ABSTRACT
While relatively stable for two centuries, the definition of circus now seems to have become more problematic. Its external boundaries (in terms of both artistic and nonartistic spheres) and internal subdivisions are in constant flux, not to mention its “essence.” There is reason to believe that the definitions and classifications used in the professional circus field barely correspond to the categories used by audiences to orient themselves in an increasingly diverse landscape. The extreme diversity of “contemporary circus” distinguishes it from “traditional circus,” not a certain set of oppositions to it. Further increasing its diversity is the appearance of a “screencircus,” which does not presuppose a gathered audience at all, as well as the extension of the notion of circus to ethnic acrobatic practices not falling under the historical and European “circus” genre. In spite of this, circus can still be grasped with the help of a set of notions: the relationship of the artist to the performance space, to circus disciplines, to objects and apparatuses, and to the anticipated aesthetic effect. With the help of significant examples, this chapter questions the simultaneous diversity and unity of the circus; it points to the limits of an exclusively aesthetic or semiotic approach, which would ignore the sociological determinants of categorization.
