Convener: ilana Winterstein
Participants: Simon Day, Sharon Matthews, Deepa Shastri, Aaron Minnigin, Marie Kenny, Jennifer Pearcy-Edwards, Katherine Maxwell-Cook, Jennifer Lunn, with other people dropping in and out
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What do we mean by disadvantaged? To encompass refugee/asylum seeker groups, disabled, youth out of education, etc.
Practitioners self-impose the pressure of having an ‘outcome’. Assumption by funders/ leaders/ participants that there will be some sort of formal outcome.
Does the process sometimes block the ability to create? Example referenced of sign language captioning in theatre creating a barrier for mainstream audiences. Does the process help or hinder the outcome?
Book suggested: Chris Johnson ‘House of Games’. Deals with process, outcomes, expectations, etc.
American company ‘ City At Peace’ run by Paul Griffin. Improve your process y aiming at the highest quality outcome. Process vs outcome = not mutually exclusive. It doesn’t need to be a fight between these.
Cultural nuances – involve a mediator.
Ensure that there are support networks in place. Be honest with yourself and the group about your skills/limitations – eg. Not a drama therapist but a drama practitioner. Be honest about the things you don’t know. Ask the group eg. Cultural norms/taboos.
Arts industry/art viewed as a commodity in the UK. Who is qualified to judge? If art is a form of expression then it becomes problematic to put a value on it. The notion of ‘good and bad’ for an outcome is problematic in itself. Should you force a process to ensure a ‘good’ end product?
Establish your own value systems at the start of a project. Allow participants to decide what is valuable, eg. Turning up regularly to rehearsals may be an achievement. Be specific to the group and group dynamics.
Identify your objectives from the start. For example the theatre project working with asylum seekers aims to give participants a sense of empowerment.
Companies who work with refugees: Ice and Fire. Creative Roots.
Create a safe space. Key to establishing confidence within a group.
Always important to have something to work towards. The process becomes more valuable if there is an end goal, eg. Performance, but be aware that performance can take many different forms eg. Video of rehearsal process.
Use Open Space. If there are language barriers could use objects to initiate open space.
Assume nothing. Make the implicit explicit. Start from the basics when beginning.
As a facilitator really listen to what the group wants, their specifics.
Be in the process and allow it to lead the way
Showing posts with label participation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label participation. Show all posts
Friday, 5 February 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
079 Youth Theatre – how to get them involved
Convener: Martin McLean
Participants: Rebecca Hall, Amy Ip + 3 more.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• Rebecca talked about Colchester’s youth project. Has several age groups. Setting up youth group can be challenging – set up a new group in Clacton but it failed through lack of numbers.
• One man talked about working with young people in Newham. Have a lot of interest there. Talked about one occasion when the drama leader actually went out on the streets to find young people and bring them along to the group.
• Martin talked about the challenges of running a youth project for Deafinitely Theatre. Tough because of targets set by the funders although there are enough young deaf people in London interested in drama to set up a group.
• Amy talked about working with a youth theatre group in Islington. Can be a challenge to keep young people coming to the group but she found that using discipline helps! She marketed at very specific groups such as the Chinese community through their newsletters.
• A woman who worked for a company based in Liverpool talked about her experiences of setting up youth groups for Deaf and disabled young people. She is currently producing a guidebook for drama workshop leaders working with disabled groups.
Participants: Rebecca Hall, Amy Ip + 3 more.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• Rebecca talked about Colchester’s youth project. Has several age groups. Setting up youth group can be challenging – set up a new group in Clacton but it failed through lack of numbers.
• One man talked about working with young people in Newham. Have a lot of interest there. Talked about one occasion when the drama leader actually went out on the streets to find young people and bring them along to the group.
• Martin talked about the challenges of running a youth project for Deafinitely Theatre. Tough because of targets set by the funders although there are enough young deaf people in London interested in drama to set up a group.
• Amy talked about working with a youth theatre group in Islington. Can be a challenge to keep young people coming to the group but she found that using discipline helps! She marketed at very specific groups such as the Chinese community through their newsletters.
• A woman who worked for a company based in Liverpool talked about her experiences of setting up youth groups for Deaf and disabled young people. She is currently producing a guidebook for drama workshop leaders working with disabled groups.
074 One-on-one theatre: Who’s in charge here
Convener: Benjamin Luke
Participants: Beccy Owens, Nick Rutherford, Gregor Henderson-Begg, Michelle Owoo, Rosaline White, Amy Powell-Yeats, Emily Kempson, Becki Haines, Nick Coupe, Philippa Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Rules of the game
Can we make a performance where the audience member decides the rules? How could this work?
• A place of the audience member’s choice. Come and cook in my kitchen…
• Or a topic, subject matter? I would like you to cook X for me
• Stimulus decided by the audience? My favourite color is X, my favourite song is Y, I would like to travel to Z. Make me a meal based on that.
Live Art Speed Dating
Developed through a need to facilitate an audience/artist creative response
Rules of the game #2
We need a certain framework to allow the audience member to interact and challenge the artist, while maintaining a structure.
24 hour-death match: A good example of a reciprocal structure whereby a framework is created that allows the participant to be both an audience member and an artist (or to experience being dominant and recessive)
Ontroereud Goed
A long discussion on the reactions of Internal. Brought up a lot of subsequent issues:
After care
Do we have a responsibility to ensure the health of the participant afterwards if they are particularly traumatized?
This moved on to a discussion of children’s theatre. If a parent complains about a child being scared at a show, what are the ethical implications? We can’t be scared of offending people, we wouldn’t put on a show!
Man up! People like being challenged!
What one-on-one theatre might present is a perfect expression of what we want to do as artists: trust people to understand their responses and learn from them.
Ethical responsibility
What was ethically problematic in Internal? The trust that you put in the performer was taken advantage of. Does this matter? It’s a show about ethics!
Warning people
How can we warn people against the content in the show? Should it be explicit – a contract, a sign etc, or implicit – through marketing etc?
Participants: Beccy Owens, Nick Rutherford, Gregor Henderson-Begg, Michelle Owoo, Rosaline White, Amy Powell-Yeats, Emily Kempson, Becki Haines, Nick Coupe, Philippa Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Rules of the game
Can we make a performance where the audience member decides the rules? How could this work?
• A place of the audience member’s choice. Come and cook in my kitchen…
• Or a topic, subject matter? I would like you to cook X for me
• Stimulus decided by the audience? My favourite color is X, my favourite song is Y, I would like to travel to Z. Make me a meal based on that.
Live Art Speed Dating
Developed through a need to facilitate an audience/artist creative response
Rules of the game #2
We need a certain framework to allow the audience member to interact and challenge the artist, while maintaining a structure.
24 hour-death match: A good example of a reciprocal structure whereby a framework is created that allows the participant to be both an audience member and an artist (or to experience being dominant and recessive)
Ontroereud Goed
A long discussion on the reactions of Internal. Brought up a lot of subsequent issues:
After care
Do we have a responsibility to ensure the health of the participant afterwards if they are particularly traumatized?
This moved on to a discussion of children’s theatre. If a parent complains about a child being scared at a show, what are the ethical implications? We can’t be scared of offending people, we wouldn’t put on a show!
Man up! People like being challenged!
What one-on-one theatre might present is a perfect expression of what we want to do as artists: trust people to understand their responses and learn from them.
Ethical responsibility
What was ethically problematic in Internal? The trust that you put in the performer was taken advantage of. Does this matter? It’s a show about ethics!
Warning people
How can we warn people against the content in the show? Should it be explicit – a contract, a sign etc, or implicit – through marketing etc?
070 An Open Space Building
Convener: Nick Sweeting
Participants: Quite a few – please add your name if you were there
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- A Building for Open Space
- A Building run by Open Space
Some thoughts:
Is it free?
O/S = disorganised
Fully Alive
How do you bring lots of things together?
A number of starting points; standing points
Spontaneous Audience
Change in Attitudes
Commitment
Eg – Brazier’s Park
Importance of Core Team
What are the terms and conditions?
Community
Passion/responsibility…….Action
Responsibility – separate from tasks
So:
What’s the question?
Who is the team?
Not an existing team?
Audience – work – artistic ethos
Develop Culture/thinking
ACTION
Do it; start it
FIND A SPACE and invite people to come
Keeping doing it – move the space and keep doi
Participants: Quite a few – please add your name if you were there
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- A Building for Open Space
- A Building run by Open Space
Some thoughts:
Is it free?
O/S = disorganised
Fully Alive
How do you bring lots of things together?
A number of starting points; standing points
Spontaneous Audience
Change in Attitudes
Commitment
Eg – Brazier’s Park
Importance of Core Team
What are the terms and conditions?
Community
Passion/responsibility…….Action
Responsibility – separate from tasks
So:
What’s the question?
Who is the team?
Not an existing team?
Audience – work – artistic ethos
Develop Culture/thinking
ACTION
Do it; start it
FIND A SPACE and invite people to come
Keeping doing it – move the space and keep doi
069 Where audiences are responsible for creating their own performance, what is the role of the artists?
Convener: Sian Rees
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This type of work offers the artists more freedom, it’s an empowering process and offers more options.
The focus of the work is about re-negotiating the audience/artist relationship
Although, there is something freeing about stepping back, and not having to participate fully. And sometimes the work becomes solely about the audience member, which can be overwhelming and even dull (as they spend their time watching each other)
What about the presence of the artist? In some work, the artist need not be present at all.(the artist becomes redundant?) Are we missing out on the presence of the artist, the ‘spark’ that they bring to the work? However, installations are meaningful without the presence of the artist. Theatre, however, is different, as its live, its ephemeral, and this is what’s exciting about performance.
Audiences may want more imaginative work, and only see a ‘slice of their own life’. And audiences become the artist. (performativity?) Audiences though, want to see artistry, and skills which they don’t have themselves. They want to see craft.
Perhaps we over-think the audience experience, is there too much focus on this relationship at the expense of the work?
The role of the artist becomes more about the work undertaken before the performance itself, the creative process happens beforehand.
Do we need the audience more than they need us?
The personal journey (individual moments for e.g.) v’s the collective experience (group of audience members). Perhaps we can marry the two in a rich conversation. Those individual moments make audience feel privileged and special, it’s an empowering, emotional and intimate experience.
As a culture, are we obsessed by categorization? Can more ‘experimental’ theatre join other artistic communities to create a more supportive network? Why do they work against each other? Can we support each other across disciplines?
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This type of work offers the artists more freedom, it’s an empowering process and offers more options.
The focus of the work is about re-negotiating the audience/artist relationship
Although, there is something freeing about stepping back, and not having to participate fully. And sometimes the work becomes solely about the audience member, which can be overwhelming and even dull (as they spend their time watching each other)
What about the presence of the artist? In some work, the artist need not be present at all.(the artist becomes redundant?) Are we missing out on the presence of the artist, the ‘spark’ that they bring to the work? However, installations are meaningful without the presence of the artist. Theatre, however, is different, as its live, its ephemeral, and this is what’s exciting about performance.
Audiences may want more imaginative work, and only see a ‘slice of their own life’. And audiences become the artist. (performativity?) Audiences though, want to see artistry, and skills which they don’t have themselves. They want to see craft.
Perhaps we over-think the audience experience, is there too much focus on this relationship at the expense of the work?
The role of the artist becomes more about the work undertaken before the performance itself, the creative process happens beforehand.
Do we need the audience more than they need us?
The personal journey (individual moments for e.g.) v’s the collective experience (group of audience members). Perhaps we can marry the two in a rich conversation. Those individual moments make audience feel privileged and special, it’s an empowering, emotional and intimate experience.
As a culture, are we obsessed by categorization? Can more ‘experimental’ theatre join other artistic communities to create a more supportive network? Why do they work against each other? Can we support each other across disciplines?
046 Is theatre political?
Convener: Tom Mansfield
Participants: Emma Adams, Shakera Louise Ahad, Sharon Matthews, Meenakshi Sharma, Paschale Straiton, many butterflies, bumblebees and people whose names I totally failed to write down…
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
click on the image to view it fully
In a word – yes – we started from the basis that everything’s political. In life, and therefore in theatre, we are constantly engaging in power relationships between people. The question becomes how we as theatre-makers can confront those power dynamics, and how we can use theatre as a tool to dissect those dynamics in the wider world. When we talk about politics are we really discussing ideology – the idea that the world should be a certain way and that people should behave in particular ways to achieve that.
Audiences and marketers are often put off by the idea of “political theatre” – it takes us back to the idea of some kind of 1970s banner-waving protest art – but is this situation beginning to change with shows like Enron, Katrina, and the Jean Charles de Menezes plays? We discussed work that we’d seen that explicitly engages with major political issues – often, like the Hurricane Katrina show, these were most successful when dealing with individuals’ stories and without necessarily explicitly dealing with the “politics” of it.
Venues too are often discouraged by work that seems “too political” and we discussed whether it would be right to “smuggle the politics in”, or whether if we want to make political work we should be explicit about it. As artists, none of us were keen to be seen as trying to preach to an audience, and we kept coming back to the idea of storytelling as a vehicle for politics rather than the other way round. While a political issue or a specific incident might be the starting point for a piece of work, the most successful political theatre is good theatre as much as it is good politics. How explicit or implicit political ideas are within a piece may just depend on the piece we’re working on…or our own tastes as artists.
As a live form, our advantage is that we have a group of people assembled in a particular place at a particular time, who respond both as a group and as individuals. We discussed how we might help audiences to participate in and respond to political work – this could range from formal post-show discussions to conversations with artists in the bar afterwards, using social networking sites and our companies’/venues’ websites to get feedback. We were also intrigued by trying to find ways of getting the audience involved in debate/discussion during the show itself – is this possible? What opportunities does it present?
In theatre, our industrial structure gives us a huge advantage over film and TV in that we are able to reconsider everything afresh each time we create a new piece of work – we’re not restricted by the cultural and political assumptions of the mass media. We need to keep challenging our own assumptions – while the temptation is always to find the right tribe of people to work with, we also need to avoid forming cliques. Working with collaborators, material and audiences with which we’re not familiar can be a way of keeping ourselves fresh and opening ourselves up to new ideas. If we’re going to question the society we live in then of course we need to keep questioning ourselves.
Many of us had found that the very process of working on a politically engaged piece of theatre had changed the way we think about the world more broadly – by working on a piece of art we learn not just as artists but as individuals within society. How we then apply those political changes in our theatre-making could take all kinds of ways – but we all agreed that we need to keep aware of the politics that exists both inherently and explicitly in our theatre.
Participants: Emma Adams, Shakera Louise Ahad, Sharon Matthews, Meenakshi Sharma, Paschale Straiton, many butterflies, bumblebees and people whose names I totally failed to write down…
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
click on the image to view it fully
In a word – yes – we started from the basis that everything’s political. In life, and therefore in theatre, we are constantly engaging in power relationships between people. The question becomes how we as theatre-makers can confront those power dynamics, and how we can use theatre as a tool to dissect those dynamics in the wider world. When we talk about politics are we really discussing ideology – the idea that the world should be a certain way and that people should behave in particular ways to achieve that.
Audiences and marketers are often put off by the idea of “political theatre” – it takes us back to the idea of some kind of 1970s banner-waving protest art – but is this situation beginning to change with shows like Enron, Katrina, and the Jean Charles de Menezes plays? We discussed work that we’d seen that explicitly engages with major political issues – often, like the Hurricane Katrina show, these were most successful when dealing with individuals’ stories and without necessarily explicitly dealing with the “politics” of it.
Venues too are often discouraged by work that seems “too political” and we discussed whether it would be right to “smuggle the politics in”, or whether if we want to make political work we should be explicit about it. As artists, none of us were keen to be seen as trying to preach to an audience, and we kept coming back to the idea of storytelling as a vehicle for politics rather than the other way round. While a political issue or a specific incident might be the starting point for a piece of work, the most successful political theatre is good theatre as much as it is good politics. How explicit or implicit political ideas are within a piece may just depend on the piece we’re working on…or our own tastes as artists.
As a live form, our advantage is that we have a group of people assembled in a particular place at a particular time, who respond both as a group and as individuals. We discussed how we might help audiences to participate in and respond to political work – this could range from formal post-show discussions to conversations with artists in the bar afterwards, using social networking sites and our companies’/venues’ websites to get feedback. We were also intrigued by trying to find ways of getting the audience involved in debate/discussion during the show itself – is this possible? What opportunities does it present?
In theatre, our industrial structure gives us a huge advantage over film and TV in that we are able to reconsider everything afresh each time we create a new piece of work – we’re not restricted by the cultural and political assumptions of the mass media. We need to keep challenging our own assumptions – while the temptation is always to find the right tribe of people to work with, we also need to avoid forming cliques. Working with collaborators, material and audiences with which we’re not familiar can be a way of keeping ourselves fresh and opening ourselves up to new ideas. If we’re going to question the society we live in then of course we need to keep questioning ourselves.
Many of us had found that the very process of working on a politically engaged piece of theatre had changed the way we think about the world more broadly – by working on a piece of art we learn not just as artists but as individuals within society. How we then apply those political changes in our theatre-making could take all kinds of ways – but we all agreed that we need to keep aware of the politics that exists both inherently and explicitly in our theatre.
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
043 Gate-Keepers (or Obstructions to Involvement)
Convener: Stephen Darcy
Participants: Allen O’Leary, Kerry, Tim, John Spooner, Ellis, John
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What is a Gate-Keeper? Are we all gate – keepers in some way? Can we be more open?
For Writers; Perseverence….
The Gate Keeper is not necessarily an enemy. What are the agents – casting and literary looking for? A happy marriage? A positive relationship.
Directors usually want everyone to be ‘The One’.
We are Gate Keepers of the Language: ie for any non English speakers in this country we are the social/political/ cultural barrier… or facilitators. Eg doctor,social worker,dole officer,
Kerry said, “ I am a gate keeper…The artist must seek to find the right gate keeper. It’s a relationship.”
Why do we do it? The industry is like a machine. “In New Zealand I’m on the inside. Here I’m on the outside” (Allen O’Leary) Why do we persevere? Coz it’s more fun on the inside….
Obstructions: Please Add…
I’m not successful because………………………………………………………….
I’m wrong!
I’ve got the wrong body / hair / look / style / voice / colour / gender / ethnicity…………………………………………………………………………………
[Please Add]…………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
I haven’t met the right……………………………………………………………………
I haven’t done the leg-work / research / classes / training……………………..........
………………………………………………………………………………………………
I don’t have enough Talent! (the facilitator finds this point particularly controversial)……………………………………………………………………………
Thoughts;
Maybe it is the wrong gate.
Maybe I’m using the wrong key. Wrong lock ……………………..
Maybe Try and step away from the gate.
Is the gate an institution or person? I can chat to anyone in person ie Literary manager of the national. But I can’t pick up the phone and call. Pourquoi?
“I know lots of gate keepers. They’re lovely. If I ask them for a job it’s the end of the friendship.” John
I want to run the marathon in under 3 hours! I run it in 3.20. Success or Failure?
Conclusion:
Start your own party! And keep at it!
Participants: Allen O’Leary, Kerry, Tim, John Spooner, Ellis, John
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What is a Gate-Keeper? Are we all gate – keepers in some way? Can we be more open?
For Writers; Perseverence….
The Gate Keeper is not necessarily an enemy. What are the agents – casting and literary looking for? A happy marriage? A positive relationship.
Directors usually want everyone to be ‘The One’.
We are Gate Keepers of the Language: ie for any non English speakers in this country we are the social/political/ cultural barrier… or facilitators. Eg doctor,social worker,dole officer,
Kerry said, “ I am a gate keeper…The artist must seek to find the right gate keeper. It’s a relationship.”
Why do we do it? The industry is like a machine. “In New Zealand I’m on the inside. Here I’m on the outside” (Allen O’Leary) Why do we persevere? Coz it’s more fun on the inside….
Obstructions: Please Add…
I’m not successful because………………………………………………………….
I’m wrong!
I’ve got the wrong body / hair / look / style / voice / colour / gender / ethnicity…………………………………………………………………………………
[Please Add]…………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
I haven’t met the right……………………………………………………………………
I haven’t done the leg-work / research / classes / training……………………..........
………………………………………………………………………………………………
I don’t have enough Talent! (the facilitator finds this point particularly controversial)……………………………………………………………………………
Thoughts;
Maybe it is the wrong gate.
Maybe I’m using the wrong key. Wrong lock ……………………..
Maybe Try and step away from the gate.
Is the gate an institution or person? I can chat to anyone in person ie Literary manager of the national. But I can’t pick up the phone and call. Pourquoi?
“I know lots of gate keepers. They’re lovely. If I ask them for a job it’s the end of the friendship.” John
I want to run the marathon in under 3 hours! I run it in 3.20. Success or Failure?
Conclusion:
Start your own party! And keep at it!
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.
032 How can we move beyond novelty in the use of pervasive media technology in theatre?
Convener: Katie Day
Participants: Amongst others… Mark Morren, Jasmine Pajdak, Peter Mumford, Sian Rees, Allen O’Leary, Leslie Goosey, Neil Keating, Aaron Minnigin, Dee Evans,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I convened the session because I’m producing a new scheme called Theatre Sandbox, which will commission 6 new theatre projects that engage with pervasive media. Check www.theatresandbox.co.uk or twitter.com/theatresandbox for updates.
We started with a discussion about what pervasive media actually was.
Here’s a potential definition:
‘As computers and phones get smaller, more powerful, and stay connected to the internet almost all of the time, Pervasive Media sits at the intersection of mobile computers, media technology, networks and sensors.
From gaming to outdoor displays, performance to public transport, pervasive media is delivered into the fabric of everyday life: sensors and networks use context-rich information (like location) to deliver experiences that are designed to fit the needs of people, delivering the right thing in the moment, wherever they are.’
Notes:
A story delivered geographically.
Miss out on energy? If its just you, and no other audience.
Can we use the tech to widen not close?
Silent Disco
Providing a slightly different experience for each person can be exciting. Could watch the same thing – but with a different soundtrack.
How can you extend the experience to the unknowing audience?
People are wary of Bluetooth etc, as its already been hijacked by advertisers.
Foreground the narrative. Choose the right conduit – its only a conduit.
Can be useful for engaging people in advance of the story event.
You have to know WHY you want to use the tech. OR you just want to play with it to see what you could do.
Where is this just television delivered by pervasive media, and when is this theatre?
In terms of informing people about the technological possibilities – how can we do this.
Could we have one-to-ones with the technologists, to push and see where our ideas could go?
We can learn from what other people have made before.
We could have a one-to-one with an artist and a technologist – on stage for everyone to watch – where they push and explore their ideas and what they can do. Or something along these lines.
Participants: Amongst others… Mark Morren, Jasmine Pajdak, Peter Mumford, Sian Rees, Allen O’Leary, Leslie Goosey, Neil Keating, Aaron Minnigin, Dee Evans,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I convened the session because I’m producing a new scheme called Theatre Sandbox, which will commission 6 new theatre projects that engage with pervasive media. Check www.theatresandbox.co.uk or twitter.com/theatresandbox for updates.
We started with a discussion about what pervasive media actually was.
Here’s a potential definition:
‘As computers and phones get smaller, more powerful, and stay connected to the internet almost all of the time, Pervasive Media sits at the intersection of mobile computers, media technology, networks and sensors.
From gaming to outdoor displays, performance to public transport, pervasive media is delivered into the fabric of everyday life: sensors and networks use context-rich information (like location) to deliver experiences that are designed to fit the needs of people, delivering the right thing in the moment, wherever they are.’
Notes:
A story delivered geographically.
Miss out on energy? If its just you, and no other audience.
Can we use the tech to widen not close?
Silent Disco
Providing a slightly different experience for each person can be exciting. Could watch the same thing – but with a different soundtrack.
How can you extend the experience to the unknowing audience?
People are wary of Bluetooth etc, as its already been hijacked by advertisers.
Foreground the narrative. Choose the right conduit – its only a conduit.
Can be useful for engaging people in advance of the story event.
You have to know WHY you want to use the tech. OR you just want to play with it to see what you could do.
Where is this just television delivered by pervasive media, and when is this theatre?
In terms of informing people about the technological possibilities – how can we do this.
Could we have one-to-ones with the technologists, to push and see where our ideas could go?
We can learn from what other people have made before.
We could have a one-to-one with an artist and a technologist – on stage for everyone to watch – where they push and explore their ideas and what they can do. Or something along these lines.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
004 What does theatre have to do with video games?
Convener: Alex Fleetwood
Participants: Alan O’Leary, Samal Blal, Lyn Gardner, Myro Wulfr, Sam Hall, Andrew Somerville, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Aaron Minnigin, Helen Muyridge, Ian Pugh, Joe Austin, Sharon Seager, Antonio Ferrara, Tassos Stevens, Laura Friedman, Gavin O’Carroll, Robert Wells , Caroline Pearce, Gary Campbell, Katie Day
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This was a very hot and engaged discussion. There was a vibrant atmosphere and a high level of discourse around this topic, which I personally found so exciting that I can’t remember exactly what was said. Apologies if this is a little scattered.
Video games have traditionally occupied the living room, creating an intense relationship between an individual player and a screen-based experience. Our perception of those experiences is that they are aesthetically limited and socially backward.
The average age of a video gamer is 39. Video games are played equally by men and women. American teenager spend on average 7.5 hours day looking at a screen, in which they consume 11.5 hours of media. New gaming platforms like the iPhone and the Nintendo Wii give humans more human ways of interacting with a digital game – to do with touch, gesture, and interaction with the people or the world around you. As gamers expect greater sophistication and more human interaction, there is a colossal opportunity for theatre makers and video game producers to share skills and understanding.
There hasn’t yet been a break-out theatre / game project that defines this notion. Books had Masquerade. Cinema has spawned numerous ARGs (alternative reality game) projects which blur the boundaries between narrative and play. Theatre needs to catch up…
But won’t we alienate ourselves? Laura spoke of the experience of her brother, 18, playing Call of Duty since he was 11. Shooting, killing, dying, respawning – talking on his headset to people he doesn’t know, telling them to cover him while he takes that guy out. Tassos reminded us that if we viewed all theatre through the experience of audiences for The Mousetrap we would have a very different view. Call of Duty is only one tiny component of the world of video games. And Call of Duty online multiplayer is a live, 12 player experience that one can access at any time of the day or night, where the people you are playing with and against are fellow experts, having logged hundreds if not thousands of hours of playing time. If we divorce that experience from the content for a minute, one has to regard it as a huge achievement on the part of the game’s creators.
Another way of thinking about video games is articulated in the book Casual Revolution by the ludologist Jesper Juul.
PLAYER SPACE / PLAY SPACE
Immersive games like Call of Duty create a detailed play space (a 3D world) that negates meaningful agency in the player space. Conversely, Wii Sports creates a flat, shallow play space that allows for greater agency to be located in the player space. Does this model translate to proscenium arch theatre?
Games design posits the existence of a player – or group of players – or vast panoply of potential players, each with a different set of expectations and attributes – and conducts a series of iterative design processes to shape an experience in which the player can move through the experience. Can a piece of theatre do this? Can a theatre create a space in which stories can be told?
Coney’s project A Small Town Anywhere attempted to do this very thing. Rather than a computer brain tracking the players’ inputs, a team of theatre-makers responded to the live social play of a group of 30 people. We discussed whether there is a live interface limit to the number of players for whom a single gamerunner can facilitate a meaningful experience – the general sense is that 12 is the upper limit.
Lyn reflected on whether video games offered new models for the distribution of theatre experiences. Can the old model of uniting audience and performers in a physical space at a fixed point in time be supplanted with a model that enables groups to come together digitally, to experience interaction and involvement with a theatrical work?
Can we create theatre-on-demand?
Rotozaza’s piece Etiquette and Duncan Speakman’s subtlemobs both use downloadable MP3 tracks (part story, part instruction set) to create a distributable participatory theatre experience). They share a narrative sophistication and a radical simplicity of technology – perhaps both instruments of their success.
There is also a question of whether ease of access = A GOOD THING. The act of bringing people together for an experience which is happening now and only now, is an essential part of theatre. But video games are a form of distributed live experience too. Every time you play, it’s different.
I asked the question of whether there was anything video games and theatre couldn’t do together. Andrew raised the question of survival versus nuance – games tend to be about living or dying, husbanding your resources to survive. A theatre piece can be about a subtle change in the way a person sees the world. Can game experiences manage that? I would argue that they can, but don’t – often – yet. Google Every Day the Same Dream and play that. See what you think.
It’s also true that games, especially live games of the kind playtested at Hide&Seek events, tap into some fundamental tribal instincts – we are bonded together against the enemy, we must work together to win, you are now my friend. The physical rush of playing together dissolves London’s social barriers without recourse to our traditional drugs of choice – that rush is something that theatre makers could learn to harness.
And the way that theatre is divorced from marketing and learning and participation – the idea that a theatre maker makes a work and it is up to others to interpret, deliver and bring an audience together with it – games offer a range of tools to rethink that model. If the moment you get your ticket, you are rewarded with an experience, one that leads you closer to the live event, and from that experience there are a number of paths that you can follow, and there’s one that suits you, and ultimately that path leads you to the show with a vastly enriched understanding of the work – that’s a way of thinking about a theatre that markets itself and educates its audience as it does so.
A tiny plug – my company, Hide&Seek, makes work at the intersection of play, performance and public space (or ‘games’), and we curate a monthly night called The Sandpit, which invites artists from any discipline, game designers, and interested people to try out game ideas on a friendly group of players. If you’d like to do that, please drop us a line at hello at hideandseekfest.co.uk or call me on 07900 692150. We have exciting plans for International Sandpits coming very soon.
Participants: Alan O’Leary, Samal Blal, Lyn Gardner, Myro Wulfr, Sam Hall, Andrew Somerville, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Aaron Minnigin, Helen Muyridge, Ian Pugh, Joe Austin, Sharon Seager, Antonio Ferrara, Tassos Stevens, Laura Friedman, Gavin O’Carroll, Robert Wells , Caroline Pearce, Gary Campbell, Katie Day
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This was a very hot and engaged discussion. There was a vibrant atmosphere and a high level of discourse around this topic, which I personally found so exciting that I can’t remember exactly what was said. Apologies if this is a little scattered.
Video games have traditionally occupied the living room, creating an intense relationship between an individual player and a screen-based experience. Our perception of those experiences is that they are aesthetically limited and socially backward.
The average age of a video gamer is 39. Video games are played equally by men and women. American teenager spend on average 7.5 hours day looking at a screen, in which they consume 11.5 hours of media. New gaming platforms like the iPhone and the Nintendo Wii give humans more human ways of interacting with a digital game – to do with touch, gesture, and interaction with the people or the world around you. As gamers expect greater sophistication and more human interaction, there is a colossal opportunity for theatre makers and video game producers to share skills and understanding.
There hasn’t yet been a break-out theatre / game project that defines this notion. Books had Masquerade. Cinema has spawned numerous ARGs (alternative reality game) projects which blur the boundaries between narrative and play. Theatre needs to catch up…
But won’t we alienate ourselves? Laura spoke of the experience of her brother, 18, playing Call of Duty since he was 11. Shooting, killing, dying, respawning – talking on his headset to people he doesn’t know, telling them to cover him while he takes that guy out. Tassos reminded us that if we viewed all theatre through the experience of audiences for The Mousetrap we would have a very different view. Call of Duty is only one tiny component of the world of video games. And Call of Duty online multiplayer is a live, 12 player experience that one can access at any time of the day or night, where the people you are playing with and against are fellow experts, having logged hundreds if not thousands of hours of playing time. If we divorce that experience from the content for a minute, one has to regard it as a huge achievement on the part of the game’s creators.
Another way of thinking about video games is articulated in the book Casual Revolution by the ludologist Jesper Juul.
PLAYER SPACE / PLAY SPACE
Immersive games like Call of Duty create a detailed play space (a 3D world) that negates meaningful agency in the player space. Conversely, Wii Sports creates a flat, shallow play space that allows for greater agency to be located in the player space. Does this model translate to proscenium arch theatre?
Games design posits the existence of a player – or group of players – or vast panoply of potential players, each with a different set of expectations and attributes – and conducts a series of iterative design processes to shape an experience in which the player can move through the experience. Can a piece of theatre do this? Can a theatre create a space in which stories can be told?
Coney’s project A Small Town Anywhere attempted to do this very thing. Rather than a computer brain tracking the players’ inputs, a team of theatre-makers responded to the live social play of a group of 30 people. We discussed whether there is a live interface limit to the number of players for whom a single gamerunner can facilitate a meaningful experience – the general sense is that 12 is the upper limit.
Lyn reflected on whether video games offered new models for the distribution of theatre experiences. Can the old model of uniting audience and performers in a physical space at a fixed point in time be supplanted with a model that enables groups to come together digitally, to experience interaction and involvement with a theatrical work?
Can we create theatre-on-demand?
Rotozaza’s piece Etiquette and Duncan Speakman’s subtlemobs both use downloadable MP3 tracks (part story, part instruction set) to create a distributable participatory theatre experience). They share a narrative sophistication and a radical simplicity of technology – perhaps both instruments of their success.
There is also a question of whether ease of access = A GOOD THING. The act of bringing people together for an experience which is happening now and only now, is an essential part of theatre. But video games are a form of distributed live experience too. Every time you play, it’s different.
I asked the question of whether there was anything video games and theatre couldn’t do together. Andrew raised the question of survival versus nuance – games tend to be about living or dying, husbanding your resources to survive. A theatre piece can be about a subtle change in the way a person sees the world. Can game experiences manage that? I would argue that they can, but don’t – often – yet. Google Every Day the Same Dream and play that. See what you think.
It’s also true that games, especially live games of the kind playtested at Hide&Seek events, tap into some fundamental tribal instincts – we are bonded together against the enemy, we must work together to win, you are now my friend. The physical rush of playing together dissolves London’s social barriers without recourse to our traditional drugs of choice – that rush is something that theatre makers could learn to harness.
And the way that theatre is divorced from marketing and learning and participation – the idea that a theatre maker makes a work and it is up to others to interpret, deliver and bring an audience together with it – games offer a range of tools to rethink that model. If the moment you get your ticket, you are rewarded with an experience, one that leads you closer to the live event, and from that experience there are a number of paths that you can follow, and there’s one that suits you, and ultimately that path leads you to the show with a vastly enriched understanding of the work – that’s a way of thinking about a theatre that markets itself and educates its audience as it does so.
A tiny plug – my company, Hide&Seek, makes work at the intersection of play, performance and public space (or ‘games’), and we curate a monthly night called The Sandpit, which invites artists from any discipline, game designers, and interested people to try out game ideas on a friendly group of players. If you’d like to do that, please drop us a line at hello at hideandseekfest.co.uk or call me on 07900 692150. We have exciting plans for International Sandpits coming very soon.
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)