you get to be a clown.
So my guess would be that gymnasts who end up at Barnum and Bailey would probably be more jealous of Cirque than snooty.
I would say that 98% or more of the performers (and probably everyone else) for Cirque LOVE what they do. On that basis, they wouldn’t care if snooty gymnasts look down at them.
As for “art,” . . .
(Marshall McLuhan moment coming up)
It’s a circus. It’s a dressed up circus competing in the age of modern entertainment, but it’s still a circus. As such, I think it’s great, but some shows are better than others. Allegria is the best one I’ve seen, and I’m going to Corteo this Saturday.
I love clowns.
Tuesday I saw the newest show Delirum. It’s different than what they’ve done before. It’s in a sports arena instead of their usual big tent they set up.
It focuses on the music of past shows. There is a lot of dancing and some acrobatic acts but that’s very toned down. Massive mesh curtains were used in places with images projected on them. At times there were more things going on that the eye could follow.
This was a Cirque version of floor show. A little Stomp, a little Blue Man Group, moments from Broadway or even Disney all done Cirque style.
It was different enough that I really it. Second row on the floor almost center stage helps.
In my experience with actors, dancers, and other performers, if they have a job doing what they want to do (acting/dancing/performing as opposed to waiting tables at Chili’s), they’re happy. The quality of the production isn’t really up to them, as they are not writers, composers, or directors. They just have to do their bit as well as they can. Most actors would rather be cast in the worst play ever than not work at all.
Thanks for the answers! It never occurred to me that they’d recruit more from athletes than from dancers and the like, but it makes perfect sense; it also makes sense that it’d therefore not really be on the radar of the avant garde community.
When it first came out, CdS was very cool - it was a Starbucks-update to an old, tired experience - wow, a cool spin on an old saw, the circus! And they did nifty, how-do-they-do-that type of stuff without the danger to animals, the “well, it worked back in the day when stuff wasn’t so easily available” vibe of a circus.
Now, it has evolved, also like Starbucks - what went from a cool insider-feeling cool thing to know about has become far more mass-produced feeling. They seem to be stamping out new shows and touring companies at an increasing pace.
Another way to put it, maybe: when they started, they were like Pixar movies - the “brand” of CdS got a great reputation for exotic and cool. Now they are more like Dreamworks - you are likely to be entertained, but the shows feel more mass-produced and commercial…
So, as a potential customer, I would still consider going, but it no longer has that “special” feeling - it is much more “okay, but it better be good”…
Right–asking about avant garde performers. It stemmed from a discussion where w were talking about what a person could do with Commedia del Arte training, and we were trying to figure out whether mentioning Cirque du Soleil would be insulting to them. Obviously that’s no longer relevant, but I was still curious. The guy’s pretty avant garde.