That's exactly what they're wowed by. The general audience cares about the risk-taking, the bravery and daring aspect of it, and maybe the visual flashiness. It's the psychology that's interesting to a general audience because that's what they relate to. Technical excellence is always something peers are more interested in than spectators, your ordinary viewer isn't invested in the technical proficiency of tightrope footwork.

Completely agreed. I think the first time you go with some friends to an olympic diving board, it's the exact same thing. When you look at it from the ground it's "only" 10m, it doesn't feel so scary. But when you get up there and look down, zomg is 10m friggin high! Oh and the climb up there... It's high enough that by the time you reach the platform you've completely dried off.

It's completely safe and trivial to do, but awesome nonetheless, and a show for your friends, just because it's really scary the first time you do it!

There's 3 distinct things:

A) The ability of walking a tightrope

B) The ability of overcoming your fears to the extent of being able to walk a tightrope at a dangerous height

C) The risk of falling

I would argue that the audience cares about A and C. The audience doesn't care so much for B.

I think the audience largely just cares about C.

I would not be surprised if most lay people don't know why or how it's even that hard, or what goes into training. "Oh, it's just someone who has good balance" vs an awareness of the technical details of physical fitness.

Having watched a few of Cirque du Soleil's shows, I can confirm that A is much more impressive and exciting than C.

Sure, there's risk, but seeing how effortless they make it look is amazing. The skill to do it fearlessly is far more impressive than the fact that something bad didn't happen. Audience members expect that it won't happen. There's a visceral reaction, of course, but that's it.