Thread: Circus Oz to close after 44 years

Interesting situation, where managerial bureaucrats have demanded that Circus OZ adopt an "acceptable" management structure and have run up against now aging Baby Boomer members, many of whom had never been performers.


"In January, the Australia Council suspended Circus Oz’s application for funding in 2022-24, subject to an independent “review of the company’s strategic vision and business model”. The review, which is confidential, was given to the company last month.

The company has undergone a radical restructure in anticipation of the review’s findings, cutting half its administrative jobs, making more diverse hires, and shifting to a program of smaller productions and a big artist development program – all done in the hope of retaining federal support.

However, the Australia Council made it clear to the company that the recommendations around governance, reform and membership, where the board would be “skills-based” rather than artist-led, and membership would be open to the wider circus community, were “non-negotiable and funding was contingent on our ability to deliver,” Miles said."

So, heavy handed arts bureaucrats imposing a governance structure - because the communal model Circus OZ has/had isn't acceptable. Makes you wonder about the political leanings of the Australia Council.

But they had apparently been making big losses and there was an implication that there had been a welfare model in place with people expecting hand-outs.


There was also a generational clash exemplified by these two quotes:

"Circus Oz also pioneered how a performing arts group could be organised and be self-managed. Everyone earned the same wage, and everyone participated in decision-making. It was a role model for collective and collaborative leadership. It gave performers a sense of being more than a performer: the artists were treated as adults who had something to contribute to how their world was constructed and managed."

https://theconversation.com/circus-oz-is-to-close-after-44-years-they-irrevocably-changed-australian-circus-and-brought-it-to-the-world-173586?

vs:

“I don’t want to be on a board, I want to make art. The idea of the company as a social experiment is a lovely bit of nostalgia, but is also from a different political era. There’s this sense amongst my generation of artists that once again it’s Boomers, Baby Boomers, who are trying to define the narrative around the terms that are familiar to them... they’re not willing to see it from a fresh new perspective.”

https://www.theage.com.au/culture/theatre/circus-oz-to-close-doors-for-good-after-tumbling-from-funding-favour-20211209-p59gfi.html


So, it appears that many of the "members" who made this decision were not currently involved in Circus OZ but basically spat the dummy and closed it down rather than work out a way forward: notwithstanding the overbearing bureaucrats it does seem a very childish response.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Interesting situation, where managerial bureaucrats have demanded that Circus OZ adopt an "acceptable" management structure and have run up against now aging Baby Boomer members, many of whom had never been performers.


"In January, the Australia Council suspended Circus Oz’s application for funding in 2022-24, subject to an independent “review of the company’s strategic vision and business model”. The review, which is confidential, was given to the company last month.

The company has undergone a radical restructure in anticipation of the review’s findings, cutting half its administrative jobs, making more diverse hires, and shifting to a program of smaller productions and a big artist development program – all done in the hope of retaining federal support.

However, the Australia Council made it clear to the company that the recommendations around governance, reform and membership, where the board would be “skills-based” rather than artist-led, and membership would be open to the wider circus community, were “non-negotiable and funding was contingent on our ability to deliver,” Miles said."

So, heavy handed arts bureaucrats imposing a governance structure - because the communal model Circus OZ has/had isn't acceptable. Makes you wonder about the political leanings of the Australia Council.

But they had apparently been making big losses and there was an implication that there had been a welfare model in place with people expecting hand-outs.


There was also a generational clash exemplified by these two quotes:

"Circus Oz also pioneered how a performing arts group could be organised and be self-managed. Everyone earned the same wage, and everyone participated in decision-making. It was a role model for collective and collaborative leadership. It gave performers a sense of being more than a performer: the artists were treated as adults who had something to contribute to how their world was constructed and managed."

https://theconversation.com/circus-oz-is-to-close-after-44-years-they-irrevocably-changed-australian-circus-and-brought-it-to-the-world-173586?

vs:

“I don’t want to be on a board, I want to make art. The idea of the company as a social experiment is a lovely bit of nostalgia, but is also from a different political era. There’s this sense amongst my generation of artists that once again it’s Boomers, Baby Boomers, who are trying to define the narrative around the terms that are familiar to them... they’re not willing to see it from a fresh new perspective.”

https://www.theage.com.au/culture/theatre/circus-oz-to-close-doors-for-good-after-tumbling-from-funding-favour-20211209-p59gfi.html


So, it appears that many of the "members" who made this decision were not currently involved in Circus OZ but basically spat the dummy and closed it down rather than work out a way forward: notwithstanding the overbearing bureaucrats it does seem a very childish response.

Yep, a real shame.

Originally Posted by bob10

Yep, a real shame.

Yes and no - I remember seeing them in the mid-80s and thinking they were great, but Cirque du Solell made them look like amateurs: Cirque were not just more skilled but there was no comparison in resources or ambition.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Yes and no - I remember seeing them in the mid-80s and thinking they were great, but Cirque du Solell made them look like amateurs: Cirque were not just more skilled but there was no comparison in resources or ambition.

Comparing them with Cirque is not comparing apples with apples. Circus Oz was the catalyst for others such as the Flying Fruit Fly circus, Gravity & other myths, and Circa. They showed the way to making physical theatre in this country, and left a legacy such as the National Industry of Circus Arts in Melbourne, and Cirkidz in Adelaide. I don't know the internal workings or politics in the industry, but it seems a shame to see them go. Perhaps it's just that they have outlived their genre. Everything has a use by date these days it seems.

Originally Posted by bob10

Comparing them with Cirque is not comparing apples with apples.

I'd disagree - they're both examples of new circus:

Contemporary circus (also known as new circus, and nouveau cirque and cirque contemporain in French-speaking countries) is a genre of performing arts developed in the late 20th century in which a story or theme is conveyed through traditional circus skills.


The contemporary circus (or new circus, or nouveau cirque) movement originated in Australia, the West Coast of the United States, France and the United Kingdom from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s. The impetus came from the "new wave" theatre movement and street theatre as well as from traditional circus.^[1]


Early pioneers of the new circus genre included: The Royal Lichtenstein Quarter-Ring Sidewalk Circus, founded in San Jose, CA in 1969 by Nick Weber, SJ; Circus Oz, forged in Australia in 1977 from SoapBox Circus (1976) and New Circus (1973);^[2] the Pickle Family Circus, founded in San Francisco in 1975; Ra-Ra Zoo in 1984 in London; Nofit State Circus in 1984 from Wales; Cirque du Soleil, founded in Quebec in 1984; Cirque Plume and Archaos from France in 1984 and 1986 respectively.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, in 2012 Cirque du Soleil had US$1 billion in turnover - and still didn't make a profit.

Sounds to me like the fun police at their very very best......ffs how much money does Gina get from our government?

Lets get a bit of perspective.

One less submarine would have kept them viable for another 500 years.
I know which I'd prefer.
Peter.