Issue: Film director Steven Soderbergh recently said that: “The appeal of making any art is to have a kind of control you don’t have in life,” but art itself is not “accomplishing anything other than filling our time. I see no indication that the problems we face are being solved.”
Is he being pessimistic or just realistic about the possibility of art changing the world?
Convener: Paul Whitlock
Participants: Paul Whitlock, Li E Chen, Alice Massey, Tilly, Cobna, David Johnston, Steven Whinnery, Cath Hoffman
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
When you are creating art, you are operating in a world where you make the rules or where the rules or conventions of the game are clearly defined in advance and there is an associated skill-set for success in that particular genre. However, when faced with a messy, real-life problem, there are often no straightforward solutions.
Artists should not start by seeking to change the world, but concentrate on making good art first, which might go on to enrich people’s lives in years to come. Van Gogh was cited as an example of posthumous success: “Death was a career move.”
You might not be able to change the world but at least you can always challenge it or challenge people. Sometimes seeing a play about a particular issue might influence the way somebody voted and that could be said to “change the world” to an extent. However, artists are not politicians.
Harold Pinter was described as a playwright who originally worked within the rules but ended by breaking the rules. Robert Wilson successfully staged a “challenging” opera in a mainstream venue.
People will always need a form of escape, to be taken out of themselves, a type of release which can be provided through art.
It could be said that everybody is “filling their time” in response to their particular circumstances. There is always the nagging doubt: is there something more effective that we could be doing with our lives?
Art can inspire people and create a positive change in their outlook. However, there is a question about whether art is simply self-indulgent, the result of a selfish need to express ourselves, or whether it has some social value. Why not become a nurse or a doctor instead and save people’s lives?
As imperfect beings, our lives will always contain a certain percentage of problems. When we manage to overcome our existing problems, some new ones will arise to take their place. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect art to remove this burden.
It is very difficult to make a living from art – it has to be something that you feel passionate about and which is also marketable.
The cultural, economic and political climate all influence each other and cannot be readily separated. Paradoxically, although there are more artists alive today than there have ever been before, there is a sense of political stagnation, leading to apathy and mediocrity.
Convener’s comment: The response to this issue was rather muted, with people turning up one at a time for a few minutes then leaving. This was in contrast to the large group discussion in my previous session regarding men’s contribution to feminist theatre. However, I appreciated each individual’s thoughtful contribution and thank them for taking the trouble to talk to me.
Paul Whitlock
Showing posts with label definitions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label definitions. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 February 2010
051 How does the phrase “Britain’s finest talent!” grab you?
Convener: Tim Taylor
Participants: Tim Taylor
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Questions to ask:
• How do you know if you’re the finest?
• Who says?
• What’s it like being the finest?
• What if you’re not?
• Why does it matter?
• When will you know?
You know…when others say you are, using criteria they think contribute to such an assessment. You might know when you feel that what you do has reached a standard of excellence that is apparent – to you.
Who will tell you? Other fine people who know what it means to be the finest, fans of you’re work and many and various ‘finest’ watchers.
What’s it like being the finest? It’s like winning a prize, glowing, validating, rewarding and empowering.
What if you’re not? Then you keep doing what you do and somewhere, somehow, for someone what you do will produce a response, a connection that encapsulates a sense of fineness. Alternatively, accept your place on the continuum running between excellence (with or without the reward of glory/obscurity) and badness (again with the various attendant responses it might produce).
Britain’s finest…it’s great to be it because then you know that you’re loved, that what you’ve done has made a difference to people’s lives, that you and what you do are valued and that, at least for now, you’re secure.
The possibility that you’ll not always be the finest unless you keep working very hard hovers, but that’s OK because you’ll keep working for as long as inclination, energy and inspiration last. If external notions of finery become more elusive then it may be time to take a more sanguine approach to the whole bally thing.
If you’re in a bolshie mood and notions of meritocratic hierarchy cloy like a big pot of bubbling goop, then have a good old grumble, see the funny side and turn it to good use, e.g. write a sketch or a poem, perhaps called Ladies and Gentlemen, please put your hands together for…
Participants: Tim Taylor
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Questions to ask:
• How do you know if you’re the finest?
• Who says?
• What’s it like being the finest?
• What if you’re not?
• Why does it matter?
• When will you know?
You know…when others say you are, using criteria they think contribute to such an assessment. You might know when you feel that what you do has reached a standard of excellence that is apparent – to you.
Who will tell you? Other fine people who know what it means to be the finest, fans of you’re work and many and various ‘finest’ watchers.
What’s it like being the finest? It’s like winning a prize, glowing, validating, rewarding and empowering.
What if you’re not? Then you keep doing what you do and somewhere, somehow, for someone what you do will produce a response, a connection that encapsulates a sense of fineness. Alternatively, accept your place on the continuum running between excellence (with or without the reward of glory/obscurity) and badness (again with the various attendant responses it might produce).
Britain’s finest…it’s great to be it because then you know that you’re loved, that what you’ve done has made a difference to people’s lives, that you and what you do are valued and that, at least for now, you’re secure.
The possibility that you’ll not always be the finest unless you keep working very hard hovers, but that’s OK because you’ll keep working for as long as inclination, energy and inspiration last. If external notions of finery become more elusive then it may be time to take a more sanguine approach to the whole bally thing.
If you’re in a bolshie mood and notions of meritocratic hierarchy cloy like a big pot of bubbling goop, then have a good old grumble, see the funny side and turn it to good use, e.g. write a sketch or a poem, perhaps called Ladies and Gentlemen, please put your hands together for…
037 Are there any anarchists in theatre?
Convener: Rod Dixon
Participants: Michelle, Bec, Dee, Shakera, Adeel and several who came and went in an anarchic way
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The definition of anarchy was chewed over and finally some consensus came to a definition which suited our purpose …that anarchy is not the violent and dangerous concept that many people believe it to be – its purest form should actually be the very opposite of that. The question was raised as to whether theatre making itself has at its heart the desire to investigate , question and provoke an opposition to the status quo – and if this has links to anarchy.
Can a theatre maker make a piece of theatre which is essentially anti-capitalist but is not a piece of dull polemic – if theatre is to be anarchic can it provoke this when audiences are compliant and passive – should we ‘get rid’ of the traditional auditorium and give audiences more power and participation in a theatre event? These questions provoked a lengthy conversation.
Capitalism as a system in crisis, as a system which is essentially unjust and the impossibility of growth economics in a world of finite resources…the doom laden fears of a world running out of these resources and the resulting climate chaos…the effect upon the global south and the increasing numbers of poor people…and whether we as theatre makers have a duty to use our work to educate….or to connect people across the world…or to spread movements that are essentially looking for system change… again a longish discussion about all this.
Agreement that theatre must not tell audiences what to think …it might prefer to just raise lots of questions that hopefully will be discussed after seeing the performance….
Essentially there were between 4 and 9 anarchists at D &D but they might not have described themselves as ‘anarchists’…..but that was just the way I saw them,…beautiful anarchists/comrades/fellow revolutionaries.
Participants: Michelle, Bec, Dee, Shakera, Adeel and several who came and went in an anarchic way
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The definition of anarchy was chewed over and finally some consensus came to a definition which suited our purpose …that anarchy is not the violent and dangerous concept that many people believe it to be – its purest form should actually be the very opposite of that. The question was raised as to whether theatre making itself has at its heart the desire to investigate , question and provoke an opposition to the status quo – and if this has links to anarchy.
Can a theatre maker make a piece of theatre which is essentially anti-capitalist but is not a piece of dull polemic – if theatre is to be anarchic can it provoke this when audiences are compliant and passive – should we ‘get rid’ of the traditional auditorium and give audiences more power and participation in a theatre event? These questions provoked a lengthy conversation.
Capitalism as a system in crisis, as a system which is essentially unjust and the impossibility of growth economics in a world of finite resources…the doom laden fears of a world running out of these resources and the resulting climate chaos…the effect upon the global south and the increasing numbers of poor people…and whether we as theatre makers have a duty to use our work to educate….or to connect people across the world…or to spread movements that are essentially looking for system change… again a longish discussion about all this.
Agreement that theatre must not tell audiences what to think …it might prefer to just raise lots of questions that hopefully will be discussed after seeing the performance….
Essentially there were between 4 and 9 anarchists at D &D but they might not have described themselves as ‘anarchists’…..but that was just the way I saw them,…beautiful anarchists/comrades/fellow revolutionaries.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
007 How can men contribute to feminist theatre?
Convener: Paul Whitlock
Participants: Paul Whitlock, Zoe Cobb, Liza Stubbs, Robert Cook, Helen Pringle, Naomi O’Kelly, Laura Eades, Alan Ball, Josh Neicho, Rachel McGill, Neil Keating, Dan G., Stuart T., S. Simpson, Gerard Bell (unfortunately some names were not very legible), a few others who “bumblebeed” in and out.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
It is important for men to participate, but not dominate.
Nic Green’s “Trilogy” (recently performed at Battersea Arts Centre and the Barbican) was considered to be a particularly inspiring and ground-breaking piece of feminist dance-theatre.
On the other hand, the show “Calendar Girls” is not exactly challenging stereotypes of women’s bodies by casting an actress who has posed for lads’ magazines.
There is a basic image problem with feminism – the “F-word”. Does labelling or marketing a work as implicitly or explicitly “feminist” automatically limit the audience and alienate people? Or is it OK to nail your political colours to the mast?
Does feminist theatre have a particular process?
A lot of prominent women in theatre do not consider themselves feminists – is this a sign of their success?
Women are sometimes also guilty of making sexual generalisations and assumptions about their male colleagues in the arts.
One man said that on some occasions he feels able to challenge other men’s sexism when they express it and sometimes he does not. He wishes that he could do so every time.
Gay men may have different attitudes to women from traditional masculine viewpoints.
Feminism is often seen as a polarising force: women versus men. It should be about sharing values and enabling men and women to engage with each other to make a difference. However, it was acknowledged that some vulnerable women might need the security and support of an all-female group for a time before they felt strong enough to face the wider world.
How many men would actually identify themselves as feminists?
Could there be an all-male feminist theatre company?
Comment - The gender definitions applied here don’t describe my/their experience.
Note by Convener: The above comment about gender definitions was added anonymously to the printout of this report that was posted on the wall. It did not form part of the original discussion and does not represent my own views.
Participants: Paul Whitlock, Zoe Cobb, Liza Stubbs, Robert Cook, Helen Pringle, Naomi O’Kelly, Laura Eades, Alan Ball, Josh Neicho, Rachel McGill, Neil Keating, Dan G., Stuart T., S. Simpson, Gerard Bell (unfortunately some names were not very legible), a few others who “bumblebeed” in and out.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
It is important for men to participate, but not dominate.
Nic Green’s “Trilogy” (recently performed at Battersea Arts Centre and the Barbican) was considered to be a particularly inspiring and ground-breaking piece of feminist dance-theatre.
On the other hand, the show “Calendar Girls” is not exactly challenging stereotypes of women’s bodies by casting an actress who has posed for lads’ magazines.
There is a basic image problem with feminism – the “F-word”. Does labelling or marketing a work as implicitly or explicitly “feminist” automatically limit the audience and alienate people? Or is it OK to nail your political colours to the mast?
Does feminist theatre have a particular process?
A lot of prominent women in theatre do not consider themselves feminists – is this a sign of their success?
Women are sometimes also guilty of making sexual generalisations and assumptions about their male colleagues in the arts.
One man said that on some occasions he feels able to challenge other men’s sexism when they express it and sometimes he does not. He wishes that he could do so every time.
Gay men may have different attitudes to women from traditional masculine viewpoints.
Feminism is often seen as a polarising force: women versus men. It should be about sharing values and enabling men and women to engage with each other to make a difference. However, it was acknowledged that some vulnerable women might need the security and support of an all-female group for a time before they felt strong enough to face the wider world.
How many men would actually identify themselves as feminists?
Could there be an all-male feminist theatre company?
Comment - The gender definitions applied here don’t describe my/their experience.
Note by Convener: The above comment about gender definitions was added anonymously to the printout of this report that was posted on the wall. It did not form part of the original discussion and does not represent my own views.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
002 How do I explain the value of what I do to my Grandad and other people?
Convener: Anne Langford
Participants:
Helen Mugridge
Sharon Seager
Jack Klaff
Nick Coope
Ben Luke
Ellen Groves
Greg Wohead
Paul Trossell
Becki haines
Philipa Wilkinson
Dodger Phillips
And some lovely bees!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The following things were discussed;
• The challenges of describing what we do to people who maybe haven’t experienced if without sounding flaky or esoteric.
• How do you actually explain what it is you do when you are jack of all trades, without sounding like a joker? I’m an editor, producer, performer – just watch people glaze over.
• The semantics of ‘this is what I do’. Why not play a game – try out a description of what you do and then guage the responses until you find a set of responses to your description that you like. For example, “I’m an aerialist”- you must have to train hard, how many times have you fallen?, aren’t you scared of heights?. “I’m an actor” – have you been on the Bill?. “I’m a performer” - ????[confused face]. “I’m a writer” –quiet reverence.
• Maybe brand yourself and say it with confidence – the need to value what you do yourself. Sometimes we project our own uncertainty and embarrassment onto other people. “I’m a theatre maker” – some people ask more some people are just happy with that answer.
• Theatre makers have a profound knowledge of life – role as witness – distiller. The word essence came up a lot.
• Ask people for their stories, that’s what I do. I tell stories.
• In the labour camps in Russia people would swap stories for bread. Someone went to see Death of a Salesman and changed his companies pension policy.
• What turned you onto theatre – doing it. Therefore find ways to make people do it? Kidnap and enforced theatre making / going?
• People are valuing theatre – they are still paying to go in a recession – they want stories.
• Theatre and revolution – wanting truth from the stage.
• Are we too English and polite, well it’s good because – see kidnap option. Just do it, make it shout about it.
• Connect through stories – ask questions about their world. Share appropriate stories – the right story for the right person.
• I tell people that I’m really interested in the process of human existence – and then they tell me all kinds of things – I get fed.
• Do we need evidence? Is passion and conviction enough.
• What happens when the other people have resources we need? The role of theatre in civic society – playing a part, contributing. Legitimacy?
• How does the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you become a great story? The process of turning shame, pain and fear into stories.
SOME SUGGESTIONS:
• Have a range of stories to tell, don’t explain what you do. Do it. [Kidnap option at own risk]. Borrow / steal stories, plant stories and let them grow in other people.
• Say what you do with confidence [even if you don’t always have it, might become self fulfilling]
• Enforced experience? Don’t be so bloody English, tell stories [kidnap optional]
• Evidence – is just saying something is important enough?
• Essence – what we do is essential.
Participants:
Helen Mugridge
Sharon Seager
Jack Klaff
Nick Coope
Ben Luke
Ellen Groves
Greg Wohead
Paul Trossell
Becki haines
Philipa Wilkinson
Dodger Phillips
And some lovely bees!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The following things were discussed;
• The challenges of describing what we do to people who maybe haven’t experienced if without sounding flaky or esoteric.
• How do you actually explain what it is you do when you are jack of all trades, without sounding like a joker? I’m an editor, producer, performer – just watch people glaze over.
• The semantics of ‘this is what I do’. Why not play a game – try out a description of what you do and then guage the responses until you find a set of responses to your description that you like. For example, “I’m an aerialist”- you must have to train hard, how many times have you fallen?, aren’t you scared of heights?. “I’m an actor” – have you been on the Bill?. “I’m a performer” - ????[confused face]. “I’m a writer” –quiet reverence.
• Maybe brand yourself and say it with confidence – the need to value what you do yourself. Sometimes we project our own uncertainty and embarrassment onto other people. “I’m a theatre maker” – some people ask more some people are just happy with that answer.
• Theatre makers have a profound knowledge of life – role as witness – distiller. The word essence came up a lot.
• Ask people for their stories, that’s what I do. I tell stories.
• In the labour camps in Russia people would swap stories for bread. Someone went to see Death of a Salesman and changed his companies pension policy.
• What turned you onto theatre – doing it. Therefore find ways to make people do it? Kidnap and enforced theatre making / going?
• People are valuing theatre – they are still paying to go in a recession – they want stories.
• Theatre and revolution – wanting truth from the stage.
• Are we too English and polite, well it’s good because – see kidnap option. Just do it, make it shout about it.
• Connect through stories – ask questions about their world. Share appropriate stories – the right story for the right person.
• I tell people that I’m really interested in the process of human existence – and then they tell me all kinds of things – I get fed.
• Do we need evidence? Is passion and conviction enough.
• What happens when the other people have resources we need? The role of theatre in civic society – playing a part, contributing. Legitimacy?
• How does the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you become a great story? The process of turning shame, pain and fear into stories.
SOME SUGGESTIONS:
• Have a range of stories to tell, don’t explain what you do. Do it. [Kidnap option at own risk]. Borrow / steal stories, plant stories and let them grow in other people.
• Say what you do with confidence [even if you don’t always have it, might become self fulfilling]
• Enforced experience? Don’t be so bloody English, tell stories [kidnap optional]
• Evidence – is just saying something is important enough?
• Essence – what we do is essential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)