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
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 February 2010
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?
016 Is it a problem that, recently, I feel that I do not want to work with, perform for, or even talk to straight people? If yes, are there solutions
Convener: Brian Lobel
Participants: Many queer people, a handful of straight people, and a few people unidentified.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I’D LOVE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE WRITING ON THIS – ESPECIALLY THOSE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. I DIDN’T LEARN YOUR NAMES. BUT THIS WAS NOT BECAUSE I HATE STRAIGHT PEOPLE.
First and foremost, the question was meant to be a provocation. I do not hate straight people, do not refuse to work with straight people, nor do I find straight people untalented or oppressive. I even have some straight friends.
There was quite a lot of hurt in the group, people hurt because they felt like they were being called oppressors, while others hurt that there is still inequality and choose to deal with this inequality in different, passionate ways. Some people (like the amazing Stella Duffy) felt the need to constantly engage with the greater community (including gays/straights etc), and many more agreed with her – Chris Goode talking about the limited perspective that might derive from only interacting with and responding to a queer audience.
Chris asked me (Brian) what questions I thought could be asked, emotionally/artistically/etc which could not be asked in a straight space (which I defined as not statedly queer or queer-friendly). In response to this, I gave some bad answer. Chris is smarter and sharper than me.
Stella talked about the nuisance of having to continually ‘come out’ over and over and over again as necessity of being a queer performer/writer/theatre maker. She still felt the need to fight and to keep up confidence, noting that even though gay liberation happened years ago, the movement is still far away from being through. My only response to Stella was to question whether perseverance (constantly interacting with a ‘straight’ audience/viewership) was the only path towards eventually integrated spaces, where all felt safe.
Chris Goode wondered if the issue, the feeling, was particular to solo performance, and if a solo performance demands comfort/safety from an audience in a different way from those in ensembles who have others on stage to look to for comfort/safety. This is an excellent point.
We discussed the perspective that could come from having non-queer people in a space with queer people. The example was given about The Jerk, the play about the gay serial killer, and how it was a richer experience as an audience member because there were all sorts of people watching the show. It was also discussed that the main ‘problems’ with the show’s reception was from gay critics, who thought that the work was not ‘good’ for gay people. This started an interesting conversation about the fear of ‘not getting it right’ and non-queer people writing or engaging with queer subjects/subjectivity. We talked for a while about the fear of engaging with and offending lesbians/gay men etc. Stella encouraged writers of all persuasions to write lesbian characters – why? Because there are not enough representations. Even if they get it wrong, she said, it might be worth the effort.
We talked about the impetus to write and to create. There was a nice moment when Lucy said that of course you want to be comfortable/safe in a performance context, not just as a queer, but as a performer who has successfully performed to an audience. The right audience. The receptive audience. I personally think this was a sharp point.
We talked about ways in which queer people might oppress straights. I don’t believe this is possible or a major concern. Someone can challenge on this if they dare.
There was so much here… it was a pretty dramatic session and I’m having trouble writing it up perfectly. I encourage all people to add to this… Basically, much of this boils down to the effectiveness of performance, if we think we should preach to the unconverted to the congregation. People come to church to be reinspired, re-engaged, spoken to and riled up – this is the first thing I like to do. If people can be converted, that’s awesome too, but not tnecessarily the main thing… I am leaving this here, but beg people to please add to the work. (thanks to Mary for her copious notes).
x.o.x.o. Brian
Participants: Many queer people, a handful of straight people, and a few people unidentified.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I’D LOVE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE WRITING ON THIS – ESPECIALLY THOSE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. I DIDN’T LEARN YOUR NAMES. BUT THIS WAS NOT BECAUSE I HATE STRAIGHT PEOPLE.
First and foremost, the question was meant to be a provocation. I do not hate straight people, do not refuse to work with straight people, nor do I find straight people untalented or oppressive. I even have some straight friends.
There was quite a lot of hurt in the group, people hurt because they felt like they were being called oppressors, while others hurt that there is still inequality and choose to deal with this inequality in different, passionate ways. Some people (like the amazing Stella Duffy) felt the need to constantly engage with the greater community (including gays/straights etc), and many more agreed with her – Chris Goode talking about the limited perspective that might derive from only interacting with and responding to a queer audience.
Chris asked me (Brian) what questions I thought could be asked, emotionally/artistically/etc which could not be asked in a straight space (which I defined as not statedly queer or queer-friendly). In response to this, I gave some bad answer. Chris is smarter and sharper than me.
Stella talked about the nuisance of having to continually ‘come out’ over and over and over again as necessity of being a queer performer/writer/theatre maker. She still felt the need to fight and to keep up confidence, noting that even though gay liberation happened years ago, the movement is still far away from being through. My only response to Stella was to question whether perseverance (constantly interacting with a ‘straight’ audience/viewership) was the only path towards eventually integrated spaces, where all felt safe.
Chris Goode wondered if the issue, the feeling, was particular to solo performance, and if a solo performance demands comfort/safety from an audience in a different way from those in ensembles who have others on stage to look to for comfort/safety. This is an excellent point.
We discussed the perspective that could come from having non-queer people in a space with queer people. The example was given about The Jerk, the play about the gay serial killer, and how it was a richer experience as an audience member because there were all sorts of people watching the show. It was also discussed that the main ‘problems’ with the show’s reception was from gay critics, who thought that the work was not ‘good’ for gay people. This started an interesting conversation about the fear of ‘not getting it right’ and non-queer people writing or engaging with queer subjects/subjectivity. We talked for a while about the fear of engaging with and offending lesbians/gay men etc. Stella encouraged writers of all persuasions to write lesbian characters – why? Because there are not enough representations. Even if they get it wrong, she said, it might be worth the effort.
We talked about the impetus to write and to create. There was a nice moment when Lucy said that of course you want to be comfortable/safe in a performance context, not just as a queer, but as a performer who has successfully performed to an audience. The right audience. The receptive audience. I personally think this was a sharp point.
We talked about ways in which queer people might oppress straights. I don’t believe this is possible or a major concern. Someone can challenge on this if they dare.
There was so much here… it was a pretty dramatic session and I’m having trouble writing it up perfectly. I encourage all people to add to this… Basically, much of this boils down to the effectiveness of performance, if we think we should preach to the unconverted to the congregation. People come to church to be reinspired, re-engaged, spoken to and riled up – this is the first thing I like to do. If people can be converted, that’s awesome too, but not tnecessarily the main thing… I am leaving this here, but beg people to please add to the work. (thanks to Mary for her copious notes).
x.o.x.o. Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)