Convener: Matilda Leyser
Participants: Oops. Didn’t take these names down.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I explained why I don’t like devising:
What I have a problem with is the product-orientated thinking that can (not always!) underlie it. The pressure to ‘come up with something’ and the lack of awareness given to process whilst the focus is all on needing to produce – to assuage the underlying panic that is created by the absence of a script.
The thing I particularly don’t like is when I am sent off in a group of people into a corner and then we have to make a thing together and then come back and show it. Uuuuurk!
I think that if the story of the people in the room (the story-tellers) is looked after – in other words, the process – then the product, the show, the story (and story IS process!!!) will take care of itself.
Other people felt some other things:
Questioning the word ‘devising’ – it doesn’t even exist in Europe. Would just plain ‘making’ be better?
Okay in a group, not okay when you have to go into the corner alone and come up with some stuff.
What are the differences between devising and improvising?
Devising is okay as long as the structures are clear.
Need to start from where you are.
It has to be okay to fail.
What if you don’t have to come back from the corner to show anything? Does this change things? You can make stuff up and choose whether you show it or not.
Need to be able to sit in the terror of not knowing/ not having any material.
‘Side-coaching’ might be another way of working that supports people to improvise rather than go away and have to devise in isolation.
Need to keep working with same people to build up methods that work for you and challenge each other to find new ways. Danger otherwise of always descending down to the lowest common denominator.
How is devising different to what a writer has to do when writing a piece?
They are on their own and can create the conditions that best suit them to work. Also whilst it is terrifying to handover your page of words it is still less exposing than physically standing in front of people presenting yourself.
More fundamental than an allergy to devising is an allergy to ‘end-gaining.’ Devise, make, improvise, do whatever you see fit but start from where you are not from a future idea of where you should be.
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Friday, 5 February 2010
088 Can I still be an Artist and be in musical theatre?
Convener: Nigel Richards
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Michele Frankel, Nick Coupe, Amy Ip, Sophie Larsmon, Andrea Kantor, Leo Ward, and others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There seemed no argument in whether one can be an artist in Musical theatre. The responsibility, whatever the art form, was with the performer and our innate sense of the need and search for quality/ integrity and truth even in the face of the Accountants and Producers who run the ‘product’. In the mega-musical it should be a given that the artist surrenders him/herself to the ‘magnificent machine’ of a large or long-running production- but does this not deny the special-ness of the Artist? A ballet dancer is expected to fill the template with exactitude- why not the musical theatre performer?
The problem arises because Musical Theatre is the most debased of all the art forms for cultural and financial reasons. The Americans lay claim to inventing two art forms: the Musical and Jazz. Conversely, England considers the written word (through poem, novel and play) as its major cultural legacy. The United states revere both musical theatre writers and performers, and look after the future of the art form by inviting innovation in such buildings as the York Theatre, Playrights’ Horizons and the Lincoln Centre. There is heavy subsidy for the American Musical, whereas here, the Arts Council largely ignored the musical because it was deemed a commercial endeavour, whilst NESTA gave up it final ‘a’ for Arts!
So expensive are the big musicals that there is a poisonous trend to replicate what was a success (Les Miserable spawning the through sung form, Mama Mia gving birth to many ugly ‘back catalogue’ musicals.) What we forget is that Mama Mia and Les Miserables, even Cats, were innovative and ground-breaking in their time, not a perpetuation of an already existing template.
We have no such buildings here in which failure and innovation are encouraged. The play has The Bush, The Royal Court, National and Soho theatres- where is the Musicals’ home? Musical theatre is perceived in the UK as a popularist and commercial form, an arena of the emotion and not of ideas (as in say the work of Sondheim.) If the costs of mounting the big musicals are prohibitive and the producers seek a return on their huge investment (which make the producers have the final artistic power), where are the smaller pieces, the chamber musicals? It seems that these are being sold as plays in which the musical content is ignored in the publicity so as not to wrong-foot an audience with a certain preconception of scale when it comes to The Musical (eg. Enron, Serious Money etc). To perpetuate any art form there has to be allowed an environment of risk, innovation, and failure. When artists/ writers are out of their comfort zone they create something new, vibrant and specific to the times in which they are written.
In the end the new musical has to both have a building (Andrew Lloyd Webber has long promised a theatre specifically for new musical writing but this has not materialized in 10 years) or be borne from the artists themselves (eg Shockheaded Peter).Then we might truly have an Art-form in which the Musical Theatre performer is at last considered an Artist
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Michele Frankel, Nick Coupe, Amy Ip, Sophie Larsmon, Andrea Kantor, Leo Ward, and others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There seemed no argument in whether one can be an artist in Musical theatre. The responsibility, whatever the art form, was with the performer and our innate sense of the need and search for quality/ integrity and truth even in the face of the Accountants and Producers who run the ‘product’. In the mega-musical it should be a given that the artist surrenders him/herself to the ‘magnificent machine’ of a large or long-running production- but does this not deny the special-ness of the Artist? A ballet dancer is expected to fill the template with exactitude- why not the musical theatre performer?
The problem arises because Musical Theatre is the most debased of all the art forms for cultural and financial reasons. The Americans lay claim to inventing two art forms: the Musical and Jazz. Conversely, England considers the written word (through poem, novel and play) as its major cultural legacy. The United states revere both musical theatre writers and performers, and look after the future of the art form by inviting innovation in such buildings as the York Theatre, Playrights’ Horizons and the Lincoln Centre. There is heavy subsidy for the American Musical, whereas here, the Arts Council largely ignored the musical because it was deemed a commercial endeavour, whilst NESTA gave up it final ‘a’ for Arts!
So expensive are the big musicals that there is a poisonous trend to replicate what was a success (Les Miserable spawning the through sung form, Mama Mia gving birth to many ugly ‘back catalogue’ musicals.) What we forget is that Mama Mia and Les Miserables, even Cats, were innovative and ground-breaking in their time, not a perpetuation of an already existing template.
We have no such buildings here in which failure and innovation are encouraged. The play has The Bush, The Royal Court, National and Soho theatres- where is the Musicals’ home? Musical theatre is perceived in the UK as a popularist and commercial form, an arena of the emotion and not of ideas (as in say the work of Sondheim.) If the costs of mounting the big musicals are prohibitive and the producers seek a return on their huge investment (which make the producers have the final artistic power), where are the smaller pieces, the chamber musicals? It seems that these are being sold as plays in which the musical content is ignored in the publicity so as not to wrong-foot an audience with a certain preconception of scale when it comes to The Musical (eg. Enron, Serious Money etc). To perpetuate any art form there has to be allowed an environment of risk, innovation, and failure. When artists/ writers are out of their comfort zone they create something new, vibrant and specific to the times in which they are written.
In the end the new musical has to both have a building (Andrew Lloyd Webber has long promised a theatre specifically for new musical writing but this has not materialized in 10 years) or be borne from the artists themselves (eg Shockheaded Peter).Then we might truly have an Art-form in which the Musical Theatre performer is at last considered an Artist
Thursday, 4 February 2010
078 Intergenerational work – how do we make and produce it
Convener: Lynnette Moran
Participants: Niamh Mc Cann, Jonathan Petherby, Dominic Campbel, Rebecca – from mercury theatre, Mark Phoenix, Jack Klaff
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The starting point for the conversation was a look at the number of platforms available to emerging artists…a lot of emerging is happening. However where are the platforms for artists who have been making work for 30, 40 or 50 + years?
Why is their a general expectation that the work of older artists will be retrospective as opposed to innovative, current, contemporary and culturally relevant…or does this expectation exist?
Does innovation and the theatre of the future belong to emerging artists or is this ownership shared with longer practicing artists?
How do we generate platforms, events, opportunities and funding to support this development of older artist?
It was noted through specific examples that longevity in a theatre maker’s career affords the artist a type of luxury - to refine methodologies, document work, simplify processes, choose projects carefully, condense touring etc.
However in contrast this luxurious status also defines the levels of ‘risk’ that can take place. How can an established theatre maker, normally associated with the main stage generate new experimentation, play smaller spaces, scratch and test ideas, new collaborations, forms and techniques? Where is the space for constructive risk and failure?
What are the contrasts and tensions that are derived from an older artist asking a younger artist for advice or mentoring - as opposed to a younger artist asking an older artist for mentoring or advice?
We discussed presentation, audience and frameworks.
It was noted that the first generation of experimental theatre makers, performance artists and dancer/choreographers are just reaching their 80’s now. In a sense the innovation of older artists is relatively new territory.
We also discussed the changes in structure and form applied by maturing experimental companies – and we collectively look forward to watching other companies develop over time.
How do we define ‘generation’? What is it perceived to be?
Is it age brackets such as 20 – 30, 30-40, and 40 – 50?
Or is it schools of thought – different generations of learning or types of training?
Schools of Thought V’s Age Brackets
It was decided amongst the group the term ‘intergenerational’ was not suitable to best describe the exchange that takes place between younger and older artists – however we were undecided what an alternative term could be however the group agreed they could identify the primary potential that intergenerational work offered was through ‘an exchange of language’, so perhaps this is was good starting point.
Participants: Niamh Mc Cann, Jonathan Petherby, Dominic Campbel, Rebecca – from mercury theatre, Mark Phoenix, Jack Klaff
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The starting point for the conversation was a look at the number of platforms available to emerging artists…a lot of emerging is happening. However where are the platforms for artists who have been making work for 30, 40 or 50 + years?
Why is their a general expectation that the work of older artists will be retrospective as opposed to innovative, current, contemporary and culturally relevant…or does this expectation exist?
Does innovation and the theatre of the future belong to emerging artists or is this ownership shared with longer practicing artists?
How do we generate platforms, events, opportunities and funding to support this development of older artist?
It was noted through specific examples that longevity in a theatre maker’s career affords the artist a type of luxury - to refine methodologies, document work, simplify processes, choose projects carefully, condense touring etc.
However in contrast this luxurious status also defines the levels of ‘risk’ that can take place. How can an established theatre maker, normally associated with the main stage generate new experimentation, play smaller spaces, scratch and test ideas, new collaborations, forms and techniques? Where is the space for constructive risk and failure?
What are the contrasts and tensions that are derived from an older artist asking a younger artist for advice or mentoring - as opposed to a younger artist asking an older artist for mentoring or advice?
We discussed presentation, audience and frameworks.
It was noted that the first generation of experimental theatre makers, performance artists and dancer/choreographers are just reaching their 80’s now. In a sense the innovation of older artists is relatively new territory.
We also discussed the changes in structure and form applied by maturing experimental companies – and we collectively look forward to watching other companies develop over time.
How do we define ‘generation’? What is it perceived to be?
Is it age brackets such as 20 – 30, 30-40, and 40 – 50?
Or is it schools of thought – different generations of learning or types of training?
Schools of Thought V’s Age Brackets
It was decided amongst the group the term ‘intergenerational’ was not suitable to best describe the exchange that takes place between younger and older artists – however we were undecided what an alternative term could be however the group agreed they could identify the primary potential that intergenerational work offered was through ‘an exchange of language’, so perhaps this is was good starting point.
061 The Dreamtime: What do you want to create?
Convener:Andy Harmon
Participants: A group of really wonderful people who included… (please add yourselves to this)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Motto: The most difficult obstacle to getting what you want is the story you tell yourself about why you can’t have it.
The group looked at that space where Ideas and Projects are born within us. We began with Stella who talked about a project that had been emerging for her for the last 15 years, but had no particular shape yet. She told us some of what she did know about it. (and later broke out the play dough and began to both draw a picture and place little figures on it, playing around with what was coming up for her.)
Then we brought up the issue of sometimes you can create a piece of writing but suddenly lose heart with it. You feel ‘oh what’s the use?’ or ‘I’m not good enough…’
This brought up the value of courage, and the challenge posed by fear. Sometimes fear can help you as in the fear of not meeting a deadline pushes you, but sometimes it can block you. We talked about how fear is endemic to creativity because, in a very real sense, all creativity is a form of rule breaking (or bending). This brings up all sorts of feelings sometimes ranging from not being good enough to being downright wrong! And that these feelings end up stopping you. So how do some people manage to deal with this problem?
Then I, Andy, talked about a play that I’ve been working on for nearly 20 years, and shared a bit of what it was about and how I’ve wrestled with it, knowing both beginning and ending, but being deeply stuck in the middle of it…!
We talked about techniques that can help deal with the fear: Writing on a whiteboard, for example or having a deadline that forces you to finish.
This led us to think about Responsibility. What if you don’t have a producer or theatre company (or TV company) to commission your script and set the deadline? What then?
So what’s stopping you from creating a group of friends/colleagues who you can be responsible to? Not as critics to ‘improve’ the work (there are plenty of those), but actually to support the simple act of creation, when your dream comes into it’s first manifestation – to help you deal with the fear. I mentioned a group my wife Anita started in the USA called ‘The Mentor Group’, to help new writers develop their confidence.
Then we returned back to the central theme which was: What are your dreams, what do you want to create? Dreams are really intimate, so often difficult even to share – sometimes the fear so grips us we won’t even admit our dreams to ourselves. So I began by sharing my dreams for myself for this year and then gradually everyone began to do so. We heard from just about everyone. A chorus. A one woman show. Creating a living from one’s art. A play that’s been in the works a long time. A space where people can share their dreams and inspire others with them. And more… (please add yours!)
One dream of note was coming into reality even as we spoke, The Hackney Rose, just around the corner, a playing and performance space for people to develop THEIR DREAMS.
We talked about the issue of Motivation. Jen shared her idea that there are only two motivators. Fear (that pushes us away from doing something) and Hunger (that draws us in to doing something). Angela amplified this when she talked about learning to wear the ‘dress of Entitlement’. Claiming the right to create! Taking the responsibility in your own hands. And if what motivates you is the hunger to seize the limelight, to show off, to be visible and applauded, what’s wrong with that?
“Your playing small does not serve the world”
Lastly, we looked at the issue of the boundary between dream and manifestation. As one of us asked, should you try to carry the ‘dreamtime’ into real life? My answer is that there is a real difference, but that It’s a question of perspective. Phelim talked about developing the part of the self that’s ‘The Witness’ that can provide the perspective to get a larger view, to step back from the act of creating.
Please feel free everyone to add things I’ve forgotten… (many apologies to all those who made great contributions but I didn’t know your names!)
Participants: A group of really wonderful people who included… (please add yourselves to this)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Motto: The most difficult obstacle to getting what you want is the story you tell yourself about why you can’t have it.
The group looked at that space where Ideas and Projects are born within us. We began with Stella who talked about a project that had been emerging for her for the last 15 years, but had no particular shape yet. She told us some of what she did know about it. (and later broke out the play dough and began to both draw a picture and place little figures on it, playing around with what was coming up for her.)
Then we brought up the issue of sometimes you can create a piece of writing but suddenly lose heart with it. You feel ‘oh what’s the use?’ or ‘I’m not good enough…’
This brought up the value of courage, and the challenge posed by fear. Sometimes fear can help you as in the fear of not meeting a deadline pushes you, but sometimes it can block you. We talked about how fear is endemic to creativity because, in a very real sense, all creativity is a form of rule breaking (or bending). This brings up all sorts of feelings sometimes ranging from not being good enough to being downright wrong! And that these feelings end up stopping you. So how do some people manage to deal with this problem?
Then I, Andy, talked about a play that I’ve been working on for nearly 20 years, and shared a bit of what it was about and how I’ve wrestled with it, knowing both beginning and ending, but being deeply stuck in the middle of it…!
We talked about techniques that can help deal with the fear: Writing on a whiteboard, for example or having a deadline that forces you to finish.
This led us to think about Responsibility. What if you don’t have a producer or theatre company (or TV company) to commission your script and set the deadline? What then?
So what’s stopping you from creating a group of friends/colleagues who you can be responsible to? Not as critics to ‘improve’ the work (there are plenty of those), but actually to support the simple act of creation, when your dream comes into it’s first manifestation – to help you deal with the fear. I mentioned a group my wife Anita started in the USA called ‘The Mentor Group’, to help new writers develop their confidence.
Then we returned back to the central theme which was: What are your dreams, what do you want to create? Dreams are really intimate, so often difficult even to share – sometimes the fear so grips us we won’t even admit our dreams to ourselves. So I began by sharing my dreams for myself for this year and then gradually everyone began to do so. We heard from just about everyone. A chorus. A one woman show. Creating a living from one’s art. A play that’s been in the works a long time. A space where people can share their dreams and inspire others with them. And more… (please add yours!)
One dream of note was coming into reality even as we spoke, The Hackney Rose, just around the corner, a playing and performance space for people to develop THEIR DREAMS.
We talked about the issue of Motivation. Jen shared her idea that there are only two motivators. Fear (that pushes us away from doing something) and Hunger (that draws us in to doing something). Angela amplified this when she talked about learning to wear the ‘dress of Entitlement’. Claiming the right to create! Taking the responsibility in your own hands. And if what motivates you is the hunger to seize the limelight, to show off, to be visible and applauded, what’s wrong with that?
“Your playing small does not serve the world”
Lastly, we looked at the issue of the boundary between dream and manifestation. As one of us asked, should you try to carry the ‘dreamtime’ into real life? My answer is that there is a real difference, but that It’s a question of perspective. Phelim talked about developing the part of the self that’s ‘The Witness’ that can provide the perspective to get a larger view, to step back from the act of creating.
Please feel free everyone to add things I’ve forgotten… (many apologies to all those who made great contributions but I didn’t know your names!)
055 When are we gonna stop scratching and make a proper show
Convener: Laura Eades
The producers’ insight
Complaint that one can get stuck circulating in the scratching eddies and never moving to the next level. There were some producers in the room who asked why our work was not going to a full run.
People from Fuel talked about using scratches as part of a wider strategy – and that it’s easier to get grants for that early development stage.
They say it gives something to film, and that the audience understand the scratch process, and the artist is forced to make decisions which can really accelerate the creative process.
They said they have organized their own work-in-progress showings at the studio space in the Roundhouse, that not many people know about.
They invite industry people and general audience separately.
A marketing person says: You need to meet people and generate interest in advance of your scratch. You need to articulate what you do easily.
At this point, some of us realized we were truly ignorant of the producing process, need a producer, and are naively trusting in the scratch process to ‘provide’ a natural development path for new work rather than having a plan already in place. We called to the ceiling and to the ether: Where are all the roving producers? If they could call me on 07946 458699 that would be awesome.
The merits and zmerits of the scratch system as it stands
Is scratching an artist-led process or a venue-led programming tool?
It provides a level of publicity and therefore there’s also the pressure of display, which is at odds with the instruction to experiment.
We do scratch because it sounds achievable.
To move from a scratch to a show you have to work out what you want from your audience, you have to approach the nights with appropriate expectations.
It’s a bit like Britain’s Got Talent – the hope that luck, money, producing may follow from a scratch.
You can build a network.
You can use scratch as audience development – use the gigs to publicise your work (if it fits into a scratch slot).
It changes the kind of work that’s made, because you make work to fit into designated slots.
You can build up strength this way.
It feels risky but is it a bit insecure to need all this feedback? You can get stuck there because it feels safe.
The feedback and presentation mode are limited by the venue’s specifications. You can’t contextualize your work by explaining.
You can scratch somewhere and then scarper
Oh god, maybe we are stuck in the scratch circuit because we are actually frightened of a real show, because it feels bitesize and we can handle it, because it’s reinforcing to have all the feedback but ultimately disempowering, because it’s free, because we are ADDICTS
Some places that you can scratch and what people said about them:
BAC – no feedback from audience you don’t know
The Space-Isle of Dogs – Theatre of Inspirations –mainly physical theatre
Pulse Festival – great feedback from an after-show discussion
Brockley Jack – audience want to see a nice little show for not much money
Shunt Lounge – good chances of your interests chiming as 10 curators
One coming up at Lyric run by Shane Silankey who made Last Mango in Paris
Young Vic – very good useful feedback
Chinese venue in Manchester – very useful
Nightingale Theatre, Brighton – don’t produce but very structured feedback
Arch468 –audience intimidated by open discussion feedback format, but they do want to produce and develop work they like
Berlin – HAU – has 3 spaces
Berlin – Sophiensaele
Berlin – Dock II
Berlin – Tanfabrik
Scenepool at Camden People’s Theatre run by New Work Network – very good experience but have to drum up your own audience to some extent
What is a proper show?
A 3-week run, or more than just a night
Where you can get reviews
That you get paid for
Or that you don’t have to pay for
But just because you may not be paid for it doesn’t mean it’s not a proper show for everybody
It’s whatever you put on and say: This is a proper show. Pay for it. If you like it or don’t like it, it’s what I’ve chosen.
A proper show has a feedback process that’s not in the bar afterwards (where everyone’s pretending to be theatre critics) but where you adjust the show as you go along from the very truthful real feedback that you get from people’s attention shifts. That’s why you should dare to put up shows that are not yet ready, so the audience can finish them.
It creates the idea that a finished show is ‘frozen’
How is the scratch phenomenon changing our theatrical cultural landscape?
Used to be called work-in-progress and was dreamt up to put the risk back into the process – but some feel it’s risk-aversion dressed up as risk-taking: it’s a process that allows everybody to check and see things and check with the audience every step of the way. It allows venues not to take a risk and you not to take a risk with your audience not liking it.
Scratch nights have become a genre in their own right, and the audience is its own audience.
Someone tells of seeing a rehearsed reading and just liking the rough presentation, not wanting to see the whole show. Someone else was banned from using video and had to draw, and so then the audience said they didn’t want to see a video at all they just wanted drawing. These are not bad outcomes, but the medium actually alters the process and the product too
Possible solutions and alternatives
Artists teaming up to make scratches of their own kind, making their own models
Making 15-minute work for the cabaret and scratch circuit in its own right, like the open mic circuit works
Making work that uses a scratch aesthetic and playing it in working men’s clubs and old people’s homes
Putting your show on and having the courage to do that without all of the verification (this requires money and no guarantee of audience)
More venues which actually produce and develop the work they scratch rather than just scratching it for the sake of it
The ultimate aim is to put on proper shows that never stop scratching
Stop fighting against our inevitable inability to reproduce performances identically
Let’s have a load of premieres rather than scratches
Go to small drama festivals – Buxton fringe, Henley fringe
Make shows in squats
Deal drugs
Get a producer, get a producer, get a producer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)