Title: What are the parties' arts policies?
Convenor: Kirsty Lothian
Summary
Amelia Bird had done a lot of research- she passed on these links:
Conservative policy:
http://www.shadowdcms.co.uk/pdf/The%20Future%20of%20the%20Arts.pdf
They want to promote philanthropy, and endowment funding, through matched grants from ACE and tax breaks. They also want ACE etc to have no more than 5% overheads, and they want more long term multi-year grants.
They seem to be big on digital technologies, and getting the arts and museums online.
They focus on music in schools- every child is to have a chance to learn a musical instrument, and sing, as well as getting a "solid cultural education"
Lib Dem policy:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Power%20of%20Creativity.pdf
They want to set up a cabinet committee on creativity and celebrate the arts more in public buildings and government. They will look at easier visas for artists, more money for Grants For the Arts, and are planning more balance between the regions and London, receptions at number 10 for arts philanthropists and tax schemes, Creative Entreprise start-up loans and red-tape simplification, independent regulation for the BBC, apprenticeships schemes for young people, plenty of arts in schools
Labour policy:
http://www.labour.org.uk/policies/culture-and-arts
They mostly talk about what they have achieved, so I assume they plan to carry on much as they are.
Some of the smaller parties:
The SNP's website is having trouble with policies, but they do have some on the arts, I think. They don't like the arts council, and would prefer direct funding. They think traditional arts are currently underfunded, and Scottish Opera is over funded.
Plaid Cymru don't seem to have any arts policies, but Hywel Williams MP does list Arts as one of his main political interests.
The Greens have a lot to say- largely to do with avoiding discrimination, and strengthening artist led communities, and local and regional arts. They want to Zero rate VAT on live performance, but possibly to tax superstar performances to fund small scale local cultural enterprises.
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsscms.html
UKIP has very little to say on the Arts- the closest I could find is part of their Restoring Britishness Policy:
(mainly they like the Last Night of the Proms, and the UK theme is to go back on to Radio 4)
https://ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1447-restoring-britishness-ukip-policy
The BNP don't have anything to say about the arts or culture at all. They do want more competitive sports in schools though.
The Socialist Workers Party doesn't seem to have any specific policies, let alone arts ones.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, 9 April 2010
I'm voting tactically and I really want you to too
Convenor: Stella Duffy
Summary
- How do we know where "best" to vote tactically?
The BBC website has useful information, including a list of "battleground" constituencies for each party:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
- Paralysed politics
- How sad that we're defensive voting
- One of the problems in arts funding is not enough confidence to stop funding people when they're shit
- Constitutional reform- can we get a written constitution??
- Steven Whinnery- the fox/eggs analogy (Steven compared the parties to foxes- labour will grab the chickens in it's mouth, but will fill up with regret, and will drop the mauled chickens again. If the Tories get in, then there will be no chickens- no eggs under the Tories!)
- Change the architecture of the debating chambers- use the semi-circle instead
- More young people live in varied places, not one place, so it is harder to get involved in local politics
- Write to your MP
- Tories who wouldn't vote Tory <= war?? (someone's Tory parents (retired military) don't want to vote Conservative because of their stance on the war)
- Democracy is not sophisticated (deep democracy might be)
- Jenn: at leat the top issues aren't "gay marriage" and "abortion", at least it's the economy and immigration
- The arts are being discussed differently by political parties
- Labour have put it on the agenda (and has that created arts with agenda?)
- Arts has benefitted, fundamentally changed funding (untrue stuff from Jeremy Hunt on arts funding!)
While it seemed that we were coming from a disillusioned/hopeless perspective to start, we were glad we were having this discussion, it did feel great to be talking about it, and we were reminded by Rebecca that plenty of arts orgs/theatres etc ARE putting on stuff about the election/politics, we're not alone in our desire for a better, more engaged world - or a better, more engaged arts! (And I especially liked the range of ages in this discussion!)
Summary
- How do we know where "best" to vote tactically?
The BBC website has useful information, including a list of "battleground" constituencies for each party:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
- Paralysed politics
- How sad that we're defensive voting
- One of the problems in arts funding is not enough confidence to stop funding people when they're shit
- Constitutional reform- can we get a written constitution??
- Steven Whinnery- the fox/eggs analogy (Steven compared the parties to foxes- labour will grab the chickens in it's mouth, but will fill up with regret, and will drop the mauled chickens again. If the Tories get in, then there will be no chickens- no eggs under the Tories!)
- Change the architecture of the debating chambers- use the semi-circle instead
- More young people live in varied places, not one place, so it is harder to get involved in local politics
- Write to your MP
- Tories who wouldn't vote Tory <= war?? (someone's Tory parents (retired military) don't want to vote Conservative because of their stance on the war)
- Democracy is not sophisticated (deep democracy might be)
- Jenn: at leat the top issues aren't "gay marriage" and "abortion", at least it's the economy and immigration
- The arts are being discussed differently by political parties
- Labour have put it on the agenda (and has that created arts with agenda?)
- Arts has benefitted, fundamentally changed funding (untrue stuff from Jeremy Hunt on arts funding!)
While it seemed that we were coming from a disillusioned/hopeless perspective to start, we were glad we were having this discussion, it did feel great to be talking about it, and we were reminded by Rebecca that plenty of arts orgs/theatres etc ARE putting on stuff about the election/politics, we're not alone in our desire for a better, more engaged world - or a better, more engaged arts! (And I especially liked the range of ages in this discussion!)
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
112 Speaking Doubt to power: How could theatre play a greater role in policymaking?
Convenor:Joe Hallgarten, who carrying out some research you can read about on his blog - http://armslengthstate.blogspot.com/2010/01/speaking-doubt-to-power.html
Participants: A small and perfectly formed group of 10-15 A-list D and D-ers, most of whom stayed for most of the session.
Summary of discussion:
Apologies for this random collection of points – I was too busy listening and talking to make good notes!
• Title of session reminded one participant of the solo piece Nagging Doubt
• Artists as civic leaders – if you want public money, should you be expected to engage in the public realm
• Need for a broker between artists and policymakers
• Reminded of the book ‘the gift’
• Would need to ‘timetable’ arts experiences into the policymaking process
• Examples include Blackwatch being seen by the Scottish parliament, civil servants (mainly from DCMS) often coming ‘informally’ to see Barbican shows
• Performing Arts Lab (PAL) may offer a possible model – Susan Benn
• EU parliament has used theatre in this way
• Example of a minister (in an unnamed country) who, having seen Death of a Salesman, ‘went home and changed his country’s pension policy’.
• Matarasso – rural and community spaces
• Theatre needs to be ‘as simple as possible, no simpler’
• What about film? Why is The Wire having so much influence? Or is it?
• Theatre as collective experience
• Forum Theatre
• Kinnock etc influenced by Absence of War
• Maybe we should influence policy MAs etc – how do these emerging policy wonks engage in the arts?
• www.haringwoods.com
• Creating doubt needs space
• Policymaking used to scenario planning/modelling. Arts and theatre could play a role in this – even around dystopias, since scenarios don’t have to be realistic to be useful
• BAC – Coney Show and Home Sweet Home
• Concept of Timenos – From Senate
Participants: A small and perfectly formed group of 10-15 A-list D and D-ers, most of whom stayed for most of the session.
Summary of discussion:
Apologies for this random collection of points – I was too busy listening and talking to make good notes!
• Title of session reminded one participant of the solo piece Nagging Doubt
• Artists as civic leaders – if you want public money, should you be expected to engage in the public realm
• Need for a broker between artists and policymakers
• Reminded of the book ‘the gift’
• Would need to ‘timetable’ arts experiences into the policymaking process
• Examples include Blackwatch being seen by the Scottish parliament, civil servants (mainly from DCMS) often coming ‘informally’ to see Barbican shows
• Performing Arts Lab (PAL) may offer a possible model – Susan Benn
• EU parliament has used theatre in this way
• Example of a minister (in an unnamed country) who, having seen Death of a Salesman, ‘went home and changed his country’s pension policy’.
• Matarasso – rural and community spaces
• Theatre needs to be ‘as simple as possible, no simpler’
• What about film? Why is The Wire having so much influence? Or is it?
• Theatre as collective experience
• Forum Theatre
• Kinnock etc influenced by Absence of War
• Maybe we should influence policy MAs etc – how do these emerging policy wonks engage in the arts?
• www.haringwoods.com
• Creating doubt needs space
• Policymaking used to scenario planning/modelling. Arts and theatre could play a role in this – even around dystopias, since scenarios don’t have to be realistic to be useful
• BAC – Coney Show and Home Sweet Home
• Concept of Timenos – From Senate
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/
Friday, 5 February 2010
094 Transition Towns and Theatre
TRANSITION THEATRE
The Transition Town movement is global, although it started off in Totnes Devon. There are almost 300 official initiatives and loads more in the making. It would be great to create a web-based portal for sharing resources, best practice and ideas for linking transition towns to theatre.
Ideas
Sharing info about existing initiatives, e.g. scenerysalvage.com, using LED lights in shows; promote new shows that have a transition theme; share info held by theatre outreach groups/officers; making physical theatres available for transition groups; facilitating web-based communications between geographically diverse transition towns.
ART ACTIVISTS
Climate Camp; Tipping Point; John Jordan - Lab of I.I.; Platform arts; Show of Strength (Bristol) 'Trading Local' ~ roving show that promotes local shops and celebrates local history, experiences, creativity along local high streets, using a range of venues. Makes a kind of arts festival inspired for and aimed at the local community.
COMMUNITY
Transition Towns want to communicate the issues of peak oil and climate change to the public and also promote their local groups /events /sustainability agenda.
Ideas
Have free workshops / 'pay what you think it's worth' events; experiment with different public venues (pubs, supermarkets, stations, streets); engage with people by having good quality 1:1 conversations (as in Lewisham's usherette example)
FUTURE VISIONS
Transition Towns seek to create an enticing vision of the future which comes from the collective genius of the community. How can theatre draw out people's creativity as well as presenting inspiring visions.
Ideas
Use walks around physical space, use historical pictures to show how area has already changed; use theatre games to think through / demonstrate behaviour change / model the vision; divide up goals into those that are easy to achieve right now, those that are desirable but take some effort and those that are harder to achieve and more long term; use performance artists / theatre to ask the right questions and collect ideas.
CREATIVITY
Use recycling theme to generate visual art pieces, e.g. puppets out of scrap cloth. Use excess TT produce to generate art.
The Transition Town movement is global, although it started off in Totnes Devon. There are almost 300 official initiatives and loads more in the making. It would be great to create a web-based portal for sharing resources, best practice and ideas for linking transition towns to theatre.
Ideas
Sharing info about existing initiatives, e.g. scenerysalvage.com, using LED lights in shows; promote new shows that have a transition theme; share info held by theatre outreach groups/officers; making physical theatres available for transition groups; facilitating web-based communications between geographically diverse transition towns.
ART ACTIVISTS
Climate Camp; Tipping Point; John Jordan - Lab of I.I.; Platform arts; Show of Strength (Bristol) 'Trading Local' ~ roving show that promotes local shops and celebrates local history, experiences, creativity along local high streets, using a range of venues. Makes a kind of arts festival inspired for and aimed at the local community.
COMMUNITY
Transition Towns want to communicate the issues of peak oil and climate change to the public and also promote their local groups /events /sustainability agenda.
Ideas
Have free workshops / 'pay what you think it's worth' events; experiment with different public venues (pubs, supermarkets, stations, streets); engage with people by having good quality 1:1 conversations (as in Lewisham's usherette example)
FUTURE VISIONS
Transition Towns seek to create an enticing vision of the future which comes from the collective genius of the community. How can theatre draw out people's creativity as well as presenting inspiring visions.
Ideas
Use walks around physical space, use historical pictures to show how area has already changed; use theatre games to think through / demonstrate behaviour change / model the vision; divide up goals into those that are easy to achieve right now, those that are desirable but take some effort and those that are harder to achieve and more long term; use performance artists / theatre to ask the right questions and collect ideas.
CREATIVITY
Use recycling theme to generate visual art pieces, e.g. puppets out of scrap cloth. Use excess TT produce to generate art.
091 Political correctness: can there be too much?
Convener: Sandra Yee
Participants: Lisa Hammond, Deepa Shastri, Chris, Meenakshi, Anouk, Sheena, Honour, Sarah, Jonny, Charlie F., Gerard, Chris W., Cherylee, Jenny Moule
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Casting Issue:
Should it be colour-blind / not sexuality-specific / disability-blind / etc…?
When specifying requirements for a role, are these specifications of visual appearance (or otherwise) real and true or are these specifications superficial and approximate, or based on perception.
Eg. If a white male is required, does a nearly white male get the job?
If the part calls for a disability, does an able-bodied actor get the part?
(As in ‘My Left Foot’ with Daniel Day Lewis)
Therefore how do we define merit/suitability for a role?
Obviously, we can only work with the people that are accessible. This leads to regional tendencies and decisions. Is this acceptable?
Does text-based theatre, devised theatre or other theatre have their own tendencies with casting decisions?
Responsibility for ‘political correctness’ and learning about it lies on BOTH SIDES: with the potential discriminatee and the decision-maker.
Example: If a South Asian performer gets the part that was open to anyone, how does that performer feel confident that they did not get the part purely for the theatre company to tick its boxes (by cultural diversity) and not by their own merit?
The motives can be ambiguous, not only for the theatre company but also for the audience who may think that that performer got the part BECAUSE they were South Asian.
Obviously, clarity is needed if there is ambiguity. In Employment Contract, Director’s Note, in conversation.
When ‘Cat On A Hot Tin Roof’ was performed with an all-black cast, is there not a Novelty aspect to hook the punter?
Aim for Political Correctness to be non-existent and not an issue.
Also, Taboo subjects and their treatment in Comedy.
Isn’t Political Correctness just an extension of plain Good Manners? To avoid hurting another person’s feelings.
We may inherit our use of our LANGUAGE, the spoken word, from our parents without knowing the true meanings of certain terms, phrases or WORDS.
We remembered the LANGUAGE used by certain Stand-up Comedians of the past that was definitely not P.C.
Are JOKES aimed at yourself OK or Not OK, if you are a minority, eg. Disabled and/or Chinese? Does it not just reinforce the Stereotypes? Should you take responsibility and avoid making those jokes?
“We are all different, yet all the same”
For the Future:
Good to have Post-Show discussions/Q & A sessions to air these topics/issues/matters.
Avoid Tokenism
Maybe have sessions called “Don’t Worry – You Can Get It Wrong” where we can speak out loud all the non-PC terms without return (cathartic?)
Need to allow space to Learn what is P.C. or Not P.C.
Sometimes we need permission to laugh. A group can give or not give permission to be non-P.C.
And to laugh at Non-PC jokes, is that a real or false laugh, a laugh at the people who are laughing, or a laugh at the people who are laughing at the people who are laughing, or.……..etc? And can we tell the difference.
‘Political Correctness’ brings up so much F-E-A-R…
IT’s not easy!
Respect each other.
Need to Test P.C. boundaries to find out where they are.
Learn from mistakes.
P.C. gaffes might be done –innocently – and with a Good Heart.
It is all too easy and natural to Stop Speaking/Conversing – to avoid showing ignorance. Eg. “asian” can be too general. Also can be too specific!
Issue of Authenticity.
“England People Very Nice” by Richard Bean at National Theatre. A controversial play relevant to topic.
“P.C.”, the term, has been HIJACKED
“P.C” ???? Or “Why can’t I be racist anymore?” ????
Why are these Discussions / Chats usually with people that are probably Already Converted ? (Chris mentioned ‘white middle-class males’ were mos
Participants: Lisa Hammond, Deepa Shastri, Chris, Meenakshi, Anouk, Sheena, Honour, Sarah, Jonny, Charlie F., Gerard, Chris W., Cherylee, Jenny Moule
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Casting Issue:
Should it be colour-blind / not sexuality-specific / disability-blind / etc…?
When specifying requirements for a role, are these specifications of visual appearance (or otherwise) real and true or are these specifications superficial and approximate, or based on perception.
Eg. If a white male is required, does a nearly white male get the job?
If the part calls for a disability, does an able-bodied actor get the part?
(As in ‘My Left Foot’ with Daniel Day Lewis)
Therefore how do we define merit/suitability for a role?
Obviously, we can only work with the people that are accessible. This leads to regional tendencies and decisions. Is this acceptable?
Does text-based theatre, devised theatre or other theatre have their own tendencies with casting decisions?
Responsibility for ‘political correctness’ and learning about it lies on BOTH SIDES: with the potential discriminatee and the decision-maker.
Example: If a South Asian performer gets the part that was open to anyone, how does that performer feel confident that they did not get the part purely for the theatre company to tick its boxes (by cultural diversity) and not by their own merit?
The motives can be ambiguous, not only for the theatre company but also for the audience who may think that that performer got the part BECAUSE they were South Asian.
Obviously, clarity is needed if there is ambiguity. In Employment Contract, Director’s Note, in conversation.
When ‘Cat On A Hot Tin Roof’ was performed with an all-black cast, is there not a Novelty aspect to hook the punter?
Aim for Political Correctness to be non-existent and not an issue.
Also, Taboo subjects and their treatment in Comedy.
Isn’t Political Correctness just an extension of plain Good Manners? To avoid hurting another person’s feelings.
We may inherit our use of our LANGUAGE, the spoken word, from our parents without knowing the true meanings of certain terms, phrases or WORDS.
We remembered the LANGUAGE used by certain Stand-up Comedians of the past that was definitely not P.C.
Are JOKES aimed at yourself OK or Not OK, if you are a minority, eg. Disabled and/or Chinese? Does it not just reinforce the Stereotypes? Should you take responsibility and avoid making those jokes?
“We are all different, yet all the same”
For the Future:
Good to have Post-Show discussions/Q & A sessions to air these topics/issues/matters.
Avoid Tokenism
Maybe have sessions called “Don’t Worry – You Can Get It Wrong” where we can speak out loud all the non-PC terms without return (cathartic?)
Need to allow space to Learn what is P.C. or Not P.C.
Sometimes we need permission to laugh. A group can give or not give permission to be non-P.C.
And to laugh at Non-PC jokes, is that a real or false laugh, a laugh at the people who are laughing, or a laugh at the people who are laughing at the people who are laughing, or.……..etc? And can we tell the difference.
‘Political Correctness’ brings up so much F-E-A-R…
IT’s not easy!
Respect each other.
Need to Test P.C. boundaries to find out where they are.
Learn from mistakes.
P.C. gaffes might be done –innocently – and with a Good Heart.
It is all too easy and natural to Stop Speaking/Conversing – to avoid showing ignorance. Eg. “asian” can be too general. Also can be too specific!
Issue of Authenticity.
“England People Very Nice” by Richard Bean at National Theatre. A controversial play relevant to topic.
“P.C.”, the term, has been HIJACKED
“P.C” ???? Or “Why can’t I be racist anymore?” ????
Why are these Discussions / Chats usually with people that are probably Already Converted ? (Chris mentioned ‘white middle-class males’ were mos
089 What types of women are we not seeing on stage?
Convener: Mandy Fenton
Participants: Lots…
Some facts, figures, info on survey findings - followed by the summary of D&D discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
1. Gender Equality Duty: -
2. Equality Bill published 2009, expected to come into force autumn 2010 containing significant clauses outlawing gender and age discrimination
3. Some European Commission/FIA findings in survey 2008 - Research on age, gender and performer employment conducted by Dr Deborah Dean of the Warwick Business School:
4. Equity Petition Feb 2009:
5. Sphinx Theatre - Vamps, Vixens and Feminists Conference 2009 - Summary Factsheet 2006 findings:
a. Theatre: 2006: Women in Theatre Survey. 16-29 Jan 2006 inclusive.
Theatre – Writing
b. Screen and Broadcast: Writer’s Guild TV Committee, 1 month of Radio Times issues
c. UK Film Council Report – Women writing for film
Summary of D&D discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
In light of shocking and depressing statistics relating to women in the industry in 2009 the question ‘What types of women are we not seeing on stage?” seems a significant and good start point for convening this discussion...
There were both male and female participants in this discussion, many of the women participating did not feel adequately represented on stage, particularly around stereo-typing and age considerations.
• Some suggestions of types of women we’re not seeing were made by participants before the discussion broadened out to wider issues, with awareness there are many, many more to be made:
• Why aren’t we seeing them, what is the source of the problem?
• Suggestions/considerations/reflections from participants around the current situation concerning representation of women
• Actions suggested/ to be taken following this D&D discussion
Participants: Lots…
Some facts, figures, info on survey findings - followed by the summary of D&D discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
1. Gender Equality Duty: -
“The gender equality duty comes into force in April 2007 and is the biggest change in sex equality legislation in thirty years, since the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act itself. It has been introduced in recognition of the need for a radical new approach to equality – one which places more responsibility with service providers to think strategically about gender equality, rather than leaving it to individuals to challenge poor practice. “(Equal Opportunities Commission Chair Jenny Watson Nov 2006)
2. Equality Bill published 2009, expected to come into force autumn 2010 containing significant clauses outlawing gender and age discrimination
3. Some European Commission/FIA findings in survey 2008 - Research on age, gender and performer employment conducted by Dr Deborah Dean of the Warwick Business School:
• 57% of women felt that their gender restricted employment opportunities (6% of men felt the same).
• The number of women active in the industry declines sharply from the age of 50 – only 17.8% of women were in the older age group, 30% of men were over 50.
• 50% of men believed that getting older was an advantage in relation to pay, 70% of women said it was a disadvantage
• 33% of men earned more than £20,000 per year, 19.7% of women earned at the same levels.
• 2009 Euro/FIA Project : “Engendering Change: Strategies to Combat Gender Stereotypes and Promote Equal Opportunities for Performers in Theatre, Film and Television in Europe” – To move research into action
4. Equity Petition Feb 2009:
“Over half the viewing public is female, yet in TV drama for every female character, there are two male characters - (35.3% female roles to 63.5% male roles). Whilst leading parts are frequently played by male actors over 45, women in this age group start to disappear from our screens. The message this sends to viewers is distorted and distorting. We call on all the major UK television channels to take action to correct this imbalance”.
5. Sphinx Theatre - Vamps, Vixens and Feminists Conference 2009 - Summary Factsheet 2006 findings:
a. Theatre: 2006: Women in Theatre Survey. 16-29 Jan 2006 inclusive.
Theatre – Writing
• In 1983, only 20 out of 620 (3.2%) of plays were written by women, excluding Agatha Christie. In 2006, out of 140 productions sampled only 13 written by women (9%), with 22 collaborations (16%)
• Out of 48 new writing productions, only 8 were written by women (17%) with 10 collaborations (21%)
• Out of 9 new adaptations/translations, 5 were by men, 0 by women, with 4 collaborations
• In 1983, 7% of playwrights were women, whilst in 2006, 17% of playwrights are women
Theatre – Roles
• In 1983, only approx 12% of directors were women. In 2006, out of 140 productions sampled only 32 were directed by women (23%), with 6 collaborations (4%) and 5 unknown (4%)
• On stage, Sphinx’s survey found that 38% of roles were for women
• On television, Equity has found that 35.5% of roles are for women
b. Screen and Broadcast: Writer’s Guild TV Committee, 1 month of Radio Times issues
• Out of 179 television programmes, only 50 were written by women (28%)
• Out of 49 radio programmes, only 12 were written by women (24%)
c. UK Film Council Report – Women writing for film
• Only 26% of women writers write for film
• Women screenwriters are credited on less that 15% of films between 1999 – 2003
• Films written by women screenwriters are as likely to gain a release as those written by men
• The Box Office return for British films with a female screenwriter is $1.25 per £1 budget, compared with $1.16 for films with all-male writers.
Summary of D&D discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
In light of shocking and depressing statistics relating to women in the industry in 2009 the question ‘What types of women are we not seeing on stage?” seems a significant and good start point for convening this discussion...
There were both male and female participants in this discussion, many of the women participating did not feel adequately represented on stage, particularly around stereo-typing and age considerations.
• Some suggestions of types of women we’re not seeing were made by participants before the discussion broadened out to wider issues, with awareness there are many, many more to be made:
- 15% of single women are happier in their 50’s. Planning life in 50’s. Women in positions of responsibility with angst about time spent with children, court systems and women – women being separated from children through divorce of if child is in trouble with the law. Menopause and sex being great after menopause as less worries, older women giving advice, Family law, UK is bottom of welfare league in Europe for child welfare - ability to be a good mum in a system that doesn’t support them.
• Why aren’t we seeing them, what is the source of the problem?
- Women directors who have kids get wiped out. Exceptions: Thea Sharrock and Marianne Elliot. This can also occur for women in all areas of work where attendance hours are long.
- Writer told us she has been asked to put more men in the script/women under 30
- Commercial compromises i.e. Kidron’s first script was about Greenham Common whereas she recently directed a Bridget Jones film
- Historically women have been on stage a shorter time so there are a large amount of existing plays for predominantly male casts
- What kind of plays do producers/audiences want? i.e. participant remarks on a perceptible difference between Germany and UK and finds comparatively that here producers are predominantly thinking about selling tickets and star system
- Many literary managers are female but are they supporting the women in these networks? One participant mentioned a news article about a recent experiment done where plays were presented to female literary agents with some of those written by women attributed to male writers and vice versa – findings here were that when the plays were attributed to a female writer they were consistently marked lower.
- Confidence, self-restriction, self-editing
• Suggestions/considerations/reflections from participants around the current situation concerning representation of women
- One participant discussed the development of the strong female character in her forthcoming solo show and voiced her fears about buying into stereo-types of ‘mad hysterical woman’ . The character is quite enticing and she is worried about picking up outside, received ideas/stereotypes of women. Discussion on this perhaps being a tendency for writers and a strong point raised for writers to reflect on when writing female character
- Write more female protagonists, set out to write more female parts, put women in roles where you would ‘expect’ to see men
- Many stories are ‘guy’s stories’ – reverse the male gaze. Theatre de Soleil given as an example in this approach
- ‘It’s Complicated’ – Meryl Streep’s new film
- Point raised about too many women being on stage talking about relationships, not enough about ambition / competitiveness / creativity / movers within the world politically
- Concern voiced that there has been awareness around this issue for years - i.e. memories of university essays written years ago etc – and that this situation still has not been adequately addressed despite women being 52% of the population. The need for men, as much as women, in taking responsibility to address this issue
- Don’t wait for other people to do it. Women work in ways they want to work now, keep doing what you do – challenge commissioning editors/producers. Need to stop thinking of what other people are going to buy. Make relationships happen and get them to see something they might not see
- Reverse casting – need to think about this when casting – sometimes have to question the reflex which may first think of a man in a role
- If writing a ballsy character, not to just see this in terms of a division between male and female behaviour
- How to write about the lived existence of a strong woman, ‘f**k’ the setting and tell the story. Would it be pushed aside because of this? Is there danger in saying women’s stuff has to be outside of these structure?
- Now there many women are coming through in genuine positions of earned power and still negotiating their identities within this.
- Is there any impact in the structures of the new playwriting going on?
- Hard to get female gay relationships on stage – One participant writer said she had been asked to take the female gay relationship out of her script - male gay relationships more acceptable. Sarah Walters writes these relationships in a historical context - if its detached in this way then it seems it can be accepted more readily?
- There is a branding issue for the big theatres – that they work with writers they want to write with. There was the positive suggestion that now perhaps they will want to work with more women writers and theatre makers as this issue could almost become ‘trendy’ ...
- Resources such as The Bush Theatre’s Bush Green online facility for playwrights, 17percent network for women writers http://17percent.wordpress.com and http://17percent.co.uk/index.php , Clean Break, Unfinished Histories, Magdalena Project - Jill Greenhalgh Aberystwyth University etc
• Actions suggested/ to be taken following this D&D discussion
-Several participants expressed the wish for a continuing forum or conference. Proposal that one of D&D monthly session be themed around this issue, to deepen this discussion, exploration of subsequent insights/thoughts and suggestions of possible actions arising from this.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
068 How might might we think about desire in relation to theatre?
Convener: Jonny Liron
Participants: Jonny Liron, Chris Goode, Mat Trueman, Andrew Haydon, Chris Wilkinson, Lucy Ellinson, Gerard Bell, Greg McLaren, Katherina, the infantile radiance of the entire desperate people.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
(Coupled with the urgent contingence of political sex, as in, Today)
We speak the sharpening
Is that defecating noise in the future tense
sound the hate system falling apart
We were here all the time
The terror corollary examples its own specious disgust
The co-ordinates (like the sea, and love) scramble and re-align
Moving knowledge to passionate radical de construction
In (neck positioned) attentive gleam
To radiate those (these) sinews in empathy with another, to speak of us
The boy dancer shines his specific orientated lost
The queer turn back towards the horizon
(the stars dislocate and shimmer out of angled sight
The form of the poetic critical engagement with what is critical
We are hurtling, impact imminent
O, we were found
out straining out stretched throat
Participants: Jonny Liron, Chris Goode, Mat Trueman, Andrew Haydon, Chris Wilkinson, Lucy Ellinson, Gerard Bell, Greg McLaren, Katherina, the infantile radiance of the entire desperate people.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
(Coupled with the urgent contingence of political sex, as in, Today)
We speak the sharpening
Is that defecating noise in the future tense
sound the hate system falling apart
We were here all the time
The terror corollary examples its own specious disgust
The co-ordinates (like the sea, and love) scramble and re-align
Moving knowledge to passionate radical de construction
In (neck positioned) attentive gleam
To radiate those (these) sinews in empathy with another, to speak of us
The boy dancer shines his specific orientated lost
The queer turn back towards the horizon
(the stars dislocate and shimmer out of angled sight
The form of the poetic critical engagement with what is critical
We are hurtling, impact imminent
O, we were found
out straining out stretched throat
060 Does theatre still have a social and moral responsibility?
Convener: Jo Faith
Participants: Sarah Grochala, Ellen Parousi, Lou Platt, Meenakshi, Helen Pringle, Joe Austin, Aaron Mirrigin, Dannie Laybell, Sharon Matthews
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Buzz words / ideas – ‘Structures’, ‘Education’, ‘choices of individuals’, ‘Aesthetic v political / deeper meanings’, ‘provoking’, ‘’role of theatre’, ‘types of practice’, ‘form’, ‘Faith’
Most people felt that theatre has a social responsibility, not everyone was sure about moral.
The word responsibility was questioned – ‘quite dry’ as opposed to the creative process. But we discussed how theatre should be seen as more ‘important’ in society, which raised a question about responsibility - we see schools as being responsible for our children, supermarkets as responsible for our food (daily needs), NHS responsible for our health… etc.
If the theatre wants more importance does it need to be more responsible?
Funding – there is often a need to have a social or moral stance to gain funding. Why is this? Should this be the case?
A director – spoke about his issue of conflict with social / moral responsibility when making theatre.
Writer – depends on the context.
Theatre – historically important as a means of passing on information.
Often messages are forgotten – information and awareness may be increased but the key message can be lost and not put into action. How can this be assessed? We are being modified and ‘transformed’ daily, surely, everything feeds into that process…
Is emotional connection as important as a mind / physical reaction? Or is it just pleasure? (essentially pornographic)
Arguably theatre that has a participatory / interactive element is more transformative.
Ongoing work has the most social benefit (working with ex-offenders, with regular contact)
Theatre so often works within the current political climate – not really addressing or challenging anything. (Often agrees with what people are already saying)
Question of Universal truths, moral framework that often the old playwrights were dealing with – many of these texts still used within the education system. Why?
Education failing to embrace enough diversity. Education should ‘provoke’. Discussed why teachers aren’t called ‘provokers’ therefore rather than ‘teachers’.
Education should teach the politics of ‘now’, aware of the fact that things, issues, students, change every year. Are there any solid truths that must always be acknowledged?
‘England People Very Nice’ a play that stirs up community, rather than encouraging good community relationships. The further degrading of victims.
Our moral and social responsibility is to educate people about issues.
Theatre draws together a wide spectrum of strangers to share ideas and raise discussion / debate.
Who is the theatre for?
People don’t like to be preached at, unless they agree with what is being preached!
Religions are stories…so is the theatre
Theatre shouldn’t try and tell everything, nothing in life does or can so neither should theatre be concerned about trying to do that.
Activism should be fun
Is theatre a social and moral act?
Provocation is ok, but a fun time is ok as well. A bad theatre experience is useful?
In the most unlikely places we find the beauty, truths
Often moral / social theatre is boring, long-winded, self-righteous.
Theatre should be using different forms, experimenting with form more.
Trend in social theatre again, why? People are disillusioned with politics, and want to voice this.
Trilogy – a joyful expression of women, questions about feminism still not resolved in society just more silent now. Why?
Social responsibility of theatre – to create a space where people can disagree.
Sense of responsibility of the playwright, the actors, the storytellers. The individual and collective responsibility. Where does personal morality operate within the structure? If theatre is all inclusive, it invites people with all beliefs and political opinions. So theatre will reflect these.
Participants: Sarah Grochala, Ellen Parousi, Lou Platt, Meenakshi, Helen Pringle, Joe Austin, Aaron Mirrigin, Dannie Laybell, Sharon Matthews
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Buzz words / ideas – ‘Structures’, ‘Education’, ‘choices of individuals’, ‘Aesthetic v political / deeper meanings’, ‘provoking’, ‘’role of theatre’, ‘types of practice’, ‘form’, ‘Faith’
Most people felt that theatre has a social responsibility, not everyone was sure about moral.
The word responsibility was questioned – ‘quite dry’ as opposed to the creative process. But we discussed how theatre should be seen as more ‘important’ in society, which raised a question about responsibility - we see schools as being responsible for our children, supermarkets as responsible for our food (daily needs), NHS responsible for our health… etc.
If the theatre wants more importance does it need to be more responsible?
Funding – there is often a need to have a social or moral stance to gain funding. Why is this? Should this be the case?
A director – spoke about his issue of conflict with social / moral responsibility when making theatre.
Writer – depends on the context.
Theatre – historically important as a means of passing on information.
Often messages are forgotten – information and awareness may be increased but the key message can be lost and not put into action. How can this be assessed? We are being modified and ‘transformed’ daily, surely, everything feeds into that process…
Is emotional connection as important as a mind / physical reaction? Or is it just pleasure? (essentially pornographic)
Arguably theatre that has a participatory / interactive element is more transformative.
Ongoing work has the most social benefit (working with ex-offenders, with regular contact)
Theatre so often works within the current political climate – not really addressing or challenging anything. (Often agrees with what people are already saying)
Question of Universal truths, moral framework that often the old playwrights were dealing with – many of these texts still used within the education system. Why?
Education failing to embrace enough diversity. Education should ‘provoke’. Discussed why teachers aren’t called ‘provokers’ therefore rather than ‘teachers’.
Education should teach the politics of ‘now’, aware of the fact that things, issues, students, change every year. Are there any solid truths that must always be acknowledged?
‘England People Very Nice’ a play that stirs up community, rather than encouraging good community relationships. The further degrading of victims.
Our moral and social responsibility is to educate people about issues.
Theatre draws together a wide spectrum of strangers to share ideas and raise discussion / debate.
Who is the theatre for?
People don’t like to be preached at, unless they agree with what is being preached!
Religions are stories…so is the theatre
Theatre shouldn’t try and tell everything, nothing in life does or can so neither should theatre be concerned about trying to do that.
Activism should be fun
Is theatre a social and moral act?
Provocation is ok, but a fun time is ok as well. A bad theatre experience is useful?
In the most unlikely places we find the beauty, truths
Often moral / social theatre is boring, long-winded, self-righteous.
Theatre should be using different forms, experimenting with form more.
Trend in social theatre again, why? People are disillusioned with politics, and want to voice this.
Trilogy – a joyful expression of women, questions about feminism still not resolved in society just more silent now. Why?
Social responsibility of theatre – to create a space where people can disagree.
Sense of responsibility of the playwright, the actors, the storytellers. The individual and collective responsibility. Where does personal morality operate within the structure? If theatre is all inclusive, it invites people with all beliefs and political opinions. So theatre will reflect these.
057 Art is not “accomplishing anything other than filling our time"- can art change the world?
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
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
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.
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.
035 Queer Theatre
Convener: David Green
Participants: Martin, Mark Trezona, Brian Lobel, Liam O’Driscoll and others.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Asked a number of questions:
What is queer theatre?
How does it differ from gay theatre?
What good and bad queer theatre have you seen?
What queer / gay theatre interests you / would you like to see?
Does queer / gay theatre have to be inclusive?
Are there problems of queer performers being pigeonholed / ghettoized?
What opportunities are there for queer writers and performers?
Discussion / comments:
The term demands ‘visibility’.
The ‘love that dare not speak its name’ has become the ‘love that need not speak its name’. Do we need to give voice to our desires? Or do we avoid stating them explicitly? If so, what is the motivation behind this?
What is the point of queer theatre? Do we need to hear our own stories? Is there still a lot of work to do politically? Is putting our stories in a public space a political act? If our stories become part of the mainstream, do we become invisible by assimilation? Do we need to keep pushing boundaries?
Queer theatre is not necessary about sexual identity, but about perception and one’s relationship with the ‘normal’ world.
Are we as accepted as we think we are? Are we well-represented? Are gay characters in theatre 3-dimensional and realistic? Do they need to be? Do we want gay characters to be in classical theatre, which may be viewed as a heterosexual art form, or do we explore other queerer artistic forms?
Participants: Martin, Mark Trezona, Brian Lobel, Liam O’Driscoll and others.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Asked a number of questions:
What is queer theatre?
How does it differ from gay theatre?
What good and bad queer theatre have you seen?
What queer / gay theatre interests you / would you like to see?
Does queer / gay theatre have to be inclusive?
Are there problems of queer performers being pigeonholed / ghettoized?
What opportunities are there for queer writers and performers?
Discussion / comments:
The term demands ‘visibility’.
The ‘love that dare not speak its name’ has become the ‘love that need not speak its name’. Do we need to give voice to our desires? Or do we avoid stating them explicitly? If so, what is the motivation behind this?
What is the point of queer theatre? Do we need to hear our own stories? Is there still a lot of work to do politically? Is putting our stories in a public space a political act? If our stories become part of the mainstream, do we become invisible by assimilation? Do we need to keep pushing boundaries?
Queer theatre is not necessary about sexual identity, but about perception and one’s relationship with the ‘normal’ world.
Are we as accepted as we think we are? Are we well-represented? Are gay characters in theatre 3-dimensional and realistic? Do they need to be? Do we want gay characters to be in classical theatre, which may be viewed as a heterosexual art form, or do we explore other queerer artistic forms?
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
010 Politics and content in outdoor theatre
Convener: Bev Adams
Participants: Matt Burman, Paschale Stratton, Naomi O Kelly, Sophie Larsman, Laura Hayes, Adeel Akbar, Sharon Matthews, Dominze Campbell, Susanna Roland, Mark Morreau, Tom Brockelhurst, Agathe Pitarch, Tom Jackson, Joe Hallgarth, Robert Cook, Neil Heating, Natalie Querc, Roxanne Peak-Payne, Roisin Simpson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Street Arts has its roots in the lampooning of power (Commedia), satire (Punch and Judy), and the protest happenings of 1960’s. In 21st century Britain, buskers have to be licensed and paid street performers have local authorities as their paymasters, either directly or indirectly through a festival producer. What opportunities are there for street artists to create contentious, inciteful and through provoking work?
Local Authorities are by nature political organisations striving to meet a host of political agendas– NI111 –participation in the arts targets, community cohesion agendas, street artists are used as pacifiers for disenfranchised communities and with their work used to provide the pretty picture in the promotion of UK towns as destinations. Street Arts delivers well against these agendas. Is it time for us to upset the status quo? Should we try and change the agenda from that of street artists meeting the targets to street artists creating work because of what we want to say or change.
Matt Burman from the Without Walls (a consortium of producers and promoters of outdoor arts) said that, whilst Without Walls was particularly attuned to the need to provide spectacle shows reaching audiences of 5,000 in the run up to the Olympics, not many street artists/companies were proposing work of “intellectual riguer” and there is a desire to see more work of this nature. How does spectacle engage the audience emotionally and intellectually? Group F (French Pyrotechnics company) mentioned that sometimes they strive to engage through colour – getting 10,000 people to look at the colour blue for 2 minutes. Sometimes it is about making the audience look at their surroundings afresh with imprints left by ephemeral street arts works in the audiences minds’ eye often permanently changes their perceptions of that place.
Paschale talked about her up and coming project based on Punch and Judy with an outcome of facilitating the audience/general public to write letters which are posted to the government. When asked if the company censored/vetted these letters she replied that the public where often polite as they were mindful of who they were writing to.
Another member of the group talked about theatre work on sustainability with small communities in India - street theatre as a form of local activism. How do the measure the ripple effect of something quite small and localized?
The work of the street theatre company, Desperate Men, on the River Severn was cited as being a particularly good example of small local meaningful projects extended to specific communities on the river. This project became about the saving of the sturgeon, a once native fish to those waters, and culminated in a large scale finale as a stand off between Caviar Magnates wanting to create a factory (jobs) and the River “Wardens” wanting the Sturgeon to repopulate the river. This type of political project is an extension of the local activism project. It is based in reality, takes into consideration the locale and the interests of the local people but is removed from the realms of agit prop by being presented as metaphor. The plight of 1 sturgeon and its battle to survive.
Public space is increasingly privatized, controlled and licensed and working in the public realms brings with it a number of restrictions and limitations. In order to make impact and draw focus away from the general hubbub of the public space, practitioners tend to work in broad brush strokes, using archetypes. Complex narrative and dialogue is not always effective. Narrative does not necessarily need to be the driver of the message. The emotive visual image can speak a thousand works and have great impact.
Who is out there and do they really want to hear your views?
With theatre (indoors or out) we should be creating a space where change is possible and where people are able to listen, but more importantly, they are able to engage.
What is the language of engagement? Tapping into to universals helps – food, shelter, the human element.
What do we have to protest about? There is currently no political focus but a need for new social, economic and political structures. Where is the vision. Should we start a political party of street performers?
Is it the role of the performer to present of an argument or a political standpoint? Being political does not mean being polemical. Telling people what you want to say (especially if they don’t want to hear it) is the politics of oppression. Politics as content in performance is problematic. Often such shows preach to the converted. Those shows that are successful in helping us to change the way we perceive the world are not successful because they present an argument. Often shows succeed in changing our perceptions through their expression of human interaction. The development of empathy for the plight of an individual is a deeply political act and opening an honest and generous line of communcaiton with the audience on a particular subject creates the possibility for dialogue and development of ideas beyond the life span of the performance - allowing the dialogue with the audience the opportunity to bear the fruit.
Participants: Matt Burman, Paschale Stratton, Naomi O Kelly, Sophie Larsman, Laura Hayes, Adeel Akbar, Sharon Matthews, Dominze Campbell, Susanna Roland, Mark Morreau, Tom Brockelhurst, Agathe Pitarch, Tom Jackson, Joe Hallgarth, Robert Cook, Neil Heating, Natalie Querc, Roxanne Peak-Payne, Roisin Simpson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Street Arts has its roots in the lampooning of power (Commedia), satire (Punch and Judy), and the protest happenings of 1960’s. In 21st century Britain, buskers have to be licensed and paid street performers have local authorities as their paymasters, either directly or indirectly through a festival producer. What opportunities are there for street artists to create contentious, inciteful and through provoking work?
Local Authorities are by nature political organisations striving to meet a host of political agendas– NI111 –participation in the arts targets, community cohesion agendas, street artists are used as pacifiers for disenfranchised communities and with their work used to provide the pretty picture in the promotion of UK towns as destinations. Street Arts delivers well against these agendas. Is it time for us to upset the status quo? Should we try and change the agenda from that of street artists meeting the targets to street artists creating work because of what we want to say or change.
Matt Burman from the Without Walls (a consortium of producers and promoters of outdoor arts) said that, whilst Without Walls was particularly attuned to the need to provide spectacle shows reaching audiences of 5,000 in the run up to the Olympics, not many street artists/companies were proposing work of “intellectual riguer” and there is a desire to see more work of this nature. How does spectacle engage the audience emotionally and intellectually? Group F (French Pyrotechnics company) mentioned that sometimes they strive to engage through colour – getting 10,000 people to look at the colour blue for 2 minutes. Sometimes it is about making the audience look at their surroundings afresh with imprints left by ephemeral street arts works in the audiences minds’ eye often permanently changes their perceptions of that place.
Paschale talked about her up and coming project based on Punch and Judy with an outcome of facilitating the audience/general public to write letters which are posted to the government. When asked if the company censored/vetted these letters she replied that the public where often polite as they were mindful of who they were writing to.
Another member of the group talked about theatre work on sustainability with small communities in India - street theatre as a form of local activism. How do the measure the ripple effect of something quite small and localized?
The work of the street theatre company, Desperate Men, on the River Severn was cited as being a particularly good example of small local meaningful projects extended to specific communities on the river. This project became about the saving of the sturgeon, a once native fish to those waters, and culminated in a large scale finale as a stand off between Caviar Magnates wanting to create a factory (jobs) and the River “Wardens” wanting the Sturgeon to repopulate the river. This type of political project is an extension of the local activism project. It is based in reality, takes into consideration the locale and the interests of the local people but is removed from the realms of agit prop by being presented as metaphor. The plight of 1 sturgeon and its battle to survive.
Public space is increasingly privatized, controlled and licensed and working in the public realms brings with it a number of restrictions and limitations. In order to make impact and draw focus away from the general hubbub of the public space, practitioners tend to work in broad brush strokes, using archetypes. Complex narrative and dialogue is not always effective. Narrative does not necessarily need to be the driver of the message. The emotive visual image can speak a thousand works and have great impact.
Who is out there and do they really want to hear your views?
With theatre (indoors or out) we should be creating a space where change is possible and where people are able to listen, but more importantly, they are able to engage.
What is the language of engagement? Tapping into to universals helps – food, shelter, the human element.
What do we have to protest about? There is currently no political focus but a need for new social, economic and political structures. Where is the vision. Should we start a political party of street performers?
Is it the role of the performer to present of an argument or a political standpoint? Being political does not mean being polemical. Telling people what you want to say (especially if they don’t want to hear it) is the politics of oppression. Politics as content in performance is problematic. Often such shows preach to the converted. Those shows that are successful in helping us to change the way we perceive the world are not successful because they present an argument. Often shows succeed in changing our perceptions through their expression of human interaction. The development of empathy for the plight of an individual is a deeply political act and opening an honest and generous line of communcaiton with the audience on a particular subject creates the possibility for dialogue and development of ideas beyond the life span of the performance - allowing the dialogue with the audience the opportunity to bear the fruit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)