Creative juggling... where's the juggling?
David Ferman
or artistic way they seem to forget that they are a juggler. It seems
like if you take the juggling away from a juggling routine it becomes
creative or artistic. I don't understand why most of the creative,
artistic jugglers don't juggle as much in their acts. If I want to juggle
in a creative and artistic manner, should I not juggle? Should this
"creative juggling" even be considered juggling?
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
boosh
It would rather depend on you definitions of "creative" and "juggling."
http://www.jugglingdb.com/faq/index.php?question=1
Personally I would say, as long as it was interesting, I wouldn't
neccesarily have anything against it. Of course, this could inevitably
spiral into the whole "what is manipulation" debate, but plainly, I can't
really be bothered with that, so I'd just say, enjoy what you do, and
don't get so angry about what other people enjoy.
Luke
x
jimifun
i can see where you are coming from here.
most so called "creative" routines are about half dance-movement etc. now
that is a hole other kettle-of-fish. that is some you have to be bloody
good at before you have make it look good. and i assume most of these
people have had little to no dance/movement experience. this is why it
looks so poor. think about the hours of dedication it takes before it is
worth putting yourself up on stage purely juggling. the amount of work
that one would into that. the same applies to dance. people think that
just because you are not manipulating something, you are instantly good at
it. dance is a craft all its own and all these creative jugglers that
crowbar some movement into their work weakening their routine with it. i
am a lover of movement, but not when it is ghastly.
Bekah.Smith
juggler. So who cares if it's juggling or not if it's enjoyable to watch?
Maybe it's not enjoyable to you and pure juggling really is the only
thing that you like to watch. I think people are trying to be creative
and artistic to spice things up and show the audience something new, and a
lot of people really enjoy that.
Next time you see such an act, try to enjoy it simply for what it
is...rather than labeling it as juggling or not. If you still don't like
it, fine and swell. But at least maybe you'll have a better understanding
of why.
I think this is really only responding to part of your original post...but
hopefully I at least hit on a few important points.
- beKAH!
juan flores
wrote:
One artistic juggler I really enjoyed was Viktor Kee, from Cirque du
Soleil, who combined in a very artistic manner, body movements and
juggling, keeping the act a juggling act, while preserving a very high
level of juggling skills.
Regards,
Juan Flores
jordaan
I went to a lot of conventions in Europe where I saw a lot of jugglers who
combined the two flawless!!
Jordaan
krista
thatguy
can be considered juggling.
I define it as "skilled manipulation of objects in an attempt to show off".
That being said, to be good juggling, something has to fulfill one of two
requirements.
1. It must be hard.
2. It must look cool.
And it is better if they are both.
The sad thing is that many of the "artistic" jugglers fail to meet either
of these criterion.
-thatguy
Draitube
enjoy it!
Emman
3. It must look good.
Oh wait now they do.
Matthew Tiffany
David Ferman
Yes
ChaseMartin
> that is a hole other kettle-of-fish. that is some you have to be bloody
> good at before you have make it look good. and i assume most of these
> people have had little to no dance/movement experience. this is why it
> looks so poor. think about the hours of dedication it takes before it is
> worth putting yourself up on stage purely juggling. the amount of work
> that one would into that. the same applies to dance. people think that
> just because you are not manipulating something, you are instantly good at
> it. dance is a craft all its own and all these creative jugglers that
> crowbar some movement into their work weakening their routine with it. i
> am a lover of movement, but not when it is ghastly.
Some of these discussions remind me of my experience as a gymnast. In a
floor routine, dance movements are included mostly as filler in between
wicked tumbling passes. It's there to make it flow better, as opposed to
being the main spectacle. I think juggling routines should be the same way
-- the body motions only exist to provide some filler and to transition
well from one move to another.
I think Gatto really gets this, because his movements never ARE the show,
they just compliment it.
Cale.
First, how many times has this been discussed on this forum? With that in
ponderment, I think this is a prime example of people sticking too closely
to tradition. Times change, and so does music, art, fashion, and yes,
(sorry WJF) juggling. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of creative mumbo
jumbo out there does seem pretty pretentious more than anything else. With
that said, let's look at things that were originally not considered to be
'juggling', but now are accepted by the juggling community: chin balances,
head bouncing, ball spinning, etc.... wheres the juggling in that, right?
At this point it's just an argument of semantics. Let's face it,
traditional juggling as been explored to the brim. Creative work is a part
of the evolution of juggling. It doesn't take anything from it, it just
expands it. What a bland juggling community it would be if everyone
practiced siteswaps and shower variations. We need to cross breed to make
the ideal juggling specimen. Personally, I feel creative/manipulation is,
in a lot of ways, juggling's version of abstract art. Don't be afraid of
change, or you're going to be the guy sporting a mullet, wearing
Cinderella, and Winger t-shirts.
Cale.
krista
Well then as per your...example, just because something has been poorly
executed on occasion
doesn't mean the art in and of itself is flawed. Creativity is a necessary
part of growth, and though not
every idea is a success, it can still aid in the process of developing the
art. Also, there is more than
enough strict technical juggling to appease those who don't appreciate
this, as you have called it,
"creative juggling." Both sides of the spectrum are being explored, and
just because you are not
entertained by one, or don't understand one, does not make it less
enjoyable for others, or less
worthwhile an endeavor.
Eo Ipso
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yvGTfhkXtA
>
> juggling/creative creative/juggling
You always distinguish yourself by humility!
--
Ciao ciao,
Daniele
Oolongtea
moment!! take these folks for example (off the top of my head. not an
all-inclusive list by any standard!!)
http://www.youtube.com/user/michaelakaras
http://www.youtube.com/user/toneojuggle
http://www.youtube.com/user/thomwustl
Your thoughts? or does your complaint onyl deal with the jugglers who are
taking their stuff to the side of performance art instead of more 'pure'
juggling?!
Oolong
sje...@gmail.com
Krista, I just watched to 00:35 of it and had to quit. The
"pirouette" was funny, but I "got the idea" about the time he sat back
down. As for the discussion so far (in this topic) it should be noted
that it was not being done well at all. Satire is another thing that
needs to be done well too.
.
Brer Licky
Sometimes people will draw a portrait in a few minutes while you are
watching just to show off. Drawing looks cool. Drawing is Hard. You
manipulate objects to draw. Therefore Drawing is juggling.
It is cool, and gross, and show-offy, and hard, to eat a gazillion hot
dogs. It is the manipulation of objects, similar to sword swallowing.
Therefore, eating contests = juggling.
I juggling all by myself with no one watching, for my own enjoyment. Not
to show off. Therefore I do not juggle.
Matthew Tiffany
>
> On 26/05/2009 Matthew Tiffany typed:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yvGTfhkXtA
> >
> > juggling/creative creative/juggling
>
> You always distinguish yourself by humility!
>
hehe
i dont mean my video i mean the type of juggling, just because im the
one catching them doesnt mean i know what the hell is going on. some of
the tricks i do come from shapes i see when random juggling, its a good
creative process to generate new ideas.
thats all
sje...@gmail.com
> ... some of
> the tricks i do come from shapes i see when random juggling, its a good
> creative process to generate new ideas.
Tiff, I watched for a while from your link, and felt that you did not
seem to "know what the hell is going on" but were able to do it
anyway. Amazing, to me. You did a quadplex in there at one point.
Do you in fact watch such videos and then pick out something to work
on? That would be a great aid for anyone trying to come up with new
things, seems to me, and knowing who else is doing that, with examples
of such patterns, should be very interesting. Do tell?
There is also a short vid from Wes called "Just act like you meant to
do it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-VFG4-hGJE
which may be a compilation of accidents made into distinctive
tricks.
.
.
sje...@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P11ObYzYY8
and would consider that a prime example of "creativity" that David is
saying would lack "juggling". If David and others cannot find any
juggling in there, that is their loss imo. That man can man-ip-u-
late! And don't no body else do quite what he do. Yet. But he has
generated a lot of followers trying to too. What else would
creativity be, and what's wrong with it being that?
.
Steven Ragatz
To me the problem isn't about the creativity, or content of juggling in an
idea that is developed through improvisation and experimentation, but
rather the lack of conviction to follow through and develop the idea to
the point where it should be shared with others. Clever (creative?) ideas
are easy. Learning a few `proof of concept` moves takes a little more
work. Actually exploring the idea to completion takes more work than most
people are willing to devote. And then, after THAT, you have to take the
idea's vocabulary and sythesize it into a performable act.
The Internet had spawned a look-at-me video craze that is pushing jugglers
to post footage of material that is creative, innovative, but under
developed.
I think the concept posted in this thread as an example of `creative with
no juggling` (rolling balls on a moving conveyor belt) is a perfectly good
concept. I, myself, have performed a juggling/manipulation act on a
conveyor belt. What was demonstrated in the video footage was a good
first step, but just that, a first step. If it were my routine, what was
posted is nothing that I would have made public. There are many months of
work still left to be done on that idea before the creative part starts to
show through. It is that part of the work process that eludes most hobby
jugglers and produces these routines that claim to be artistic, but lack
any real content, or any interest beyond an academic one.
Oh yes, and sometimes there is juggling as well, but not always. Just
because thinks it should be done a certain way doesn't mean that the
performer should answer to it the way the audience expects.
Steven Ragatz (no English spell-check on a foreign keyboard.)
jimifun
good point well made.
Reeses2150
>
> > most so called "creative" routines are about half dance-movement etc. now
> > that is a hole other kettle-of-fish. that is some you have to be bloody
> > good at before you have make it look good. and i assume most of these
> > people have had little to no dance/movement experience. this is why it
> > looks so poor. think about the hours of dedication it takes before it is
> > worth putting yourself up on stage purely juggling. the amount of work
> > that one would into that. the same applies to dance. people think that
> > just because you are not manipulating something, you are instantly good at
> > it. dance is a craft all its own and all these creative jugglers that
> > crowbar some movement into their work weakening their routine with it. i
> > am a lover of movement, but not when it is ghastly.
>
> Some of these discussions remind me of my experience as a gymnast. In a
> floor routine, dance movements are included mostly as filler in between
> wicked tumbling passes. It's there to make it flow better, as opposed to
> being the main spectacle. I think juggling routines should be the same way
Now that absolutely sums up what I was going to make a massive rant about
very elegantly. I don't have anything against dance-juggling, unless it's
more about the dancing than the juggling. The idea of juggling is having
complete control over a given number of objects in the air, not about
controlling your body movements. When you do add controlling your body
into the mix, it's a bonus. I know all the WJF hater will get on me about
this, but dance juggling and not moving your body in a WJF competition are
essentially the same idea.
In a WJF competition, you will get exactly ZERO points if you just go up,
do a five object cascade, completely still without moving your
feet/shoulders/face/anything. You have shown that you have total control
over your body, but that's not the idea, the whole idea is to be able to
JUGGLE well, and you only lose points if you don't have control over your
body.
Same thing when performing in dance juggling, or even just performing
juggling in general. I watch Gatto's Kooza routine (essentially his
normal routine, just slightly modified) and I notice that he's not moving
any more than he has to to accent the trick. When he does his 3 club
alberts, he doesn't sway his body (I mean his style isn't a body swaying
style, but he doesn't intentionally sway his body when he could be doing
that), he just moves his head from side to side to spot each club. His 5
ball half shower right at the beginning, he shimmies to the side, but his
head and arms never go anything, it's just his legs shifting around to
move his body in the opposite direction to the half shower. He does this
very well.
popstar_dave
>
> David Ferman wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me like when a juggler starts trying to juggle in a creative
> > or artistic way they seem to forget that they are a juggler. It seems
> > like if you take the juggling away from a juggling routine it becomes
> > creative or artistic. I don't understand why most of the creative,
> > artistic jugglers don't juggle as much in their acts. If I want to juggle
> > in a creative and artistic manner, should I not juggle? Should this
> > "creative juggling" even be considered juggling?
> >
>
> First, how many times has this been discussed on this forum? With that in
> ponderment, I think this is a prime example of people sticking too closely
> to tradition.
Cale,
I don't think that was the issue that David had originally. The way I
took his argument was not that "creative juggling" shouldn't be considered
'juggling' because it differs from what one classifies as 'juggling'; but
rather that it sometimes seems that "creative juggling" has formed into a
category of its own, and a lot of the juggling that is being classed as
'creative' is very similar - rather than being distinct and eclectic, as
the 'creative' moniker would seem to imply.
I've noticed this phenomenon, as have others. There's been talk in the
past of the "club manipulation" style of juggling, where clubs are rolled
around the body, with very little of the text-book "throwing and catching"
that fits the old 'juggling' definition. I'm not suggesting that this
style of juggling should not be considered as such, but rather that this
has become a standard avenue for pursuing 'creative juggling'.
I know that this doesn't cover everybody pushing the 'creative' boundaries
of juggling. But I'm curious as to why it has become the case that a lot
of jugglers looking to go down the 'creative' avenue of juggling take on
this style, in much the same way that a lot of jugglers going down the
'technical' avenue of juggling start with a push towards siteswaps and
pirouettes.
Just my thoughts.
Cheers,
Dave
Reeses2150
>
> i think there are plenty of creative technical jugglers out there at the
> moment!! take these folks for example (off the top of my head. not an
> all-inclusive list by any standard!!)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/michaelakaras
> http://www.youtube.com/user/toneojuggle
> http://www.youtube.com/user/thomwustl
>
> Your thoughts? or does your complaint onyl deal with the jugglers who are
> taking their stuff to the side of performance art instead of more 'pure'
> juggling?!
>
> Oolong
>
>
>
I don't want to put words in Dave's mouth, but I think the answer is yes.
The idea and the problem, at least from what my point of view is on this
topic, is about the "jugglers" out there that are doing nothing but body
rolls, scissor catches, and swaying clubs from side to side while dancing
and performing a ten minute act where an actual juggling pattern exists
for less than a minute.
Reeses2150
something I noticed was he shot you down, but didn't build back up again.
So I quote dictionary.com's definition of juggling:
jug⋅gle - Show Spelled [juhg-uhl]
�verb (used with object)
1.to keep (several objects, as balls, plates, tenpins, or knives) in
continuous motion in the air simultaneously by tossing and catching.
This has been, and always will be my definition of what juggling is and
isn't, and what I think is the TRUE definition of juggling, no matter what
other forms of manipulation become popular in this subculture. What
something is doesn't change just because of trends or innovations or
whatever.
The definition of what a Phone is hasn't changed just because someone
invented cell phones and VOIP. The definition of computer hasn't changed
just because someone invented laptops and PDA's. So why should the
definition of juggling change just because a bunch of gys decided to start
rlling clubs around their bodies and do nothing but scissor catches?
MonkeyJuggler
> The idea of juggling is having
> complete control over a given number of objects in the air, not about
> controlling your body movements.
Wow.
Matthew Tiffany
i never watch stuff back, decide if i like it and learn it. i usually stop
the random juggling and concentrate on that one move, i also find that i
repeat random moves randomly without knowing, this i did learn from the
vid i just made.
i think you can make it as random or as normal as you like with any aspect
of juggling that you can do
the throws can roughly follow a basic pattern with a little variation in
height and rhythm to form some interesting things all the way upto
absolutly no sense of pattern whatsoever. i also use techniques to
catagorise random juggling. do it within mills mess; with single throws or
multiplex; only single throws and duplex; turning round as you juggle at
different speeds. limit yourself to certain factors then give it a go,
then after you have tried a few factors join them together, either one
after another or both together.
ill put some of the tricks ive found tiffty 3 when i get round to makin
the thing. also theres a couple in bedroom tricks 2, flat 3 ball
multiplex's etc
tiff
dawndream
Good points & well made, but I have to interject that many of the videos
are simply concept films as well. Not performances as much as a ping-pong
game, like a giant community juggling club. "Hey I have this idea" "Oh I
was working on this similar idea". To me I see some videos as a
conversation rather than performance, as technology has gotten to the
point where I speak to my family through video chats & send them what I am
doing through video. It's become a casual medium and it's being treated
that way.
Also, I want to point out that as a contact juggler there were a lot of
politics surrounding our discipline in the juggling world. We were
specifically told to change our form & make it different than Mr. Moschens
for good reason. Some people really went out of their way to do just that
in the contact juggling scene as much as they could (and encouraged others
to do so). This may have had some influence on arty juggling, but I
couldn't say for sure. I have seen it change the contact juggling scene
and we were having the "Things are changing" argument there 3 years ago.
Yet, our community loves the 'art' of contact juggling, but are required
to push the boundaries to attempt to create something outside of the first
20 years contact juggling which was only a repeat of Light (as much of it
still can be, but with body popping & body rolls as more of the community
focus)
Now we get things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auiD1vZAvV8
which is pretty hard & cool, but he rarely lets go of his ball. He is
showing a fully fleshed concept about spirals around the arms & around his
body with sticks and clubs and all sorts of neat spirals, but I still
believe this is part of a long conversation through videos (mostly spread
through contactjuggling.org) as it is casual.
each person has an individual perspective on what they enjoy watching.
Personally I really love that video I just posted, and get pretty bored
watching numbers juggling unless its broken down with other
dance/acrobatics movements or comedy in between. I am sure many of you are
the other way around. To each their own. These come in waves of
popularity. I am sure this is a phase, like all things in life, it will
ebb and flow. Ride the wave! ;)
Draitube
in terms of dictating how juggle *should* be.
Blah, I don't really have an opinion on this matter, do what you wanna do!
J
Adrian Pole
> 1.to keep (several objects, as balls, plates, *tenpins*, or knives) in
> continuous motion in the air simultaneously by tossing and catching.
>
>
> This has been, and always will be my definition of what juggling is and
> isn't
you call clubs tenpins?
low dude, low. ;-)
Steven Ragatz
>
> Good points & well made, but I have to interject that many of the videos
> are simply concept films as well. Not performances as much as a ping-pong
> game, like a giant community juggling club. "Hey I have this idea" "Oh I
> was working on this similar idea". To me I see some videos as a
> conversation rather than performance, as technology has gotten to the
> point where I speak to my family through video chats & send them what I am
> doing through video. It's become a casual medium and it's being treated
> that way.
You can think of it that way, but the reality is that by posting that
video online in that way you've posted it to the entire world. There are
plenty of ways to privately share unfinished work with peers to answer to
your community juggling club needs. Public publication is a statement to
everyone. A statement that mostly says 'show off'.
> Also, I want to point out that as a contact juggler there were a lot of
> politics surrounding our discipline in the juggling world. We were
> specifically told to change our form & make it different than Mr. Moschens
> for good reason. Some people really went out of their way to do just that
> in the contact juggling scene as much as they could (and encouraged others
> to do so). This may have had some influence on arty juggling, but I
> couldn't say for sure. I have seen it change the contact juggling scene
> and we were having the "Things are changing" argument there 3 years ago.
> Yet, our community loves the 'art' of contact juggling, but are required
> to push the boundaries to attempt to create something outside of the first
> 20 years contact juggling which was only a repeat of Light (as much of it
> still can be, but with body popping & body rolls as more of the community
> focus)
> Now we get things like this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auiD1vZAvV8
You see "Open Wide" as an example that supports your argument, whereas I
see it as one that supports mine. Yes, there are a couple of very nice
tricks in the video, but it is nothing more than an archive of a technique
vocabulary. There is no synthesis, no routine and no act. This video is
just a guy showing off a single class of move that he's found. Granted,
it is a very cool move, but that one move isn't enough to justify a
performance (or a publicly shared video IMO.)
>
> which is pretty hard & cool, but he rarely lets go of his ball. He is
> showing a fully fleshed concept about spirals around the arms & around his
> body with sticks and clubs and all sorts of neat spirals, but I still
> believe this is part of a long conversation through videos (mostly spread
> through contactjuggling.org) as it is casual.
I disagree about the 'fully fleshed concept'. This footage represents
something that is about 20% done. He is doing good work, but doesn't yet
really understand the scope of what is involved to write and perform the
act that deserves that technique.
He is not wrong! Based on what I see in that single video, he has not
developed the material to the point where he can present it to the public
and expect them to be anything but put off and bored.
> each person has an individual perspective on what they enjoy watching.
> Personally I really love that video I just posted, and get pretty bored
> watching numbers juggling unless its broken down with other
> dance/acrobatics movements or comedy in between. I am sure many of you are
> the other way around. To each their own. These come in waves of
> popularity. I am sure this is a phase, like all things in life, it will
> ebb and flow. Ride the wave! ;)
>
You are correct. I would simply challenge you, everyone else, as well as
myself, to make a stronger commitment to develop the material well past
that point. We need to really discover the depths of a technique to find
the subsequent act. When you get to that level, then you can do 'creative
juggling' that may, or may not, have actual juggling in it, but will be
compelling and hold the audience's attention and exceed their expectations.
Steven Ragatz
Brer Licky
I was just trying to humorously point out that the definition wasn't
useful. Your dictionary definition isn't bad. . . not everything we
enjoy doing has to be called "juggling".
Reeses2150 wrote:
>
> I love Brer's examples, and I could not think of a better retort, but
> something I noticed was he shot you down, but didn't build back up again.
> So I quote dictionary.com's definition of juggling:
>
>
> jug⋅gle - Show Spelled [juhg-uhl]
> –verb (used with object)
jimifun
>
>
>
>
> It is cool, and gross, and show-offy, and hard, to eat a gazillion hot
> dogs. It is the manipulation of objects, similar to sword swallowing.
> Therefore, eating contests = juggling.
>
>
>
i love your use of the false syllogism.
here are some more that should be made into a t-shirt.
-sometimes i get cross. i have a back. therefore i can backcross
-i own a mill. my life is a mess. therefore...
i am out of ideas. someone make up some more.
rhalf
>
> It seems to me like when a juggler starts trying to juggle in a creative
> or artistic way they seem to forget that they are a juggler. It seems
> like if you take the juggling away from a juggling routine it becomes
> creative or artistic. I don't understand why most of the creative,
> artistic jugglers don't juggle as much in their acts. If I want to juggle
> in a creative and artistic manner, should I not juggle? Should this
> "creative juggling" even be considered juggling?
>
You're young. You don't need to understand everything.
pumpkineater23
Heed the advice you give to others.
ChaseMartin
Agreed. My definition of juggling is manipulating more objects than there
are hands by throwing and catching them. Now that's not to say that I
don't welcome plate spinning folk at our club. I just don't consider them
to be juggling :)
David Ferman
That's what I was talking about. I forgot to specify enough. I was
talking about how people try to juggle creatively with these clubs
routines that barely involve throwing props in the air, but mostly involve
the rolling around the body, excessive scissor catches, excessive pauses,
rolling clubs on the ground, etc. I think it looks cool but too many
people are trying to be creative in the same way. This makes it
uncreative and repetitive. It has almost become a standard for creative
juggling which seems to be paradoxical...
popstar_dave
>
> The definition of computer hasn't changed
> just because someone invented laptops and PDA's. So why should the
> definition of juggling change just because a bunch of gys decided to start
> rlling clubs around their bodies and do nothing but scissor catches?
Of course the definition of a 'computer' has changed. Originally, a
'computer' was an actual person employed to compute or calculate things.
Universities and businesses used to employ rooms of of people to perform
data analysis and calculations, in the days before Microsoft Excel. The
first machines that could do these tasks were (almost jokingly) referred
to as 'mechanical computers'.
Dave
rhalf
>
> You're young. You don't need to understand everything.
>
>
>
> Heed the advice you give to others.
>
>
>
That's my credo. I won't hesitate telling it to others after living my
youth by these words.
pumpkineater23
>
> pumpkineater23 wrote:
> >
> > You're young. You don't need to understand everything.
> >
> >
> >
> > Heed the advice you give to others.
> >
> >
> >
>
> That's my credo. I won't hesitate telling it to others after living my
> youth by these words.
>
Action speaks louder than words. Try to be a little more self aware.
Little Paul
>
> I think it looks cool but too many people are trying to be creative in
> the same way. This makes it uncreative and repetitive. It has almost
> become a standard for creative juggling which seems to be paradoxical...
How many of these "uncreative and repetitive" acts describe themselves
as creative jugglers? How many of them actually go through any form
of creative exploration process?
The reason I ask is that these days it seems anyone who is not a "sports
juggler" gets branded as a "creative juggler" - even if what they're doing
is massively derivative and they themselves have made very little creative
input (beyond making choices about what to learn)
The "it's not sports juggling, therefore it must be creative juggling"
thinking is massivley flawed - juggling just isn't as simple as that.
I think there are a large group of jugglers who aren't sports jugglers,
who aren't really creative jugglers either. I think this group is the
main focus of a lot of this thread - but they're really just poorly named.
I shall propose that we call them "filthy manipulators" to clear up
any confusion.
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
JugglerPeter
>
> It seems to me like when a juggler starts trying to juggle in a creative
> or artistic way they seem to forget that they are a juggler. It seems
> like if you take the juggling away from a juggling routine it becomes
> creative or artistic. I don't understand why most of the creative,
> artistic jugglers don't juggle as much in their acts. If I want to juggle
> in a creative and artistic manner, should I not juggle? Should this
> "creative juggling" even be considered juggling?
>
How has Greg Kennedy not been mentioned yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDAf_lg9Xs
ian smith
Speak for yourself, mate! I'm no "filthy manipulator", I am a civilised
gentleman who is inspired by European Circus tradition from the early 20th
C. onwards.
rhalf
>
> rhalf wrote:
> >
> > pumpkineater23 wrote:
> > >
> > > You're young. You don't need to understand everything.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Heed the advice you give to others.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's my credo. I won't hesitate telling it to others after living my
> > youth by these words.
> >
>
> Action speaks louder than words. Try to be a little more self aware.
>
Want to change the world? Begin with yourself.
pumpkineater23
You're doing it again - it's in the advice you so readily give to other
people that you will find the things you most need to learn.
Draitube
> That's what I was talking about. I forgot to specify enough. I was
> talking about how people try to juggle creatively with these clubs
> routines that barely involve throwing props in the air, but mostly involve
> the rolling around the body, excessive scissor catches, excessive pauses,
> rolling clubs on the ground, etc. I think it looks cool but too many
> people are trying to be creative in the same way. This makes it
> uncreative and repetitive. It has almost become a standard for creative
> juggling which seems to be paradoxical...
>
I have nothing good to say, so I'll bring this up.
Your view of "creative juggling" doesn't make it "paradoxical". A paradox
is something that can't occur, and what you're saying isn't that creative
juggling is paradoxical, more that creative juggling isn't creative.
The charming and charismatic Jason!!
Guy G
Many hands make light work.
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
Any friend of yours is a friend of mine.
There's no place like home.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Common sense is anything but common.
Guy
--
Joining in
rhalf
Sorry for not commenting on this.
What I don't understand, don't need to understand and don't want to
understand
is how can somebody get so mad because somebody else wrote his videos are
boring despite good tricks. Maybe you want to tell me, but I don't care
what is so unacceptably sore in criticism that you had to delete this
comment, wrote impolite e-mails, tell me not to comment on your videos,
block my account and after 8 months when I've already forgot about your
existance I read lines wrote in a familliar authoritarian manner.
I'm not sure whether youre troglodite or psycho. Nevertheless I hope
you'll someday learn what my advice really means.
pumpkineater23
Don't get your knickers in a twist. You leave insulting comments with no
substance and you put down new jugglers. You seem to think you are some
kind of wise man juggling world authority - you're just being a show off
and a bully.
edward
both of you shut up :p .. or email each other personally, It's embarassing
to read this.
rhalf
Good to know.
rhalf
Yeah I know, that's just another unnecessary argument. Sorry for this guys.
Emman
How is David a "new" juggler?
Maybe a young juggler but definatly not a new juggler.
Emman
pumpkineater23
Bursting your bubble was a necessity. A big sorry to everyone else.
rhalf
Well, I actually want to apologise you for writing all of this though.
Conflicts are missunderstandings.
David Ferman
>
> >
> > That's what I was talking about. I forgot to specify enough. I was
> > talking about how people try to juggle creatively with these clubs
> > routines that barely involve throwing props in the air, but mostly involve
> > the rolling around the body, excessive scissor catches, excessive pauses,
> > rolling clubs on the ground, etc. I think it looks cool but too many
> > people are trying to be creative in the same way. This makes it
> > uncreative and repetitive.
> >
>
> Your view of "creative juggling" doesn't make it "paradoxical". A paradox
> is something that can't occur, and what you're saying isn't that creative
> juggling is paradoxical, more that creative juggling isn't creative.
>
> The charming and charismatic Jason!!
>
I said "It has almost become a standard for creative
juggling which seems to be paradoxical..." It's not the creative juggling
which is the paradox. It is that it is a standard for creative juggling
is. A standard is like a common basis so for creative juggling to have a
standard would be impossible because that would make it uncreative.
jimifun
> >
>
> both of you shut up :p ..
don't shut them up! i love a good fight. please keep going.
i could start you off again. you are both smelly.
jimifun
Dave Tayleur
>
> Since when did WJF become the juggling bible? WJF rules hardly go very far
> in terms of dictating how juggle *should* be.
>
They aren't, and also the WJF seem to love dancing in their juggling
anyway - can't remember the last time i saw a WJF routine that didn't have
pirouettes plastered all over it.
Dave
KooKie
>
>
>
> i could start you off again. you are both smelly.
>
>
:O
Kim
RyanM
Hi Dave. Good thread!
David Ferman wrote:
>
> It seems to me like when a juggler starts trying to juggle in a creative
> or artistic way they seem to forget that they are a juggler. It seems
> like if you take the juggling away from a juggling routine it becomes
> creative or artistic.
Well... yes. Sort of. If by juggling you mean 'throwing and catching stuff
in nice patterns' ; then yes; by avoiding these patterns a juggler has to
find creative ideas for how do manipulate their props without throwing by
using dance or other elements to communicate their ideas. I don't know
that this is necessarily creative or artistic (its easy to find a million
club manipulation variations by watching a buncha youtube videos and
ripping them off) but certainly to an uneducated audience it can be
perceived as creative and artistic because it goes against their
impression of what a 'juggling act' is and asks them to re-think how they
define juggling.
I don't know that creative jugglers 'forget' that they are jugglers
though. Often the jugglers that move towards manipulation do so after
learning some fundamentals of juggling theory and then they try to apply
this theory to other manipulations. The basic elements of dynamic and
shape are usually maintained in 'artistic juggling' acts, but patterns and
repetition are usually replaced by flow and musicality. Good art jugglers
are the ones that have a solid foundation in standard juggling technique;
good technique leads to good expression. An educated viewer can tell if a
juggler has a solid 5 ball pattern based on the way they throw one ball in
the air. They don't 'need' to stand on stage and juggle 5 balls for a long
time just to show the audience that they can do it; they have the control,
the audience can sense it, and they use their base of technique to create
unique effects rather than juggling standard patterns.
I don't understand why most of the creative,
> artistic jugglers don't juggle as much in their acts.
Simply put; its because they are interested in different things. Rather
than keeping complex patterns in the air, they are focused on the way a
club rolls or the illusions that can be created with a ball, etc. Often
they see the 'magic' of juggling in these areas of manipulation techniques
rather than in juggling standards.
If I want to juggle
> in a creative and artistic manner, should I not juggle?
Basically, yes. You should not do anything that you consider to be
'juggling'. You have to find something else to work on.
At the same time; no. Before you can create something, you need technique.
Juggling is a great way of learning technique and the more you develop
your juggling skills, the more tools you will have to work with when you
decide to become a creative juggler (or creative non-juggler). The more
you learn about juggling, the more tools you will have when you decide to
explore manipulation.
Should this
> "creative juggling" even be considered juggling?
>
Umm... <thinks about this for a while>
For the purposes of this specific thread and taking into consideration
your point of view; probably not. You should just categorize all the
videos you see of 'creative juggling' into a 'wanky stuff I dont
understand yet' category until you are ready to accept it as part of
juggling. Which is isn't. Or is it?
Great discussion BTW; really enjoying seeing everyone's point of view on
the subject.
Ryan
On a side note; I am horrified by Steven Ragatz's comment (in response to
dawndream) about how most juggling enthusiasts should not be releasing
videos for public consumption. While I understand that his own need to
monitor his media (because he is maintaining a 'professional' image and
his media is linked to his income/corporate identity; he wants to keep the
quality high) I can't understand how he would want anyone else to follow
this mentality. This community thrives on the free exchange of ideas and
often the best tool for communication of these ideas is internet video. To
suggest that this should be a closed circle; that the general public
should not be allowed access to the wealth of creative and inspiring ideas
that are being release everyday on youtube by 'show-off' jugglers (his
words, not mine) is shameful. It makes me wonder who he thinks the
'general public' actually is? To all jugglers; if you have something that
excites you; inspires you and you've worked hard on; share it with
everyone else regardless of whether the idea is complete. And if you see
something you like in a youtube video; learn it. That is how juggling will
grow; the past 20 years have seen huge developments in juggling and it is
because we are now so much more connected.
On a personal note: I've been a professional juggler for nearly 8 years
and I have zero interest in numbers juggling. I skip through videos as
soon as someone throws up 5 balls of more; trolling through them for the
funky variations and flowy sequences that I've grown to love. 3, 2 and 1
ball have given me enough to work on for a lifetime and I am endlessly
facinated by the possibilities. Marco Paoletti once told me he would give
up 9 and 10 balls to be able to roll a ball around in his hands with the
same control that I have. How do you make sense of that, Dave?
_mcp_
janjongleer
About the 'creative juggling or not juggling' part i think the debate is
based
on a 'how can i define and judge the juggling i see' longing. Maybe
there's no
need to judge at all. Creativity has to go along with quality ofcourse (as
David also said i think).
On a side note; creativity is in this topic as good as allways related to
concepts. It's my experience concepts are more an obstacle to creativity.
When
i write a song on my guitar and i use a concept (like the song technique
from a
song i liked)it rarely becomes creative. A concept closes the room or
space to
other possibilitys.
The wes peden 2 club video i think is amazing btw.
many greetz
jan
Eo Ipso
>
> Marco Paoletti once told me he would give up
> 9 and 10 balls to be able to roll a ball around
> in his hands with the same control that I have.
> How do you make sense of that, Dave?
Marco is a pro now, and 9 or 10 balls are not the
cleverest choice for an exhibition, in term of
spectators' response and, above all, hours of
training... Jenny Jaeger /docet/.
--
Ciao ciao,
Daniele
Marden117
rhalf
So who was first?
Steven Ragatz
the cuff a bit. Truth be known? I make it up as I go...
RyanM wrote:
>
> ...
> On a side note; I am horrified by Steven Ragatz's comment (in response to
> dawndream) about how most juggling enthusiasts should not be releasing
> videos for public consumption. While I understand that his own need to
> monitor his media (because he is maintaining a 'professional' image and
> his media is linked to his income/corporate identity; he wants to keep the
> quality high) I can't understand how he would want anyone else to follow
> this mentality. This community thrives on the free exchange of ideas and
> often the best tool for communication of these ideas is internet video. To
> suggest that this should be a closed circle; that the general public
> should not be allowed access to the wealth of creative and inspiring ideas
> that are being release everyday on youtube by 'show-off' jugglers (his
> words, not mine) is shameful. It makes me wonder who he thinks the
> 'general public' actually is? To all jugglers; if you have something that
> excites you; inspires you and you've worked hard on; share it with
> everyone else regardless of whether the idea is complete. And if you see
> something you like in a youtube video; learn it. That is how juggling will
> grow; the past 20 years have seen huge developments in juggling and it is
> because we are now so much more connected.
Horrified??? Well, lets keep some perspective, eh?
You see the normalization and completely free distribution of knowledge as
a benefit to creative juggling. I see the exact opposite. If I want to
be creative, and develop unique material, I don't go looking for tricks
from other jugglers. In fact, I do just the opposite. If I've seen it
before, it's off limits, not because of ownership or plagiarism, but
because chances are it's spoiled for me. Why create an act it if it has
been done before? Why be a copy, or even worse, a copy of a copy?
Share! But if you want to share, share with me something worthy of
sharing. I don't WANT to see it when it looks like shit! Do the work,
find the pride, invest in your act, THEN show it to the world. I want to
have that wonderful moment where I start talking to the computer screen
saying things like "cool", "no way!", "why didn't I think of that?!?!"
(Yes, if I'm working on the act with you, then I do have to see it during
the creation phase! But if I'm just going to be an audience member, I
don't want to lose the magic of seeing the finished version for the first
time.)
Most of you guys don't know the real impact of seeing Michael Moschen's
crystal ball routine live back in 1983. I saw it when he was doing
Foolsfire, but most importantly, I had NEVER seen crystal ball
manipulation before that! It was SUCH a powerful moment! Abso-fucking
magic.
Now days, I see guys doing palm rolls with crystal balls in front of the
cars before the traffic light turns green. If I were to see Moschen's
crystal ball for the first time today, it would have much less impact.
The routine is still the same good, creative and inspired act, but because
of the association with lesser copies, and the loss of novelty, I am quite
sure that it wouldn't have the same power for me.
Remember, if a video is posted that looks like shit, even though the video
might have potential, it is still shit!
Anyway, the hard part of this work is the part that very few jugglers
actually do. Ideas are easy! The hard part is taking the time and effort
to REALIZE the ideas! Trick vocabulary is only one part of an act or
routine. Any juggling monkey can learn tricks, then string them together
in an ambiguous order and post a video online. The only thing anyone
needs to do this is time. Tricks alone just don't interest me. Ideas
alone don't interest me. I want to see the next phase of the work. Show
me the hard part. Show me the craft. Show me inspiration, dedication and
passion. Don't just give me the Reader's Digest version by telling me
what the act might look like � I want to see the real thing.
How many times have you seen a preview for a movie and felt that it had
just ruined it for you?
You ask who is the audience? When you post it publicly online, your
audience is the world!
I get the need for "community", but if you're looking for peer support,
then go show your half-baked ideas to a select few whose critique and
opinions you trust. Surround yourself with some people who are going to
take care of you while you work through the new material. These are the
people who you are not trying to impress. You are not wanting to
entertain them, you simply need to include them into your creative process
and allow them to reflect what they see so that you can find your path.
Cultivate these associations and let them guide your work, but don't
expect that from the general public, and certainly NOT from the friggin'
Internet public!
I would say "To all jugglers; if you have something that excites you;
inspires you and you've worked hard on..." take it all the way! Have
faith in your ability as a creator, artist and performer. Give it your
best shot and take the real risk. "Real Risk?" Yeah, risk! It is scary
as shit to put together a juggling act and work it so long that you
present it into a world market (live or online). You actually have to
practice, train, work and rework the same routine over and over until you
get to the point where you admit that it really IS your BEST work. That's
it! It doesn't get any better. No excuses. The audience has to like it
or leave it.
I hate that feeling, and I get it just about every show.
You don't think I understand what you are saying, but I do. Writing about
this is my way of trying to make a contribution to the community. A
little tough-love may be just what some of those non-juggling creative
jugglers need!
Steven Ragatz
tomterm8
>
> OK gang - don't take this too personally. I'm just firing this one off
> the cuff a bit. Truth be known? I make it up as I go...
> Anyway, the hard part of this work is the part that very few jugglers
> actually do. Ideas are easy! The hard part is taking the time and effort
> to REALIZE the ideas! Trick vocabulary is only one part of an act or
> routine. Any juggling monkey can learn tricks, then string them together
> in an ambiguous order and post a video online. The only thing anyone
> needs to do this is time. Tricks alone just don't interest me. Ideas
> alone don't interest me. I want to see the next phase of the work. Show
> me the hard part. Show me the craft. Show me inspiration, dedication and
> passion. Don't just give me the Reader's Digest version by telling me
> what the act might look like � I want to see the real thing.
>
..
> Steven Ragatz
>
Steven Ragatz thanks for this. As an amateur, the craft phase is the bit
of juggling that I struggle with the most... understanding what it takes
to go from a collection of tricks to a routine that people enjoy. And
knowing how to do it. Learning tricks is the easiest part of juggling, and
in some ways the least scary part of the equation. It is very tempting
just to continue learning tricks forever, while never actually getting to
the bit where you develop entertaining routines.
Maybe the people who post on youtube are like me�
It seems to me that generating a routine � what you call synthesis - is
the hardest part of juggling. It also seems to be the part where there is
least advice. There are many tutorials on various tricks, but no one seems
to say much about how to entertain a crowd.
So I�m going to go completely off topic and ask you how you go beyond the
trick stage, to develop a routine that is actually worth performing.
Aymeric
>
> Steven Ragatz wrote:
> >
> > OK gang - don't take this too personally. I'm just firing this one off
> > the cuff a bit. Truth be known? I make it up as I go...
> ...
>
> > Anyway, the hard part of this work is the part that very few jugglers
> > actually do. Ideas are easy! The hard part is taking the time and effort
> > to REALIZE the ideas! Trick vocabulary is only one part of an act or
> > routine. Any juggling monkey can learn tricks, then string them together
> > in an ambiguous order and post a video online. The only thing anyone
> > needs to do this is time. Tricks alone just don't interest me. Ideas
> > alone don't interest me. I want to see the next phase of the work. Show
> > me the hard part. Show me the craft. Show me inspiration, dedication and
> > passion. Don't just give me the Reader's Digest version by telling me
> >
> ..
> > Steven Ragatz
> >
>
> Steven Ragatz thanks for this. As an amateur, the craft phase is the bit
> of juggling that I struggle with the most... understanding what it takes
> to go from a collection of tricks to a routine that people enjoy. And
> knowing how to do it. Learning tricks is the easiest part of juggling, and
> in some ways the least scary part of the equation. It is very tempting
> just to continue learning tricks forever, while never actually getting to
> the bit where you develop entertaining routines.
>
>
> It seems to me that generating a routine – what you call synthesis - is
> the hardest part of juggling. It also seems to be the part where there is
> least advice. There are many tutorials on various tricks, but no one seems
> to say much about how to entertain a crowd.
>
the
> trick stage, to develop a routine that is actually worth performing.
>
>
Steve has already written a whole bunch about this, among others:
http://www.jugglingdb.com/compendium/performing/creatinganact/anewroutine.html
Others have too, there are plenty of useful advice to get from:
http://www.jugglingdb.com/compendium/performing/creatinganact/
But I think I have to emphasize that not everybody aspires to being able
to make a routine and become a performer.
I do agree with you Steve that there are a lot of crappy videos around
(particularly on youtube), but please accept that for many people, this is
still 'just a hobby' and maybe many don't really feel the need for
developing something that is original or creative or entertaining in your
sense.
Aymeric.
Drew_Ministry
>
> It seems to me like when a juggler starts trying to juggle in a creative
> or artistic way they seem to forget that they are a juggler. It seems
> like if you take the juggling away from a juggling routine it becomes
> creative or artistic. I don't understand why most of the creative,
> artistic jugglers don't juggle as much in their acts. If I want to juggle
> in a creative and artistic manner, should I not juggle? Should this
> "creative juggling" even be considered juggling?
>
I see amongst some jugglers, there is often an obsession with "Novelty" of
tricks, and a tendency to prize "novelty" above "beauty".
Novelty is very different from "Creativity".
So here's a clip to add to the debate.
The choreography is new, the music and the moves (tricks) on the other
hand, are all very authentic 1930-40's Lindy Hop.
The performance ...Outstanding.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IB1CR2aRcE&feature=channel_page
edward
where's the juggling?
Steven Ragatz
> the hardest part of juggling. It also seems to be the part where there is
> least advice. There are many tutorials on various tricks, but no one seems
> to say much about how to entertain a crowd.
>
> So I�m going to go completely off topic and ask you how you go beyond the
> trick stage, to develop a routine that is actually worth performing.
Lots of folks here don't aspire to ever put together an act or ever
perform. I would argue that posting videos of yourself online as well as
doing recreational shows at juggling festivals are both forms of
performance that would interest the rec.juggling hobby jugglers. I'm
assuming that anyone who puts their work out there for public consumption
wants it to be as well regarded as possible.
Making the jump from just doing tricks to doing an act is a big one!
There are as many different ways to go about that process as there are
jugglers I'm afraid. But, if I were to suggest one thing I would say to
try to chose strong choices over weak ones.
The key here is the terminology 'strong' vs. 'weak'. I don't like to
refer to choices as being 'good' or 'bad', but would rather think of them
as strong or weak. The strong choices are the ones that you feel very
confident making because you know that they will work for your act. These
may be certain tricks which you really enjoy performing, or a gag/gimmick
that you do that always gets a good reaction, or simply a quality to your
act that sets you apart from everyone else.
Much of my criticism of under developed online videos is related to
people, who although they my have good ideas, they do not spend the time
and effort to make those ideas strong enough for public presentation.
Just because a technique is creative or unique (such as club traps)
doesn't mean it is a particularly strong one. I personally don't think
that the currently popular club trapping technique is a very strong one
for performance. Yes, it is super cool and deserves to be in a club
routine, but inherently I don't feel that it is strong enough to be
featured as a stand alone technique. Is it good or bad? I say neither.
I just don't think that it is a very strong choice.
If I had three minutes of club traps in my repertoire, and wanted to
include them into a club routine, I would probably dedicate only about
twenty or thirty seconds to club traps. I've seen folks post videos of
entire routines lasting many minutes doing nothing but club traps! Most
of the tricks are clunky, awkward and not beautiful. There are some gems
to be had for sure, but they get obscured IMO. As a performer, and
choreographer/writer, it is often just as important to consider what you
are not including as much as what you do include into the act.
There are certainly lots of other things to think about and ways to
approach trying to build an act out of a series of tricks. If all else
fails, there is nothing wrong with doing your trick vocabulary in
succession in front of some music. I just find that it doesn't make for a
very strong choice. But at the end of the day you simply take a step back
and look at the performance/video and ask yourself 'does it work?' If the
answer is yes, then you're good to go.
Steven Ragatz
janjongleer
mean
the boundery of novelty, or concepts, or what definition whatever. It's
more
about grace and being authentic, in a certain freedom. A juggler doesn't
have
to be an inventor to be creative.
Drew_Ministry
It's not juggling, it's dance.*
Quote me:
>"...the moves (tricks) on the other hand, are all very authentic 1930-40's
Lindy Hop."
It is movement skills**, I'm drawing parallels from another community -
swing dance, which has a stronger understanding of it's historical roots.
And because I believe there is much creative mileage in combining
juggling/manipulation with dance.
Drew
_____________________________
* - Debate if they are really a different thing!
** - Synchronised girl manipulation?
Steven Ragatz
> creativity doesn't mean the boundery of novelty, or concepts, or what
> definition whatever. It's more about grace and being authentic, in a
> certain freedom. A juggler doesn't have to be an inventor to be creative.
>
I like this distinction. There is a difference between innovation and
being creative.
Steven Ragatz
Little Paul
> Marden117 wrote:
>>
>> JugglerPeter wrote:
>> >
>> > How has Greg Kennedy not been mentioned yet?
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDAf_lg9Xs
>>
>> I prefer silicone drum:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM2G-MZMvrU&NR=1
>
> So who was first?
Well, John Blanchard has been touring that triangle since 1994 (and
Moschen was apparently working with a similar setup in the 1970s)
Greg has been rolling balls around the inside of geometric shapes since
about 1996, although it's not clear to me if he pinched that prop from
anyone else. Conic clearly came later (circa 2007 I think) but was
influenced by his earlier work with Hemisphere.
Not that they're directly comparible, rolling objects around the internal
surface of a geometric form vs bouncing balls off of angled surfaces.
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
tomterm8
Thank you for the links, Aymeric, I didn't know they were there. They were
very interesting
I agree that not everyone wants to perform. In fact, in my case I took up
juggling originally as exercise. And it�s worked- I�ve lost quite a few
stone. I didn�t come into this to be a professional, but performing does
inevitably seem to come into it. Even if it�s just family members,
friends, or people at work asking you to show them a few tricks.
Steven, thanks for the time you spent on such an interesting response.
I�ve read through it several times, and found it�s very helpful.
popstar_dave
>
> <a lot of great stuff>
>
Steve,
Would you mind not writing as many long, eloquent, and interesting posts.
You're making it very difficult for the rest of us to keep up to the
standard.
Cheers,
Dave
hunky
>
> Steven Ragatz wrote:
> >
> > <a lot of great stuff>
> >
>
> Steve,
>
> Would you mind not writing as many long, eloquent, and interesting posts.
> You're making it very difficult for the rest of us to keep up to the
> standard.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
I really am finding Mr. Ragatz's posts here to be great reading. I
appreciate the effort he is putting into it. I definitely agree that it
is above and beyond the standard.
Thanks Steven,
hunk
lynne
>
> Steven Ragatz wrote:
> >
> > <a lot of great stuff>
> >
>
> Steve,
>
> Would you mind not writing as many long, eloquent, and interesting posts.
> You're making it very difficult for the rest of us to keep up to the
> standard.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
performances, puts my flippant, tuppence ha'penny worth to shame.
Thanks
Lynne
Steven Ragatz
>
> popstar_dave wrote:
> >
> > Steven Ragatz wrote:
> > >
> > > <a lot of great stuff>
> > >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Would you mind not writing as many long, eloquent, and interesting posts.
> > You're making it very difficult for the rest of us to keep up to the
> > standard.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> Yes, thoughtful, thorough and well crafted writing, as well as
> performances, puts my flippant, tuppence ha'penny worth to shame.
>
> Thanks
> Lynne
Thanks for that! Lucky for you guys, I take compliments well!
Glad you find something useful. Writing on r.j is cathartic for me and I
use the activity as a reminder to myself thinkg that I know but may be too
lazy to actually do in my daily work.
Steven Ragatz
dawndream
juggler' and 'being a performer' is? I am curious as to how much you count
the art of video making itself in your analysis?
I find your post interesting, particularly because I use video to
understand & reinterpret my act as a working tool (the unreleased bits).
It's an easy way to cut a piece from one part of my act and see what it
looks like in other places within the act. It gives me a visualization to
work with to understand my lines & body movements that I can't see
objectively when juggling. My Process with video is the opposite to yours
- I use it as my medium to work on my acts & communicate ideas rather than
the 'final product'. I don't view my juggling as a finished product,
although I have my 5 minute acts I have been collecting together.
I personally would not have continued juggling from my childhood without
watching videos that others shared through their 56k connections. These
videos were humble folks juggling, and people who weren't necessarily
performers and I would honestly fear that if everyone felt this way about
juggling videos that we would have a serious problem with being open as a
community.
I have seen the video world connect our Canadian community & reached
people in otherwise desolate locations. I have seen the help that it gives
the community world wide.
To me, it has become obvious that juggling has changed & grown drastically
because of the availability of internet videos & accessible communication.
It may be the reason that this weird creative trend exists at all!
jgl smltr v0
>
> Draitube wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's what I was talking about. I forgot to specify enough. I was
> > > talking about how people try to juggle creatively with these clubs
> > > routines that barely involve throwing props in the air, but mostly
involve
> > > the rolling around the body, excessive scissor catches, excessive pauses,
> > > rolling clubs on the ground, etc. I think it looks cool but too many
> > > people are trying to be creative in the same way. This makes it
> > > uncreative and repetitive.
> > >
> >
> > I have nothing good to say, so I'll bring this up.
> > Your view of "creative juggling" doesn't make it "paradoxical". A paradox
> > is something that can't occur, and what you're saying isn't that creative
> > juggling is paradoxical, more that creative juggling isn't creative.
> >
> > The charming and charismatic Jason!!
> >
>
> I said "It has almost become a standard for creative
> juggling which seems to be paradoxical..." It's not the creative juggling
> which is the paradox. It is that it is a standard for creative juggling
> is. A standard is like a common basis so for creative juggling to have a
> standard would be impossible because that would make it uncreative.
>
You seem to mess up creative with individual
Steven Ragatz
>
> I question where your views on what the difference between 'being a
> juggler' and 'being a performer' is? I am curious as to how much you count
> the art of video making itself in your analysis?
I am not a videographer, and subsequently and not really interested in the
video medium by itself. I'm far more interested in the juggling and the
act content in the context of live performance. Without the tension and
risk of performing live, I think that juggling loses most of its dramatic
interest as a technique. I might ask what's the point if the guy has an
unlimited number of tries and only has to get a trick or sequence correct
once?
>
> I find your post interesting, particularly because I use video to
> understand & reinterpret my act as a working tool (the unreleased bits).
> It's an easy way to cut a piece from one part of my act and see what it
> looks like in other places within the act. It gives me a visualization to
> work with to understand my lines & body movements that I can't see
> objectively when juggling. My Process with video is the opposite to yours
> - I use it as my medium to work on my acts & communicate ideas rather than
> the 'final product'. I don't view my juggling as a finished product,
> although I have my 5 minute acts I have been collecting together.
Sure, video can be a very useful training and writing tool. It can
probably even be used as a final delivery platform for juggling, it just
isn't the one that I use.
> I personally would not have continued juggling from my childhood without
> watching videos that others shared through their 56k connections. These
> videos were humble folks juggling, and people who weren't necessarily
> performers and I would honestly fear that if everyone felt this way about
> juggling videos that we would have a serious problem with being open as a
> community.
Using juggling for personal pleasure or as a means for social outreach are
perfectly good reasons to be doing it! I just don't use those. I use it
as a vocation and as a performing medium.
> I have seen the video world connect our Canadian community & reached
> people in otherwise desolate locations. I have seen the help that it gives
> the community world wide.
>
> To me, it has become obvious that juggling has changed & grown drastically
> because of the availability of internet videos & accessible communication.
> It may be the reason that this weird creative trend exists at all!
I was trying to put a perspective of the use of online video to help
answer the thread's initial question why there isn't 'juggling' in much of
the 'creative juggling' that is seen. I imagine that the initial post was
referring to either online videos or to a juggling convention performance
by someone who has taken one of the traditional juggling props and has
tried to expand the manipulation vocabulary by adopting unconventional
techniques. My point in this thread was not that video is bad, or that
posting videos online is a problem. I was simply commenting on a quality
of technique development and that most of the online videos of people
doing unconventional techniques lack the time investment needed to make
the technique really compelling to watch. Essentially, they show it to
the public too soon. I get the feeling that they are not really wanting
to create a complete technique performance, or totally explore a new
direction, but that what they are really looking for is simply recognition
and accolades from their peers.
Steven Ragatz