On theatre in society: porosity

October 27, 2009 · View Comments

I’ve been following, with great interest, the ongoing North American discussions (largely catalyzed by Mike Daisey‘s How Theatre Failed America) about economic models for theatre, and how the current system is broken. Although no system for anything is ever perfect, my firm belief is that the demand for ‘economic stability’ in art is just a symptom of a society whose definition of ‘value’ is corrupt. But I digress. The real reason I’m chiming in right now is because there are some new-ish threads of conversation on the topic that have (tangentially?) stirred my brain.

Chris Ashworth started it, I think, with a terrific and detailed post about a new theatrical funding model. This banner was picked up with clarifying joy by Scott Walters, and instantly spun by Jess Hutchinson into a fervor of excitement that I have finally caught. I’m a little slow. [ASIDE: All of these folks are terrific people to follow, and I just want to point out by way of digging at naysayers that they and many others like them are the kinds of people one can easily locate, follow, and connect with via Twitter; theatre practitioners and artists, in particular, are way behind in understanding the immense value of these tools... but I digress again...]

The crux of Ashworth’s post, whether or not you feel his model will work in practice, is the idea that theatre’s “product” is actually the work leading up to the ability to sell tickets to a performance… not the performance itself. In his own words:

You have said, at some point in your artistic life, a sentence very much like this one: “Art is about the process.” You sagely observed to a student that “it’s really all about the process”, or “my work is about a process of [fill in the blank]“.You’ve said it. Admit it. And then after you said it, you went and sold someone a ticket to the final product. The thing your art is only fractionally about.

My mind has been gnawing on this for a little over a week; along with this tasty morsel, my mind has tossed in my thoughts on actor-audience relationship, my thoughts on the function of art, and some other discussions about shared spaces and about how technology has forever-changed the business-to-customer relationship, and I am now more convinced than ever that theatre can and must distinguish itself from film, TV, and new media by being completely porous to its audience. I’m not completely sold on the feasability of Ashworth’s funding model, but I think the heart of his argument is profound and, I hope, paradigm-shifting.

In my view, this is how we share the “process” and not the “end result”: theatre artists must be integral parts of the communities in which they are based, whether or not those communities are “home”. We must be completely a part of the community; the community must be allowed to feel completely part of our work.

We owe it to audiences to be approachable; this is not an ‘outreach’ function, but a core function. We owe it to audiences to share what we have learned through our practice; this is not an ‘education’ function but a core function. We owe it to audiences to provide them with art that they want to see and that is relevant to them; this is not a ‘subscription renewal’ or ‘programming’ function, but a core function. We owe it to audiences to tell them their own stories, and to help themselves tell their own stories; this is not a ‘play development’ function, but a core function. What I hope will distinguish me as a theatre artist and not just an actor is my dedication to all of these things as part of my work, to the very best of my ability.

I believe that these things can be injected into our current practices in a way that creates synergy and does not bog us down, provided we keep reminding ourselves that it is the practice that matters, and not the presentation.

See, inside the heart of all the discussion about why theatre is dying lies a rhythmic beat of “it’s not relevant. It’s not relevant. It’s not relevant.” We can all hear it, but the response to the drum-beat is generally wrong-headed because it revolves around a revival through increased ticket sales. No: we need to revolve it around the body that owns the hand that’s banging the drum.

If this integration of art and audience can be achieved, the life-blood of the theatrical form and, yes, even the ‘funding’, will follow. If, as artists, we can be an important part of our audience’s lives, the relevance will be apparent and immediate to the people we rely upon for support. We won’t have to beg for help once every season or for every project; it will be offered freely because our audience — our heart — will know us as a valued source of solace, of entertainment, of reflection, of provocation, and of evolution.

So simple. So right. So do it, already.

Share and Enjoy:

nancykenny

Wow. I feel like you’re talking about me up there. I feel though that it’s not just the audience we have to let in, but the rest of your cast and crew. They have been so ingrained into the "privacy" of it all. I tried to get rehearsal footage to put up from one of my company’s shows and got turned down by one of the actresses in it because she didn’t feel she looked "good enough". Since I didn’t have her permission, I had to scrap the whole thing.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Michael Wheeler

Hi Chris,

Great post. We are attempting to incorporate our process as integral to our relationship with audience in the next Praxis production (can't name it until the press release goes out). In any case, I just assigned this post as reading material for the next rehearsal. They're probably reading this right now. Hi Cast!
Ian Mackenzie

My god, this post is poetry.

Lovely, lovely stuff.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Jess

Yes, Simon. Yes, yes, yes. Thanks for writing posts like this that are fueling this sea change. Sea changes are, by definition I think, big and scary – but we are all fortunate to be living in a time when a big one is approaching and we get to be part of how it’s defined. And fortunate to be able to collaborate with lovely minds like yours. What a terrific and truly awesome responsibility and opportunity.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Jon Stancato

Hi there,

Glad to read this post and wanted to share something that my company, Stolen Chair, is doing in NYC. We’ve been given a sizable grant from a program called Economic Revitalization for Performing Artists (from The Field) to adapt the business model of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) to the theatre (our CST). A small community of members will be following the development of our newest original work, QUANTUM POETICS, from its earliest zygotic stages until its first public presentation. Along the way, we’ll be curating a variety of thematically related cultural and educational activities to bring the audience even further into the world of the play. The community will also have its own private online social network, with exclusive rehearsal footage streamed right from the studio, podcasts, excerpts from the developing script, and, most importantly, a feedback forum where we can dialogue about the work-in-progress even when we can’t do so in person!

The reasons behind the initiative speak to a lot of what you say above about creating a community of informed, invested stakeholders. We’ve just opened up signups over at http://communitysupportedtheatre.org (where the whole concept is explained in detail). NYtheatre.com will be “embedding” a writer in the CST for the next 9 months and she’ll be chronicling the progress of the show and the community we’re trying to build.

Here’s to more models!

Jon Stancato

Co-Artistic Director

The Stolen Chair Theatre Company

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Brian M. Carroll

Kris,

"it’s NOT about the PRESENTATION. I don’t feel I’ve been clear enough about that."

Hey, it's a blog, not a published book.

Thanks for the concrete example of "using the NAC production of Christmas Carol as a chance for the company to work with some of the countless Ottawa groups battling poverty and homelessness".

I can see the potential for both art and impact on the community. See Dorothy O'Connell's "Chicklet Gomez" and "Cockeyed Optimists". I can also see the potential for Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap). Take the example of the naive character Miles in The Drawer Boy, whose only contribution to "The Farm Show" has huge consequences for the farmers with whom he is billeted, and from whom he draws that contribution.

Sturgeon's Law is not an excuse not to try something.

But it is a warning that art, like all endeavour, is not "so simple".
krisjoseph

Nothing truly WORTH doing is simple. But calling it simple makes starting it feel easier ;)
thenextstage

Totally just do it Nanette! It’s addictive once you start blasting away. Check out my last show site to see how crazy I went with mine…

http://giftofscrews.org

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Nanette Soucy

I love this stuff!

I even bought a camera last year with full intentions of doing this sort of thing, but when we were working on a team of 2, writing, directing, designing and building everything on a shoestring, adding the extra layer seemed so daunting, and the idea kinda fell to the wayside.

Which is just plain silly. This is so simple, straight, and to the point. No need for fancy editing or equipment. Just do it, Nanette.

I feel that if making videos was a threat to the ol’ ‘hallowed space’ and ‘theatre magic’ we would have gone the way of the do-do when the talkies first appeared. The sanctity of hallowed spaces come in the community that gathers there. What’s the use of shutting the doors to the congregation?

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Tony Adams

Oh, I’ve gotten the push back too.

I think the hallowed space is not because of the building, it’s because of what happens there. But if you believe the magic of theatre is in the exchange of energy between actor and audience (also thrown out there a lot) I don’t see how that exchange being blocked at every turn is a good thing.

I think as a field, theatre is terrified of change. And seeing the wizard behind the curtain is a major change from the status quo.

But I think long term inviting people in is far better than begging them to come.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Shawn Macdonald

What a great piece. I couldn’t agree with you more. We really need to demystify the theatre-making process, especially for the indie theatre audience. Especially with the apparent indifference to the Arts and the ‘we don’t get art’ agenda that our governments are using to justify a lack of support–people feel special when they are let in on a process that seems on some level to be reserved for artsy types. People will change their attitudes toward theatre when they become active particpants and stakeholders in the theatre-making process. The fact is the audience is the END of theatre, the reason for it, and without them we’re just workshopping.

Oh, and thanks for posting my wee blogs!

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
thenextstage

Right on, Steve.

Tony – that’s awesome. There’s been a certain amount of push back from some theatre artists here enamored with the ol’ ‘hallowed space’ and ‘theatre magic’ or whatnot of the experience, as if applying that to the indie level somehow elevates it to the lofty status of the Royal Grande Whatever.

Let it be what it is…a party that everyone is invited to, I say.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Steve Park

I think this is your best post to date Si. I, as you know, am in cahoots with you on this revolution. I believe that what we may be moving toward is a very old idea and not a new one. Whichever it is, the end game is so important as to be the only thing that matters. If we do not change and evolve then we will die off. And that is as it should be.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Tony Adams

Word.

I’ve been saying this for a long time, and what I’ve found is audiences love it. I haven’t gotten a single piece of negative feedback from audience members. The slow speed for us has been allowing time for artists to be more comfortable with it. They pretty much have to unlearn everything they’ve been taught.

We always have the house open, audiences can see the actors warm up, do fight call, you know be people before and after the shows. We tossed the “curtain” (in quotes cause we didn’t have an actual expensive piece of fabric hanging) a while ago and haven’t looked back.

This comment was originally posted on The Next Stage
Dennis Baker

@Brian I agree that for most people, watching a rehearsal, would be like doing to the dentist. I think it is part of a larger whole.

Daisey says it well in "How Theater Failed America". Board members, Artistic Directors, Community members are more concerned with a new theater building, than the people inside the building. Instead of getting that shiny new toilet, with a plague from a donor, how about that donor help support a resident artist who is able to live in the community, have a steady job, support a family without having to travel across the country, and give back to that smaller community.
Brian Carroll

I am so sick of seeing "art as process" work that I usually run screaming from the room. But there's a small subset I do attend (and pay money for). I take chances on Robert Lepage productions, even though I know I'll never see the "final" version. I attend Third Wall Theatre first readings and am charged with anticipation to see the final production. I saw a very early version of Arthur Milner's "Facts" at the Winnipeg Fringe and raved about it to Arthur and Lise Ann Johnson. I saw a staged reading of Beverley Wolfe's "Jump" and encouraged her to stick with it.

Kris and Chris turned me off until I read Chris's salient point: Edit out the boring bits.

That's what I detest about most of the "Art as process" stuff that makes
me squirm in my seat. Nobody's edited out the boring stuff. Sometimes someone's revelling in making the work inaccessible to peons like me. Often they're just being lazy. Sometimes... Oh how the hell do I know why somebody puts boring crap up on stage?

I disagree with Chris about the final production being the sawdust. But I heartily agree about relationships. I take chances on companies and directors and actors whose work I know. Sometimes it pays off: I saw "Iron" because Margo MacDonald and Kate Smith were in it. The whole production blew me away.

And sometimes it doesn't. I've told successive ADs at GCTC that there should be one play a year that I don't like, otherwise they're not taking enough chances.
krisjoseph

I hear you, Brian, but I think you're missing something really key about what I mean by audience engagement in process. It's not about opening up a rehearsal hall and making people sit through the painstaking process of crafting moments -- UNLESS you have audience members who keenly want to do that. Nor is it about PRESENTING a work for an audience that is "in progress" and saying it's about process. As an aside, though, I would offer that the instances that make you squirm in your seat are the ones that do it BADLY -- and I would never advocate that in any context.

"Engaging in process" about meeting your community on their level for the purpose of helping them reflect, grow, evolve, or otherwise serve their objectives. Imagine, for example, using the NAC production of Christmas Carol as a chance for the company to work with some of the countless Ottawa groups battling poverty and homelessness. We assist them in their cause, and by doing so, gain a better understanding for ourselves of the work we are trying to create on stage. It DOESN'T mean stopping Christmas Carol after scene three to insert a dull Mission-inspired interpretive dance about local soup kitchens. That's the OLD paradigm, mined painfully by groups whose work makes you squirm. The participation IN community is engagement in PROCESS... finding new ways of charging an audience for things that that are boring is NOT. None of what I'm advocating involves you even BEING in a seat that you can squirm out of -- it's NOT about the PRESENTATION. I don't feel I've been clear enough about that.

ART, people, is NOT ABOUT MAKING A PROFIT. Are you listening, Harper? Did you LISTEN to the LYRICS of the song you sang at the gala?
Dennis Baker

Great post, my favorite part, "theatre artists must be integral parts of the communities in which they are based". I agree that outreach and education will flow out of the core function. We need to stop having "community actor" mean non-professional. Check out what Cal Shakes is doing with New Works/New Communities to see how they are telling local community stories.

I recently experienced what Ashworth was talking about. It was at our understudy run at the local LORT theater. It was a glorified tech. rehearsal, but since it was our only time to rehearse on stage we treated as a full run-thru, and were able to invite guests. In attendance were a group of high school acting students, theater office staff, along with my wife, and young baby.

We ran through most of the show, and only stopped when an actor had to switch roles within the same scene, to practice the other part. The high school students were into the show, and my wife commented that she really enjoyed watching the process in a low-key atmoshpere (she comes from a non-theater background).

Also, we were able to have our 5-month baby there, which would not be able to happen at a performance. My wife got to see most of the show, and a glimpse into my "process" as an actor. The students got to sit in on a professional rehearsal.
nickkeenan

Deeper integration with audience is not outreach: it is a core function. @krisjoseph has put his finger on’t. http://twurl.nl/ain1sz

This comment was originally posted on Twitter
the_ahtist

So excited I forgot the link before. RT @JessHutchinson great post from @krisjoseph: http://bit.ly/8JeWv

This comment was originally posted on Twitter
JessHutchinson

great post from @krisjoseph: http://bit.ly/8JeWv and I using words like practice and presentation to talk about rehearsal and performance

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post: Forced perspective

Next post: Codgers with pickles in their bums

On theatre in society: porosity

Lifestream

Blogs I Read

Sites

Archives

Categories