it's the same in front as it is in back

This is Steven Ragatz doing a Magritte-themed juggling act. Now, there are several things i like about this act and it also raises some interesting questions that I will get to in a second.

In a May 20th entry in his blog clownalley.net (a site i visit at least twice a day), Pat Cashin posts an entry about a conversation he was having about "New Vaudevillians" being the new Yama clowns of this generation. (To read it go to clownalley.net, click on "May" and find the entry "New Vaudeville Yamas")

A Yama clown is a hackneyed lump who sews their own costume together out of every colorful pattern they can find and slaps on some messy greasepaint and calls themselves a clown with no skill or merit backing it. The name comes from when such a person greets a legit clown, like at a circus, and says "Yeah-I'm-a-clown!" over and over. Say it fast. there you go.

and "New Vaudeville" is a wave happening nowadays where a lot of new clowns are donning classic gray pants-white button down shirt-bowler hat-silent film comedy-type outfits instead of colorful oversized classic American circus clown costumes supposedly returning to a more theatrical root. (These are also simplified explanations. don't quote me.)

The post discusses the idea that these new vaudevillians are just a recycling of the yama tradition, if you can call it that, but somewhat more pretentious to show off being historical or educated or whatever.

As someone who very much enjoys the classic look of a Chaplin or a Keaton (or David Shiner or Peter Shub) I would have to say that I identify with that look more than the classic American circus look, but I don't disagree with the assertion. I'm of the belief that talent is talent no matter how it dresses, but the two looks have two different styles so I don't know that you can directly compare the two.

Having said that, let's return to the Steven Ragatz piece. He's definitely got the Magritte icons of the guy in a suit, the bowler hat, the hat rack, etc. And on look alone this could totally qualify as a New Vaudeville thing, since the icons are not far removed and its easy to see how he decided to do it.

But one thing that I have to admire about the NV thing is that it deals in clean lines and shapes to contrast their fluid and unpredictable movements. It's almost all black and white with just a few pops of color to keep it alive, much in the way that clown makeup works, and generally simplifies the action by giving you a clear place to focus your attention.

I like this guy's act especially because he, like Magritte, keeps his frame in mind the whole time with everything he does and creates an easy picture. He also moves very deliberately, as I imagine a Magritte character would.

he's also got the music with a good bass and beat to keep it contemporary. I think it fits with what he's doing, but I think there's where you enter the realm of NV. Or as I think of it, hipster clown.

The hipster clown dresses simply, referencing different recognizable decades of styles, uses color very intentionally, either minimally or ad nauseum and mostly doesn't need you to laugh. They're ironically detached and there to educate you, not to make you happy. They don't care about you.

I don't think Steven Ragatz crosses the line, but I know plenty of clowns that do. WHY do we need clowns feeling superior?? So not the point. No matter what kind of clowning, or any kind of performing for that matter, you're doing, there's no reason to masturbate onstage.

So now add to that someone like Red Bastard.

He does what's called bouffon, which he explains as the opposite of clowning. I don't really agree that what he's doing isn't clowning, but whatever. For sake of argument, let's just call it clowning.

There's nothing symmetrical and clean about him, nothing charming or quaint. He's just weird and unsettling and lumpy. Red Bastard is all about challenging the audience, making them the butt of the joke rather than the clown and trying to show hypocrisy and paradox by pointing at it directly.

I'm all about challenging an audience and I think that can be achieved with any number of looks. In fact I think that's something for a performer to play with. Is your very appearance challenging or do you make the audience trust you, lure them in and then smack them with something?

So what am I actually saying about all this. Well, I think with any performing art there is a certain amount of history to respect, but in clowning it feels unavoidable and integral to any act you present because most likely someone else has done your act before. There have already been a staggering amount of looks and personalities and statements created for new Joeys to play with.

But I wonder about the future. Like I said, I really enjoy the clean classic "New Vaudeville" look because of its simplicity and anonymity because I like the clown as liminal shapeshifting gatekeeper of truth (hows that for a business card) more than juggler/platespinner/facepainter/etc. I'd love to see a return to that in our culture where we acknowledge the clown for what he does.

And maybe we can't achieve that the way we used to. Maybe we distrust someone dressed like that as much as we would distrust someone in a a bright orange wig with a greasy white face. Maybe we need something simple and generic to our modern and jaded eye with the total lack of inhibitions of a Red Bastard.

Maybe I shouldn't speculate on what we "need." Maybe I shouldn't shape myself as a performer or clown based on what to avoid. I've always been of the belief that you can still identify with potentially problematic labels so long as you change or expand their meaning. Maybe if I try and cater to what people need I'll just find myself trying to educate them, and they won't thank me for that.

But then who is one performing for, really? A tangent for another day.

So basically I'm not really saying anything. Just wondering. and I like Steven Ragatz's act.

in case you were wondering.

This is what jazz looks like.

It's Daniel Nagrin from his 1958 dance "Jazz: Three Ways"

One thing that's always fascinated me is the way that performers who do movement-based things relate to their clothing. What kind of frame it creates, what quality of movement it takes on, what quality of movement it gives the performer, what it adds to the character...all that. I was reading a chapter of "the body in hollywood slapstick" about the body and clothes that talked a lot about how silent comedians of the time shaped their characters with their clothes (harold lloyd's glasses, buster keaton's porkpie hat, chaplin's everything) and it was fairly interesting, but it didn't really get at what I think is interesting about it. For instance, Bert and Ernie wear vertical and horizontal stripes respectively to show that Bert is uptight and Ernie is laidback. We dressed our clowns for Noodle Doodle Box in big clothes to emphasize how small they were or small clothes to emphasize how big they were and to influence the characters' statuses.

The reason I mention all this is because in this picture of Mr. Nagrin his extremities are all twisted around facing in different directions and his jacket, with its stripes still directly facing the viewer, gives him an even more disjointed look like a toy held together with string.

I also saw this dance recently where the girl had clearly just chosen a song she liked and a dress she liked and made a lame dance with them. And I really just mention the dress because I liked it, but it didn't have anything to do with the dance. It made me mad. Because really, we can do better, people.