Dear Ochenk,
Juggling is sometimes perceived as pure non-artistic entertainment - a
way to pass on the time and makes some tricks. It is also considered
by some as sport - the debate about that is frequent even among
jugglers themselves, with some who view juggling as sport (an Olympic
one), and reject any definitions of it as "art" <see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=f30a6d2f.0111090117.d969d1c%40posting.google.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522juggling%2Bas%2Bart%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Df30a6d2f.0111090117.d969d1c%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D10>.
However, juggling could be actually analysed - as I aim to do here -
as a unique, independent, type of *art*.
In order to do it, I'll begin with examination of few definitions of
art. According to Dada artist Marcel Duchamp, Art is whatever the
artist defines as art. With relativism such as this - juggling is art
as much as eating lunch is art, if the artist defines it as such. This
definition is nice, but it doesn't separate juggling from other arts.
Another personal definition found regarded art as "anything that
people add to their 'output' which is not functionally necessary and
is other than the default properties of that output"
<http://www.ebtx.com/art/art02.htm>. This definition bases itself on
the "functionality" of the "product". There is no doubt, in such a
case, that juggling can be considered a pure form of art. Juggling
bears no religious or political meanings that could address
"functionality".
Art is also defined (American Heritage,
<http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=art&r=67>), as the
"Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of
nature".
In this aspect, is juggling an art? Of course. It tries to challenge
and counteract the forces of nature. At the same time, it also tries
to supplement and alter them. This definition also separates juggling
from other types of "performing arts". Unlike theatre or dance, which
usually contain only one of the elements -it either tries to imitate
reality or to counteract it -, juggling contains all of these.
In addition, if art is "The conscious production or arrangement of
sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that
affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the
beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium" (ibid), than one finds that
juggling must be considered art: it combines movement, defiance of
nature (esp. gravity) and movement. Juggling has the aesthetic value,
which is the foundation of art.
These definitions are different in their level of interpretation of
art and in their focus, as the concept of art itself is controversial.
However, according to each and everyone of them, juggling is a form of
art:
(1) Subjective definition of the artist (the juggler)
(2) Lack of functionality
(3) Aesthetics
(4) Relations with nature
After establishing that juggling is actually an art form, I would like
to examine the claim that juggling is a unique, independent, form of
art. What is the difference, then, between dance that tries to do the
same and juggling?
There are two big differences. The first is history, The history of
juggling and its development is closely ties with that of performing
arts, but is a type of folk art, which was not related to the message
passed on in story-telling, dance or theatre.
The history influences the content in modern juggling. Unlike
performing arts (dance, theatre, etc.), the juggler hardly tries to
pass on a story within the creation or performance, neither does he
aim to represent hindered ideas. The composition and aesthetic of the
performance is what counts.
It should be mentioned at this point, that the borders between arts
are very much blurred in modern period. In this context, one can claim
that theatre, or dance, are also abstract, and lack any message.
Like theatre, dance or story-telling, types of juggling existed
historically in very different cultures, and were always considered
separate from the other mentioned forms of art.
Juggling is consisted upon the "The appreciation of the pattern for
what it is. The skill needed to make it happen, its form, flow and
beauty, it symmetry of lack thereof"
(<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22juggling+as+art%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3naklt%247pc%40newsbf02.news.aol.com&rnum=1>.
This focus on aesthetics, on harmony, separates it from other
performance arts.
Moreover, the rejection of juggling as a unique form of art, based on
the fact that it is a folk, popular, and entertaining art (unlike some
sort of theatre or dance), is a sort of cultural colonialism, or
elitist vision of art - which disscludes the popular from the
discipline.
Other interesting definition of art:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=Cxqy4I.7A2%40murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dart%2Bdefinition%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DCxqy4I.7A2%2540murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU%26rnum%3D1
(two different definitions. One refers to Aesthetics and is also well
grounded in academic resources, if you need ones. The other bases
itself on the historical impact of the creation - what separates art
from decoration).
Other interesting source on juggling:
Juggling, the Art and its Artists," by Karl-Heinz Ziethen and Andrew
Allen (ISBN 3-9801140-1-5)
I think that answered your question. However, if you need any more
clarifications on this answer, please contact me before you rate it. |
Request for Answer Clarification by
ochenk-ga
on
23 Aug 2002 21:37 PDT
Hi,
First off, thank you. Nicely done. Just a few questions.
Part 1, the reasoning to claim juggling as an art form, was well
done. Clear, concise. Nice.
Part 2, I'm not sure I quite followed. If I understood correctly,
point A was that dance and theater are traditionally narrative and
juggling, traditionally, is non-narrative. When theater becomes
non-narrative, if often becomes 'reclassified' as performance art. If
juggling becomes narrative, does it then become theater or dance?
Point B was that, the fact that juggling is popular, or I'm assuming
you mean accessible, does not hinder its ability to be 'artistic.' I'm
not sure how that would be considered a proof. Rather, just addressing
an anticipated counterpoint. Did I misunderstand these points?
The second part is the tougher proof, definitely. Especially, as you
say, the borders are blurring. If you feel that you would rather not
invest any more time then you have already, I understand, and will be
happy to rate the current response. (favorably, of course.)
Thanks again.
Ochen K.
Oh, and by the way, 'joggling' is not a typo. Joggling is the
combination of juggling while jogging. It's a popular juggling sport.
Not what I, personally, would consider 'artistic.'
|
