The title comes from Oscar Wilde and I don’t know the context: with Wilde, sometimes there is not context; it’s just a witticism he dreamed up and dropped when most apt. It seems to elevate and denigrate at the same time, but I’m not sure that’s the intent. What isn’t considered is how much the clown wishes to be a High Priest, and vice versa. I can’t consider this without thinking of Laurence Olivier, a man equally adept with low comedy and “serious drama”.
It might be that Oscar was referring to all the arts with this dichotomy: some are edifying and uplifting; and the rest are simply entertaining. He might have meant that, but I doubt it. I think he was saying something profound about the work of the actor, about his/her skill set, and about contribution made to society.
Being a clown is not a bad thing. The world needs to laugh, and those most in need are the ones least able to amuse themselves. Also, there are benefits to the novelty, the interplay of wit, and the refreshing atmosphere of play that occupy comedy.
What do the High Priests convey? They are conduits to other worlds, hence their lofty appelation. That world must be transcendant to be esteemed. They are the equal to writers in this regard, but their work is more accessible, and it is experienced in groups.
There is no space in Oscar’s system for the adequate or the mimics; these are not serious artists, they are mere functionaries, and not worthy of advanced consideration.
Leave a comment