Convener: Tassos Stevens
Participants: included…
Jennifer Pearcy-Edwards, Ilana Winterstein, Emma Deakin, Leo Wood, Sophie Larsmon, Matthew Lloyd, Aaron Minnigin, Annette Mees, Alex Eisenberg, Pete ?, Alex Fleetwood…
and more I have surely missed
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I had this topic tabled in D&D New York by proxy of Alan Cox. The plan always being to table it here in London. I’ll post Alan’s notes too as sent, a fascinating contrast, I think as many of London artists are making participatory work for playing audiences.
We might be talking about performance, collaboration, skills and experiences.
Tassos: Existing project by Coney, a seed called Hutong: www.youhavefoundconey.net/hutong.html. Made in collaboration over Skype with Beijing-based artist Hey Fan, and devising help from Coney’s Society online, a walk and directions that anyone can download to perform themselves, seed at present, rolling out wide soon.
Alex F: Hide & Seek running International Sandpits with LIFT this summer, in Delhi and Beirut (at least). Sandpit is an open space of real-world, (usually) social games. A sandpit in London linked live to one in different location via a video link projection, games played in both, some exploring the link and the divide.
What’s the symbolism of the Sandpit? Fostering an atmosphere for play – basic question of ‘how are we going to play together?’ which opens out bigger questions naturally.
Could you put a grid in front of each screen so you can link the physical playspaces in each continent.
Difference in intimacy and privacy between Skype, especially with video, and a telephone call. What’s interesting is the interaction with the existing relationship between people. What do you see of the space behind the video camera, and what do you put in front of the camera to help define those different spaces?
The space and place around the screen – how do you explore these?
Alex E & Pete: one went on holiday to NYC, other sent through instructions to be carried out there An almost ‘telepathic’ remote connection to the city. Send and trust that they are being done. Very intimate. Example challenge: make a bouquet and give to a pregnant lady; he couldn’t find a pregnant lady for an aeon. Instructions as constructions. Another challenge inspired by Janet Cardiff.
What’s meaningful? It’s how it inflects and transforms the relationship between the people, between the places, interplay between both. “In a way, I’d already travelled there”, I can explore the city without being there, one person being almost like the avatar for the other.
In Come Out & Play, tours of NYC as if it is Baghdad: You Are Not Here http://www.comeoutandplay.org/2006_yanh.php
In Hide & Seek Festival, Momus did tours of London as if it were Tokyo: http://www.hideandseekfest.co.uk/games/londonastokyo
Both had fictional elements, deliberately not accurate representations.
Project using Ustream (?), where wifi spots were difficult. Fucked-up stream, fractured and fragmented, sometimes give the sense of distance, it’s the failure and difficulty in the network that’s important. It’s the imperfections in communication that engender specificity and meaning.
Will Skype become an archetypal theatrical symbol of remote communication as a suitcase became a symbol of travel in visual theatre?
Who’s travelled to a different continent or hemisphere, for business or pleasure, in the last year? Maybe a third of us? We’re living at the end of a generation where live human exchange wasn’t a luxury.
Leo: less interested in technology, rather the learning of inter-cultural meaning, and the arts as a vessel in which to learn. Will this interest be redundant if people can’t travel?
Greg: collaborating on google docs, and people moving the cursor from different places, a meaning that comes from responsivity and also from the sense that we’re alll looking at the same thing – the notion of theatre as an experience of collective witnessing.
Buskers in US via hologram.
We need to acknowledge the difference of remote comms rather than the same.
Alex: Arnold Mindel talks re deep democracy about collective thought, how it transfers between bodies, an energy whirl. Can this transfer via video/voice? Role theory at play here.
What happens with 3D HD video between Delhi and London? We’d have interface chambers, special spaces rigged up to facilitate the video link. How do you bring your journey into the room?
Alex F: Questions of travel and authenticity. How do I have an authentic local experience in a place I don’t know? Going to Rome, joining a network where given a local mobile, blog about Rome by locals, tips to consume the authentic experience. How much of a local does this make you?
Meeting between people and a meeting between places, otherwise always talking about a representation of place.
Annette: I’m from Holland, I’m often generalised as a Dutch theatre-maker rather than looking at me specifically.
Instructions make engagement itself an act of theatre. The screen is a cold interface
We might need to recognise a sacrifice, we can’t consume cultures again directly and easily, but you can only experience Delhi in Delhi, so important still to travel.
Why do I need to travel? Can find communities of diaspora in London.
Perhaps a travel agency that takes you on a holiday without leaving London. Go to Lagos via Ridley Road Market.
What are the sets you can place behind you on Skype, like Eurovision backdrops. The bedroom is the traditional backdrop, can you fictionalise those spaces.
Pete: In Central America, street theatre is the norm. The comparsa, theatre versus parade. What’s the agency of involvement that gives you that visceral experience? And also that you’ve made a journey to get there, the investment in the event that gives.
We should be making analysis of loss and gain, what happens in each modality of engagement, so we can better make value judgements.
Is the desire to create meaningful encounters?
Strangers in the night connections between people online remotely who can’t tell who it is they are interacting with.
Amigal(?) – a blank page online that you collaborate in writing with a stranger
Tassos, daft thought: How might we travel and exchange across continents by breaking it down into smaller legs – I exchange with someone 100 miles away, who exchanges with someone else 100 miles further, etc until we’re in China.
A project where two artists are walking Britain and collecting and sharing songs.
In the World Cup, the diaspora communities in London emerge to compete and celebrate.
In the 1948 Olympics, last time they were in London, ordinary people hosted visiting athletes.
Story reported of Lucy Neal, she is obsessed with cold-water swimming and went by train to Slovenia to participate in International Cold Water Swimming Championships, an extreme physical experience – like sharing a meal, or sharing a house.
Pete: watching home vidoes through a screen, someone else’s life experience.
What are all the roles you take in your city – resident of Stokey, father, artist etc – and can you have the same role in another city or identify with someone else who has? Do you need permission to take the role?
The Gaijin in Japan – you are always a guest as a foreigner, Japan is your host.
Interesting book - Universal experience: Art + The Tourist Eye
Commonalities of environments
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
081 Artists and Freelance Producers – How to begin and build a relationship that works…
Convener: Sarah-Jane Rawlings
Participants: Shakera Louise Ahad, Natalie Querol, Mark Conway, Liam O’Driscoll, Annie Fitzmaurice, Andrea Kantor, Jane Gauntlett, Jack Klaff, Alice Mansey, Andrew Somerville, Christina Elliot, Michelle Owoo, David Luff, Li Chen
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The conclusions that came out of this session:
• That it is very difficult to define the role of creative producer / producer - it is so different in so many different contexts and we would probably just go round and round in circles for hours. It is also not particularly useful for this discussion. However there was an interesting piece of research done by Kate Tyndall on the role of the creative producer which was available on the Arts Council website and a more extensive collection of interviews by Kate Tyndall called, ‘Alchemist of the Impossible’ which might be interesting to read in this context.
• Generally the group felt it was difficult to build the necessary relationships. Artists looking for people to help make their work happen, didn’t know where to look and ended up doing it themselves. One of the difficulties is that neither side has any money and there therefore needs to be a real belief in each other’s vision and passion for that relationship to be sustained. Everybody was aware of artists looking for people to help make their work happen so it was great to have two people who were on or who had been on the Birkbeck creative producing course as they are of course emerging producers keen to find work to produce.
• So how does one find that relationship? Generally people felt it helped to have the relationship before the ideas so that the partnership is a genuine one with both sides sharing a vision for the piece of work and having a genuine connection. The idea of a networking event based on speed dating was mainly met with enthusiasm as it did enable individuals the chance just to meet and have an initial connection – from then it is their responsibility to take it further if they want to. So any speed dating type activity between producer and artist should not be about showcasing but about talking and sharing thoughts and ideas. The event does not need to be measure in actual impact (how many artists now have producers for example) as it is just a beginning. Like D&D it creates an environment for people to meet and talk, what happens from that might not happen immediately but it doesn’t mean nothing will happen. The outcomes might not be what was expected. It was also clear that an event like this needed to be set up correctly so that neither side had too much expectation from it.
• Having said this there was a feeling that a very light touch website / ning / online pinboard would be useful to profile producers who are interested in finding artists to work with and maybe the other way round too as nobody knew of anything concrete with this information. The issue with this is that unless someone is looking after it, it is in danger of becoming unused and out of date very quickly. Sarah-Jane promised to talk to ACE about the need that had been expressed and whether this was being dealt with in any way by the theatre unit. It would also be good to link with the graduating students from the Birkbeck creative producing course. Other networks such as this are: ideastap(?) and Women in Film and Theatre – although not completely what we were talking about – they may be useful to look at in terms of setting one up ourselves.
• Fuel talked about the case they were making to ACE about their efficiency. ACE give them a very small amount of regular funding for a percentage of their overheads with which they are able to support a lot of artists. Bill G is similar. Should we be lobbying for this to happen more?
• Finally, I think that everyone agreed that the relationship between a producer and an artist is a very unique one and will be different in every case. There are many different models that work. And however that relationship develops it has to be organic and if that is true it may be difficult to set up a structure to truly fix this issue, maybe only small initiatives to lend support to it.
Participants: Shakera Louise Ahad, Natalie Querol, Mark Conway, Liam O’Driscoll, Annie Fitzmaurice, Andrea Kantor, Jane Gauntlett, Jack Klaff, Alice Mansey, Andrew Somerville, Christina Elliot, Michelle Owoo, David Luff, Li Chen
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The conclusions that came out of this session:
• That it is very difficult to define the role of creative producer / producer - it is so different in so many different contexts and we would probably just go round and round in circles for hours. It is also not particularly useful for this discussion. However there was an interesting piece of research done by Kate Tyndall on the role of the creative producer which was available on the Arts Council website and a more extensive collection of interviews by Kate Tyndall called, ‘Alchemist of the Impossible’ which might be interesting to read in this context.
• Generally the group felt it was difficult to build the necessary relationships. Artists looking for people to help make their work happen, didn’t know where to look and ended up doing it themselves. One of the difficulties is that neither side has any money and there therefore needs to be a real belief in each other’s vision and passion for that relationship to be sustained. Everybody was aware of artists looking for people to help make their work happen so it was great to have two people who were on or who had been on the Birkbeck creative producing course as they are of course emerging producers keen to find work to produce.
• So how does one find that relationship? Generally people felt it helped to have the relationship before the ideas so that the partnership is a genuine one with both sides sharing a vision for the piece of work and having a genuine connection. The idea of a networking event based on speed dating was mainly met with enthusiasm as it did enable individuals the chance just to meet and have an initial connection – from then it is their responsibility to take it further if they want to. So any speed dating type activity between producer and artist should not be about showcasing but about talking and sharing thoughts and ideas. The event does not need to be measure in actual impact (how many artists now have producers for example) as it is just a beginning. Like D&D it creates an environment for people to meet and talk, what happens from that might not happen immediately but it doesn’t mean nothing will happen. The outcomes might not be what was expected. It was also clear that an event like this needed to be set up correctly so that neither side had too much expectation from it.
• Having said this there was a feeling that a very light touch website / ning / online pinboard would be useful to profile producers who are interested in finding artists to work with and maybe the other way round too as nobody knew of anything concrete with this information. The issue with this is that unless someone is looking after it, it is in danger of becoming unused and out of date very quickly. Sarah-Jane promised to talk to ACE about the need that had been expressed and whether this was being dealt with in any way by the theatre unit. It would also be good to link with the graduating students from the Birkbeck creative producing course. Other networks such as this are: ideastap(?) and Women in Film and Theatre – although not completely what we were talking about – they may be useful to look at in terms of setting one up ourselves.
• Fuel talked about the case they were making to ACE about their efficiency. ACE give them a very small amount of regular funding for a percentage of their overheads with which they are able to support a lot of artists. Bill G is similar. Should we be lobbying for this to happen more?
• Finally, I think that everyone agreed that the relationship between a producer and an artist is a very unique one and will be different in every case. There are many different models that work. And however that relationship develops it has to be organic and if that is true it may be difficult to set up a structure to truly fix this issue, maybe only small initiatives to lend support to it.
066 How can we create ‘permanent’ ensembles and survive?
Convener: Simon Pittman
Participants: David Luff, Anne Langford, Aaron Minnigin, Emily Kempson, Laura Kriefman, Emma Dedein, Simon Wilkinson, Sophie Austin, Jennifer Moule, Hugh Hayes, Loren O’Dair, Philippa Wilkinson, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Jo Turner, Liz Chen, Lee Evan.
***We are collecting contact details for anyone who wishes to continue a dialogue on this subject and way of working. If you wish to be involved please email me with your name and how you might look to participate in this kind of work: Simon Pittman: simon at roughfiction.com
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion also became a very useful discussion on running a small or emerging company and the risks and considerations that brings up. Here are collected notes on the session which touched on.
- examples of companies operating permanent ensembles (‘permanent’ was originally offered as a loose and provocative term to discuss building ongoing companies and a focus on the actors craft)
- The appeal of a permanent ensemble
- Funding issues
- The risks to the work, people and organisational structures
- Why we want to
- How we keep people together
- How do we survive and sustain?
Example companies to consider:
Steppenwolf, Gardzienice, Theatr Piesn Kozla, various German models, Dundee Rep, Kneehigh, Complicite, Maly St Petersburg, RSC, Propella, Theatro Viva, Colchester Mercury, Strange Face, Likely Story etc, Theatre By The Lake (REP / Building) The Wooster Group, Forced Entertainment, Labyrinth in New York
Notes Transcribed:
Sustainability or funding is key.
We are talking about regular collaborators
Living on premises, a building? – Does it just then become about running a space.
We agreed that a permanent ensemble first and foremost needs to be enabled to make work continuously and that an overall vision is key to the structuring and commitment of the company and its members. We must keep self-reflective on this.
What is The Appeal?
Ownership, quality, deeper and lasting, rich connections and understanding between those working and acting together
THE OFFER OF ONGOING TRAINING
Building a shared understanding of why you are making this work together
No type casting, being able to explore a wider range of role and knowing what parts you will be working on a long time in advance and over a longer period of time: more in depth process: Good example in REP and more traditional models in UK (Pitlochery, Theatre By The Lake for example)
Collective decision making in the company: moves towards a model of the collective…
Difference between the employed actor and the core collective company.
Notes continued
Decision to be made: CREATIVE COLLECTIVE Vs Actor’s Ensemble or company. (Hierarchy and ownership models are different and one should think carefully about these expectations before committing.
‘Ensemble’ was defined by one member of the group as ‘a number of actors paid on regular salary to engage in REP’.
We discussed how an ensemble can be self-selecting as in The Mercury’s model in Colchester: if actors are asked back for a second season they are then in the ensemble – ‘a current core’. This also allows for the passing on of skills through osmosis (another appeal of ensembles).
Putting an ensemble together should be about the work, not about trying to break into or work your way into an industry. It has to come from a passion, a shared interest and desire to create great work first, recognition can follow.
We wonder whether the ‘jobbing actor vocation’ is acting as a barrier to establishing more permanent ensembles in the core of UK theatre.
Survival?
Educational component to the company – e.g.: Creative Partnerships, workshop programs, the’ Extended Schools Program’
Funding through training and offering similar public services
Running a building and renting / managing (also means restrictions and other administrative pressures) and touring
Reputation in training
RFO (Regularly Funded Organisations) or venues as a home
Working in rural, regional and non London locations
Again, a strong and reflective understanding and awareness of why and for whom you are making work.
Supportive Places and their benefits (Venues etc)
- An office
- Links to other ensembles and associates
- Good example models of this are The Point in Eastleigh’s innovative Phase 3 program, Home from Home and Quartered Artists programs or Farnham Maltings etc.
- As with the above, larger funding pots are accessible as a result
- Time, space and less pressure than city based environments
- Links to creative partnerships – new audiences and community inspiration
Mentoring and asking for help
How do we keep people together? (notably larger numbers and those who come together on a post training, professional basis)
A strong vision, energy and clarity of why you are together
Shared and individual recognition of ownership and what you are sharing
Taking time to recognise individuals’ strengths and skills, and our differences
Recognising the need for new blood
The Visionary: the draw of learning and working with/from each other.
Keep asking why in the positive
Notes Continued
Dundee Rep was offered as an example:
Core funding was sourced by one very determined and passionate individual for three years from many different sources
It has a small ensemble of actors, often later in their careers who wish to settle and work with further apprentice members who work over say one year and offer an answer to the need to ensure new blood is offered to keep things fresh.
International links
They also offer professional development for members and those outside the org. (much like RSC).
Notes Continued
Steven Winnery made a practical proposition to us all: He has a studio in Stratford which is available for this kind of work he would like people to submit to for space. June – October 2010: stevenwinnery@yahoo.co.uk
There seems to be a question of scale here too. There are two very different sets of obstacles that present them self on the no-money-work-together-because-you’re-all-passionate side and the fully funded permanent ensembles.
Someone said we must allow for shifts in scale within ensembles
It has to start from a want – a vision from one person and getting a large number of funders to agree and share your vision and its worth.
Funders and artists get excited by the way in which these ensemble setups bring people together and create valuable ongoing dialogue.
If you are giving up everything to put into a permanent company ensemble, do you need existing money (e.g. Middle class structures) to do it?
Why are permanent ensembles under valued in UK Theatre? We felt that they are not as present as they could be.
Casting from a pool – The arts organisation: e.g. Complicite.
Finding Actors interested in permanent ensemble
- Ads, ask the questions: ‘I need creative people to play with. Are you in?’
- Show passion and people are infected! – Communicate your ideas effectively
- The Actors Centre for example: offering workshops for Lab Work Weeks on creating ensemble
- Asking contemporaries, friends, colleagues for suggestions and links
- Seeing work and talking, writing afterwards
- Offering further training, ownership and investment for people
What are the pitfalls / risks?
(applicable we felt, to all creative partnerships)
Lack of feedback and communication to artists – ensuring ‘good house keeping’ and anonymity
Up own bottom!
Incest
Stagnancy
Structures needed to allow for shifts in ability to commit over time… where is the line?
Overlap of employment contracts into the political strength and balance of leadership in an organisation.
Power balance – keeping expectations
Ability to bring new blood in and eject old wood for the good or an ensembles work
It’s important to seek training relationships both within and outside a company’s practice
Clarity and decision of whom and what is being funded: The ensemble? The director / A.D? The Board?
Important to seek out outside eyes and collaborators from outside the company’s practice
Are you building a relationship on work and professional basis or also as friends? Be clear? – What happens with companies who live together (E.g. Forced Entertainment).
Be careful to keep linked/in dialogue with outside world and other professions etc – “NO WANK!”
See also the photograph of our funding diagram: How to fund this type of work.
Thanks
Participants: David Luff, Anne Langford, Aaron Minnigin, Emily Kempson, Laura Kriefman, Emma Dedein, Simon Wilkinson, Sophie Austin, Jennifer Moule, Hugh Hayes, Loren O’Dair, Philippa Wilkinson, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Jo Turner, Liz Chen, Lee Evan.
***We are collecting contact details for anyone who wishes to continue a dialogue on this subject and way of working. If you wish to be involved please email me with your name and how you might look to participate in this kind of work: Simon Pittman: simon at roughfiction.com
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion also became a very useful discussion on running a small or emerging company and the risks and considerations that brings up. Here are collected notes on the session which touched on.
- examples of companies operating permanent ensembles (‘permanent’ was originally offered as a loose and provocative term to discuss building ongoing companies and a focus on the actors craft)
- The appeal of a permanent ensemble
- Funding issues
- The risks to the work, people and organisational structures
- Why we want to
- How we keep people together
- How do we survive and sustain?
Example companies to consider:
Steppenwolf, Gardzienice, Theatr Piesn Kozla, various German models, Dundee Rep, Kneehigh, Complicite, Maly St Petersburg, RSC, Propella, Theatro Viva, Colchester Mercury, Strange Face, Likely Story etc, Theatre By The Lake (REP / Building) The Wooster Group, Forced Entertainment, Labyrinth in New York
Notes Transcribed:
Sustainability or funding is key.
We are talking about regular collaborators
Living on premises, a building? – Does it just then become about running a space.
We agreed that a permanent ensemble first and foremost needs to be enabled to make work continuously and that an overall vision is key to the structuring and commitment of the company and its members. We must keep self-reflective on this.
What is The Appeal?
Ownership, quality, deeper and lasting, rich connections and understanding between those working and acting together
THE OFFER OF ONGOING TRAINING
Building a shared understanding of why you are making this work together
No type casting, being able to explore a wider range of role and knowing what parts you will be working on a long time in advance and over a longer period of time: more in depth process: Good example in REP and more traditional models in UK (Pitlochery, Theatre By The Lake for example)
Collective decision making in the company: moves towards a model of the collective…
Difference between the employed actor and the core collective company.
Notes continued
Decision to be made: CREATIVE COLLECTIVE Vs Actor’s Ensemble or company. (Hierarchy and ownership models are different and one should think carefully about these expectations before committing.
‘Ensemble’ was defined by one member of the group as ‘a number of actors paid on regular salary to engage in REP’.
We discussed how an ensemble can be self-selecting as in The Mercury’s model in Colchester: if actors are asked back for a second season they are then in the ensemble – ‘a current core’. This also allows for the passing on of skills through osmosis (another appeal of ensembles).
Putting an ensemble together should be about the work, not about trying to break into or work your way into an industry. It has to come from a passion, a shared interest and desire to create great work first, recognition can follow.
We wonder whether the ‘jobbing actor vocation’ is acting as a barrier to establishing more permanent ensembles in the core of UK theatre.
Survival?
Educational component to the company – e.g.: Creative Partnerships, workshop programs, the’ Extended Schools Program’
Funding through training and offering similar public services
Running a building and renting / managing (also means restrictions and other administrative pressures) and touring
Reputation in training
RFO (Regularly Funded Organisations) or venues as a home
Working in rural, regional and non London locations
Again, a strong and reflective understanding and awareness of why and for whom you are making work.
Supportive Places and their benefits (Venues etc)
- An office
- Links to other ensembles and associates
- Good example models of this are The Point in Eastleigh’s innovative Phase 3 program, Home from Home and Quartered Artists programs or Farnham Maltings etc.
- As with the above, larger funding pots are accessible as a result
- Time, space and less pressure than city based environments
- Links to creative partnerships – new audiences and community inspiration
Mentoring and asking for help
How do we keep people together? (notably larger numbers and those who come together on a post training, professional basis)
A strong vision, energy and clarity of why you are together
Shared and individual recognition of ownership and what you are sharing
Taking time to recognise individuals’ strengths and skills, and our differences
Recognising the need for new blood
The Visionary: the draw of learning and working with/from each other.
Keep asking why in the positive
Notes Continued
Dundee Rep was offered as an example:
Core funding was sourced by one very determined and passionate individual for three years from many different sources
It has a small ensemble of actors, often later in their careers who wish to settle and work with further apprentice members who work over say one year and offer an answer to the need to ensure new blood is offered to keep things fresh.
International links
They also offer professional development for members and those outside the org. (much like RSC).
Notes Continued
Steven Winnery made a practical proposition to us all: He has a studio in Stratford which is available for this kind of work he would like people to submit to for space. June – October 2010: stevenwinnery@yahoo.co.uk
There seems to be a question of scale here too. There are two very different sets of obstacles that present them self on the no-money-work-together-because-you’re-all-passionate side and the fully funded permanent ensembles.
Someone said we must allow for shifts in scale within ensembles
It has to start from a want – a vision from one person and getting a large number of funders to agree and share your vision and its worth.
Funders and artists get excited by the way in which these ensemble setups bring people together and create valuable ongoing dialogue.
If you are giving up everything to put into a permanent company ensemble, do you need existing money (e.g. Middle class structures) to do it?
Why are permanent ensembles under valued in UK Theatre? We felt that they are not as present as they could be.
Casting from a pool – The arts organisation: e.g. Complicite.
Finding Actors interested in permanent ensemble
- Ads, ask the questions: ‘I need creative people to play with. Are you in?’
- Show passion and people are infected! – Communicate your ideas effectively
- The Actors Centre for example: offering workshops for Lab Work Weeks on creating ensemble
- Asking contemporaries, friends, colleagues for suggestions and links
- Seeing work and talking, writing afterwards
- Offering further training, ownership and investment for people
What are the pitfalls / risks?
(applicable we felt, to all creative partnerships)
Lack of feedback and communication to artists – ensuring ‘good house keeping’ and anonymity
Up own bottom!
Incest
Stagnancy
Structures needed to allow for shifts in ability to commit over time… where is the line?
Overlap of employment contracts into the political strength and balance of leadership in an organisation.
Power balance – keeping expectations
Ability to bring new blood in and eject old wood for the good or an ensembles work
It’s important to seek training relationships both within and outside a company’s practice
Clarity and decision of whom and what is being funded: The ensemble? The director / A.D? The Board?
Important to seek out outside eyes and collaborators from outside the company’s practice
Are you building a relationship on work and professional basis or also as friends? Be clear? – What happens with companies who live together (E.g. Forced Entertainment).
Be careful to keep linked/in dialogue with outside world and other professions etc – “NO WANK!”
See also the photograph of our funding diagram: How to fund this type of work.
Thanks
063 Producers
Convener: Sam Howey Nunn
Participants: About 20 people- didn’t get names, sorry everyone!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Why did people come to this session? Lack of producers in one place so producers came wanting to see each other. Directors looking for producers. Various artists wanting to know what producers do.
- Discussion of how collaborations are begun and sustained, with discussion about what stage producers come on board and how long they sustain. Lots of producers want to work with the same artist from project to project.
- What makes producers tick? Lots of people wanted to know why producers do what they do. Answers:
o To build new models of the way theatre can be
o To connect people and ideas and opportunities- that’s the buzz
o To make things happen
- Commercial vs. fringe vs. subsidised. Different routes and working systems in each.
- The fashionable term of the Creative Producer. General agreement that this term undermines the validity of the Producer in general and their inherent creative role. An Administrative Producer from a subsidised theatre company (building based) pointed out that her role was very creative.
- Discussion of more independent producing and good models. Akram Khan and Farouq Chaudry. Akram is the artist, Farouq the innovator. Theirs is a respected model of collaboration- very close- Farouq with a huge creative input. But we have to remember that not all artists want this. We must have the conversations and set the boundaries early on in the collaboration.
- Discussion about when growing companies and artists take on a producer. When’s the right time? It may be later than you think. Often you need an administrator not a producer. So, useful to note what a producer does that an administrator doesn’t:
o Translator. A speaker of many languages: that of the audience, the artistic team, and venues and funders.
o Building development structures for the work. Helping to position the work and provide a framework and opportunities for its development
o Critical dialogue
o Sustaining a network around the artist and opening up opportunities for them
- Some people referred to the Producer as the first audience member/uber audience, or having the creative overview etc. This might be a controversial stance- Dramaturges often do this but are less and less visible
- Some people have experience of producers having too much power- coming into the Dress rehearsal and making changes for example, or sacking the Director at a late stage! Agreement that this would be a sign of a very bad working relationship to begin with and also more common in very commercial theatre.
- What to do about the imbalance of producers and artists needing producers? I related my experience of mentor’s advice that I should work with a venue or a very reputable company to develop as a producer, rather than staying very independent and able to take on artists at the beginning of their work. If the understanding is that for a producer to develop they need to move into a venue then no wonder there’s an imbalance. However its also very hard for a freelance producer to make a living since the bulk of the work is speculative, trying to raise money. No-one can pay London rent on that kind of work! What kind of help is there for producers to develop? Battersea Arts Centre, Stage One. Not much!
- General frustration from artists that they didn’t know where to find producers. We named:
o Stellar Network (plug for my own organisation!- we hold a large mailing list of all kinds of producers)
o Recent graduates off the Birkbeck Creative Producing strand. Also the Central strand.
o Old Vic New Voices
o Young Vic – they hold a producers list much like their directors list
- Useful to talk about how producers find artists they want to work with. Firstly producers can only usually take on artists that are already a little established, as the unpaid work involved in establishing them can be impossible to take on. Producers try and see as much stuff as possible and keep in touch with artists to see how they develop so as to come on board at the right time.
- Good examples are Fuel, Arts Admin, Your Imagination when it existed. We need more of these! But companies like that can’t start up and sustain without subsidy and they often don’t have the capacity to take on half the artists they’d like to.
- More frustration voiced at how artists get their work seen and a call for producers to get involved in seeing as many readings/workshops etc as possible. I mentioned Stellar Network and our aim to get producers, directors, artists, writers and actors in the same room on a regular basis. The responsibility is then on you to network and get yourself talking to people.
- Actions:
o Unlimited Theatre will run a panel on giving basic ‘producing’ tools to those artists and companies that need it but can’t find a producer. A stopgap. Stellar Network will run the event.
o Stellar Network will look at running a ‘Lonely Hearts’ monthly mailout detailing companies work and where it can be seen, and send out to list of Producers so that we are facilitating as much matchmaking as possible. We may also run a salon and speed networking type event that gets producers and artists together. But how successful can this be if there are always more artists than producers? Can people attached to venues help companies and artists out in their spare time (much like people work on the fringe)?
Participants: About 20 people- didn’t get names, sorry everyone!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Why did people come to this session? Lack of producers in one place so producers came wanting to see each other. Directors looking for producers. Various artists wanting to know what producers do.
- Discussion of how collaborations are begun and sustained, with discussion about what stage producers come on board and how long they sustain. Lots of producers want to work with the same artist from project to project.
- What makes producers tick? Lots of people wanted to know why producers do what they do. Answers:
o To build new models of the way theatre can be
o To connect people and ideas and opportunities- that’s the buzz
o To make things happen
- Commercial vs. fringe vs. subsidised. Different routes and working systems in each.
- The fashionable term of the Creative Producer. General agreement that this term undermines the validity of the Producer in general and their inherent creative role. An Administrative Producer from a subsidised theatre company (building based) pointed out that her role was very creative.
- Discussion of more independent producing and good models. Akram Khan and Farouq Chaudry. Akram is the artist, Farouq the innovator. Theirs is a respected model of collaboration- very close- Farouq with a huge creative input. But we have to remember that not all artists want this. We must have the conversations and set the boundaries early on in the collaboration.
- Discussion about when growing companies and artists take on a producer. When’s the right time? It may be later than you think. Often you need an administrator not a producer. So, useful to note what a producer does that an administrator doesn’t:
o Translator. A speaker of many languages: that of the audience, the artistic team, and venues and funders.
o Building development structures for the work. Helping to position the work and provide a framework and opportunities for its development
o Critical dialogue
o Sustaining a network around the artist and opening up opportunities for them
- Some people referred to the Producer as the first audience member/uber audience, or having the creative overview etc. This might be a controversial stance- Dramaturges often do this but are less and less visible
- Some people have experience of producers having too much power- coming into the Dress rehearsal and making changes for example, or sacking the Director at a late stage! Agreement that this would be a sign of a very bad working relationship to begin with and also more common in very commercial theatre.
- What to do about the imbalance of producers and artists needing producers? I related my experience of mentor’s advice that I should work with a venue or a very reputable company to develop as a producer, rather than staying very independent and able to take on artists at the beginning of their work. If the understanding is that for a producer to develop they need to move into a venue then no wonder there’s an imbalance. However its also very hard for a freelance producer to make a living since the bulk of the work is speculative, trying to raise money. No-one can pay London rent on that kind of work! What kind of help is there for producers to develop? Battersea Arts Centre, Stage One. Not much!
- General frustration from artists that they didn’t know where to find producers. We named:
o Stellar Network (plug for my own organisation!- we hold a large mailing list of all kinds of producers)
o Recent graduates off the Birkbeck Creative Producing strand. Also the Central strand.
o Old Vic New Voices
o Young Vic – they hold a producers list much like their directors list
- Useful to talk about how producers find artists they want to work with. Firstly producers can only usually take on artists that are already a little established, as the unpaid work involved in establishing them can be impossible to take on. Producers try and see as much stuff as possible and keep in touch with artists to see how they develop so as to come on board at the right time.
- Good examples are Fuel, Arts Admin, Your Imagination when it existed. We need more of these! But companies like that can’t start up and sustain without subsidy and they often don’t have the capacity to take on half the artists they’d like to.
- More frustration voiced at how artists get their work seen and a call for producers to get involved in seeing as many readings/workshops etc as possible. I mentioned Stellar Network and our aim to get producers, directors, artists, writers and actors in the same room on a regular basis. The responsibility is then on you to network and get yourself talking to people.
- Actions:
o Unlimited Theatre will run a panel on giving basic ‘producing’ tools to those artists and companies that need it but can’t find a producer. A stopgap. Stellar Network will run the event.
o Stellar Network will look at running a ‘Lonely Hearts’ monthly mailout detailing companies work and where it can be seen, and send out to list of Producers so that we are facilitating as much matchmaking as possible. We may also run a salon and speed networking type event that gets producers and artists together. But how successful can this be if there are always more artists than producers? Can people attached to venues help companies and artists out in their spare time (much like people work on the fringe)?
049 We devised, but I directed? After devising a piece as a group, giving freedom to the actors.. the question of ownership and ‘did you really direct
Conveners: Myro, Samal
Participants: Steve, Phelim,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- The Problem is very common (you are not alone),
- only happens when a piece is successful
- this is a normal process for good devised work
Can be avoided by:
- CLARITY
- Explaining style of directing. Sometimes ‘alternative’ style (less dictatorial, more about creating an environment for actors to explore), causes confusion as if this is directing.
- having clear roles from the beginning (i.e. contracts)
- be sure of your roles/inhabit the role completely
- people seem to need safety given by roles
- fixed roles become especially important when the devising system starts to
interact with outside systems.
Possible ways to help ensuring/ finding out who the director is:
- ask yourself if the show would have been shit, who would have been blamed?
- Who would have taken responsibility?
- Who sat down and started the process (also applies for company founding)
For Help go to:
ITC – independent theatre company
Directors guild (join)
Participants: Steve, Phelim,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- The Problem is very common (you are not alone),
- only happens when a piece is successful
- this is a normal process for good devised work
Can be avoided by:
- CLARITY
- Explaining style of directing. Sometimes ‘alternative’ style (less dictatorial, more about creating an environment for actors to explore), causes confusion as if this is directing.
- having clear roles from the beginning (i.e. contracts)
- be sure of your roles/inhabit the role completely
- people seem to need safety given by roles
- fixed roles become especially important when the devising system starts to
interact with outside systems.
Possible ways to help ensuring/ finding out who the director is:
- ask yourself if the show would have been shit, who would have been blamed?
- Who would have taken responsibility?
- Who sat down and started the process (also applies for company founding)
For Help go to:
ITC – independent theatre company
Directors guild (join)
034 Circus Theatre: An Oxymoron?
Convener: Mark Morreau
Participants: Sharon Kean, Naomi O’Kelly, Catriona James, Neil Keating, Lynn Gardner, Gigi, Jo Hammet, Roisin Stimpson, Matilda Leyser, Leslie Coosens, Zoe Cobb, Liz Chen,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Discussion:
We started by discussing the term “Circus Theatre. As a term, it had a historical usefulness for giving legitimacy for circus shows/companies who were trying to add narrative to their “tricks”. Now that circus has gained respectability as a legitimate art form, it’s no longer necessary to add the word “theatre” in order to gain respect (or funding). However, the term “Circus Theatre” is still useful for funding and promotional purposes. Companies call themselves “Circus Theatre” companies as an indication of the style of their work, for example “SoandSo CircusTheatre” and “Acrojou CircusTheatre”.
However, the purpose of our convention was not to discuss the label, but to ask whether the art forms “circus” and “theatre” are compatible with each other, whether one can incorporate circus seamlessly into theatre as a narrative element, or whether you can add narrative to circus without destroying the innate theatricality of the discrete circus act.
The discussion kicked off with as assertion that “circus” and “theatre” are not compatible: Circus is a real art form, where the performer is genuinely doing the skills, actually risking their life live on stage. Theatre, on the other hand, depends on suspension of disbelief: imagine this man is a Danish prince, there’s the castle, there’s the mountain. The real and the imaginary will collide. Things can go wrong, and often end up very badly.
There was a suggestion that Circus Theatre often falls down because the circus performers have spent their training on learning their technical skills, and have not gained sufficient performance skills to be convincing actors.
Better performance training is necessary for circus artists.
The Australian company Circa was cited as an example where a theatrical show was created by stripping away all the performative elements from the acrobatic disciplines of the performers. The less “theatre” they did the more the audience saw in their show. The audience were able to use their own imaginations and saw their own stories in the work.
It was suggested that “legitimate” theatre had a magpie approach to disciplines such as puppetry and circus: that they would swoop in and grab the shiny bits for their shows. Circus was thus in danger of giving bits of itself away cheaply. Warhorse was cited as an example of how “legitimate” theatre had properly embraced puppetry to create a show, eschewing the magpie temptation. The National Theatre attempted to do this with a production of The Birds in about 2003 that was not really a success. Some believed that it set the “cause” of Circus Theatre back.
We asked how you get your show off the ground, whether Circus Theatre was a new thing (no!), whether it should just be called “theatre”, or indeed why does it matter what it’s called?
Examples were cited where the (bad) theatre of a show had ruined the (good) circus elements of it (and vice versa).
Some of the non-performative elements of circus (the rigging, for example) had their own drama, and did not need to be hidden from the audience.
- Circus Training institutions improving the performance training element of their courses.
- Giving opportunities for theatre practitioners – directors, producers and technical staff – to learn more about circus skills in order to increase their vocabulary and understand the potential use of circus skills in their productions.
030 I’m starting to direct stuff, would you like to work with me?
Convener: Stella Duffy
Participants: Martyn Duffy, Tom Brocklehurst, Kas Darley, Jeni Toksvig, Rupert Jones, Shakera Louise Ahad, Will Heather, Gail Sawyer, Gigi, Mark Price, Mary O’Connor, Jen Lunn, Sarah Ball
And others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Stella : I’ve only just started calling myself a director and am issuing an invitation to make work with people who think they would LIKE to work with me. Probably sort of scripted/made/devised/improvised work. Probably.
The issue expanded to how it is for many directors, to make work, how we make work, how we share, support, how we need support and that it would be great to support each other.
Some questions :
- what do we think about co-directing? (good, scary, works with some people!)
- some are intimidated by ‘devising’
- beautifully directed theatre is about knowing where to look
- ideas are (unfortunately) often more lauded than heart
- FEELINGS
- A conversation about Beckett – how the name becomes too hard to work with, everyone else’s expectations
- How do you use the word? Is there a quota of plays you have to direct every year before you are a ‘director’?
Lots of those present gave their names and email addresses to me, and maybe we’ll come together to do something, over a day/weekend in a little while. I’ll stay in touch with those who came and see if me (or any of them) want to suggest coming together to play/work on/work at/play/make … something.
If anyone else would like to be added to this list of people email me :
stell at clara.co.uk
Participants: Martyn Duffy, Tom Brocklehurst, Kas Darley, Jeni Toksvig, Rupert Jones, Shakera Louise Ahad, Will Heather, Gail Sawyer, Gigi, Mark Price, Mary O’Connor, Jen Lunn, Sarah Ball
And others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Stella : I’ve only just started calling myself a director and am issuing an invitation to make work with people who think they would LIKE to work with me. Probably sort of scripted/made/devised/improvised work. Probably.
The issue expanded to how it is for many directors, to make work, how we make work, how we share, support, how we need support and that it would be great to support each other.
Some questions :
- what do we think about co-directing? (good, scary, works with some people!)
- some are intimidated by ‘devising’
- beautifully directed theatre is about knowing where to look
- ideas are (unfortunately) often more lauded than heart
- FEELINGS
- A conversation about Beckett – how the name becomes too hard to work with, everyone else’s expectations
- How do you use the word? Is there a quota of plays you have to direct every year before you are a ‘director’?
Lots of those present gave their names and email addresses to me, and maybe we’ll come together to do something, over a day/weekend in a little while. I’ll stay in touch with those who came and see if me (or any of them) want to suggest coming together to play/work on/work at/play/make … something.
If anyone else would like to be added to this list of people email me :
stell at clara.co.uk
027 What BIG things do SMALL groups of people do best?
Convener: Annie Rigby
Participants: Jonathan ‘Peth’, Rachael McGill, Jo Turner, Matilda Leyser
(a small group - perfectly so!)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Why is it that bigger organizations with more resources have less time?
Are small groups of people less encumbered, more elegant, lighter on their feet?
CONNECTING:
Small companies know their audiences on a more conversational scale. The relationship is more personal.
FAILURE:
It is less shameful for small companies to cancel/abandon projects. And less costly – they probably haven’t got 10,000 brochures for the 2011 season printed yet…
It’s easier for small groups to TAKE RISKS. There’s less to lose. They can just stop.
LOOKING AFTER STAFF:
A small company can be more responsive to staff. If it lets one person bring a dog in, it doesn’t have to implement a company-wide ‘Pets at Work’ policy.
Smaller companies can more easily involve all their staff in intelligent conversations.
(Small companies can still be shit, mind.)
BRINGING ALL OF OURSELVES:
In a smaller group people bring more of themselves, and have less narrowly defined roles.
SCALING UP AND DOWN:
Small companies are good at morphing and changing scale temporarily.
Freelancers make more of an impact.
No one expects small companies to have the answer, so they can do more ‘kite-flying’.
Small groups fit in one car.
MORE FUN:
Working in small groups means sometimes you have to do unusual things (making a 1940s-looking newspaper quickly for a Fringe show).
Isn’t this where we had more fun...?
What is dangerous for small groups:
- Assuming that being a small groups means you need to think small
- Knocks can hit harder
- One person disappears and the whole thing goes (although is this sometimes ok?)
COMMUNICATION:
It’s quicker amongst a small group of people.
COLLABORATION:
It’s easier to collaborate more deeply with a small group. There’s time to share what each person is doing; to get involved in each other’s process.
What SMALL things do BIG groups of people do best?
Small talk.
Big groups always have good gossip.
And a contribution from Twitter which put a whole new slant on small groups/big power:
“It reminds me of that old saw: ‘the British Empire’ was built on the playing fields of Eton”…
Participants: Jonathan ‘Peth’, Rachael McGill, Jo Turner, Matilda Leyser
(a small group - perfectly so!)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Why is it that bigger organizations with more resources have less time?
Are small groups of people less encumbered, more elegant, lighter on their feet?
CONNECTING:
Small companies know their audiences on a more conversational scale. The relationship is more personal.
FAILURE:
It is less shameful for small companies to cancel/abandon projects. And less costly – they probably haven’t got 10,000 brochures for the 2011 season printed yet…
It’s easier for small groups to TAKE RISKS. There’s less to lose. They can just stop.
LOOKING AFTER STAFF:
A small company can be more responsive to staff. If it lets one person bring a dog in, it doesn’t have to implement a company-wide ‘Pets at Work’ policy.
Smaller companies can more easily involve all their staff in intelligent conversations.
(Small companies can still be shit, mind.)
BRINGING ALL OF OURSELVES:
In a smaller group people bring more of themselves, and have less narrowly defined roles.
SCALING UP AND DOWN:
Small companies are good at morphing and changing scale temporarily.
Freelancers make more of an impact.
No one expects small companies to have the answer, so they can do more ‘kite-flying’.
Small groups fit in one car.
MORE FUN:
Working in small groups means sometimes you have to do unusual things (making a 1940s-looking newspaper quickly for a Fringe show).
Isn’t this where we had more fun...?
What is dangerous for small groups:
- Assuming that being a small groups means you need to think small
- Knocks can hit harder
- One person disappears and the whole thing goes (although is this sometimes ok?)
COMMUNICATION:
It’s quicker amongst a small group of people.
COLLABORATION:
It’s easier to collaborate more deeply with a small group. There’s time to share what each person is doing; to get involved in each other’s process.
What SMALL things do BIG groups of people do best?
Small talk.
Big groups always have good gossip.
And a contribution from Twitter which put a whole new slant on small groups/big power:
“It reminds me of that old saw: ‘the British Empire’ was built on the playing fields of Eton”…
023 Science in Theatre?
Convener: Jack Lowe
Participants:
Anna O’Brien, Tyne Rafaeli, Dee Evans, Liam J O’Driscole, Katie Murturgh, James Blakey, Lizzie Wiggs and more – (forgot to ask to sign up! Please do if you were there)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion opened with a shared history/experience of theatre which engages with scientific debate. Various projects, small/large scale companies, and issues including:
• Plymouth Theatre
• Gecko
• Sci-Lab
• Complicité
• Clod ensemble – performance medecine
• Danny Boyle’s “Frankenstein” etc
• Kandinsky, Blast theory and Curious Directive
Discussed other access points to popular science today
• BBC Horizon
• The news etc
What are the questions of ethics in performance about science that we need to keep in mind?
We looked at the difference between putting on theatre which looks at:
• Specific scientific content
o LHC
o Bio-technology
o Moments of discovery
o Mnemonic
• Specific scientific processes
o Theory
o Equations
o Sequences
• How this can be put into performance
We discussed/dissected and interrogated the thesis of the “Snow Base: Triptych” – a new science/theatre venue at the Edinburgh International Science festival, taking place in April 2010. Particularly looking at:
• Which form of performer/audience relationship can be used to tell stories/narrative about science
o Installation
o Sculpture
o Live performance
We looked at the idea of Scientists in co-creation with theatre makers. What can we learn from each other, and how can we inspire one another. Conclusion: “Theatre is not Science’s bitch!” (and vice verse)
Questioned Art/drama/music therapy?
Discussed www.ted.com and it’s role in generating accessible science related performance.
BBC Life, Planet earth = the sort of inspirational support of science which interests us.
Conclusions: Theatre can take a huge amount of inspiration from Science, and Scientists are eager to engage with artists/theatre makers. The process for setting up this relationship takes a huge amount of preparation and thought. We’re all up for it!
Participants:
Anna O’Brien, Tyne Rafaeli, Dee Evans, Liam J O’Driscole, Katie Murturgh, James Blakey, Lizzie Wiggs and more – (forgot to ask to sign up! Please do if you were there)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion opened with a shared history/experience of theatre which engages with scientific debate. Various projects, small/large scale companies, and issues including:
• Plymouth Theatre
• Gecko
• Sci-Lab
• Complicité
• Clod ensemble – performance medecine
• Danny Boyle’s “Frankenstein” etc
• Kandinsky, Blast theory and Curious Directive
Discussed other access points to popular science today
• BBC Horizon
• The news etc
What are the questions of ethics in performance about science that we need to keep in mind?
We looked at the difference between putting on theatre which looks at:
• Specific scientific content
o LHC
o Bio-technology
o Moments of discovery
o Mnemonic
• Specific scientific processes
o Theory
o Equations
o Sequences
• How this can be put into performance
We discussed/dissected and interrogated the thesis of the “Snow Base: Triptych” – a new science/theatre venue at the Edinburgh International Science festival, taking place in April 2010. Particularly looking at:
• Which form of performer/audience relationship can be used to tell stories/narrative about science
o Installation
o Sculpture
o Live performance
We looked at the idea of Scientists in co-creation with theatre makers. What can we learn from each other, and how can we inspire one another. Conclusion: “Theatre is not Science’s bitch!” (and vice verse)
Questioned Art/drama/music therapy?
Discussed www.ted.com and it’s role in generating accessible science related performance.
BBC Life, Planet earth = the sort of inspirational support of science which interests us.
Conclusions: Theatre can take a huge amount of inspiration from Science, and Scientists are eager to engage with artists/theatre makers. The process for setting up this relationship takes a huge amount of preparation and thought. We’re all up for it!
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
001 Theatre Collaboration with Members of the Public
Convener: Michelle Read
Participants: Jessica Manley, Beccy Owen, Martin McLeon, Sara, Mark Trezone + 12 or so
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Starting Points: ‘Real People’, Stories, Themes, ‘Left-turns’, Degrees of Collaboration, Artist and Participant (as artist).
Many problems with verbatim theatre – Truth claims, issue of authenticity, didactic, manipulate audience into one particular POV.
ref Talking to Terrorists (Robin Soans),
The Laramie Project (Moises Kaufman), Tribunal plays.
What about people involved more in the process of making work; involved in workshops not just as source of stories / research? Even as possible performers ref: Rimini Protokoll in Berlin and Quarantine in Manchester.
Qu: Who is the audience? Who is the piece for?
For general audience.
Ethics: people’s ownership of their stories.
Clarity needed from outset.
Audience as participants: examples Jonathan Kay fooling work involves audience, Nic Greene Trilogy show. Coney Theatre – participatory and interactive work.
Comment that Trilogy uses its three hour length to engage the audience to participate. It was pointed out that the piece started out as a 40 min scratch piece and people still participated. “I joined in because I agreed with the show”. Idea of agreement.
Coney use game formats but also draw on dramaturgical ideas, objectives etc.
With audience participants it’s about helping them to ‘opt in’, getting them to ‘buy in’.
All process involves planning on how to collaborate – about making participants comfortable. What is the invitation that is being extended? Trust. Clarifying expectation? Safe environment rather than vacuum, ‘in the moment permission-giving’. Roles and titles can be barriers.
Comment on outreach work as an example of talking to members of public. ‘you’re supposed to know what you’re aiming for before you go in, but does this mean that you try to fit people to your schema, or if you don’t have an aim are you just collecting stories looking for ideas ‘and then I’m off’?
Participation can be a transformative experience for people.
How do you evaluate?
Not just looking for ‘stories’, may be philosophy of life, experience, area of expertise.
Participant has growing responsibility as their involvement deepens.
Do participants need emotional back-up?
Authorship? Down to degree of collaboration. Flexibility of collaboration.
Apologies to all involved, this was a more varied debate than represented here. I called the meeting and then tried to take notes, which didn’t work so well.
Michelle
Participants: Jessica Manley, Beccy Owen, Martin McLeon, Sara, Mark Trezone + 12 or so
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Starting Points: ‘Real People’, Stories, Themes, ‘Left-turns’, Degrees of Collaboration, Artist and Participant (as artist).
Many problems with verbatim theatre – Truth claims, issue of authenticity, didactic, manipulate audience into one particular POV.
ref Talking to Terrorists (Robin Soans),
The Laramie Project (Moises Kaufman), Tribunal plays.
What about people involved more in the process of making work; involved in workshops not just as source of stories / research? Even as possible performers ref: Rimini Protokoll in Berlin and Quarantine in Manchester.
Qu: Who is the audience? Who is the piece for?
For general audience.
Ethics: people’s ownership of their stories.
Clarity needed from outset.
Audience as participants: examples Jonathan Kay fooling work involves audience, Nic Greene Trilogy show. Coney Theatre – participatory and interactive work.
Comment that Trilogy uses its three hour length to engage the audience to participate. It was pointed out that the piece started out as a 40 min scratch piece and people still participated. “I joined in because I agreed with the show”. Idea of agreement.
Coney use game formats but also draw on dramaturgical ideas, objectives etc.
With audience participants it’s about helping them to ‘opt in’, getting them to ‘buy in’.
All process involves planning on how to collaborate – about making participants comfortable. What is the invitation that is being extended? Trust. Clarifying expectation? Safe environment rather than vacuum, ‘in the moment permission-giving’. Roles and titles can be barriers.
Comment on outreach work as an example of talking to members of public. ‘you’re supposed to know what you’re aiming for before you go in, but does this mean that you try to fit people to your schema, or if you don’t have an aim are you just collecting stories looking for ideas ‘and then I’m off’?
Participation can be a transformative experience for people.
How do you evaluate?
Not just looking for ‘stories’, may be philosophy of life, experience, area of expertise.
Participant has growing responsibility as their involvement deepens.
Do participants need emotional back-up?
Authorship? Down to degree of collaboration. Flexibility of collaboration.
Apologies to all involved, this was a more varied debate than represented here. I called the meeting and then tried to take notes, which didn’t work so well.
Michelle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)