1. Juggling is a Unique Thing
JUGGLING -book
The main thesis I aim to put forwards with the upcoming book JUGGLING is that I believe Juggling is a unique thing. Perhaps it doesn't sound that revolutionary as a statement, but to actually believe in it, I think is rare.
I use the word ’thing', instead of 'art form', that is because I see juggling as many things, one of which is a form of art. None of the things juggling is, is in my view better than the other.
The uniqueness of juggling is displayed in the frameworks of: performing arts (in relation to other forms of arts like dance, music and theatre), motor skill action (compared to some sports and arts that require specific motor skill), business (in terms of how companies generally position themselves in relation to competition; funding and institutions) and hobby (social interaction and community within shared interest).
Although, I think juggling is a unique thing, the process of throwing it to art, sport, or any other context, I see that process trajectory comparable to many other things.
Oscar Wilde (1891) said "all art is quite useless", meaning that art is not a means to an end, but it is an end in itself. Juggling and circus, I believe, are particular things, entities in their own right. A play in a theatre, or a book, or a photograph or painting, a classical ballet, they are always of something; a photograph of a dancer, a painting of a church, a book about a person’s growth etc. Juggling or circus are not of anything really, they are. The purpose of juggling is juggling. The purpose might be different when you transform juggling into a performance or hobby, but that is another thing that has juggling in it. Juggling itself is not for anything else.
Definition, intellectualising/ transofrmation process:
A definition, as I see it, is an action in attempt to transfer the ontology, the being, of a thing to the realms of language. Languages are flexible and living things in their own, and there are groups of language users who have a similar understanding of the connotations of a particular term in particular times. Redefining, discussing and debating about particular definitions is useful, as it can bring more people in to the same understanding of a definition of a thing, it enables more precise communication of ideas regarding the thing. How specific the understanding needs to be in order to communicate the idea, varies from time to time.
Generally, words we use can and do have multiple meanings, and are still functional definitions. Depending on the idea, a broader understanding might sometimes be more useful, sometimes, a very specific particular meaning is needed. I'll try to be clear which meaning is used and when.
Thing (juggling)-> Transfer to language (definition) -> Thinking through language (communication) -> Transfer back to thing -> Thing change
The aforementioned intellectualising process has a risk, it can confuse us and merge (i.e. performance and juggling) into one, it can make us think that juggling is a utility for something else. When juggling itself is nothing more than juggling. When juggling becomes a utility, what one does with juggling, is more important than juggling.
Intellectualising process also enables comparing and putting the thing(s) in an order, a hierarchy, not only within the thing, but in a hierarchy of all other things that have been intellectualised in the same way. The process selects certain qualities of the thing, that are comparable and more easily converted into spoken or written language, for example physical skill required in any type of dance and any type of juggling.
In the context of performing arts, how juggling is communicated through language puts it in the same pool with theatre, dance and performance art. The fear I have, and I believe many of us jugglers share, is that understandings from other fields of performing arts are used to define what juggling IS, or should be when performed, which will then also influence practice of the thing outside performance.
I see us jugglers have three choices:
We do not allow language to be used at all - I think this is impossible
We say fuck'em, and let non-jugglers intellectualise juggling - this would happen, and this would redifine juggling/ circus and remove what is special about them
We do the transfer process ourselves - retaining control over the thing we believe in
The purpose of the book JUGGLING is so for to be my humble contribution to the process of what juggling is, was, and will be. I am all in for option 3!
It's a very interesting project. I can't wait to read more ! Have a great day!
Hi,
thank you for your answer.
It cleared me up some of your points.
I have no trouble of seeing juggling us a unique thing, but I still didn't get the point, how it would be differently unique than for example the handstand, you mentioned.
What I find interesting, is to understands, what makes it unique.
While waiting for the handstand tribe's answer,
from my point of view, I could define wire-dancing as a game of playing with the limits of our body-balance on a narrow surface. (I'm not engaging here with a definitive definition! Just one try out)
Making then alliance with the slack-liners, there can be found wire-walking in arts, sports, extreme sports, in some meditation practices, as a game or even in some religious rituals (Mexican Marimero's still use ritual wire-dancing in some religious celebrations!) And in any context, it would still be seen as wire-walking and not necessary art. It would have the same” essence”, the same state of body and mind, the state on perpetual movements of controlling the off balances. And it would still be seen as wire-walking even if we change the surface (walking on bottles, walking on a rope, on a wire, on stones.. on whatever that forces the body in fragile balance, fighting from falling down). And for each of us, on it's own level: there is no special physical condition required.
Question: can juggling exist without an object? Or rather, can this ANY object, be a NON object?
I also really like to think that juggling is fundamentally useless.
Still, for a useless ”thing”, juggling has been existing thousands of years. Shouldn't some kind of cultural evolution erase useless things from humanity?
Why on earth juggling still keeps existing?!! :)
But if willing to debate, there must be many advantages for body and mind, for some limited groups of people. I cant' see the difference you see with handstand, as juggling needs also body and mind abilities, as concentration, precision, some muscles and a lot of resistance to frustration.. Actually quite many abilities, that many of us doesn't have it all, as juggling still stays rather a rare phenomenon, despite it's accessibility
Maybe circus is rarely OF something, but it definitely is FROM something. I could see juggling as one branch of the big tree of object manipulation. Seeing here object manipulation as a human quality of manipulating object and tools. One of the qualities that has helped greatly the humankind to take over our planet...
For wire-dancing, the tree would be the big tree of balancing, that is also an ability, that made the human species to stand on his two feet.
I found it very interesting, that there can be found a very primordial base FROM what our very useless activities has been developed from. And as one of human qualities is the curiosity and going further (circus) , it could give an explication why these useless activities had survived in cultural evolution of humankind.