El clown, un navegante de las emociones. Front Cover. Jesús Jara Fernández. Editorial Octaedro, S.L., – Juvenile Nonfiction – pages. : El clown, un navegante de las emociones () by JESUS JARA and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books. Anemone et les poissons-clowns by Traverso, Paola and a great selection of related books, El clown, un navegante de las emociones: Jesús Jara Fernández.
|Published (Last):||5 September 2009|
|PDF File Size:||8.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I have not read the navgeante but I can agree about the proliferation of pretentious clowns. The world right now could use a few more Charlie Rivels and Lou Jacobs and navebante few less naked, post-ironic somethings in red noses performing their new traditional Heyoka-inspired bouffon piece entitled “Clown Labia Now! I get it, you’re “edgy”. And please don’t deconstruct that comment, workshop it for two years and use it as the basis for your fringe show.
Epub Ebooks El Clown Un Navegante De Las Emociones Epub By Jesus Jara
The very simple and elegant joy of a clown is the magic of spending some pleasant time with a very silly person who can entertain ajra small child, their older siblings, their parents and their grandparents, all on different levels, all with the same material. It’s navegane hard for a clown to do that; much harder than the laughs that come from shocking adults with “extreme” behavior. That’s why there are so few good ones.
Which comment did you mean, yours or the one about clowns not having to be funny?
Thinking of working on an unfunny clown number now By the way, see my log-winded blog post today for my contribution to pretentiousness. I believe Your option is not based on expirence. Hi Anonymous, My comments are based on my experience of reading the book, and are about the book. I have seen videos of performers trained with Eli Simon and I have to say they don’t make me laugh in the slightest.
I don’t think they are a new breed, either, I have seen many similar performers over many years. I am not saying they are not good as performers, just that I think they have distanced themselves from clowning which is what annoys me about the book, in that it criticises and demeans other clowns. Hello Jon, Coming from a theatrically trained standpoint, I am curious to how much you have studied or been trained as an actor.
I wonder because you ridicule Simon’s quote: Clowns do not have to make people laugh”, when in fact this statement holds much truth in terms of objective and being present as a clown. As an actor for instance because clowning is a form of actingone’s focus is not on “what emotion can I now show to get a response”, but rather on the circumstances of the scene and objectives within. At least, if the actor is well trained.
The focus of an actor should be to stay present and truthful in the scene, actions, etc, not to perform or put on a show. As humans with instinct, we can often sense when one is not being truthful or feeling jaraa emotion they are putting on, and this becomes unsatisfying. It’s not likely people will want to watch a performance of raw “showing” instead of “being”.
Do you want jar watch a forced ckown I don’t, I personally prefer a little more quality of action. It is the SAME with clowns. Do we want to watch a clown, or someone pretending to clown, not being true to their inner clown, but hoping to get a laugh, looking for response over their experience in front of people.
Truth is, clowns are generally funny by nature, so if you have to force actions to get a laugh or try really hard, I suggest reworking skills and perspective, something is wrong. It’s better kesus join a clown for a journey, and watch them be rather than watch someone get up there with gags and the simple goal of getting positive attention.
The audience feeds lss clown, it’s true, but it is okay for a clown to fail, to learn what works and doesn’t, and it is okay to receive other reactions besides laughter. One of the best routines I have seen and I have been studying and observing for some time was of a raw social emociobes, a little scary and uncomfortable, but struck me in a way that emocionrs would not clow able to pull off the same.
Also, is clowning only about being funny? I have a little more faith in clowning perhaps, because I see clowns having the ability to affect, teach and enlighten audiences in more ways than just humor. With your statement “delighted to be relieved of the responsibility of actually being funny, and will fool themselves into believing that their uninteresting and formless work is full of truth” you are assuming and implying that people are not capable of finding natural humor by being true to their clowns.
That humor cannot come organically, but must be searched for and forced.
ClownBlog: Review: “The Art of Clowning”, by Eli Simon
I have purchased and read this book, and find it to be fantastic, especially because of the attention it pays to theatrical concept and training, rather than gag-forged humor. So if you would like to focus on the “maniacal clown who freaks out the neighborhood” the “Bozo-types”, by all means go ahead. There are many more like this that find solace in simple design, can entertain and audience without digging deeper into their own clowning experience.
I’m sorry that you did not find Eli’s clowns funny Jon, that’s unfortunate, because you are in the minority in truth. A little tip- before you blatantly announce that someone is “clueless about clowning” make sure you yourself are not. These are high judgements to make, especially if you cannot back them up.
Hello Anonymous, Firstly, in response to your doubts about my actor training, I came to clowning from theatre. I trained with a mixture of teachers of acting, clowning and other performance areas, such as: I taught Actor Training, Clown and Techniques of Improvisation, at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at the Institut del Teatre de Barcelona state-run drama school from I worked for 3 years as a post-doctoral researcher at Central School of Speech and Drama, University of London, investigating and teaching Techniques of Clown and Actor Training, focusing especially on 20th-century Actor Training, and during which time I worked with: I am currently a Visiting Lecturer there, as well as Co-Director of Studies at the Barcelona Clown School, where I have worked with many clown teachers of varied approaches, such as: As a performer, I have worked continuously since my student days inprincipally in independent companies and as a solo clown performer.
So my opinions are of someone who is experienced in and very familiar with a range of actor- and clown-training methods. With this I agree. But you also say that navegange truth resides in the circumstances of the scene, the objectives, and so on.
What you say holds true for an actor who is called upon to be convincing within a set of fictional circumstances. In a broad sense, this is what actors do: But for me, although I agree that clowning is a form of acting, clowns do not engage with fictional worlds in the same way as actors. This is not only true in contemporary clowning, but has been true, I believe, historically. But I would say that generally, one thing that defines clowns is their freedom from the fiction being created.
That is the clown mode. I think this is a mistake many in clowning make and it is an easy mistake to make. Ell have seen countless students of emoclones get hooked on the initial discovery of clown: But then it is easy to then ostensibly follow the path of personal truth but avoid the duty to appear ridiculous be funny.
As Philippe Gaulier says: This might seem to you as a sweeping and disparaging statement, but what lies behind it is, in my opinion, the truth about clowning.
I would never say you have to force anything, but if you navegxnte not getting the laughs, you are not clowning. I think this is the other side of the fallacy. So from my point of view, the comments which I cited in my review, such as: In clown, it is the very act of failing which will provoke laughter.
Any other kind of failing not getting laughter will be missing the point. Of course, this happens all the time in clown training, but the eventual aim should be to find how one fails, admits it and that the natural response of an audience to this is laughter. For me, that is the only valid aim of clowning, and not self-expression, social messages, teaching or enlightening. If clowns have anything to teach us, then it is that we are all ridiculous, and they do this by exposing themselves in front of that audience.
And, if you like, you could say that all other messages personal, social, political, etc. So, I hope I have gone some way to backing up here what was originally a short critical review. Best regards, Jon Davison www. Hello Jon, After reading this, I had a question for you: Is the sole goal of the clown, according to your vision, to make an audience laugh? I don’t mean cry from laughing so much, I mean crying from living a journey with the clown, from being moved.
Hi anon, I think that the clown must emocciones be based on jqra audience response of laughter. All of those things that some claim to put in place of, or in addition to, being emmociones, such as poetry, emotions, and so on, are only possible in clown’s case if the relationship with the audience, and the whole world, is based on a perception that all is ridiculous, which means laughable.
So I think that wanting to be more profound than being funny is a big presumptuous error. For me, the clown who provokes laughter is far more profound than constructing a character, a story, poetry, or provoking some emotional response such as sadness.
All these things could also occur, but they are either secondary or just irrelevant.
American Indian Costume. Paterek, Joseph. Libro en papel. Cafebrería El Péndulo
Kara if clowns have to be funny is like asking if clowns have to be clowns. Otherwise, what would be the basis of clowns? Hi Jon, I just stumbled across your blog through a very fortuitous google search and based on the post above I’m already chomping at the bit to dive into more.
I’m a young director in his 20’s. I’ve recently started working with a group of like-minded artists and we’ve used Eli Simon’s book as a jesis point for our work as clowns.
I’m more than a little ashamed to admit that we fit many of the identifiers listed above of pretentious terrible mimes who put on red noses and play our silly improv games. However –and these are now words written wearing the hat of an artist commenting on his own work and therefore completely devoid of any sort of objective cliwn I e,ociones to think that our finished products are pretty good.
At the very least, they are decent theatrical works that generally engender a good response from our audiences in my completely biased, artist-seeking-validation opinion.
We follow the basic rules set out by Simon’s book and work within jata restrictions to create clown characters. Each of the clowns develops it’s own personality, and most of our work in rehearsal comes from diving deep into that personality and coming up with, for lack of a better term, a unique point of view for each clown.
The way that the personality of each clown expresses itself is through little bits, or to casually misuse the term, lazzis. We string those together to create a show.
Our process, however, seems barely germane to the topic at hand. My confusion, and my question, rest at the intersection of “Clowns don’t have to be funny. We try to exist in the moment and react as honestly as we can to the reality that our clowns are in. However, and this is where I get lost, our pieces are always funny, unless they’re so overwhelmingly sad emociines make you cry, and even then you’re laughing.
We really embrace that, and in my role as director navegantte am hn cautioning people not to rely to greatly on “Being funny” because the audience will be turned off by your falseness.
It’s only when as performers honestly embrace the true emotions our clowns are feeling do we get laughs. When I read Mr.