In which Our Hero, like, likes likability?
I was speaking earlier today with a friend who is a very polarizing figure. I am also a polarizing figure, but much less than him. He is often right, but also often disliked. The sort of person who is correct about the mismanaging of funds in an organization, but when he raises this to general public awareness, ends up somehow getting kicked out of the organization.
This friend also has described me as “a bit of a people-pleaser”. (Which is amusing because most people would not describe me that way.)
Clowning is about being liked. Clowns are lowest common denominator performers. They find pleasure and share pleasure in a mass-market, pre-language, pre-thought way.
Clowns are excellent at a specific veneer. Not a substance, but a manner. Pleasure, joy: these are good things. But they’re not everything. Clowns (and actors in general) are emotional salespeople. Models are to fashion as clowns are to pleasure as actors are to emotions.
I respect clowns and actors (and I also respect salespeople). But being a clown or an actor is completely unrelated (and sometimes antithetical) to many other virtues. For example, clowns are anti-intellectual. Clever jokes – at least at this school – are undesired.
Perhaps pleasure is just the first step. Acting/performing might begin with finding your pleasure and sharing your pleasure with the audience, but it’s not the end. The end includes having a message or somesuch.
I think this particular school is teaching a valuable skill. I also think that the implementation of it in its purest form – through clowning or through acting – doesn’t appeal to me. I’d rather have valuable things to share, not just share them well.
Julian Wise 