Jen Toksvig gathered email addresses and used that list of people to set up the DandD E-List, which is now up and running. Members of the Ning have also been invited to join it. If you’re not on the list but want to be, you can email Jen via devotedanddisgruntled at gmail.com or you can contact Improbable in any one of the online ways, and you’ll be added.
(Note that the E-List is not the same thing as being on the Improbable mailing list. The E-List is for discussions about theatre via email.)
Showing posts with label community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label community. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
109 Does it matter to us who’s in the next government?
Convener: Tassos Stevens
Participants: included… Jonathan Holmes, Jon Spooner, David Betz-Heinemann, Mark Moreau, Chris Goode, Lyndsey Jackson, Greg McLaren, Jonny Liron, and many others I don’t have
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The headlines…
It doesn’t matter to us with respect to the likely funding landscape which party is in power. The Tories will cut funding to the arts, Labour will have the rhetoric but very likely that provision will be eroded. We end up in the same place.
If we want to challenge this, then we need to lobby and campaign effectively to make the argument for the value of the arts in our society. Very practical thinking ensued.
Jonathan Holmes has taken the lead and mailed the following around, which summarises beautifully where we’re at; mail him on jonathan at jerichohouse.org.uk if you want to get involved.
[I’ll write up additional notes from the session and post at http://bit.ly/dd5artvalue]
This is by way of a follow-up to the discussion at D & D on Sunday about the importance of the general election result to the arts.
We concluded that, whichever party forms the next government, the likely impact on arts funding will be negative, and the only partisan difference will be the rhetoric and processes accompanying the inevitable cuts. In fact, it's probable that the next governmental spending review will have a devastating outcome for all in the arts unless we act very quickly.
It follows that the time to do something about this is now, when there's a chance of influencing election manifestos and campaign pledges, rather than after the fact, when the task will be so much harder. It's easier to influence a decision in the process of being thought through than it is to reverse one already made.
Several examples of successful lobbying campaigns were discussed on Sunday, such as the campaign to save BAC, the climate change lobby, Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas and so forth. Each of these has elements from which we can learn, and most importantly they all demonstrate that something CAN be done, if we want it to be. If we do nothing now then we'll have no right to complain when everything goes pear-shaped in a few years' time.
An immediate action we agreed upon was the creation of a document in which all the arguments for the value of the arts - economic, social, philosophical, political - were gathered together in one place. This would then form the basis of a campaign manifesto which would sit at the core of all our activities.
I offered to compile this document to set the ball rolling, but it's a lot of work and I'd appreciate your help - if there are any nuggets of evidence you can supply to demonstrate the value of the arts, please pass them over. It's really important that such nuggets be facts or statistics, NOT anecdotes or dearly held personal beliefs; the campaign has to be as empirical and non-ideological as possible.
As to the next step, it was suggested that the best way of organising this might be a kind of cellular structure, with everyone doing what they could in their own way and connecting via a set of principles and methods, rather than setting up a formal organisation. But it seems that this would still need a kind of a steering group to co-ordinate certain activities. So maybe the best next step would be to arrange a particular D & D session at the Actors' Centre to talk all this through?
Finally, to gauge ongoing support for starting such a campaign, could I ask you all to reply to this email, indicating how involved you're able to be? One line will do, and all levels of involvement, from the tiny to the considerable, are appreciated. And if no-one responds, I won't rush around writing the arts value document... Equally, if there are people you know who want to be involved, please pass their emails over and I'll add them to this initial list; perhaps someone else could then take over from me in administering the group...?!
I know from conversations elsewhere that there's a significant groundswell of support for this sort of campaign throughout the arts world; let's not let the opportunity pass by!
Thanks everyone, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you!
a blog on the topic has been started here: http://valuethearts.wordpress.com/
Participants: included… Jonathan Holmes, Jon Spooner, David Betz-Heinemann, Mark Moreau, Chris Goode, Lyndsey Jackson, Greg McLaren, Jonny Liron, and many others I don’t have
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The headlines…
It doesn’t matter to us with respect to the likely funding landscape which party is in power. The Tories will cut funding to the arts, Labour will have the rhetoric but very likely that provision will be eroded. We end up in the same place.
If we want to challenge this, then we need to lobby and campaign effectively to make the argument for the value of the arts in our society. Very practical thinking ensued.
Jonathan Holmes has taken the lead and mailed the following around, which summarises beautifully where we’re at; mail him on jonathan at jerichohouse.org.uk if you want to get involved.
[I’ll write up additional notes from the session and post at http://bit.ly/dd5artvalue]
This is by way of a follow-up to the discussion at D & D on Sunday about the importance of the general election result to the arts.
We concluded that, whichever party forms the next government, the likely impact on arts funding will be negative, and the only partisan difference will be the rhetoric and processes accompanying the inevitable cuts. In fact, it's probable that the next governmental spending review will have a devastating outcome for all in the arts unless we act very quickly.
It follows that the time to do something about this is now, when there's a chance of influencing election manifestos and campaign pledges, rather than after the fact, when the task will be so much harder. It's easier to influence a decision in the process of being thought through than it is to reverse one already made.
Several examples of successful lobbying campaigns were discussed on Sunday, such as the campaign to save BAC, the climate change lobby, Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas and so forth. Each of these has elements from which we can learn, and most importantly they all demonstrate that something CAN be done, if we want it to be. If we do nothing now then we'll have no right to complain when everything goes pear-shaped in a few years' time.
An immediate action we agreed upon was the creation of a document in which all the arguments for the value of the arts - economic, social, philosophical, political - were gathered together in one place. This would then form the basis of a campaign manifesto which would sit at the core of all our activities.
I offered to compile this document to set the ball rolling, but it's a lot of work and I'd appreciate your help - if there are any nuggets of evidence you can supply to demonstrate the value of the arts, please pass them over. It's really important that such nuggets be facts or statistics, NOT anecdotes or dearly held personal beliefs; the campaign has to be as empirical and non-ideological as possible.
As to the next step, it was suggested that the best way of organising this might be a kind of cellular structure, with everyone doing what they could in their own way and connecting via a set of principles and methods, rather than setting up a formal organisation. But it seems that this would still need a kind of a steering group to co-ordinate certain activities. So maybe the best next step would be to arrange a particular D & D session at the Actors' Centre to talk all this through?
Finally, to gauge ongoing support for starting such a campaign, could I ask you all to reply to this email, indicating how involved you're able to be? One line will do, and all levels of involvement, from the tiny to the considerable, are appreciated. And if no-one responds, I won't rush around writing the arts value document... Equally, if there are people you know who want to be involved, please pass their emails over and I'll add them to this initial list; perhaps someone else could then take over from me in administering the group...?!
I know from conversations elsewhere that there's a significant groundswell of support for this sort of campaign throughout the arts world; let's not let the opportunity pass by!
Thanks everyone, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you!
a blog on the topic has been started here: http://valuethearts.wordpress.com/
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.
075 Can the D+D networking site support/work better? Ideas?
Convener: Emma Adams
Participants: Shakera Louise Ahad, Lie Chen, Laura Farworth (sorry if I got your last name wrong, I found it hard to read your writing), Thomas Hescott, Mark Morreas, Robert Welle, Phelim McDermott, Leslie Cooke, Annie Rigby, Jeni Toksvig, Dan Johnston, Clare Fischer, The Red Hedgehog + other folk too.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This was a wide ranging conversation which I struggled to keep up with at times. Scribing and thinking at the same time…
Questions and problems that were brought up:
Is the Ning D+D Site any good?
Do we need a site at all?
Pros and Cons of different social networking sites and how to use them?
What motivates people to go to the Ning site?
How can we keep the energy that is in the room here alive when we go home?
D+D can be everything and anything so does this make it hard to translate into a site with clear goals and objectives?
D+D gives energy here in the flesh and then disillusionment when we go on line, but live monthly events work
Do people want to keep the experience of coming to D+D events as discreet ‘energy boosts’ which you don’t have the responsibility of putting energy into beyond the event its self???
Vicious circle of lack of critical mass – the site doesn’t get traffic so people don’t find anything so don’t go back etc etc
Every year people say that they want the Ning site to work, but then the energy drops and it doesn’t work like that.
Too much of a focus on what Improbable ‘should be doing’.
Suggestions of how to move forward / solutions:
Should it be more of a case that people take on responsibility for themselves?
Would it work to have live chat / weekly update or do we need a news letter?
Social Networking sites:
Different people have different ways of interacting with platforms
Twitter not good for in-depth discussions
Twitter brings instant energy into the D&D event itself
Whatever solution comes needs to be low on man hours
Sadness that the energy in this room can’t be maintained.
For an online community to work, need to establish the point of the live community, ask the question of how we motivate and give value to that community, then need to express this through a question so that people know the point of going online.
Status is not an issue in the room, but the question, “Can I have your email address?” outside this room becomes something entirely different.
Really interesting: Issue of status, which is clear in the abstract industry, but not so clear in this room. Within the abstract industry, the rules work differently. Face to face, in the room, you can have time to build trust and figure out other people’s intentions.
Moderated: focus is kept on topic. (That’s a man-hour nightmare!)
Continue to have the Ning, but set up an email list. Add people who are on the Ning automatically but they can opt out, the hope being that this would bring more traffic to the site which might give us critical mass.
Some suggestion that this might fracture things into many different platforms, or it might just lead to different kinds of usage on different kinds of platforms.
Theatre Bristol have just done an Open Space and their website is very clear.
Ideas for expanding the use of D&D on Twitter, using Devoted and Disgruntled as separate identities. Maybe too complex, should just hash DD5
Does having a nice site motivate people to use it?
Are questions open or closed on the site: does that affect how people use it?
Facebook: news page helps distil what’s going on into one easy digest.
What people say they want while they’re at D&D doesn’t always match what they actually want, or what they do, once they’ve left the experience.
The Open Space list was great until someone suggested they all join a Ning, so lately it’s lost momentum as the Ning has taken off. The critical mass has moved.
Young Vic Directors’ Forum: also has an email list.
Not about going to a website, but about receiving something in your inbox.
It would be good if the social networking that comes out of the event mirrors the vibe of the event itself.
Mel administrates from Improbable, Jen also helps but has nothing to do because no-one really uses it.
Someone suggested that putting stuff up on the Ning won’t get noticed because no-one goes there.
Is Ning just the wrong tool?
The relationships one forms at D&D don’t make sense to continue in a social networking way. It’s more about having a coffee face-to-face.
Is it about sustaining the energy? Or is it about finding something else?
Phelim would like whatever it is to be open access.
There’s always a rush afterwards, and then it all dies.
People say they want stuff, but then it doesn’t work like that.
People said that the monthly meetings are fine.
Suggestion for meetings online with live chat?
Plan for Action Meeting on Monday:
Email list?
This has now been set up- you can join here
Live chat meetings online for those who can’t get to monthly meetings in London?
Who is going to Tweet?
Phelim has now set up a D&D UK Twitter feed @DandDUK
Participants: Shakera Louise Ahad, Lie Chen, Laura Farworth (sorry if I got your last name wrong, I found it hard to read your writing), Thomas Hescott, Mark Morreas, Robert Welle, Phelim McDermott, Leslie Cooke, Annie Rigby, Jeni Toksvig, Dan Johnston, Clare Fischer, The Red Hedgehog + other folk too.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This was a wide ranging conversation which I struggled to keep up with at times. Scribing and thinking at the same time…
Questions and problems that were brought up:
Is the Ning D+D Site any good?
Do we need a site at all?
Pros and Cons of different social networking sites and how to use them?
What motivates people to go to the Ning site?
How can we keep the energy that is in the room here alive when we go home?
D+D can be everything and anything so does this make it hard to translate into a site with clear goals and objectives?
D+D gives energy here in the flesh and then disillusionment when we go on line, but live monthly events work
Do people want to keep the experience of coming to D+D events as discreet ‘energy boosts’ which you don’t have the responsibility of putting energy into beyond the event its self???
Vicious circle of lack of critical mass – the site doesn’t get traffic so people don’t find anything so don’t go back etc etc
Every year people say that they want the Ning site to work, but then the energy drops and it doesn’t work like that.
Too much of a focus on what Improbable ‘should be doing’.
Suggestions of how to move forward / solutions:
Should it be more of a case that people take on responsibility for themselves?
Would it work to have live chat / weekly update or do we need a news letter?
Social Networking sites:
Different people have different ways of interacting with platforms
Twitter not good for in-depth discussions
Twitter brings instant energy into the D&D event itself
Whatever solution comes needs to be low on man hours
Sadness that the energy in this room can’t be maintained.
For an online community to work, need to establish the point of the live community, ask the question of how we motivate and give value to that community, then need to express this through a question so that people know the point of going online.
Status is not an issue in the room, but the question, “Can I have your email address?” outside this room becomes something entirely different.
Really interesting: Issue of status, which is clear in the abstract industry, but not so clear in this room. Within the abstract industry, the rules work differently. Face to face, in the room, you can have time to build trust and figure out other people’s intentions.
Moderated: focus is kept on topic. (That’s a man-hour nightmare!)
Continue to have the Ning, but set up an email list. Add people who are on the Ning automatically but they can opt out, the hope being that this would bring more traffic to the site which might give us critical mass.
Some suggestion that this might fracture things into many different platforms, or it might just lead to different kinds of usage on different kinds of platforms.
Theatre Bristol have just done an Open Space and their website is very clear.
Ideas for expanding the use of D&D on Twitter, using Devoted and Disgruntled as separate identities. Maybe too complex, should just hash DD5
Does having a nice site motivate people to use it?
Are questions open or closed on the site: does that affect how people use it?
Facebook: news page helps distil what’s going on into one easy digest.
What people say they want while they’re at D&D doesn’t always match what they actually want, or what they do, once they’ve left the experience.
The Open Space list was great until someone suggested they all join a Ning, so lately it’s lost momentum as the Ning has taken off. The critical mass has moved.
Young Vic Directors’ Forum: also has an email list.
Not about going to a website, but about receiving something in your inbox.
It would be good if the social networking that comes out of the event mirrors the vibe of the event itself.
Mel administrates from Improbable, Jen also helps but has nothing to do because no-one really uses it.
Someone suggested that putting stuff up on the Ning won’t get noticed because no-one goes there.
Is Ning just the wrong tool?
The relationships one forms at D&D don’t make sense to continue in a social networking way. It’s more about having a coffee face-to-face.
Is it about sustaining the energy? Or is it about finding something else?
Phelim would like whatever it is to be open access.
There’s always a rush afterwards, and then it all dies.
People say they want stuff, but then it doesn’t work like that.
People said that the monthly meetings are fine.
Suggestion for meetings online with live chat?
Plan for Action Meeting on Monday:
Email list?
This has now been set up- you can join here
Live chat meetings online for those who can’t get to monthly meetings in London?
Who is going to Tweet?
Phelim has now set up a D&D UK Twitter feed @DandDUK
050 Bunch of Purves? – What is the state and fate of criticism? Does it matter? Will it? Do we even care?
Convener: Matt Trueman
Participants:
A host of people, some of whom I recognized, others who I did not. I’ve added some names and left space for more to be added. Please do…
Alex, Chris Goode, Johnny, Jon, Gemma, James, Maddy, Gerard, Phillipa, Emily, Amy, Kobna, David,
The following is written as if owned collectively and totally. (Probably) No one actually believes all this and yet together WE do.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
First off, we clearly do care. Perhaps I’m projecting my own rage/fire/belief onto a collection of people, but there was a vociferous engagement with the nature, both theoretical and practical, of criticism that suggested we – as critics, practitioners and audience members – want a healthy critical culture.
With the question rephrased (and, initially, misspelt) as “CRITIciSM: Do not resuscitate(?)” there was some deliberation as to whether criticism was, indeed, dead.
Turns out yes and no.
Something that goes by the name of criticism exists. It sits at the back of newspapers, it happens in the pages of Time Out, it can be found online (if one knows where to look.)
However, we are not satisfied with it. It does not have the requisite vitality. There are great critics, but the system is broken: it no longer works for us.
More than that, there are lots of very different things that we call criticism. Perhaps we need to abolish the term itself?
If all theatre criticism stopped at midnight tonight, would we bother to reinvent it? If so, what would it look like? What form would it take? Who would be CREATING (not necessarily writing) it? Who would it be for? What role(s) would/could it fulfil?
Reviews vs Critiques (and more besides)
• Theatre needs reviews, as sort-of consumer guides. (Some) audiences need them to go and see a show. (Some) theatre companies need them to attract and audience.
• In these terms, the critics (as in the council that review the vast majority) have an extraordinary and unhealthy level of influence and power.
• But, theatre also needs critiques. This is where the system is left wanting; it doesn’t have the space to allow for them. More than that, it doesn’t even care. Why should it?
• Criticism as a creative response. “It should be a conversation” How does it allow for/become dialogue? We’re not satisfied with the comment box scenario that the Guardian has employed – token. How does the writing become porous? How does it emerge into a critical culture? How does a piece of writing fit into that culture? Can theatre criticism be collaborative?
• The blogosphere as an important model. There is a community and we like that it exists. (How do you sort the wheat from the chaff? How does the theatre industry harness it? If a vital opinion lands noisily in the blogosphere, does anyone hear it in amongst the cacophony of voices? How does this become sustainable/not a hobby?)
• What we need is a new system. A new forum. But more of that later.
Who are we writing for?
• What are the critic’s responsibilities to the artist and the work? (What if every piece of criticism began with 5 stars?)
• What are the critic’s responsibilities to the process? Is the critic a medium, conveying the artists intentions to the potential audience? After all, theatre is like quartz – sometimes you can tilt it five degrees and it lets the light through. Should theatre critics be integral? Should they be independent? Can they be both?
• Whose side are theatre critics on? Are they part of theatre or part of not-theatre? We want critics onside, not policing us, but we want them to be honest.
• How do practitioners use critics and criticism? Can they become outside eyes in the rehearsal room? Or even be treated as such in the constant ongoing in-progressness of staged work?
• The blogosphere harnesses that and can be both. The unlimited space of the internet means the boundaries can be blurred. Let’s blur the boundaries. Let’s defy categorisation.
• Write for yourself. Write for others in order to write for yourself
Who are the critics?
• We want them to have expertise, but we don’t want them to be an exclusive set. Oooh, there’s a paradox.
• Or is it? There are far more voices with value than a first glance would suggest. We aren’t happy with the same clump of people reviewing all the work. Isn’t that absurd? No other art form has to put up with that?
• (But hang on, we do want people to be gathering it all up together, spinning connections and making sense of it beyond individual works. Otherwise, it is a reviewing culture not a critical one.)
• We want a diversity of voices. Young theatre critics are totally powerless
The system is broken; it has stultified itself, become a fossil, a stagnant cesspool.
It needs revitalising.
Or…
WE NEED A NEW SYSTEM
Ok, so let’s call it an anti-system. Everything that the system doesn’t do, we’ll do that. And we’ll do it well. It shall be known as THE MAGAZINE (for the time being.)
The Magazine will be all-encompassing. It will challenge its own forms, by experimenting with the nature of criticism. It will embrace artists without getting into bed with them. It will find its readership, do its important job, change its world, without breaking itself or believing its own hype. It will become sustainable and it will be more than happy to do so. It will be a creative response. It will be loved and respected. It will do all things for all (theatre) people. It will think about how it can apply and existence according to the principles of Open Space.
There are potential funders – Live Art Development Agency, Arts Admin, Arts Council England. Isn’t it just as important and in need of subsidy? Moreover, if we, the practitioners, want it, why shouldn’t it come out of our funding? What about artists including critics into their funding applications, cf Action Hero. What about festivals doing the same?
Other things to look at include: Open Dialogues, Writing Encounters Conference at York St Johns, The Inbetween Time Festival
(No one mention that journalism is dying. But, whatever happens, the magazine will happen
Participants:
A host of people, some of whom I recognized, others who I did not. I’ve added some names and left space for more to be added. Please do…
Alex, Chris Goode, Johnny, Jon, Gemma, James, Maddy, Gerard, Phillipa, Emily, Amy, Kobna, David,
The following is written as if owned collectively and totally. (Probably) No one actually believes all this and yet together WE do.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
First off, we clearly do care. Perhaps I’m projecting my own rage/fire/belief onto a collection of people, but there was a vociferous engagement with the nature, both theoretical and practical, of criticism that suggested we – as critics, practitioners and audience members – want a healthy critical culture.
With the question rephrased (and, initially, misspelt) as “CRITIciSM: Do not resuscitate(?)” there was some deliberation as to whether criticism was, indeed, dead.
Turns out yes and no.
Something that goes by the name of criticism exists. It sits at the back of newspapers, it happens in the pages of Time Out, it can be found online (if one knows where to look.)
However, we are not satisfied with it. It does not have the requisite vitality. There are great critics, but the system is broken: it no longer works for us.
More than that, there are lots of very different things that we call criticism. Perhaps we need to abolish the term itself?
If all theatre criticism stopped at midnight tonight, would we bother to reinvent it? If so, what would it look like? What form would it take? Who would be CREATING (not necessarily writing) it? Who would it be for? What role(s) would/could it fulfil?
Reviews vs Critiques (and more besides)
• Theatre needs reviews, as sort-of consumer guides. (Some) audiences need them to go and see a show. (Some) theatre companies need them to attract and audience.
• In these terms, the critics (as in the council that review the vast majority) have an extraordinary and unhealthy level of influence and power.
• But, theatre also needs critiques. This is where the system is left wanting; it doesn’t have the space to allow for them. More than that, it doesn’t even care. Why should it?
• Criticism as a creative response. “It should be a conversation” How does it allow for/become dialogue? We’re not satisfied with the comment box scenario that the Guardian has employed – token. How does the writing become porous? How does it emerge into a critical culture? How does a piece of writing fit into that culture? Can theatre criticism be collaborative?
• The blogosphere as an important model. There is a community and we like that it exists. (How do you sort the wheat from the chaff? How does the theatre industry harness it? If a vital opinion lands noisily in the blogosphere, does anyone hear it in amongst the cacophony of voices? How does this become sustainable/not a hobby?)
• What we need is a new system. A new forum. But more of that later.
Who are we writing for?
• What are the critic’s responsibilities to the artist and the work? (What if every piece of criticism began with 5 stars?)
• What are the critic’s responsibilities to the process? Is the critic a medium, conveying the artists intentions to the potential audience? After all, theatre is like quartz – sometimes you can tilt it five degrees and it lets the light through. Should theatre critics be integral? Should they be independent? Can they be both?
• Whose side are theatre critics on? Are they part of theatre or part of not-theatre? We want critics onside, not policing us, but we want them to be honest.
• How do practitioners use critics and criticism? Can they become outside eyes in the rehearsal room? Or even be treated as such in the constant ongoing in-progressness of staged work?
• The blogosphere harnesses that and can be both. The unlimited space of the internet means the boundaries can be blurred. Let’s blur the boundaries. Let’s defy categorisation.
• Write for yourself. Write for others in order to write for yourself
Who are the critics?
• We want them to have expertise, but we don’t want them to be an exclusive set. Oooh, there’s a paradox.
• Or is it? There are far more voices with value than a first glance would suggest. We aren’t happy with the same clump of people reviewing all the work. Isn’t that absurd? No other art form has to put up with that?
• (But hang on, we do want people to be gathering it all up together, spinning connections and making sense of it beyond individual works. Otherwise, it is a reviewing culture not a critical one.)
• We want a diversity of voices. Young theatre critics are totally powerless
The system is broken; it has stultified itself, become a fossil, a stagnant cesspool.
It needs revitalising.
Or…
WE NEED A NEW SYSTEM
Ok, so let’s call it an anti-system. Everything that the system doesn’t do, we’ll do that. And we’ll do it well. It shall be known as THE MAGAZINE (for the time being.)
The Magazine will be all-encompassing. It will challenge its own forms, by experimenting with the nature of criticism. It will embrace artists without getting into bed with them. It will find its readership, do its important job, change its world, without breaking itself or believing its own hype. It will become sustainable and it will be more than happy to do so. It will be a creative response. It will be loved and respected. It will do all things for all (theatre) people. It will think about how it can apply and existence according to the principles of Open Space.
There are potential funders – Live Art Development Agency, Arts Admin, Arts Council England. Isn’t it just as important and in need of subsidy? Moreover, if we, the practitioners, want it, why shouldn’t it come out of our funding? What about artists including critics into their funding applications, cf Action Hero. What about festivals doing the same?
Other things to look at include: Open Dialogues, Writing Encounters Conference at York St Johns, The Inbetween Time Festival
(No one mention that journalism is dying. But, whatever happens, the magazine will happen
044 One State Secondary School. What Would You Do?
Convener: Colin Atkinson
Participants: Various – you know who you are.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
A helpfully unhelpful session.
To summarize, I am a producer in disguise in the middle of a state secondary school yet completely independent from the slow and unimaginative mechanics of that school.
The response I was looking for: an imaginative brainstorm around this unique position, the possibilities this provides for producing theatre and what this theatre might look like.
An absolute: it is not a case of parachuting in pieces of theatre.
The session (though more likely my experience of DD in general) mostly illuminated and questioned my position as a producer and my relationship to artists:
Thoughts: what about the producer as an artist? Creating a ‘thing’ - that which holds certain types of work. How does this fit with other artists? Are producers creating art that benefits the art of other artists – people listening, the right audience for that piece of work, the right piece of work for that audience, etc.
Or in other words, is it the model of the art/artists that dictates how/what we communicate? If it is the model, how does this impose on the piece of theatre?
If not, then the Producer is not creating theatre, but only an opportunity for others to create theatre, which doesn’t sit well.
See: ‘Producer’ Session and the criticism of the term ‘Creative Producer’. Perhaps this gives the term more meaning/credibility? Also, the difference between creating a career as a producer against creating something that stands alone – a thing, a model.
See: ‘Stories and Learning’ Session and
While not what I was looking for and mostly still cerebral soup, nevertheless, some more concrete ideas and suggestions did surface:
• Kids as a resource. Ambassadors
• Underground. Not become a teacher.
• Open space the community – build together, rather than show or reveal
• Definitely has to be local, community based
Participants: Various – you know who you are.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
A helpfully unhelpful session.
To summarize, I am a producer in disguise in the middle of a state secondary school yet completely independent from the slow and unimaginative mechanics of that school.
The response I was looking for: an imaginative brainstorm around this unique position, the possibilities this provides for producing theatre and what this theatre might look like.
An absolute: it is not a case of parachuting in pieces of theatre.
The session (though more likely my experience of DD in general) mostly illuminated and questioned my position as a producer and my relationship to artists:
Thoughts: what about the producer as an artist? Creating a ‘thing’ - that which holds certain types of work. How does this fit with other artists? Are producers creating art that benefits the art of other artists – people listening, the right audience for that piece of work, the right piece of work for that audience, etc.
Or in other words, is it the model of the art/artists that dictates how/what we communicate? If it is the model, how does this impose on the piece of theatre?
If not, then the Producer is not creating theatre, but only an opportunity for others to create theatre, which doesn’t sit well.
See: ‘Producer’ Session and the criticism of the term ‘Creative Producer’. Perhaps this gives the term more meaning/credibility? Also, the difference between creating a career as a producer against creating something that stands alone – a thing, a model.
See: ‘Stories and Learning’ Session and
While not what I was looking for and mostly still cerebral soup, nevertheless, some more concrete ideas and suggestions did surface:
• Kids as a resource. Ambassadors
• Underground. Not become a teacher.
• Open space the community – build together, rather than show or reveal
• Definitely has to be local, community based
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)