Convener: Leila Crerar
Participants: Nigel Richards, Josh Neicho, Hugh Hayes, Chris Wootton, Sam Sampson, Jen Pearcy- Edwards, Jo Turner, (didn’t get all names, if you attended could you add them)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Q. How can we get the same support for theatre in this country as we do for football?
Q. Do we need to change the mold of theatre how can it be more competitive with Film/Sport/Television.
Q. How do we get bums on seats, without sacrificing our artist integrity?
Q. How to make shows without stars that pay for themselves?
The discussion:
We began by discussing football v theatre:
What is the thrill we get when watching our football team play? The unpredictability of not knowing whether they will Win or Loose. The live event.
It was suggested Football is shorter 90 min; there was a discussion about the length of theatre perhaps being too long. Most other forms of entertainment that Theatre competes with Film/TV/sport are shorter than the conventional theatre piece.
We talk about the culture of football in our society. Being bred into football from a young age. Meaning that you have an unbreakable loyalty towards a team. Wouldn’t it be great if theatre could achieve this?
Football has a permanence that theatre doesn’t have, live event sense of belonging, supporters for life. You know when you go to a match you might be the one to see that special goal, that you can talk about, a moment that can’t be repeated.
The group discussed that theatre could make more of the live element
Rehearsed in mistakes, the audience love to witness something going wrong, assurance that’s a live unique event.
It’s more human; it makes us feel like life.
Playful/improvisation, element of risk and danger. Theatre could imbrace this risk.
People should feel they could walk out of the theatre if they want to.
It’s a good thing if they do walk out, at least they are not passive, and they feel moved enough to walk out.
We use to have that sense of consistency in Rep where people would go and see the same actors in different parts. This creates a feeling of supporting the actors like you would a football team. You have a loyalty towards the cast and you invest more in the actor’s performance.
You have to build this over years; the National theatre’s main objective is selling seats. Complicity, Improbable, Frantic Assembly have built up an audience, because of the consistent quality of their work.
Quality matters
This led us onto a discussion on how to get new audiences, selling shows and marketing:
Marketing needs a new fashionable/modern slant, using the Internet more and maximizing the using of social networking.
Taking the irreverence out of theatre, it needs to be more inclusive.
Theatre needs to be more of an event, rather than a performance, not just sitting in silence in the dark. We talked about the rise of interactive/physical theatre, Punch Drunk with record ticket sales.
They also have a massive queue outside, great marketing tool, like a trendy nightclub. The overall experience of punch Drunk is very different to your average theatre experience/environment audience seem to be very responsive to this. As shown by the general increase of site-specific physical theatre.
Another area that could improve the theatre experience is making the theatre bar more accessible, turn it into somewhere you would want to hang out even if you weren’t going to the theatre. Like the Royal Court. This goes back to the point about theatre being inclusive. It’s important that the theatre building is not just the play. It has to be inclusive/welcoming for a younger audience.
The group then discussed Films v Theatre
With films you get a package. The audience knows what they’re going to get. Risk keeps people away from theatre; generally they don’t like the unknown. This is why we have seen a rise in Hollywood stars in the West end.
It’s about branding, you either need a star, a well-known play, or a reputation as a company, which has been built up over years.
Making films back into theatre,
Shawshank Redemption, On the Waterfront. For the theatre producers they already know that these films have a proven audience that they will be able to sell tickets to. This is the exact opposite of new writing. The group did discuss that the UK needed more new writing theatre's.
Ticket prices are too expensive, especially for a younger audience. The fact that ticket prices are so high means that a lot of theatre will always remain for the middle classes. This again went back to how exclusive theatre is at the moment.
To sum up, we need to offer a unique high quality experience that neither film, TV, Internet, nor football can satisfy.
Where’s society heading and what is it interested in?
We live in a time of Roman theatre rather than Greek, the sensory rather than the idea.
Physical theatre needs a good story line, merging story telling with spectacular, the middle ground between pure text and pure visual.
Having a good story is something people will always come back to.
Yes I can watch spectacular physical/incilation piece and be moved in the moment, but not take anything away with me.
Yes like a big Mac, emidiate fill, but now I would like to go to a proper restraunt please.
Circus de Soliel without language speaks to everyone, sensory experience, unique, they cry because the beautiful possibility transcends things. To be reminded of angels. And its and experience you cannot get anywhere else.
Saturated community, compatition for attention, how do you generate a buzz?
Theatre needs to be true to itself, not become an extention of tv, a language that is complete, what can language provide that nothing else can. To find a theatrical language that is in its owe right, we find a vocabulary that is not competing with television/film.
Showing posts with label audience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label audience. Show all posts
Friday, 5 February 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
076 Blame The audience
Convener: James Stenhouse
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• I convened the session with the premise that audiences rarely get criticized and I’d like to give them some critical feedback.
• I believe theatre is a collaboration between the performers and the audience and although the ultimate responsibility is with the artist I think the audience do have some of the responsibility and therefore might benefit from being told what they are doing wrong.
• We then might move towards a way of helping audiences get better at what they do and therefore they might get more out of the performance.
The group discussed what we thought audiences are doing wrong;
• Not turning up (particularly bad at this)
• Giving up too easily. There was some argument that if the work is bad then they have the right to give up (law of two feet and all that) so we decided to work on the premise that the work is good.
• Being narrow minded, audiences making up there minds before they even get to the theatre and not being prepared to be surprised (lots of us admitted being guilty of this)
It was then discussed that as artists how on earth do we know if audiences feel this? Yes, they might be standing with their arms crossed but it doesn’t mean they’re not enjoying it. I suggested that audiences have a responsibility to know that if they stand with their arms crossed it might be destructive? But this may not be true?
Ok so how do we help our audiences know what to do?
I proposed that we review audiences on our websites?
I was asked exactly how we might review an audience? I wasn’t entirely sure but I intend to work on it and have a go.
Marketing of the show could prepare them adequately for what they might mneed to bring to the performance? The context, the venue itself, the bar can all play a part in preparing the audience member for the experience. Perhaps this is where artists need more influence so that they can try and have some effect on the audience before they arrive in the theatre itself?
Someone raised the question: Are audiences expecting too much from theatre? Friends on T.V is ok, it sometimes makes us laugh and we like it. Theatre that is ok and makes us laugh sometimes is criticized as being crap, it needs to be life changing or its rubbish. Is this unfair?
We then started to argue a little bit about the concept of Blaming the audience and whether this was a good idea. I don’t think we should blame the audience on bad work but perhaps we should feel more able to be critical for the sake of the audience more than anyone?
It was mentioned that ‘The audience’ is a problematic phrase and that audiences are too wide and varied to be lumped together like this. Since we started debating the semantics of the posed question I thought it best to disband the session!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• I convened the session with the premise that audiences rarely get criticized and I’d like to give them some critical feedback.
• I believe theatre is a collaboration between the performers and the audience and although the ultimate responsibility is with the artist I think the audience do have some of the responsibility and therefore might benefit from being told what they are doing wrong.
• We then might move towards a way of helping audiences get better at what they do and therefore they might get more out of the performance.
The group discussed what we thought audiences are doing wrong;
• Not turning up (particularly bad at this)
• Giving up too easily. There was some argument that if the work is bad then they have the right to give up (law of two feet and all that) so we decided to work on the premise that the work is good.
• Being narrow minded, audiences making up there minds before they even get to the theatre and not being prepared to be surprised (lots of us admitted being guilty of this)
It was then discussed that as artists how on earth do we know if audiences feel this? Yes, they might be standing with their arms crossed but it doesn’t mean they’re not enjoying it. I suggested that audiences have a responsibility to know that if they stand with their arms crossed it might be destructive? But this may not be true?
Ok so how do we help our audiences know what to do?
I proposed that we review audiences on our websites?
I was asked exactly how we might review an audience? I wasn’t entirely sure but I intend to work on it and have a go.
Marketing of the show could prepare them adequately for what they might mneed to bring to the performance? The context, the venue itself, the bar can all play a part in preparing the audience member for the experience. Perhaps this is where artists need more influence so that they can try and have some effect on the audience before they arrive in the theatre itself?
Someone raised the question: Are audiences expecting too much from theatre? Friends on T.V is ok, it sometimes makes us laugh and we like it. Theatre that is ok and makes us laugh sometimes is criticized as being crap, it needs to be life changing or its rubbish. Is this unfair?
We then started to argue a little bit about the concept of Blaming the audience and whether this was a good idea. I don’t think we should blame the audience on bad work but perhaps we should feel more able to be critical for the sake of the audience more than anyone?
It was mentioned that ‘The audience’ is a problematic phrase and that audiences are too wide and varied to be lumped together like this. Since we started debating the semantics of the posed question I thought it best to disband the session!
074 One-on-one theatre: Who’s in charge here
Convener: Benjamin Luke
Participants: Beccy Owens, Nick Rutherford, Gregor Henderson-Begg, Michelle Owoo, Rosaline White, Amy Powell-Yeats, Emily Kempson, Becki Haines, Nick Coupe, Philippa Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Rules of the game
Can we make a performance where the audience member decides the rules? How could this work?
• A place of the audience member’s choice. Come and cook in my kitchen…
• Or a topic, subject matter? I would like you to cook X for me
• Stimulus decided by the audience? My favourite color is X, my favourite song is Y, I would like to travel to Z. Make me a meal based on that.
Live Art Speed Dating
Developed through a need to facilitate an audience/artist creative response
Rules of the game #2
We need a certain framework to allow the audience member to interact and challenge the artist, while maintaining a structure.
24 hour-death match: A good example of a reciprocal structure whereby a framework is created that allows the participant to be both an audience member and an artist (or to experience being dominant and recessive)
Ontroereud Goed
A long discussion on the reactions of Internal. Brought up a lot of subsequent issues:
After care
Do we have a responsibility to ensure the health of the participant afterwards if they are particularly traumatized?
This moved on to a discussion of children’s theatre. If a parent complains about a child being scared at a show, what are the ethical implications? We can’t be scared of offending people, we wouldn’t put on a show!
Man up! People like being challenged!
What one-on-one theatre might present is a perfect expression of what we want to do as artists: trust people to understand their responses and learn from them.
Ethical responsibility
What was ethically problematic in Internal? The trust that you put in the performer was taken advantage of. Does this matter? It’s a show about ethics!
Warning people
How can we warn people against the content in the show? Should it be explicit – a contract, a sign etc, or implicit – through marketing etc?
Participants: Beccy Owens, Nick Rutherford, Gregor Henderson-Begg, Michelle Owoo, Rosaline White, Amy Powell-Yeats, Emily Kempson, Becki Haines, Nick Coupe, Philippa Wilkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Rules of the game
Can we make a performance where the audience member decides the rules? How could this work?
• A place of the audience member’s choice. Come and cook in my kitchen…
• Or a topic, subject matter? I would like you to cook X for me
• Stimulus decided by the audience? My favourite color is X, my favourite song is Y, I would like to travel to Z. Make me a meal based on that.
Live Art Speed Dating
Developed through a need to facilitate an audience/artist creative response
Rules of the game #2
We need a certain framework to allow the audience member to interact and challenge the artist, while maintaining a structure.
24 hour-death match: A good example of a reciprocal structure whereby a framework is created that allows the participant to be both an audience member and an artist (or to experience being dominant and recessive)
Ontroereud Goed
A long discussion on the reactions of Internal. Brought up a lot of subsequent issues:
After care
Do we have a responsibility to ensure the health of the participant afterwards if they are particularly traumatized?
This moved on to a discussion of children’s theatre. If a parent complains about a child being scared at a show, what are the ethical implications? We can’t be scared of offending people, we wouldn’t put on a show!
Man up! People like being challenged!
What one-on-one theatre might present is a perfect expression of what we want to do as artists: trust people to understand their responses and learn from them.
Ethical responsibility
What was ethically problematic in Internal? The trust that you put in the performer was taken advantage of. Does this matter? It’s a show about ethics!
Warning people
How can we warn people against the content in the show? Should it be explicit – a contract, a sign etc, or implicit – through marketing etc?
069 Where audiences are responsible for creating their own performance, what is the role of the artists?
Convener: Sian Rees
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This type of work offers the artists more freedom, it’s an empowering process and offers more options.
The focus of the work is about re-negotiating the audience/artist relationship
Although, there is something freeing about stepping back, and not having to participate fully. And sometimes the work becomes solely about the audience member, which can be overwhelming and even dull (as they spend their time watching each other)
What about the presence of the artist? In some work, the artist need not be present at all.(the artist becomes redundant?) Are we missing out on the presence of the artist, the ‘spark’ that they bring to the work? However, installations are meaningful without the presence of the artist. Theatre, however, is different, as its live, its ephemeral, and this is what’s exciting about performance.
Audiences may want more imaginative work, and only see a ‘slice of their own life’. And audiences become the artist. (performativity?) Audiences though, want to see artistry, and skills which they don’t have themselves. They want to see craft.
Perhaps we over-think the audience experience, is there too much focus on this relationship at the expense of the work?
The role of the artist becomes more about the work undertaken before the performance itself, the creative process happens beforehand.
Do we need the audience more than they need us?
The personal journey (individual moments for e.g.) v’s the collective experience (group of audience members). Perhaps we can marry the two in a rich conversation. Those individual moments make audience feel privileged and special, it’s an empowering, emotional and intimate experience.
As a culture, are we obsessed by categorization? Can more ‘experimental’ theatre join other artistic communities to create a more supportive network? Why do they work against each other? Can we support each other across disciplines?
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This type of work offers the artists more freedom, it’s an empowering process and offers more options.
The focus of the work is about re-negotiating the audience/artist relationship
Although, there is something freeing about stepping back, and not having to participate fully. And sometimes the work becomes solely about the audience member, which can be overwhelming and even dull (as they spend their time watching each other)
What about the presence of the artist? In some work, the artist need not be present at all.(the artist becomes redundant?) Are we missing out on the presence of the artist, the ‘spark’ that they bring to the work? However, installations are meaningful without the presence of the artist. Theatre, however, is different, as its live, its ephemeral, and this is what’s exciting about performance.
Audiences may want more imaginative work, and only see a ‘slice of their own life’. And audiences become the artist. (performativity?) Audiences though, want to see artistry, and skills which they don’t have themselves. They want to see craft.
Perhaps we over-think the audience experience, is there too much focus on this relationship at the expense of the work?
The role of the artist becomes more about the work undertaken before the performance itself, the creative process happens beforehand.
Do we need the audience more than they need us?
The personal journey (individual moments for e.g.) v’s the collective experience (group of audience members). Perhaps we can marry the two in a rich conversation. Those individual moments make audience feel privileged and special, it’s an empowering, emotional and intimate experience.
As a culture, are we obsessed by categorization? Can more ‘experimental’ theatre join other artistic communities to create a more supportive network? Why do they work against each other? Can we support each other across disciplines?
041 “I’d rather be down the pub” – The problem with audiences
Convener: Sam Sampson
Participants: Varied (please write your name below if you were there!)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Following several recent attempts to attract new audience members to events and workshops by removing practical barriers (cost, transport, timing) all of which pretty much failed, I was left with the question: Why don’t people consider the theatre as an option for something to do? What can we do to overcome this?
We decided quickly that the main barrier is a cultural one – theatre is thought of as difficult/worthy/expensive without an individual piece necessarily being any of those things. When theatre works, when it focuses on and exploits its ‘theatreness’ and liveness, it can provide amazing experiences. How to communicate this to people who haven’t had a similar experience? It becomes a bit chicken and egg – getting people over the threshold is key.
Lyn pointed out that amateur theatre has never had a problem with audiences – perhaps we should (re)think taking theatre to people rather than trying to force them into buildings or through box offices. How can this inform professional theatre? Why is the divide between them thought of as so sharp?
Or we could take more care to craft the whole theatre experience, from the first marketing contact through to beyond seeing the show? Integrated offerings like A Play, a Pie and a Pint possibly offer some beginnings for this alongside larger-scale pervasive efforts/theatre phenomena?
Could we reintroduce or emphasise the social nature/social contract of the audience? Should we? Would allowing/encouraging audiences to be more verbal give them the ownership and engagement to be passionate about theatre?
Theatre lives by its audience and the theatre making community, ie by people. Encouraging growth, diversity and flux in this body of people must (?) be good for the future of theatre.
There was some fun discussion of why we should(n’t) be trying to convert new audiences. Something we need to say every day: Theatre is not a panacea! Not everyone needs/should go to the theatre every day or every other day BUT – theatre should be ‘on the menu’ for everyone, so how can we communicate what it is and does well to first-time audiences?
Why is it that people see a bad play and write off theatre as a whole? (Is this even true, and what proof do we have?). A bad film or a bad book doesn’t stop people watching or reading. Possible link to ubiquity, marketing muscle, cultural status. Cultural status is a weird one - to change it would necessarily take years of focused work/lobbying/pressure, but think of the benefits! Obviously it poses all kinds of problems and raises questions way beyond theatre, but are those the terms that we need to think in?
Why target new audiences? Surely a theatre maker would prefer informed/experienced theatre goers to evaluate/experience their piece of art? Well, this isn’t always the case (cf children’s theatre, where the lack of a predictable/experience audience has to be woven into the work). And due to the wider theatre ecology, some plays need first time audiences or there’s no sustainability.
Theatre needs audiences more than vice versa.
Participants: Varied (please write your name below if you were there!)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Following several recent attempts to attract new audience members to events and workshops by removing practical barriers (cost, transport, timing) all of which pretty much failed, I was left with the question: Why don’t people consider the theatre as an option for something to do? What can we do to overcome this?
We decided quickly that the main barrier is a cultural one – theatre is thought of as difficult/worthy/expensive without an individual piece necessarily being any of those things. When theatre works, when it focuses on and exploits its ‘theatreness’ and liveness, it can provide amazing experiences. How to communicate this to people who haven’t had a similar experience? It becomes a bit chicken and egg – getting people over the threshold is key.
Lyn pointed out that amateur theatre has never had a problem with audiences – perhaps we should (re)think taking theatre to people rather than trying to force them into buildings or through box offices. How can this inform professional theatre? Why is the divide between them thought of as so sharp?
Or we could take more care to craft the whole theatre experience, from the first marketing contact through to beyond seeing the show? Integrated offerings like A Play, a Pie and a Pint possibly offer some beginnings for this alongside larger-scale pervasive efforts/theatre phenomena?
Could we reintroduce or emphasise the social nature/social contract of the audience? Should we? Would allowing/encouraging audiences to be more verbal give them the ownership and engagement to be passionate about theatre?
Theatre lives by its audience and the theatre making community, ie by people. Encouraging growth, diversity and flux in this body of people must (?) be good for the future of theatre.
There was some fun discussion of why we should(n’t) be trying to convert new audiences. Something we need to say every day: Theatre is not a panacea! Not everyone needs/should go to the theatre every day or every other day BUT – theatre should be ‘on the menu’ for everyone, so how can we communicate what it is and does well to first-time audiences?
Why is it that people see a bad play and write off theatre as a whole? (Is this even true, and what proof do we have?). A bad film or a bad book doesn’t stop people watching or reading. Possible link to ubiquity, marketing muscle, cultural status. Cultural status is a weird one - to change it would necessarily take years of focused work/lobbying/pressure, but think of the benefits! Obviously it poses all kinds of problems and raises questions way beyond theatre, but are those the terms that we need to think in?
Why target new audiences? Surely a theatre maker would prefer informed/experienced theatre goers to evaluate/experience their piece of art? Well, this isn’t always the case (cf children’s theatre, where the lack of a predictable/experience audience has to be woven into the work). And due to the wider theatre ecology, some plays need first time audiences or there’s no sustainability.
Theatre needs audiences more than vice versa.
036 How does Deaf and Disabled theatre attract a mainstream audience?
Convener: Martin McLean
Participants: Susanna, Shawn, Kerry, Tim, Amanda, Jean, Emily, Kempson, Sharan Kean, Garry Housman (Theatre Venture), Lisa Hammond, Ali Tomkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• [We need to] speak in the language of the media.
• Consider how to interest the press?
• What language should we use to talk to the media?
• As a disabled person, I get angry how I’m described – the physical is described first. If, at the end of a critique, serious consideration/criticism is made – then I am very pleased.
• Language has changed from phrases formerly used: deaf and dumb, deaf mute, a world of silence. Now, a capital D is used for the word Deaf.
• [When talking to the press] it’s silly not to say wheelchair user but how to do it so that it’s not twisted?
• Infiltrate from the inside…
• However much you try to write the killer press release, you’re stuck with whether or not the press will turn up. As soon as you say ‘disabled’ the press are off.
• What if we don’t tell them [the press/audience] in advance?
• Producers are starting to think of creative ways to attract particular audiences.
• Why is disabled art hampered? Don’t perpetuate difficulties by producing bad work.
• We’re all about accessibility but not all work can be accessible.
• If it’s good work – then it is. Why keep saying it is?
• Some work needs experimentation – it needs time. Do we need to decide when experimentation ends?
• With Counting the Ways, a research and development project, attempting to achieve inclusion almost damaged its ability to communicate.
• [With one production] with a cast of 2 (?), in terms of modes of communication, there was signing, audio description and speech – the resulting work was only partially successful.
• Sometimes watching signing can be a fixation [for hearing audiences?]
• Nonetheless, if the work is good enough audiences’ attention will stay with the work itself. [It was noted when considering a French language film] With Un Prophet, English speaking audiences will still go to see it because of its quality, despite the use of captions.
• How do we meet the brief of making amazing theatre?
• Investment in a piece so that it has the time to develop into being as good a piece as it can be.
• Using audio description, signing and so on are artistic considerations that need to be addressed creatively (money is not always the issue).
• Is the attempt to communicate – to speak – getting in the way of making theatre?
• Working with Graeae [it was noted from experience] could be frustrating when working with a number of specialist support assistants in the same small space as [one’s] fellow actors.
• One research panel asked [of a theatre maker when assessing their experience of making work]: did you have a remit to prove yourself or be more accessible?
• Q:
With regard to casting, is the same rigour applied in disabled contexts as it is in the mainstream?
• A:
It’s such a new area – people are so afraid of saying the wrong thing.
• There was a situation in one play when a deaf actor was cast who wasn’t up to the job (which she subsequently acknowledged and the role was recast with a more skilled hearing actor).
• There is a dilemma though: if deaf actors aren’t cast then how well they develop and improve, but where are the jobs?
• We [performer’s experience] can be stuck just with disability theatre – you end up caught within the same small circuit.
• With street-theatre, you can attract audiences with work on its own merit – the response is immediate.
• Whatever you say about Cast-offs, it did attract a mainstream audience.
• However, it was in the wrong way. The remit was to produce a spoof documentary but due to the poor quality of the writing etc, the result was just a piece [lacking in irony] that resembled a Channel 5 thing.
• Queer as Folk showed mainstream audiences aspects of gay life that challenged [perceptions]. Cast-offs didn’t meet expectation. It shot itself in the foot. From the start it marginalised its subject.
• Question:
How do we help to develop the quality of our product?
• Responses:
(A programming specialist’s view] Book only quality – people of quality.
• Commission work
• [Martin asked] Why do hearing audiences attend work with Deaf / disabled / and or a particular focus? [Conversely] Why do they not attend? [He is] looking for ideas.
• If you need a mainstream audience, can you cater for a deaf audience too?
• Signed songs / signing as gestural language in dance theatre can be an appealing feature of the work for mainstream audiences [as well as disabled audiences], though not necessarily – depending upon taste.
• In Israel, Nalagat produced a piece – Not by bread alone with twelve (?) disabled actors. The work, always intended for a mainstream audience, has played to good houses for two years (the work will be coming to Britain this year).
Participants: Susanna, Shawn, Kerry, Tim, Amanda, Jean, Emily, Kempson, Sharan Kean, Garry Housman (Theatre Venture), Lisa Hammond, Ali Tomkinson
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• [We need to] speak in the language of the media.
• Consider how to interest the press?
• What language should we use to talk to the media?
• As a disabled person, I get angry how I’m described – the physical is described first. If, at the end of a critique, serious consideration/criticism is made – then I am very pleased.
• Language has changed from phrases formerly used: deaf and dumb, deaf mute, a world of silence. Now, a capital D is used for the word Deaf.
• [When talking to the press] it’s silly not to say wheelchair user but how to do it so that it’s not twisted?
• Infiltrate from the inside…
• However much you try to write the killer press release, you’re stuck with whether or not the press will turn up. As soon as you say ‘disabled’ the press are off.
• What if we don’t tell them [the press/audience] in advance?
• Producers are starting to think of creative ways to attract particular audiences.
• Why is disabled art hampered? Don’t perpetuate difficulties by producing bad work.
• We’re all about accessibility but not all work can be accessible.
• If it’s good work – then it is. Why keep saying it is?
• Some work needs experimentation – it needs time. Do we need to decide when experimentation ends?
• With Counting the Ways, a research and development project, attempting to achieve inclusion almost damaged its ability to communicate.
• [With one production] with a cast of 2 (?), in terms of modes of communication, there was signing, audio description and speech – the resulting work was only partially successful.
• Sometimes watching signing can be a fixation [for hearing audiences?]
• Nonetheless, if the work is good enough audiences’ attention will stay with the work itself. [It was noted when considering a French language film] With Un Prophet, English speaking audiences will still go to see it because of its quality, despite the use of captions.
• How do we meet the brief of making amazing theatre?
• Investment in a piece so that it has the time to develop into being as good a piece as it can be.
• Using audio description, signing and so on are artistic considerations that need to be addressed creatively (money is not always the issue).
• Is the attempt to communicate – to speak – getting in the way of making theatre?
• Working with Graeae [it was noted from experience] could be frustrating when working with a number of specialist support assistants in the same small space as [one’s] fellow actors.
• One research panel asked [of a theatre maker when assessing their experience of making work]: did you have a remit to prove yourself or be more accessible?
• Q:
With regard to casting, is the same rigour applied in disabled contexts as it is in the mainstream?
• A:
It’s such a new area – people are so afraid of saying the wrong thing.
• There was a situation in one play when a deaf actor was cast who wasn’t up to the job (which she subsequently acknowledged and the role was recast with a more skilled hearing actor).
• There is a dilemma though: if deaf actors aren’t cast then how well they develop and improve, but where are the jobs?
• We [performer’s experience] can be stuck just with disability theatre – you end up caught within the same small circuit.
• With street-theatre, you can attract audiences with work on its own merit – the response is immediate.
• Whatever you say about Cast-offs, it did attract a mainstream audience.
• However, it was in the wrong way. The remit was to produce a spoof documentary but due to the poor quality of the writing etc, the result was just a piece [lacking in irony] that resembled a Channel 5 thing.
• Queer as Folk showed mainstream audiences aspects of gay life that challenged [perceptions]. Cast-offs didn’t meet expectation. It shot itself in the foot. From the start it marginalised its subject.
• Question:
How do we help to develop the quality of our product?
• Responses:
(A programming specialist’s view] Book only quality – people of quality.
• Commission work
• [Martin asked] Why do hearing audiences attend work with Deaf / disabled / and or a particular focus? [Conversely] Why do they not attend? [He is] looking for ideas.
• If you need a mainstream audience, can you cater for a deaf audience too?
• Signed songs / signing as gestural language in dance theatre can be an appealing feature of the work for mainstream audiences [as well as disabled audiences], though not necessarily – depending upon taste.
• In Israel, Nalagat produced a piece – Not by bread alone with twelve (?) disabled actors. The work, always intended for a mainstream audience, has played to good houses for two years (the work will be coming to Britain this year).
024 How do we make touring pay
Convener: Christina Elliot, Fuel
Participants:
Eek, I forgot to take a record. They included:
Hannah Ashwell, Tassos Stevens, Phillipa Wittenoom, Mark, Lyn Gardner, Action Hero,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This group was convened to discuss the difficulties of making touring on the small scale sustainable.
We started by discussing the different models for financing tours. These included fees, ACE subsidy, box office splits and a mixture of all three. What is the minimum fee that a one man show with low production costs can tour on? £400 a show? £750 a show? It seemed to depend on a number of factors including level of overheads, whether performers are on weekly fees or per show fees, and so on. Whereas some participants argued that small scale companies should aspire to pay personnel regularly whilst on tour, even when there are gaps in the schedule, and be honest about the hidden costs of making the work, others suggested that costs should be minimized to represent best value to the venue.
There was some discussion of the rural touring model. Hannah from Beaford Arts described her role as a broker for artists and venues, curating a programme which was ambitious but tailored to the communities her organization serves.
This led to a discussion about whether brokers could have a role more widely. Should the model of rural touring networks be expanded to the small scale touring circuit? A related question: should venues form consortiums to make it easier for companies to book joined up tours, and develop their audience over a number of years touring to the same venues.
We talked about other ways of financing tours: a number of participants had experience of offering workshops alongside performances to raise additional funds. Others suggested sponsorship or going to trusts with a record of funding touring e.g. Wellcome Trust, or bartering for support in kind on top of splits or fees e.g. rehearsal space.
Tassos Stevens prompted us to challenge some of the fundamentals of touring: what about making work remotely, or touring work in places where you find yourself already?
Much of the discussion centred on audiences. Clearly one answer to the question about how touring can pay is getting enough people to see it. However, it was clear that small companies find it hard to market their work in places which are unfamiliar – how do you market a show in Liverpool when you are based in London? Again, the role of brokers seemed valuable. We were encouraged to talk to local arts development officers whose job it is to link up organizations and audiences. We also discussed how touring companies could share resources, e.g. clubbing together to pay for a PR company, or reciprocal advertising on print and websites.
It seemed that everyone wanted a greater degree of sharing and collaboration and Theatre Bristol was held up as a good example of a community of theatre makers.
We discussed London touring. Is it possible to do a regional tour entirely within Greater London? Participants were excited about the perceived easing of venue exclusion zones, partly as a result of the Audiences London survey which suggests that audiences are significantly venue loyal.
More joined up thinking seemed to be the answer to the original question. Companies working together to promote their work, venues forming consortiums, councils or local arts centres acting as brokers or middlemen between venues and companies.
Participants:
Eek, I forgot to take a record. They included:
Hannah Ashwell, Tassos Stevens, Phillipa Wittenoom, Mark, Lyn Gardner, Action Hero,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This group was convened to discuss the difficulties of making touring on the small scale sustainable.
We started by discussing the different models for financing tours. These included fees, ACE subsidy, box office splits and a mixture of all three. What is the minimum fee that a one man show with low production costs can tour on? £400 a show? £750 a show? It seemed to depend on a number of factors including level of overheads, whether performers are on weekly fees or per show fees, and so on. Whereas some participants argued that small scale companies should aspire to pay personnel regularly whilst on tour, even when there are gaps in the schedule, and be honest about the hidden costs of making the work, others suggested that costs should be minimized to represent best value to the venue.
There was some discussion of the rural touring model. Hannah from Beaford Arts described her role as a broker for artists and venues, curating a programme which was ambitious but tailored to the communities her organization serves.
This led to a discussion about whether brokers could have a role more widely. Should the model of rural touring networks be expanded to the small scale touring circuit? A related question: should venues form consortiums to make it easier for companies to book joined up tours, and develop their audience over a number of years touring to the same venues.
We talked about other ways of financing tours: a number of participants had experience of offering workshops alongside performances to raise additional funds. Others suggested sponsorship or going to trusts with a record of funding touring e.g. Wellcome Trust, or bartering for support in kind on top of splits or fees e.g. rehearsal space.
Tassos Stevens prompted us to challenge some of the fundamentals of touring: what about making work remotely, or touring work in places where you find yourself already?
Much of the discussion centred on audiences. Clearly one answer to the question about how touring can pay is getting enough people to see it. However, it was clear that small companies find it hard to market their work in places which are unfamiliar – how do you market a show in Liverpool when you are based in London? Again, the role of brokers seemed valuable. We were encouraged to talk to local arts development officers whose job it is to link up organizations and audiences. We also discussed how touring companies could share resources, e.g. clubbing together to pay for a PR company, or reciprocal advertising on print and websites.
It seemed that everyone wanted a greater degree of sharing and collaboration and Theatre Bristol was held up as a good example of a community of theatre makers.
We discussed London touring. Is it possible to do a regional tour entirely within Greater London? Participants were excited about the perceived easing of venue exclusion zones, partly as a result of the Audiences London survey which suggests that audiences are significantly venue loyal.
More joined up thinking seemed to be the answer to the original question. Companies working together to promote their work, venues forming consortiums, councils or local arts centres acting as brokers or middlemen between venues and companies.
022 How can we use web technologies to help generate communities that love theatre?
Convener: Gavin O’Carroll
Participants: Greg Wohead, Caroline Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Jennifer Peary-Edwards, Sharon Seager, Matthew Uayd, Rachel McGill, Amanda Kelleher.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We talked about whether or not theatre can use online tech to enable audiences to find the theatre they know they’ll like more easily. Frustrated by the blanket emailing promotion that currently exists. We wondered if a more targeted promotion from theatre companies could be done, or indeed if audiences could use online channels to ‘pull’ recommendations for shows they’d like to see to them.
We wondered if the audience of a show were in fact a interest community. And thinking about Last.fm as a model (where people with the same musical ‘taste’ could easily connect and recommend each other music). Would this work in theatre?
We discussed how recommendations from people who don’t have a vested interest in a show were so much more powerful in getting people to go. In other industries people are find people online via Twitter etc and finding people who’s taste they trust, and then trust their recommendations for things to do, see, go and experience.
We talked about what were the best tools for theatre companies to use to market themselves and create communities around their work. Rather than the tools, it was more important to explain the point of their work, so that people who had an emotional connection to that mission would then congregate around whatever tools they used to promote with work. Explaining this point being the core requirement to generating a community and cutting through the information overload that audiences experience in the web.
We discussed the need to compliment a kind of last.fm for theatre with real life meetups, so that people could congregate around shared interests (that the theatre companies organizing the drinks might be exploring) face to face. We had examples of where this worked well in other industries such as the design world (‘Service design drinks’ were mentioned as a meetup example – very vibrant).
We wondered though it people really cared enough about theatre to tell other people?
We discussed how the properties of the internet were pro transparency and authenticity – we then wondered it the fear of technology that many theatre companies display was actually a fear of being found out? Was this justified? It was asked – in the current method of promotion – were theatre companies being dishonest in raising expectations before many shows are even finished rehearsing? Should theatre companies use video more, and not as a trailer, but as a film of aspects of performance – members of the groups felt it was hard to hide behind video. If they could move audiences with a 3 min video against a white wall then they would come to the show. Examples of where companies are involving audiences in early rehearsal footage etc already. Management of expectations was an important element.
We spoke about the possibility of having an online community for theatre audiences, where it’s ok to say they liked a show or didn’t like it and to give permission to discuss it. And give a space for the family element of celebration of when something was really good.
We felt the heart of our conversation so far was that we felt there was no support for audiences. That we needed to give audiences a focussed support network. A place where they could validate in a non-intimidating way, their thoughts of ‘that was shit wasn’t it? Am I mad for thinking that?’ or ‘the critics said that was shit, but I though it was the best thing I’ve ever seen. Am I mad? Or do I have shit taste?’ A place where they would find out they are part of a group of people who felt the same. We discussed the possibility of laptops outside shows where people should vote thumbs up and thumbs down about the show they’d just seen, and a place for them to vote again in a month once they’ve reflected on it. Awesome info for arts council funding applications for the company no? (possibly!).
Participants: Greg Wohead, Caroline Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Jennifer Peary-Edwards, Sharon Seager, Matthew Uayd, Rachel McGill, Amanda Kelleher.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We talked about whether or not theatre can use online tech to enable audiences to find the theatre they know they’ll like more easily. Frustrated by the blanket emailing promotion that currently exists. We wondered if a more targeted promotion from theatre companies could be done, or indeed if audiences could use online channels to ‘pull’ recommendations for shows they’d like to see to them.
We wondered if the audience of a show were in fact a interest community. And thinking about Last.fm as a model (where people with the same musical ‘taste’ could easily connect and recommend each other music). Would this work in theatre?
We discussed how recommendations from people who don’t have a vested interest in a show were so much more powerful in getting people to go. In other industries people are find people online via Twitter etc and finding people who’s taste they trust, and then trust their recommendations for things to do, see, go and experience.
We talked about what were the best tools for theatre companies to use to market themselves and create communities around their work. Rather than the tools, it was more important to explain the point of their work, so that people who had an emotional connection to that mission would then congregate around whatever tools they used to promote with work. Explaining this point being the core requirement to generating a community and cutting through the information overload that audiences experience in the web.
We discussed the need to compliment a kind of last.fm for theatre with real life meetups, so that people could congregate around shared interests (that the theatre companies organizing the drinks might be exploring) face to face. We had examples of where this worked well in other industries such as the design world (‘Service design drinks’ were mentioned as a meetup example – very vibrant).
We wondered though it people really cared enough about theatre to tell other people?
We discussed how the properties of the internet were pro transparency and authenticity – we then wondered it the fear of technology that many theatre companies display was actually a fear of being found out? Was this justified? It was asked – in the current method of promotion – were theatre companies being dishonest in raising expectations before many shows are even finished rehearsing? Should theatre companies use video more, and not as a trailer, but as a film of aspects of performance – members of the groups felt it was hard to hide behind video. If they could move audiences with a 3 min video against a white wall then they would come to the show. Examples of where companies are involving audiences in early rehearsal footage etc already. Management of expectations was an important element.
We spoke about the possibility of having an online community for theatre audiences, where it’s ok to say they liked a show or didn’t like it and to give permission to discuss it. And give a space for the family element of celebration of when something was really good.
We felt the heart of our conversation so far was that we felt there was no support for audiences. That we needed to give audiences a focussed support network. A place where they could validate in a non-intimidating way, their thoughts of ‘that was shit wasn’t it? Am I mad for thinking that?’ or ‘the critics said that was shit, but I though it was the best thing I’ve ever seen. Am I mad? Or do I have shit taste?’ A place where they would find out they are part of a group of people who felt the same. We discussed the possibility of laptops outside shows where people should vote thumbs up and thumbs down about the show they’d just seen, and a place for them to vote again in a month once they’ve reflected on it. Awesome info for arts council funding applications for the company no? (possibly!).
021 Outdoor Theatre in the Winter
Convener: Sophie Austin
Participants: Sophie. Andrew, Kas, Lwin, Su Su, jill, Paul, Jonathan
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We discussed the idea of creating a promenade theatre piece specifically for an outdoor space in winter.
1. When doing outdoor theatre in the winter you need to think about the following:
Toilets – how many?
Power – generators? Noise, distance cabling
How not to make actors ill – heaters, space blankets, hot water bottles, gazebos
Voice – how to ensure an actor is heard? Well trained actors, good warms ups, employ speech/sound expert to suggest set possibilities for improving sound.
3 key people - Director, producer & events manager – someone who can focus on the audience experience
Access – Clear pathways, how to lead people round, speed of promenade, ensure good communication with the audience and performers. Ask experts like Graeae, Extant or Shape
Length of time of show – how long should it be? Should we ensure that people are moving all the time?
Should the audience be able to see everything?
Ensure you communicate with the audience – be clear – it is going to rain, it is going to snow. BE PREPARED.
You can’t guess the weather, prepare for every eventuality.
Lighting – torches, hurricane lanterns, flares, floating candles, glow sticks, fire
Offer a hot drink at some point during the show.
Are the good audience of Britain willing to come to outdoor theatre in the winter? As long as you are honest and communicate the ‘risks’ involved, they will come.
The general consensus was that the show must go on.
All who contributed go very inspired by the possibilities and not too bogged down in the inevitable health and safety conundrums – that’s probably for a different sessions.
Participants: Sophie. Andrew, Kas, Lwin, Su Su, jill, Paul, Jonathan
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We discussed the idea of creating a promenade theatre piece specifically for an outdoor space in winter.
1. When doing outdoor theatre in the winter you need to think about the following:
Toilets – how many?
Power – generators? Noise, distance cabling
How not to make actors ill – heaters, space blankets, hot water bottles, gazebos
Voice – how to ensure an actor is heard? Well trained actors, good warms ups, employ speech/sound expert to suggest set possibilities for improving sound.
3 key people - Director, producer & events manager – someone who can focus on the audience experience
Access – Clear pathways, how to lead people round, speed of promenade, ensure good communication with the audience and performers. Ask experts like Graeae, Extant or Shape
Length of time of show – how long should it be? Should we ensure that people are moving all the time?
Should the audience be able to see everything?
Ensure you communicate with the audience – be clear – it is going to rain, it is going to snow. BE PREPARED.
You can’t guess the weather, prepare for every eventuality.
Lighting – torches, hurricane lanterns, flares, floating candles, glow sticks, fire
Offer a hot drink at some point during the show.
Are the good audience of Britain willing to come to outdoor theatre in the winter? As long as you are honest and communicate the ‘risks’ involved, they will come.
The general consensus was that the show must go on.
All who contributed go very inspired by the possibilities and not too bogged down in the inevitable health and safety conundrums – that’s probably for a different sessions.
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
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
006 Is it More Fun to Make Theatre than Watch it?
Convener: Gloria Lindh
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Oliver Townsend, Mary O’L, Susanna, Sarah, David Bellwood, Matt Trueman, Roxanne Peak-Payne and others who dropped in as the discussion was underway
Summary of discussion:
The question:
Does fun mean frivolous? The proposer suggested fun might not be the most useful term to describe an experience. Maybe satisfying? Theatre doesn’t always have to be fun. Another question might be ‘why make theatre’ or ‘why watch theatre’.
This was a more theoretical than practical discussion, it would be fair to say!
(What people said about) watching theatre
In trying to describe an audience experience and what was important to us, the group member’s wishlists included:
To experience a completed event.
Others like there to be room for the audience to be part of completing the event.
Truth, generosity of spirit from maker and audience. Generosity was a word that was used a lot at one point in the discussion.
To feel that the maker had considered and honoured the audience experience; the context, the group.
Quality, sense of spontaneity, access to process of making.
There was a discussion that surfaced a few times about making the experience of watching theatre more like the experience of making theatre. We talked about a participatory audience and the ways that people felt part of an event: sharing the same space as those who were making theatre, having a role within the performance. Scratch performance wasn’t seen by some to be a good mechanism for achieving this.
The experience of an event starts when you hear about it and ends when you stop hearing about it.
(What people said about) making theatre:
It’s not always fun, of course. Theatre is playing seriously…….
A positive making experience does not always match with a positive audience experience.
We talked about making theatre considering a potential audience. Do the audience have more fun if a specific audience is considered while making? Not everyone agreed. It’s possible to think about your audience too much, and trying to cater to all audiences isn’t always a good idea said others. There is a balance or tension.
Who are we making theatre for? Is there a selfish element to making theatre. If we’re making theatre for other people do they want to see it? Do we make theatre for other makers?
Conclusions
There were more people who did not raise their hands in response to the question ‘do you think making theatre is more fun than watching it’. This might mean that more people enjoy watching theatre, or it might mean that less people think watching theatre is fun.
There is interest in how the process of making theatre can be shared with audiences.
As audience members people want to feel that they are considered as part of the process.
There were no calls to action, apart from generally to be fun.
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Oliver Townsend, Mary O’L, Susanna, Sarah, David Bellwood, Matt Trueman, Roxanne Peak-Payne and others who dropped in as the discussion was underway
Summary of discussion:
The question:
Does fun mean frivolous? The proposer suggested fun might not be the most useful term to describe an experience. Maybe satisfying? Theatre doesn’t always have to be fun. Another question might be ‘why make theatre’ or ‘why watch theatre’.
This was a more theoretical than practical discussion, it would be fair to say!
(What people said about) watching theatre
In trying to describe an audience experience and what was important to us, the group member’s wishlists included:
To experience a completed event.
Others like there to be room for the audience to be part of completing the event.
Truth, generosity of spirit from maker and audience. Generosity was a word that was used a lot at one point in the discussion.
To feel that the maker had considered and honoured the audience experience; the context, the group.
Quality, sense of spontaneity, access to process of making.
There was a discussion that surfaced a few times about making the experience of watching theatre more like the experience of making theatre. We talked about a participatory audience and the ways that people felt part of an event: sharing the same space as those who were making theatre, having a role within the performance. Scratch performance wasn’t seen by some to be a good mechanism for achieving this.
The experience of an event starts when you hear about it and ends when you stop hearing about it.
(What people said about) making theatre:
It’s not always fun, of course. Theatre is playing seriously…….
A positive making experience does not always match with a positive audience experience.
We talked about making theatre considering a potential audience. Do the audience have more fun if a specific audience is considered while making? Not everyone agreed. It’s possible to think about your audience too much, and trying to cater to all audiences isn’t always a good idea said others. There is a balance or tension.
Who are we making theatre for? Is there a selfish element to making theatre. If we’re making theatre for other people do they want to see it? Do we make theatre for other makers?
Conclusions
There were more people who did not raise their hands in response to the question ‘do you think making theatre is more fun than watching it’. This might mean that more people enjoy watching theatre, or it might mean that less people think watching theatre is fun.
There is interest in how the process of making theatre can be shared with audiences.
As audience members people want to feel that they are considered as part of the process.
There were no calls to action, apart from generally to be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)