46-1,p33

An Open Letter To Jugglers

BY KEN ZETIE

Juggling and, more broadly, the whole New Circus movement have expanded

enormously in recent years. They have expanded not only in terms of the number of participants, not only in their exposure and the manufacture and availability of props but also in sophistication and variety of performance. I think it is time to take a fresh look at what has happened to juggling (using the term very loosely) in the last few years and see where we've got to.

First of all, what do we include with juggling? At any jugglers' convention you are bound to see unicyclists, diabolists, devilstickers and other manipulators of diverse objects. You probably wouldn't think it odd to see some acrobatics, the occasional yo-yo, maybe a boomerang or two and probably some fire-breathers (who may only come out at night). In Europe, more so than in America, we have witnessed the birth and rapid growth of New Circus - a combination of the traditional circus skills with newer ones in a more dramatic, theatrical spectacle than the family circus we remember from our childhood days. Perhaps the biggest, most spectacular example was the French group Archaos (whose name meant 'primal chaos'). Their advertisements distinguished themselves from traditional circus not by reference to the use of large vehicles, not by mentioning the chainsaw jugglers, but by boldly stating that they were a 'Circus without animals.' What? A circus without animals? Shocking! Shouldn't be allowed..!

In America it seems that the synthesis of new skills has gone in other directions. If you compare European and American conventions one point is very obvious - far fewer people are juggling the traditional props in Europe. Although diabolos and devil-sticks are becoming more popular in America the market is still tiny compared to the European one.

Similarly, European juggling seems much more closely tied to circus in everything from the performances to the ethos of the organisers. In America, juggling is much more its own thing and, as a result, more emphasis is placed on juggling as a pure skill. It is no great observation that in the USA there is far more interest in numbers juggling and technical ability, compared through competition, than in Europe.

Given such a large difference in the roots and in the 'user base' of juggling in the two places, it seems interesting to examine the effect this has had on performance. First of all I should say that. this will be a very biased and incomplete survey of the field!

Secondly it is worth considering how the places which hire jugglers affect the market. In America then, when the lay person thinks of juggling she thinks of Vegas-style shows in all probability. In Europe, the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus would summon an image of sawdust rings and big tents filled with the odour of elephant dung. So in creating new shows, different shows, people in the USA are usually aiming for something different from Vegas where people in Europe are headed away from circus rings (and the smell).

Naturally a large number of performers choose not to head away from the traditional. Some can improve on even the great historic jugglers (Gatto has to be a spectacular example of that). Some can entertain enormously with good and original routines based around familiar style (Dan Menendez and Steve Rawlings for example) without having to resort to a whole new methodology. For the most part I shall ignore these people here, not because they are not good but because I am interested in what's new.

In the USA three names come to mind straight away - Michael Moschen, Michael Menes and Airjazz. All of them moved away from traditional toss juggling. To do so they had to invest time in learning traditional skills which were new to jugglers (such as dance), new skills to everyone (Moschen's contact juggling for example) and, perhaps most importantly, new ways of presenting skills.

I should pause to explain what I mean by presentation. Spinning a diabolo is substantially different from juggling clubs, but a show presented by a diaboloist can look very much like a show by a club juggler in terms of content, shape, and what it presents to the audience. In a conversation with Sean Gandini he talked about the difference between changing what you say and changing how you say it. Doing the same kind of routines with different props (even totally different ones, or even new skills) is not all that different. The challenge for many is to perform a piece which is radically different, which says new things. How it does it is not important, but to keep some ties to the juggling root we might expect a demonstration of skills of some sort.

In the UK, the Gandini Juggling Project is similarly inclined to people like Moschen. By drawing heavily on modern dance and rhythmic gymnastics they have not just added to their juggling skills but supplanted them as the focus of the skills in their shows. At the same time, by starting from choreography rather than the circus skill base they have changed the entire nature of their presentation, which they called nEither Either botH and (implying neither juggling nor dance but a fusion of the two).

It had truly left behind both roots. Moschen has succeeded in this by a different method - by picking up on different aspects of object manipulation and by finding entirely new ways to create pieces. There is still much attention paid to highly skillful (and very exact) technique such as the crystal ball rolling or the spinning poles, but these are not juggling pieces where the audience gasps in surprise at his skill and where drops are used to emphasise the difficulty. Here the visual effect and the meaning conveyed are more important than impressing people with skill. Indeed, if the juggler is noticed and the audience wonders how he or she does it, then the effect is somewhat lost.

Lest it sound like I am proseletysing here, I should say I see nothing wrong with straight entertainment or, indeed, viewing people like Moschen and Gandini as enjoyable (awesome even) and nothing more. It is just that I (and perhaps many others including non-jugglers) enjoy more depth to a piece, something which asks questions and stands up to a more detailed examination.

These new performers play an important role. Not only do they increase the range of activities we associate with juggling, they help to make both the professional and the amateur side more accessible to the rest of the world. This can mean an increase in audience acceptance of juggling, more exposure and more recognition of the great skill involved but also, at the grass roots level, more people involved in juggling who bring their own ideas and other skills to it.

When gymnasts, dancers, and even poets are learning to juggle it can only mean good things for juggling both as a performance art and as a hobby. It will make the juggling club a more interesting place to be, it will make the juggler a more interesting person and it will break down some of the boundaries not only between different disciplines and different arts but between people of vastly different backgrounds. The time when the art-blind computer-whiz and the artistic technophobe can talk on common ground because of juggling is a time to celebrate.

Right now, I see us standing at one of the most interesting and exciting times in the history of juggling. Never have so many people been involved and aware, never have so many paths been open to us, and never have so many skilled and energetic people been prepared to lay those paths and walk them. I propose a toast - to juggling and to jugglers, in all their diversity.

Ken Zetie likes to juggle atoms and ride his motorbike at high speed down the information highway. He. routinely violates parity and has no regard for the laws of physics, especially the ones he helps to discover.