INTRODUCTION, PREDECESSORS, AND CULTURAL ESTABLISHMENT.

Since a lot of my focus has been on clowns rather than their predecessors, this page will be brief. However, I want to go into how jesters, pantomimes, and fool characters/figures have influenced what we know of clowns and entertainment culture today.

The 'fool' as an archetype has always been exceedingly versatile, and we can see that when we analyse some older works that represent them. Take The Paradox of the Fool, for example. It's just one art piece, but it shows us a lot. For starters, even the smallest details in terms of imagery could mean a variety of things if you apply it to a jester. Holcomb's analysis goes quite in-detail about it. Quote, "His clumsiness often masked agility. His nonsense imparted wisdom. " The baubles they held were also often quite multi-faceted.

These figures have historically allowed audiences to separate themselves from a 'strict social order' without actually enacting or partaking in it. People have turned to jesters, fools, and jokers to find entertainment in what they personally deem humiliating or less-than. Nevertheless, though, again, it's entertaining to them. Audiences have relished seeing these figures ridicule themselves on stages. And, with industrialisation, they began to relish seeing this in printed works, as well. This was a factor in the growth of the clowns we know today.

You'll find that this concept is pretty widespread throughout entertainment history as a whole, and this is where the basis for my overall argument lies. I believe clowns and their predecessors to fundamentally and wholeheartedly reflect what society views as acceptable and unacceptable. Humour has always very clearly shown us what individuals believe about the world around us, and these figures are not exempt from it.