Issue: I have a big idea but I don’t feel “big” enough to make it happen…
Convener(s): Jennifer Lunn
Participants: Lindesay Mace, Keely Elis, Sue Frumin, Francesca H, Angela Clerkin, Chris Grady, Shakera Louise Ahad, Vanessa Smith, Ellan Parry, Peta Cooke, Sam Hoyle, Stella Duffy and others…
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I have a big idea… it goes a bit like this…
3 plays came my way. A new Norwegian play by a friend of mine which we had translated into English with help from the Norwegian Writers Guild, a short ten-minute play by a new writer which I am directing as part of a platform of new work and a play by Rebecca Prichard which was part of the Clean Break season “Charged” at the Soho.
All three plays look at sex trafficking or abduction of women.
There is also the material for an exhibition of photographs and interviews of Moldovan women who have been “rescued”.
The big idea is to create a theatre event/experience in a large space (somewhere like the old Arcola) where the three plays are performed over the evening, the exhibition is displayed and there is a chorus of women who are “the displaced and disenfranchised” and exist in the space perhaps having moments here and there, guiding the audience from space to space and performance to performance and also directing them to bits of the exhibition.
The problem is… I don’t know where to start and I don’t feel “big” enough for it… by which I mean I don’t feel I have enough of a name to get people attached and make it happen… I need some help…
Wonderful people came and gave me wonderful advice as follows…
Stella spoke about the birth of the chaosbaby project here last year and said
“Every time I ask someone for help – they say yes.”
Someone else said “I don’t feel patient enough for my big idea…” What if it takes years – can I keep up the momentum.
“If you build it they will come.” Keep putting it out there and people will strat getting involved or send people your way.
“Invite “bigwigs” to other stuff you’re doing and have a pack of info about your projects… interacting with someone at a piece of work is easier and shows that you’re doing it.
Word of mouth is a powerful thing.
What would make us feel “big enough”????? People knowing who we were when we phoned them up!!?? Can we just step up and be the people we want to be??
You need cheerleaders and sometimes you have to be your own cheerleader.
Focus on the things you don’t know so much about first and come back to the big creative idea once you’ve figured the tricky bits out. Think about the event management for a bit as a job. Think about how you would manage the event for someone else and do it that way. Invent a persona – pretend to be your own agent and then you don’t have to be “big” enough.
Get other people on board…
Amnesty International
Julie Bindel (Emma Humphries prize)
Ice and Fire Theatre Co.
The NIA project
The Womens Playhouse Trust (does it still have a space? Wapping?)
Do a charity night. With a reading of the play with big names. Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman.
Come the end of the session we have a list of emails of people who are interested in the project. Vanessa Smith who is interested in doing some Assistant producing has offered to volunteer some time to work through some plans, Stella Duffy has emailed Julie Bindel to put me in touch with her…
I may not feel “big” enough but together we are MASSIVE!!
If people are interested please contact me on Jennifer_lunn@hotmail.com
Friday, 4 February 2011
ISSUE 18: TRAINING DIRECTORS. IS IT POSSIBLE?
Issue: Training directors. Is it possible?
Convener(s): Alex Thorpe
Participants: Birkbeck Cohort 8, Simon Pollard, Chris Tomlinson, Jo Mackie, Chelsea Walker, Sam Worboys, Renu Arora, Jamie Rocha Allan, Will Bourdillen, and others.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Why do people question how directors are trained and less often question any of the other disciplines?
Other disciplines need more apparent technical skills than a director. Ie ability to make model box.
What skills does a director actually need?
Why are we training? Filling in the gaps?
A director needs a huge amount of tools to direct. Can be frustrated for actors if youre not good enough. A director needs an understanding of how everyone in the room works.
Our job is to bring all those masters of their trade together.
Directing is the art of communication
Can directing be taught or is like teaching a writer sentence structure
Is it more a question of natural ability
Perhaps a problem is: there is no established/ proved methods of training directors
Main job of the director is to liberate the performer
Birkbeck (MFA Theatre Directing Course): On this course you are expected tp already be a director before you start
HOW MUCH TIME IS SPENT ACTUALLY WORKING WITH ACTORS AS PART OF A TRAINING. This was felt to be a very important aspect of training
At Mountview there are many opportunities to direct the in house productions. It’s a cumulative process- very much learning by directing.
A Birkbeck student said “ I don’t need the course to give me opportunities to direct. I create opportunities for myself. Many of us are also working on our own shows”
The issue of financial barriers in accessing post grad programmes was raised.
An example was given of being refused assistant directing positions in regional theatres as they were taken up with MA directing students from Birkbeck and Queen Mary.
Needing a posty grad qualification to get jobs is not a unique situation to theatre directing (Journalism, Sci, etc).
For an aspiring not studying an MA It is essential that you approach the right people. E.g. Don’t mass mail theatres, but carefully select the director that you are ACTUALLY interested in.
Emma Rice, Simon McBurrney learnt directing through un conventional avenues.
Not doing an MA gives you the freedom to choose who you wanted to work with. Creating your own training.
A community of directors was important as opposed to directors fighting each other. Genesis Programme (Young Vic)
There are other avenues into directing eg workshop leading, education…
Directors employing new directors often respond to the right person for the right job.
Training is ab out knowing what you need to learn
Post grad training is a new approach to training directors. Directors used to come through other routes eg DSM.
Training directors were asked if that was the right route for them- YES.
Post Grads need more opportunities to direct
You need that tool box on the first day of rehearsals. A slightly academic approach can be useful
How do you train a group of directors? You only need one director- Most courses you break out and work solo before coming together to talk
Advanced theater Practice at CSSD: Collaborating with all the different theatre makers gave them a strong understanding of what everyone does
LEARNING BY ASSISTING: Only useful if you only get to apply what you’ve observed. Was disputed and said its good to learn different approaches.
Actor come director opens as many doors as formal training
Never stop learning even if you have trained formally
MFA marked on knowledge of what you have learnt. Is peer assessed.
Learning by just doing. A group of trusted peers can help you improve.
Worth remembering the director is a relatively new role anyway compared to the actor etc…
Is there enough opportunities to train as a director
Formal training should never be the only way
Collaborating and offering opportunities to others
What is the best way to use an assistant? Bounce of ideas. Trust your assistant
What skills does a director need? As many as possible
Know what you are best at when trying to carve your way into the industry. What strengths do you have. Use them to your advantage. EG working with young people to develop skills before working with pro actors
About choosing the right Post Grad course for you.
Training is as much about learning to direct as it is making links with the industry.
Is any theatre training (actors, designers etc) at all ‘necessary’?
Training directors is a current trend.
Convener(s): Alex Thorpe
Participants: Birkbeck Cohort 8, Simon Pollard, Chris Tomlinson, Jo Mackie, Chelsea Walker, Sam Worboys, Renu Arora, Jamie Rocha Allan, Will Bourdillen, and others.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Why do people question how directors are trained and less often question any of the other disciplines?
Other disciplines need more apparent technical skills than a director. Ie ability to make model box.
What skills does a director actually need?
Why are we training? Filling in the gaps?
A director needs a huge amount of tools to direct. Can be frustrated for actors if youre not good enough. A director needs an understanding of how everyone in the room works.
Our job is to bring all those masters of their trade together.
Directing is the art of communication
Can directing be taught or is like teaching a writer sentence structure
Is it more a question of natural ability
Perhaps a problem is: there is no established/ proved methods of training directors
Main job of the director is to liberate the performer
Birkbeck (MFA Theatre Directing Course): On this course you are expected tp already be a director before you start
HOW MUCH TIME IS SPENT ACTUALLY WORKING WITH ACTORS AS PART OF A TRAINING. This was felt to be a very important aspect of training
At Mountview there are many opportunities to direct the in house productions. It’s a cumulative process- very much learning by directing.
A Birkbeck student said “ I don’t need the course to give me opportunities to direct. I create opportunities for myself. Many of us are also working on our own shows”
The issue of financial barriers in accessing post grad programmes was raised.
An example was given of being refused assistant directing positions in regional theatres as they were taken up with MA directing students from Birkbeck and Queen Mary.
Needing a posty grad qualification to get jobs is not a unique situation to theatre directing (Journalism, Sci, etc).
For an aspiring not studying an MA It is essential that you approach the right people. E.g. Don’t mass mail theatres, but carefully select the director that you are ACTUALLY interested in.
Emma Rice, Simon McBurrney learnt directing through un conventional avenues.
Not doing an MA gives you the freedom to choose who you wanted to work with. Creating your own training.
A community of directors was important as opposed to directors fighting each other. Genesis Programme (Young Vic)
There are other avenues into directing eg workshop leading, education…
Directors employing new directors often respond to the right person for the right job.
Training is ab out knowing what you need to learn
Post grad training is a new approach to training directors. Directors used to come through other routes eg DSM.
Training directors were asked if that was the right route for them- YES.
Post Grads need more opportunities to direct
You need that tool box on the first day of rehearsals. A slightly academic approach can be useful
How do you train a group of directors? You only need one director- Most courses you break out and work solo before coming together to talk
Advanced theater Practice at CSSD: Collaborating with all the different theatre makers gave them a strong understanding of what everyone does
LEARNING BY ASSISTING: Only useful if you only get to apply what you’ve observed. Was disputed and said its good to learn different approaches.
Actor come director opens as many doors as formal training
Never stop learning even if you have trained formally
MFA marked on knowledge of what you have learnt. Is peer assessed.
Learning by just doing. A group of trusted peers can help you improve.
Worth remembering the director is a relatively new role anyway compared to the actor etc…
Is there enough opportunities to train as a director
Formal training should never be the only way
Collaborating and offering opportunities to others
What is the best way to use an assistant? Bounce of ideas. Trust your assistant
What skills does a director need? As many as possible
Know what you are best at when trying to carve your way into the industry. What strengths do you have. Use them to your advantage. EG working with young people to develop skills before working with pro actors
About choosing the right Post Grad course for you.
Training is as much about learning to direct as it is making links with the industry.
Is any theatre training (actors, designers etc) at all ‘necessary’?
Training directors is a current trend.
ISSUE 19: HOW CAN THEATRES SUPPORT ARTISTS WITHOUT DICTATING TO THEM?
Issue: HOW CAN THEATRES SUPPORT ARTISTS WITHOUT DICTATING TO THEM?
Convener(s): Rachel Briscoe
Participants: Sorry, didn’t write down all the names. People whose names I knew already and who came or who wrote their names down include Annette Mees, Matt Ball, Ben Webb, Dan Barnard, Amy Letman, Mark Stevenson, Matt Rodgers, Ben Eaton, Victoria Pratt. Please add your name if you were also there!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Structured programme or informal support?
Benefits and disadvantages to both.
Structured programme means both parties know where they stand, there is progression and an end point; informal support allows greater potential to engage with different artists/ projects differently and respond directly to the project in question. Being clear with audiences if they are part of this processes: if audiences are coming to a work in progress showing, be clear about that, and use the opportunity to build audiences for future fully realized productions (everyone loves a phone vote.)
- Dialogue from the beginning?
Allow artist and theatre to find out together what they want. For artists, it can be useful to have a dialogue with people who know their space and their audiences. Venue needs to be clear with artists about their audiences. [Here we had an interesting sub-discussion about ‘educating’ audiences, our discomfort with that phrase but wanting theatres to be ambitious in their programming.]
- Ways of making approaches to venues that retain value for the artist.
Approaching venues as platforms or for something specific rather than funders. Remaining an equal partner in the creation of your work. Thinking about your offer to the theatre: what do you bring as an artist? That doesn’t have to be financial – it can be about the way you engage audiences or anything else.
- Conflict between theatre ‘brand’ and artist ‘brand’
Venues need to work with the right artists/ artists need to approach suitable venues for their work. Venues can help themselves by being clear about a) what they programme, and b) what support they provide. Programming is an artistic act in itself: artists should respect this. Artists can help themselves by getting to know venues, and by playing a longer term game: go to a venue with a portfolio of projects you want to do over the next couple of years and ask which of these might be of interest.
- Value of in-kind support, esp in financial times when no one has cash to chuck around.
Space, advice, introductions. What do venues actively offer? Part of in-kind support to artists should be ‘after-care’ – inviting colleagues/ funders/ ACE people who can help the project go further. Can companies do in-kind resource swops with theatres e.g. we have a projector we’ll lend you for 3 weeks, in return for a week’s rehearsal space.
- A shitlist for abusive/ negligent venues?
Sometimes damage is done by artistically frustrated people who run venues and want to take over ideas; sometimes through over-enthusiasm and rushing things to full-production before they are ready.
Convener(s): Rachel Briscoe
Participants: Sorry, didn’t write down all the names. People whose names I knew already and who came or who wrote their names down include Annette Mees, Matt Ball, Ben Webb, Dan Barnard, Amy Letman, Mark Stevenson, Matt Rodgers, Ben Eaton, Victoria Pratt. Please add your name if you were also there!
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Structured programme or informal support?
Benefits and disadvantages to both.
Structured programme means both parties know where they stand, there is progression and an end point; informal support allows greater potential to engage with different artists/ projects differently and respond directly to the project in question. Being clear with audiences if they are part of this processes: if audiences are coming to a work in progress showing, be clear about that, and use the opportunity to build audiences for future fully realized productions (everyone loves a phone vote.)
- Dialogue from the beginning?
Allow artist and theatre to find out together what they want. For artists, it can be useful to have a dialogue with people who know their space and their audiences. Venue needs to be clear with artists about their audiences. [Here we had an interesting sub-discussion about ‘educating’ audiences, our discomfort with that phrase but wanting theatres to be ambitious in their programming.]
- Ways of making approaches to venues that retain value for the artist.
Approaching venues as platforms or for something specific rather than funders. Remaining an equal partner in the creation of your work. Thinking about your offer to the theatre: what do you bring as an artist? That doesn’t have to be financial – it can be about the way you engage audiences or anything else.
- Conflict between theatre ‘brand’ and artist ‘brand’
Venues need to work with the right artists/ artists need to approach suitable venues for their work. Venues can help themselves by being clear about a) what they programme, and b) what support they provide. Programming is an artistic act in itself: artists should respect this. Artists can help themselves by getting to know venues, and by playing a longer term game: go to a venue with a portfolio of projects you want to do over the next couple of years and ask which of these might be of interest.
- Value of in-kind support, esp in financial times when no one has cash to chuck around.
Space, advice, introductions. What do venues actively offer? Part of in-kind support to artists should be ‘after-care’ – inviting colleagues/ funders/ ACE people who can help the project go further. Can companies do in-kind resource swops with theatres e.g. we have a projector we’ll lend you for 3 weeks, in return for a week’s rehearsal space.
- A shitlist for abusive/ negligent venues?
Sometimes damage is done by artistically frustrated people who run venues and want to take over ideas; sometimes through over-enthusiasm and rushing things to full-production before they are ready.
ISSUE 20: HOW SCREWED ARE WE? PLEASE CAN SOMEONE COME AND EXPLAIN THE FUNDING CUTS?
Issue: How Screwed Are We? Please Can Someone Come And Explain The Funding Cuts?
Convener(s):
Sarah
Participants:
Imogen, Nell. Anne, Jo, Eleanor and others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We wanted to know what was actually going on with the cuts, who would be affected and how, and what we could do to help ourselves. It’s a thing everyone’s upset about, but not everyone knows the facts.
Luckily, two people (Eleanor and an AC person whose name I didn’t catch) came who really knew what was happening and others who had a clear idea of the knock-on effects. Here are the facts as I understand them; those who provided the information should probably check I haven’t got it wrong somewhere!..
The government has cut 30% of the arts council budget. This predominantly affects the Regularly Funded Organisations – which are a larger groups or venues that get regular money (previously at least £30 grand a year).
All RFO’s now have to re-apply to the AC to justify their funding. The minimum funding has gone up to £40 grand. The application process was opened up for groups who wanted to become RFO’s.
The AC received about 1400 applications and can afford to fund about 700.
The effects will be:
Smaller groups who could justify £30 grand might struggle to justify £40, so will lose all their AC funding.
Losing venues that support smaller groups/artists would cause a domino effect, as those smaller groups would lose space and support (for example, think what would happen if the BAC disappeared?).
Very large or dominant venues will have to be more thoughtful about how they spend the money they get. They cannot rest on their laurels and expect to be funded forever.
Funding for Individuals , ie, Grants for the Arts, will not be directly affected by the 30% cuts. GfA will continue as before, but there were already far more applicants than money. However, post Olympics, all the lottery money being spent on that should come back to the GfA pot, so if you can hang on til then, things should hopefully get better.
Also, there are a couple of government schemes in the mythical pipeline. One is a plan to reform how the lottery revenue is taxed. This could theoretically free up about £50 million that would go into the arts pot.
Another is a match funding scheme. This seems a bit complicated. Something like £80 million could be found if the AC can find £50 million. The AC prefer to push more towards encouraging philanthropy than take this route.
The AC has just published a list of 5 new priorities, and will send you a copy of the explanation if you ask them to.
The AC itself has to cut its own spending by 50%, so everything’s going to keep changing for a while anyway.
Local Authorities have had their budgets slashed, and since other things like education and health are Statutory funding areas, the arts will be the first areas affected by this. Again, this is more likely to affect venues or large organizations than individual artists that can’t get LA funding anyway.
Someone brought up the case of a local (200 seat?) theatre that rarely sells more than 15 -20 tickets for a show and clearly isn’t serving the community or valued by that community. Is it really fair that the Local Authority should have to keep bailing it out?
On a positive front, the cuts are an opportunity to clarify your aims, be more imaginative, find other sources of funding that may be more fun or easier to get hold of than AC funding.
If you’re an individual or GfA applicant, there was never any money anyway, so you already know you can survive on peanuts.
The AC representative said the AC is less about the social/community element than it used to be and more about funding good arts projects. They’d rather have a clear, honest and exciting proposal than one with community workshops crow-barred in for no reason other than box-ticking.
Someone else talked about We Fund, an online funding resource where you can pitch you idea to individual givers.
We also discussed who has to adapt to whom. Should we bend our projects to get the funding or present projects and expect the funding criteria to bend to us?
Convener(s):
Sarah
Participants:
Imogen, Nell. Anne, Jo, Eleanor and others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We wanted to know what was actually going on with the cuts, who would be affected and how, and what we could do to help ourselves. It’s a thing everyone’s upset about, but not everyone knows the facts.
Luckily, two people (Eleanor and an AC person whose name I didn’t catch) came who really knew what was happening and others who had a clear idea of the knock-on effects. Here are the facts as I understand them; those who provided the information should probably check I haven’t got it wrong somewhere!..
The government has cut 30% of the arts council budget. This predominantly affects the Regularly Funded Organisations – which are a larger groups or venues that get regular money (previously at least £30 grand a year).
All RFO’s now have to re-apply to the AC to justify their funding. The minimum funding has gone up to £40 grand. The application process was opened up for groups who wanted to become RFO’s.
The AC received about 1400 applications and can afford to fund about 700.
The effects will be:
Smaller groups who could justify £30 grand might struggle to justify £40, so will lose all their AC funding.
Losing venues that support smaller groups/artists would cause a domino effect, as those smaller groups would lose space and support (for example, think what would happen if the BAC disappeared?).
Very large or dominant venues will have to be more thoughtful about how they spend the money they get. They cannot rest on their laurels and expect to be funded forever.
Funding for Individuals , ie, Grants for the Arts, will not be directly affected by the 30% cuts. GfA will continue as before, but there were already far more applicants than money. However, post Olympics, all the lottery money being spent on that should come back to the GfA pot, so if you can hang on til then, things should hopefully get better.
Also, there are a couple of government schemes in the mythical pipeline. One is a plan to reform how the lottery revenue is taxed. This could theoretically free up about £50 million that would go into the arts pot.
Another is a match funding scheme. This seems a bit complicated. Something like £80 million could be found if the AC can find £50 million. The AC prefer to push more towards encouraging philanthropy than take this route.
The AC has just published a list of 5 new priorities, and will send you a copy of the explanation if you ask them to.
The AC itself has to cut its own spending by 50%, so everything’s going to keep changing for a while anyway.
Local Authorities have had their budgets slashed, and since other things like education and health are Statutory funding areas, the arts will be the first areas affected by this. Again, this is more likely to affect venues or large organizations than individual artists that can’t get LA funding anyway.
Someone brought up the case of a local (200 seat?) theatre that rarely sells more than 15 -20 tickets for a show and clearly isn’t serving the community or valued by that community. Is it really fair that the Local Authority should have to keep bailing it out?
On a positive front, the cuts are an opportunity to clarify your aims, be more imaginative, find other sources of funding that may be more fun or easier to get hold of than AC funding.
If you’re an individual or GfA applicant, there was never any money anyway, so you already know you can survive on peanuts.
The AC representative said the AC is less about the social/community element than it used to be and more about funding good arts projects. They’d rather have a clear, honest and exciting proposal than one with community workshops crow-barred in for no reason other than box-ticking.
Someone else talked about We Fund, an online funding resource where you can pitch you idea to individual givers.
We also discussed who has to adapt to whom. Should we bend our projects to get the funding or present projects and expect the funding criteria to bend to us?
ISSUE 21:WE ALL HAVE RESOURCES - HOW CAN WE SHARE THEM?
Issue: We all have resources – how can we share them? A Resource Sharing Network
Convener(s): Alex Eisenberg
Participants: Chloe Dechery, Conor Short, John Pinder, Alex Eisenberg, Deirdre, Shakera Ahad, Kylie Lloyd, Will Bourdillen, Dan Simon, Kate Webster + others…
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
General Question
How would it be possible for us to share the material resources that we all have and don’t always use? For example – I have a good camera that I don’t use all the time – someone wants to borrow it. They do and in return I get some sort of credit for having leant something of mine out…
AND
How can we use an online resource (bespoke or existing) to create and proliferate this network?
Defining ‘Resources’
Resources at the things that we need or want to make our work. Resources can be all sorts of things but in this context we focused in on sharing material resources.
An alternative economy?
• A new form of currency
• A barter economy
• Points system
• Ratings and recommendations
• Feedback
• New models of insurance
• Web based and dynamic
Key Ideas
Institution > Artists
OR
Artists > Artists + Institutions
How can we get past a top down (hierarchical) model of sharing? Or is this the best way – Robin Hood sort of thing?
The notion of good will – can we just base this on good will and not worry about formalising it?
Worth – how do we measure worth in this context?
Do you just measure the amount you share – in spite of what you are sharing?
Contribution is enough.
What would be a method for putting requests forward.
How do you keep the system going?
It’s vital that people contribute to the network to make it successful.
The idea of taking a risk – but who takes the risk and how can we move away from the idea of risk. How can we reformulate the idea that sharing something with a stranger is infact usually NOT RISKY AT ALL.
BUT at the same time how can we mitigate for the inevitable fact that things will get broken, lost etc.
You don’t have to lend (but it will be in your interest if you do)
Lending Requirements – a series of things that make the lender feel comfortable
There has got to be incentives to foster honesty.
How would it be possible, or necessary, for small companies or individual artists to give something back to the National Theatre for example?
A chain or a network?
A network!
Trust is vital
Examples
Current Space Sharing Initiatives
• Northern Dance – “Spare Room” - each week when spaces are available they put them up on a website for people to book and use for free.
• London Bubble – give spare space out to artists for a very low fee or volunteer exchange
• Both of the above are last minute.
• Nothing like these exists in London!
Similar Models
• Wikipedia
• Freecycle
• SpareRoom.co.uk
• Couch Surfing
• Swapaskill.com
• Residence (Bristol) – Store Room
• Somewhere To Project
• Common Pool Resource
• Prop Share (USA) – academic models
• Time Bank
• The School of Everything
• Class Works Costume Store (Cambridge)
Both Wikipedia and Freecycle operate with moderators who bring parity to their resources. Freecycle as a material resource exchange – ¬ how different is this to a sharing network? The principle that Freecycle is supposed to be based on you sharing and then you receiving – but in reality it doesn’t quite work out like this.
Clear Practical Ideas to do:
Edinburgh Van Network
Material Resource Sharing
Space Sharing
People Sharing
Examples of things you might share:
Material Things: Projectors, camera, video equipment, space, vehicles, computer equipment, sound kit, microphones, props/costume, oddities (e.g. Binural Recording Equipment).
Non Material Things: Skills, advice, knowledge, information etc.
Visions
Starting online and the becoming phycisal – i.e. a series of central distribution points across the country.
How would you deal with the admin? You get it to become self moderating and self administrating – e.g. freecycle etc.
Getting Partners on Board
• National Theatre
• NT Studio
• Royal Opera House
• BAC
• Etc. (who has a lot of equipment?)
Aggregating existing services – that institutions, regional organizations etc. already use to share things.
Functioning like a social network.
Using an established system or website – for example:
• Facebook
• Yahoo Groups
• Google Groups
• Ning
Lets just take the first steps.
Practical Concerns
Insurance
• Is it possible to get insurance for an item that you do not own or for lending.
• New models of insurance.
Venues/Institutions/Companies
• Venues/institutions often do have things available but its not high up their agenda to share them – so perhaps we just need to make aware that the can and that they can be assisted in this process - that it is easy.
• Finding Reasons why space should be used.
• Good PR for large venues/institutions to show that they are helping artists (but lets make this count for real!)
Revenue from Advertising
• Could you use advertising revenue (e.g. for theatre/arts related companies) to subsidise the costs
Waste/Recycling in Theatres
• How can we harness the waste from theatres – e.g. materials, wood, metal etc./
• Setting up a network that seeks to recycle these things.
• How can we move from small scale or informal sharing networks to something on a National Level?
• Frugality and flexing as facets of a new culture.
• Using dead time in theatres the dark – make the dark LIGHT
• Betweens – time between exhibitions.
Collective Ownership
• Could the be a model that get beyond the insurance issues?
• Using Kickstarter (or other crowd funding model) to raise money to be able to buy resources and then share.
• Could there be support from more major institutions to do this.
Alternatives
• Just ask people for things more!
• Do not invite the no.
• Don’t be offended if people say no.
• BUT the problem with this is that not everyone is good at asking or can ask.
• How can we create a system that bypasses the machinations – or the shit! How can we create a template, a model – that is inclusive, well functioning and easy to use.
Final Thoughts
Partly this discussion was about a very practical concern of how to run this sort of thing – I would really like ‘this’ – okay that good I can borrow it from ‘you’ for free (almost free – certainly less that it would cost to buy)? BUT ALSO how can we address the current culture of ownership? How can we change the ways we think about the things that we have bought and move towards idea of sharing? And how can this help us become more sustainable as artists, and by doing so create better functioning and ‘richer’ communities?
Convener(s): Alex Eisenberg
Participants: Chloe Dechery, Conor Short, John Pinder, Alex Eisenberg, Deirdre, Shakera Ahad, Kylie Lloyd, Will Bourdillen, Dan Simon, Kate Webster + others…
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
General Question
How would it be possible for us to share the material resources that we all have and don’t always use? For example – I have a good camera that I don’t use all the time – someone wants to borrow it. They do and in return I get some sort of credit for having leant something of mine out…
AND
How can we use an online resource (bespoke or existing) to create and proliferate this network?
Defining ‘Resources’
Resources at the things that we need or want to make our work. Resources can be all sorts of things but in this context we focused in on sharing material resources.
An alternative economy?
• A new form of currency
• A barter economy
• Points system
• Ratings and recommendations
• Feedback
• New models of insurance
• Web based and dynamic
Key Ideas
Institution > Artists
OR
Artists > Artists + Institutions
How can we get past a top down (hierarchical) model of sharing? Or is this the best way – Robin Hood sort of thing?
The notion of good will – can we just base this on good will and not worry about formalising it?
Worth – how do we measure worth in this context?
Do you just measure the amount you share – in spite of what you are sharing?
Contribution is enough.
What would be a method for putting requests forward.
How do you keep the system going?
It’s vital that people contribute to the network to make it successful.
The idea of taking a risk – but who takes the risk and how can we move away from the idea of risk. How can we reformulate the idea that sharing something with a stranger is infact usually NOT RISKY AT ALL.
BUT at the same time how can we mitigate for the inevitable fact that things will get broken, lost etc.
You don’t have to lend (but it will be in your interest if you do)
Lending Requirements – a series of things that make the lender feel comfortable
There has got to be incentives to foster honesty.
How would it be possible, or necessary, for small companies or individual artists to give something back to the National Theatre for example?
A chain or a network?
A network!
Trust is vital
Examples
Current Space Sharing Initiatives
• Northern Dance – “Spare Room” - each week when spaces are available they put them up on a website for people to book and use for free.
• London Bubble – give spare space out to artists for a very low fee or volunteer exchange
• Both of the above are last minute.
• Nothing like these exists in London!
Similar Models
• Wikipedia
• Freecycle
• SpareRoom.co.uk
• Couch Surfing
• Swapaskill.com
• Residence (Bristol) – Store Room
• Somewhere To Project
• Common Pool Resource
• Prop Share (USA) – academic models
• Time Bank
• The School of Everything
• Class Works Costume Store (Cambridge)
Both Wikipedia and Freecycle operate with moderators who bring parity to their resources. Freecycle as a material resource exchange – ¬ how different is this to a sharing network? The principle that Freecycle is supposed to be based on you sharing and then you receiving – but in reality it doesn’t quite work out like this.
Clear Practical Ideas to do:
Edinburgh Van Network
Material Resource Sharing
Space Sharing
People Sharing
Examples of things you might share:
Material Things: Projectors, camera, video equipment, space, vehicles, computer equipment, sound kit, microphones, props/costume, oddities (e.g. Binural Recording Equipment).
Non Material Things: Skills, advice, knowledge, information etc.
Visions
Starting online and the becoming phycisal – i.e. a series of central distribution points across the country.
How would you deal with the admin? You get it to become self moderating and self administrating – e.g. freecycle etc.
Getting Partners on Board
• National Theatre
• NT Studio
• Royal Opera House
• BAC
• Etc. (who has a lot of equipment?)
Aggregating existing services – that institutions, regional organizations etc. already use to share things.
Functioning like a social network.
Using an established system or website – for example:
• Yahoo Groups
• Google Groups
• Ning
Lets just take the first steps.
Practical Concerns
Insurance
• Is it possible to get insurance for an item that you do not own or for lending.
• New models of insurance.
Venues/Institutions/Companies
• Venues/institutions often do have things available but its not high up their agenda to share them – so perhaps we just need to make aware that the can and that they can be assisted in this process - that it is easy.
• Finding Reasons why space should be used.
• Good PR for large venues/institutions to show that they are helping artists (but lets make this count for real!)
Revenue from Advertising
• Could you use advertising revenue (e.g. for theatre/arts related companies) to subsidise the costs
Waste/Recycling in Theatres
• How can we harness the waste from theatres – e.g. materials, wood, metal etc./
• Setting up a network that seeks to recycle these things.
• How can we move from small scale or informal sharing networks to something on a National Level?
• Frugality and flexing as facets of a new culture.
• Using dead time in theatres the dark – make the dark LIGHT
• Betweens – time between exhibitions.
Collective Ownership
• Could the be a model that get beyond the insurance issues?
• Using Kickstarter (or other crowd funding model) to raise money to be able to buy resources and then share.
• Could there be support from more major institutions to do this.
Alternatives
• Just ask people for things more!
• Do not invite the no.
• Don’t be offended if people say no.
• BUT the problem with this is that not everyone is good at asking or can ask.
• How can we create a system that bypasses the machinations – or the shit! How can we create a template, a model – that is inclusive, well functioning and easy to use.
Final Thoughts
Partly this discussion was about a very practical concern of how to run this sort of thing – I would really like ‘this’ – okay that good I can borrow it from ‘you’ for free (almost free – certainly less that it would cost to buy)? BUT ALSO how can we address the current culture of ownership? How can we change the ways we think about the things that we have bought and move towards idea of sharing? And how can this help us become more sustainable as artists, and by doing so create better functioning and ‘richer’ communities?
ISSUE 22: SURFING OR OPERA?
Issue: Surfing or Opera?
Convener(s):Bill Bankes-Jones
Participants:
Tanja Raaste tanja@nordicnomad.com
Claire.thill@gmail.com
Rod Dixon rod@redladder.co.uk
Jamie Wood jamosta@hotmail.com
Chris Tomlinson tomous@yahoo.com
Mark Smith mark@spiketheatre.com
Timothy Bird Timothy@knifedge.net
Theatrical Surfers Group:
Jamie – jamosta@hotmail.com
Laura – Laura.n.mcdermott@gmail.com
Simon – Simon@theplascticinemen.co.uk
Pamela – pamelar1@hotmail.co.uk [?] 07986080047
James Bush – james@presentattempt.co.uk
Bill – billbj@gmail.com
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I set up the group entirely selfishly, in order to help me to work out how successfully to shift my own surf/theatre balance in favour of surfing. The session quickly morphed into a long, detailed, inspiring and enthusiastic exploration of the common ground between the two activities:
• Passion
• Tribes
• Time: the amount of preparation involved is HUGE in relation to the duration of the activity itself
• The addiction of intense but rare euphoria
• Don’t expect too much
• Both are really hard
• The more you put in, the more you get out
• Sense of occasion/both activities are very intense
• Highly supportive communities (as long as you behave well)
• A very long time before your next/second chance
• Surfing is better than working in the theatre (about the only point which didn’t get 100% agreement)
• It’s all about putting yourself in jeopardy, enjoyable risk
• About applying rules in an unpredictable environment
• Both need an open mind
• Lack of Ego crucial
• You don’t get bad reviews for surfing
• It’s a need beyond yourself
• To work in theatre/to surf depends on instincts that can be learnt
• A blissful sense of emptiness after it’s over
• It’ll never be like that again
• Great and lasting intensity of memories
• Sometimes you can’t deal with the idea that it’s over
• Very buzzy/a way of not being able to think about things
• Theatre=surfing in slow motion
CONCLUSION
We are going to try out a group of theatre people who want to surf together, and have shared our emails (above) to get it going. Though the discussion didn’t centre at all on my original dilemma, it was very therapeutic and certainly feels as if it has, in a strange way, if not solved it, helped me to live with it better.
Convener(s):Bill Bankes-Jones
Participants:
Tanja Raaste tanja@nordicnomad.com
Claire.thill@gmail.com
Rod Dixon rod@redladder.co.uk
Jamie Wood jamosta@hotmail.com
Chris Tomlinson tomous@yahoo.com
Mark Smith mark@spiketheatre.com
Timothy Bird Timothy@knifedge.net
Theatrical Surfers Group:
Jamie – jamosta@hotmail.com
Laura – Laura.n.mcdermott@gmail.com
Simon – Simon@theplascticinemen.co.uk
Pamela – pamelar1@hotmail.co.uk [?] 07986080047
James Bush – james@presentattempt.co.uk
Bill – billbj@gmail.com
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I set up the group entirely selfishly, in order to help me to work out how successfully to shift my own surf/theatre balance in favour of surfing. The session quickly morphed into a long, detailed, inspiring and enthusiastic exploration of the common ground between the two activities:
• Passion
• Tribes
• Time: the amount of preparation involved is HUGE in relation to the duration of the activity itself
• The addiction of intense but rare euphoria
• Don’t expect too much
• Both are really hard
• The more you put in, the more you get out
• Sense of occasion/both activities are very intense
• Highly supportive communities (as long as you behave well)
• A very long time before your next/second chance
• Surfing is better than working in the theatre (about the only point which didn’t get 100% agreement)
• It’s all about putting yourself in jeopardy, enjoyable risk
• About applying rules in an unpredictable environment
• Both need an open mind
• Lack of Ego crucial
• You don’t get bad reviews for surfing
• It’s a need beyond yourself
• To work in theatre/to surf depends on instincts that can be learnt
• A blissful sense of emptiness after it’s over
• It’ll never be like that again
• Great and lasting intensity of memories
• Sometimes you can’t deal with the idea that it’s over
• Very buzzy/a way of not being able to think about things
• Theatre=surfing in slow motion
CONCLUSION
We are going to try out a group of theatre people who want to surf together, and have shared our emails (above) to get it going. Though the discussion didn’t centre at all on my original dilemma, it was very therapeutic and certainly feels as if it has, in a strange way, if not solved it, helped me to live with it better.
ISSUE 23: THEATRE AND FASHION: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM EACH OTHER?
Issue: theatre and fashion : what can we learn from each other?
Convener(s): Valentina Ceschi a Santa Croce
Participants: Kane Lane, AlanHescott, James Bush, Jennifer Lee, Thomas Eccleshare, Sasha Milavic Davies and many more joined as it went along
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion raised a lot of questions such as:
Can theatre be couture? / if so, how?
The role of the designer. What if the designer took the lead and, writers, directors and performers followed (not necessarily in that order), but a theatre production company became more like a fashion house. (the Convener aspires to this)
Other things that were mentioned were ‘branding’, why is fashion so aspirational and why is theatre not?
Punchdrunk was the only theatre company people could name that does work which is ‘cool’, exclusive (often because of the secrecy and the general innovation). It is theatre which is more like a game, a party, a gig, an experience.
It makes other work look safe, pathetic, moral.
The ‘golden key’ is key – which very few privileged people possess. Secrecy also plays a big part.
However, the masses need to be told that there is a ‘secret’ going on, to spread the brand’s exclusivety. Glossy magazines don’t feature performance. It’s not cool.
Branding is a big topic. Theatre could brand itself more like fashion.
Why do European countries value the performing arts differently and on a same level as fashion?> Example: in French Vogue there is a whole section on theatre, dance and performance, which is missing in British Vogue.
Does theatre really have to have a moral obligation not to be decadent, superficial or purely aesthetic??
An analogy to describe theatre and fashion’s relations to their audiences was:
Theatre= desperate and needy boyfriend (which you’re not attracted to)
Fashion and couture= the elusive beautiful girl everyone wants to date, but no one can get to
Theatre needs to be less ‘invisible’ and yet more ‘elusive’ (exclusive) and marketed better. It is too accessible so nobody wants it/
Why does some British theatre feel almost like it is ‘rejecting fashion’, and therefore embracing dowdy, unglamorous aesthetic. Sounds like the bitter desperate boyfriend, not getting the girl.
In conclusion British theatre is dowdy and European theatre is more aspirational, with more emphasis on aesthetic.
I want to make theatre which is glamorous, aesthetically driven, dynamic and eye-popping, exclusive and fun – at the risk of it being decadent, costly and superficial.
Thank you for a great discussion!
Convener(s): Valentina Ceschi a Santa Croce
Participants: Kane Lane, AlanHescott, James Bush, Jennifer Lee, Thomas Eccleshare, Sasha Milavic Davies and many more joined as it went along
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion raised a lot of questions such as:
Can theatre be couture? / if so, how?
The role of the designer. What if the designer took the lead and, writers, directors and performers followed (not necessarily in that order), but a theatre production company became more like a fashion house. (the Convener aspires to this)
Other things that were mentioned were ‘branding’, why is fashion so aspirational and why is theatre not?
Punchdrunk was the only theatre company people could name that does work which is ‘cool’, exclusive (often because of the secrecy and the general innovation). It is theatre which is more like a game, a party, a gig, an experience.
It makes other work look safe, pathetic, moral.
The ‘golden key’ is key – which very few privileged people possess. Secrecy also plays a big part.
However, the masses need to be told that there is a ‘secret’ going on, to spread the brand’s exclusivety. Glossy magazines don’t feature performance. It’s not cool.
Branding is a big topic. Theatre could brand itself more like fashion.
Why do European countries value the performing arts differently and on a same level as fashion?> Example: in French Vogue there is a whole section on theatre, dance and performance, which is missing in British Vogue.
Does theatre really have to have a moral obligation not to be decadent, superficial or purely aesthetic??
An analogy to describe theatre and fashion’s relations to their audiences was:
Theatre= desperate and needy boyfriend (which you’re not attracted to)
Fashion and couture= the elusive beautiful girl everyone wants to date, but no one can get to
Theatre needs to be less ‘invisible’ and yet more ‘elusive’ (exclusive) and marketed better. It is too accessible so nobody wants it/
Why does some British theatre feel almost like it is ‘rejecting fashion’, and therefore embracing dowdy, unglamorous aesthetic. Sounds like the bitter desperate boyfriend, not getting the girl.
In conclusion British theatre is dowdy and European theatre is more aspirational, with more emphasis on aesthetic.
I want to make theatre which is glamorous, aesthetically driven, dynamic and eye-popping, exclusive and fun – at the risk of it being decadent, costly and superficial.
Thank you for a great discussion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)