We have noted a tension between funding for traditional performing arts and an emerging preference for cultural infrastructure and community-based events. Like youth art (also called slash art because of its propensity to mix artforms), events such as festivals and circuses can challenge existing funding categories, raising awkward questions for government about the basis for funding some artistic forms but not others. The recent rise of circus as an artform has especially challenged aesthetic hierarchies and cultural support models. It offers an exciting form of spectacle, has been hugely popular with audiences on a global scale, provides training in physical arts and cultural performance that appeals to children and adults alike, and — above all — is immensely profitable (Drinnan 2001). Perhaps not surprisingly, circus has been re-cast as ‘physical arts’.

Circuses are an age-old phenomenon that seemed to be dying out when, in 1984, Canadian Guy Laiberte established Cirque du Soleil. The company developed the idea of ‘new circus’ or ‘physical theatre’, combining the physical feats and danger of circus performances with a dramatic sense of spectacle and characterisation. Cirque du Soleil enjoyed immediate success and spawned circus arts programs throughout North America, in many cases supplanting traditional physical education and sports programs because it was so popular.

The company now has up to six troupes touring constantly all over the world, employing 500 creative artists as well as engaging in extensive marketing, training and franchising activities. To avoid the problem of different quality venues in different places, Cirque du Soleil has developed its own demountable Grand Chapiteau (Big Top) that seats 2,500 people and provides all the necessary facilities (bar, restaurant, toilets, cloakroom, shop, etc.). Over 60 million people worldwide have seen a Cirque du Soleil performance, a figure beyond the wildest dreams of traditional performing arts organisations. In 2007 alone, 8 million people are expected to attend a show (http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/ CirqueDuSoleil/en/Pressroom/cirquedusoleil/factsheets/cds.glance.htm).

Success has encouraged many practitioners and audiences back to the artform. In Australia, companies such as Circus Oz, the Flying Fruit Fly Circus, Rock ‘n’ Roll Circus and Vulcana Women’s Circus have experienced a resurgence in funding, audiences and performance (Strickland 1999). Along with active circus companies, many training programs keep alive the physical skills of the art. Though initially suspicious of circus culture, governments are now eager to fund companies and support dedicated training academies such as the National Institute of Circus Arts in Melbourne, established in 1995. It has also attracted generous private sponsorship: for example, the global management consultancy, the Empower Group, sponsored Circus Oz, in the process, winning a 2003 AbaF Award (Brown 2003).

In circus, governments see not just a popular artform but possibilities for touring and exports — though such support brings a danger of over-supply with audiences eventually tiring of the spectacle circus offers. Circus has been an unexpected winner amid overall gloom in the cultural sector. Indeed, Circus Oz was one of the few companies identified by the Nugent Report as being ‘successful’, in good financial health and having opportunities to win international audiences. Circus shows that some performing arts can flourish outside traditional institutional structures. That very success allows circus to challenge other artforms for access to government funding.

These case studies illustrate the complexities of dealing with the diverse sub-sectors of arts and culture under a single policy framework. As argued elsewhere (Craik, McAlister and Davis 2003) incoherence and contradiction in adjacent policy strategies may be an increasingly distinctive component of policies for this sector.