Two Penn’oth on Transform.

All

drama_masks

Nicola Chapman (@nicochapo) went to Transform recently at The West Yorkshire Playhouse, and adds her voice to the conversation . . .

Socialist Theatre – my vision of a transformed WYP

I know a number of people have already spoken about the Transform event here on Culture Vulture so I won’t do another review as such, rather I’ll try and summarise what I took away from the experience, what questions it raised and what conclusions I’ve drawn in my own mind.

Transform was a fortnight-long series of events held at the WYP which aimed to facilitate discussion on the future of the theatre, its purpose and how audiences engage with it. The program introduction noted that society is currently in a state of flux and that has influenced how people are using (or not) existing cultural spaces – libraries, museums, galleries to name but a few. Given this manifesto I suppose I was expecting an event a little more political, a little more radical, and something noticeably left-field. Maybe I misunderstood the brief but what I witnessed was – although competent and often diverting – nothing transformative!

I’d called into the Playhouse on a number of occasions these last two weeks as I work in Quarry House and wanted to see what was going on and how the transformation was progressing. Like many I’d seen the poster leading up to the event, had read the previews online and even started trying to resolve in my own mind the difficulties of facilitating greater public engagement with the theatre and arts in general. In short I was anticipating something special so was a bit shocked to find nothing significant happening really… The Soldier’s Song was fun as I got to stand in a box with a microphone and sing ‘Please Release Me’ with a soldier on the screen. Steamline: 21 (art installation) was decidedly ‘meh’. The lecture with Ben Moor was total Edinburgh festival fodder – comedian talks about how to write a play whilst essentially doing a stand-up routine. The Ionian Enchantment was a work in progress, a sketch that had been developed over the course of the event, added to by audiences and amended to reflect feedback. It was clever and humorous to an extent but again I couldn’t help wondering why the WYP was going down this route.

Looking back at the program I see that the stated intention was to address how an audience may view the Playhouse, what they might expect to see, to explore how theatre can transform and ‘change all sorts of things’. ‘It’s your turn to try something new’, see something different, have a conversation it said…‘Your turn’. Well ok then, here’s my tuppence worth: the Transform event seemed like an excuse for industry types to get together and engage in a load of chin stroking and back slapping. What I was subjected to was the perpetuation of the exclusivity of the theatre: writers, actors, directors making art either for themselves, each other or for the sake of it. In short I found it totally lacking in substance! I spoke to another attendee about how confusing I was finding both the concept and the execution of the Transform event and the impression I garnered was that it wasn’t really meant for me… So how the WYP is expecting to address the transformation of the theatre without actively engaging the potential punter in the discussion and execution is beyond me.

In my mind theatre and what it offers should appeal to everyone, even those that walk past the WYP every day and for whom the concept of high culture means nothing, i.e. those who would benefit most from the restorative properties that the arts can offer. I’m a great believer in the therapeutic qualities of creativity: for mental health, self esteem, as a stress buster and as a transferable skill to be applied in all walks of life. This for me is the transformative power of the theatre and something we should be fostering in the disenfranchised, the isolated and downtrodden in society? But where any of these people present at the Transform event? Not on the days I was there certainly; I found the facilitators and participants all very knowing, self referential and cliquey. Such as it ever was in the theatre but does it have to be this way in the future?

Hmm so what is my vision of the newly transformed theatre then, not just in Leeds but in the wider scheme? Possibly what I am advocating is art as a tool to engender a more inclusive society – could this become a reality, do others share this vision? Take public libraries for instance, under threat from the government despite presenting huge opportunities for learning, companionship, and artistic expression within the local community – they are a potential arena for wider social participation. Why not use these spaces to hold mini (and free) Transform events to talk to the public about what they would get involved with at the WYP and also preview performances here? For many people their only experience of theatre comes from risible Legz Akimbo style encounters or being forced to watch Shakespeare at school… Could an aim of a transformed Playhouse not also be to lower prices during the week to ensure higher attendance and reach out to a non-traditional audience? I know they have to make a profit but I’ve been to the WYP a few times recently and it was never sold out – Deep Blue Sea, Yerma, Tis Pity She’s a Whore – all brilliant but lost to empty seats and an audience who were already sold on the notion of theatre.

I understand that it is a hard time for the arts sector: funding is being cut, traditional audiences have less money to spend, and the political and social make-up of Britain is shifting and taking public attitudes and priorities with it. These are very confusing times and exactly why we should be having this conversation – transformation into what though is the question? From the evidence of the last fortnight ‘cabaret’ is the answer. Personally I don’t want to go the Playhouse to watch a one man play about sci-fi comics nor would I pay to see Tales from the Raun Tree, as imaginative and technically brilliant as the music was – I think there are more appropriate spaces for this, such as a newly invigorated City Varieties. What I do want from my culture is something edgy, challenging, something with substance that questions and challenges how we view ourselves, each other, communities and governments… how about a drama for instance?! I don’t mind whether its Greek, Medieval or Twentieth Century as long as says something to me about my life. I didn’t see any of this at the Transform event: maybe I went on the wrong day, maybe I’m out of step with how British theatre is evolving but again I ask how is the worthy remit of the WYP – ‘the transformation of all sorts of things’ – is going to be achieved if they don’t widen the conversation up to the people? So then, over to you.

22 comments

  1. Nicola, Transform was the first line in a conversation for the Playhouse, for artists and for audiences. The work that happened over the fortnight – from liaisons in boxes, to material scratched on a daily basis in a view of working towards creating a new show about Science and the way we understand the world, to shows performed entirely through music, or film, to a group of collaborators in a rehearsal room inviting Leeds audiences to be part of an ‘Open House’… each element of the season was a provocation and challenge to what the Playhouse might be, might become, and how we create and deliver work. Now that the 2 weeks have culminated, far from declaring to be ‘transformed’ we have merely taken the first blinding and exciting step on the adventure, on the journey of discovering what the Playhouse might become. We discovered lots of things, met lots of new audiences, created and presented work in totally new ways and started a new dialogue…it was the beginning of something. You’re right that british theatre is changing, is evolving, and through Transform the Playhouse were opening up that dialogue and conversation to artists and audiences about how the Playhouse might play a role in that evolution. So in response to your query: how is transformation going to be achieved if the Playhouse don’t widen the conversation up to the people? Transform was the first step in doing just that. I can’t promise we’ll programme a medieval drama next, but I can promise that the journey is going to be an exciting one, and it’s crucial that you and Leeds based audiences are a part of that, so perhaps this is just one forum where you and others can start to be a part of that conversation?

  2. Well said, Amy.

    This post demonstrates that we still haven’t reached a popular understanding of the arts beyond the false opposition between intrinsic and instrumental, and that is a frustrating fact.

    Rather than judging Transform on the basis of an economic logic (that doing x will produce y and result in z) we might be better thinking in terms of an arts ecology, where initiatives like this play their own important role.

    This is a well rehearsed debate and I’m sad that we are replaying it here, in the footnotes of a cultural blog.

    1. Oh dear, this did remind me of that poem by Brecht where he’s talking about people having no confidence in the leaders, so the leaders decide to dissolve the people and appoint another one. Wouldn’t it be great for arts organisations if they could dissolve their audiences and appoint a new one! I could go for that.

      Trouble is Simon we are lumbered with the benighted bunch of brainwashed buggers who happen to live in this art-forsaken city and who occasionally fancy a night at the theatre. People who have managed to miss this “well-rehearsed debate” you talk about so knowingly (maybe they didn’t get sponsorship for the right symposium, couldn’t get along to that last terribly important conference.) People who couldn’t care less if the “opposition between intrinsic and instrumental” was false or as plain and obvious as the redundancy notice they’ve just been served. People who – and you might want to sit down for this Simon – people who see the arts as a bit of a distraction, a treat after the serious work of earning a living is done, something from which they expect entertainment and not especially transformation. People who don’t work in the arts, damn their eyes! People like Nicola. You know, the audience. Hopeless bunch of know nothings, I know, but what can we do?

      What this post demonstrates, if it demonstrates anything at all beyond an honest expression of bewilderment and alienation, is that people who think in terms of an “arts ecology” are a homeopathically small proportion of the population and are doomed to stay that way if they get so huffy and tetchy over a bit of negative feedback. After all, this was meant to be a conversation. Conversation is supposed to be open ended, inclusive, respectful and tolerant of oppositional voices, isn’t it? . . . if Transform expected simply cheers, uproarious clapping and the sound of champagne corks popping and many glasses clinking in celebration then I’d say that was a bit sad (and I know they didn’t!)

      Wouldn’t that have been a very instrumental view of conversation Simon?

      1. Phil, honestly, could you be any more sanctimonious? Sadly, you have misjudged me as an individual and missed the point of my comment (or perhaps I communicated it badly).

        Nicola, what I had intended to point out is that art produces all kinds of values that are in a dynamic relationship, not at war. Art has a value in and of itself (art for the sake of it), and art can have the values you describe, and more (art for the sake of something else). These are not mutually exclusive ideals.

        Plus, if there’s room enough for simplicity and complexity, populism and seriousness (etc.) in this world then, brilliant, let’s have it all!

        I would also like to clarify that my comment was not aimed at you, but at what you said and the implications of what you said. Phil’s accusation in a later comment is that I am calling you “thick”, and this is simply not true. Anyone who knows me would tell you that it is not the Zimmerman way.

        So, while I’m writing, I’d like to expand on my point in the interest of furthering the conversation. As we are talking West Yorkshire Playhouse I’ll start with The Wiz, which my wife and I went the see this week. We both thought it was great fun, with great performances from the cast, many of them young people from Leeds. I suppose The Wiz has lots of the “entertainment” that Phil describes, but it also has more going on in terms of (as the programme describes) an “exploration of the black experience” in 1970’s America. On the other hand, a couple of weeks ago I went to see a solo performance by an artist in York that wasn’t entertaining, indeed it was quite difficult to watch and demanded a very different kind of engagement from me as a member of the audience. I found it challenging and stimulating in a totally different way. That particular piece probably isn’t for everyone, but why should it need to be? Why can’t we celebrate a diverse range of theatre cultures that appeal to different folk, in different ways, and why shouldn’t our regional theatres be at the very heart of promoting such an ecology?

        I also think that we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss a bit of chin stroking and self-reference: some of the most wonderful things about our popular culture start off in the margins, in “cliques” of people who use their own vocabularies to deconstruct and reconstruct the way people make and consume theatre / the arts. Brecht, and his ‘Verfremdungseffekt’ (alienation or distancing the audience from the characters and the action – strangely, Phil, I think this was an attempt to dissolve a certain kind of audience) is actually a very good example of this. I imagine that audiences at the time, who would have been used to a particular brand of Socialist Realism, would have found Brecht’s work difficult and challenging. And yet, 25 years on his Berliner Ensemble was the most famous company in Germany, and we can still see his ideas at work in much of today’s theatre.

        My initial comment on this page was a reaction to the suggestion in your post, Nicola, that theatre should a) appeal to everyone and b) always have value beyond itself. It’s not that, as Phil suggests elsewhere, I find this idea or you tedious. I am, however, frustrated that we, as a society, have such a very strange relationship to the idea of culture. John Holden says it better that I every could:

        There was a time, about forty years ago, when the value of the arts was pretty much taken for granted, and the subject did not cause too much anxiety. There was a reasonable political consensus that the arts were necessary, although they were marginal and not part of the real business of politics, which was about the economy and foreign relations.

        But even back then in the twentieth century, when a spade was a spade and not a post-modern designer implement with the embedded potential to move earth, even then, we had a lot of trouble with this word culture. For a really compelling discussion of it, I would point you in the direction of the Cambridge Professor and cultural critic Raymond Williams and his seminal book Keywords, first published in 1976.

        Back then, culture was principally used in two senses, and many people still think of it in this way. On the one hand it meant ‘the arts’ – and the arts were an established canon of artforms (opera, ballet, poetry, literature, painting, sculpture, music and drama). These arts each contained their own hierarchies, and they were enjoyed by only a small part of society, a part of society that was also generally speaking well educated and rich. This social group defined its own social standing not just through money and education, but through the very act of appreciating the arts, and thus artistic consumption and social status became synonymous, causing the arts to be labelled as elitist.

        But culture also had a different meaning than the arts, an anthropological meaning that extended to include everything that we did to express and understand ourselves, from cooking to football to dancing to watching television.

        These two meanings of culture led to much confusion because they were essentially oppositional. Culture in the sense of the arts, and popular culture were mutually exclusive: one was high, the other low, one refined, the other debased. As an individual, you could aspire to high culture, but by definition, high culture could never be adopted by the mass – if it was adopted by everyone it would no longer be high culture.

        These two, essentially contradictory notions of what culture meant led to all sorts of confusion, not least in politics, where approaches to culture cut across the left/right divide. You can find the arts attacked from the left for being a middle-class toffee-nosed pursuit, and attacked by the swashbuckling monetarists of the Reaganite and Thatcherite right for being an interference with the market. But you can also find the arts defended on the left for being one of those good things in life that everyone should have access to, and defended on the right as being a civilising and calming influence on society.

        The old model of culture then is an either/or model, but we now have to understand a new reality. And that means we’ve got to abandon these old ideas about culture as a set of oppositional binaries of high/low, refined/debased, and elitist/popular.

        The new reality demands a different way of looking at what culture means, and hence new ways of looking at the value of the arts and culture. It demands a shift in the political response to culture, and it requires changes in the way that cultural funders and cultural organizations go about their business.

        I reject Phil’s notion that you have to attend clever conferences to engage in this debate, and I don’t think it helps anyone to establish yet another false opposition between people who are ‘in the arts’, and people who are not. I think this is about moving our collective consciousness on from “best or most” to “best for the most” with a clear understanding that what might be “the best” for me, might not be for you.

        Perhaps there is a massive hole in my logic. If there is, please let’s keep talking.

        If anyone is interested, there is a great publication called (coincidentally) Culture Vultures that gives a fascinating insight into some of what we have been debating: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Culture_Vultures_-_Jan__06.pdf.

        1. Unfortunately, I probably could be more sanctimonious, ask the ex! . . . but that aside, I agree with most of what you just said. Except for the last bit; my point wasn’t that you had to be clever to engage in the debate, nor did I want to establish any more divisions. I’d say the divisions were pretty much already there – I didn’t have to invent anything – and it’s obviously not cleverness that keeps people from joining in the debate.

          Let’s for the sake of it agree that at the moment “the most” and “the best” are far apart. I don’t think the gulf is unbridgeable (though I doubt it’ll ever be intimate between them, even if they do kiss and make up.) All right-thinking people want to bring them closer, and Transform was an attempt to get them in the same room, talking. Great. My point – admittedly grotesquely exaggerated and rendered in cartoon-like colours – was that this isn’t going to be a smooth process. Out of every ten new people who go to something new, experimental, transformative, one will think “bloody amazing, just what I’ve been looking for!” and nine will be thinking, “hell, this is rubbish, terrible, nothing to do with me . . . moan, groan, drone.” They’ll have that response because the experience is new, experimental, transformative! It’s a natural negative. Trick is to stay with the process, not try to deny it. There are good reasons why they haven’t been engaged in the debate (and I have my own ideas why arts talk puts people off, but that’s for another time) and there’s no point blaming them for not being up to speed. It will take patient, dogged explanation – much like your last comment to be fair . . . so now I’m going to go and read the publication you recommended (and by the way, that’s why the comment went in moderation – all WordPress sites quarantine links by default; there’s no blacklist, just a bit of over-officious code.)

          Anyhow, I just wanted to say that I hope you have a great time with the writing event later this month . . . Christian Bok is amazing, and I am hugely envious.

          1. Hey Simon, cheers for your comments. Culture Vultures is a place for people like me to express concerns over what is happening in the sphere of arts and examine the gulf between audiences and practitioners and for that I’m really grateful. As Emma said there are many issues here and I probably only scratched the surface in my original piece and didn’t explored them fully. I don’t see why I should be castigated for given an honest account of how I saw the proceedings though – I still stand by the chin stroking and back slapping comment! I realise that you and other arty types are very sincere in what you do, ultimately I just didn’t feel Transform translated their aims and objectivse very well to people who aren’t in the loop. I hope they can build on what has been discussed here as the WYP is an immensely valuable resource which needs nuturing and embracing. Its not up to me to dictate how they do this but I was expressing a viewpoint that had yet to be given in print/online.

  3. Well yeah mine was just one view point of many, other people on Culture Vulture loved the Transform event. I never said I was right or wrong but wanted to offer my opinion on what the WYP could do in a positive manner to extend its reach to the larger population of Leeds. The conclusion I’ve reached is that if WYP is proceeding down this route then it’s going to be even more alienating for those that have no idea of what theatre is about, wonder whether it is for them and question whether they should bother paying £15+ a head to go. I’m glad you felt moved to respond but I don’t believe what you said and how you said it countered any of my points! I imagine you find my stance frustrating as I clearly don’t ‘get it’ but I doubt I’m the only one.

  4. There are times I want to be entertained and there are times when I want something different. I suppose sometimes what I want is to be totally surprised / engaged and changed by a piece of work and I love theatre because for me it’s an art form that can do that. I also love it because sometimes it’s an art form that can make me clap along and have a laugh… I think all these things feed off each other far more than we often allow for. I can’t take sides in the – high art for thinkers / low art for hard working folk who deserve value for money – divide. I think that way of thinking is in danger of missing the point. I think people are more multifaceted than that. Plus, I do get a bit frustrated that artists find themselves in an environment at the moment where we feel obliged to apologise for being artists and having ideas that might be a bit, well, odd. That is part of an artist’s job surely? I’m also wary of getting caught in a trap (easy to get into at a time of cuts) where we put our energies into justifying a particular vision of what an art form like theatre ‘should be’, when to be healthy we clearly need diversity. We need musicals and crowd pleasers and strange stuff done in the nude in the dark in cupboards and everything else in between. It all adds up to a huge conversation that makes everyone’s work / experience at the theatre better…

    Anyway before I get onto the bits which I don’t agree about, I just wanted to mention that I think Nicola you were really brave to write this blog and its’ important that you did and hurrah. It’s not easy going against the perceived vibe of things, but it’s an important thing. Also, your idea about having cheaper ticket prices during the week is a good one. I find it hard to afford the WYP prices – I’d go more if I could go cheaper.

    My biggest question about your post is – Is it ok to dismiss what happened at Transform as a whole, if you weren’t there for all of it? I think its fine to say ‘on the days I went, it didn’t work for me’, but it seems a little hard to damn the whole concept if you only saw a small slice. I also think that if you had seen any of the ‘Open House’ work by Chris Goode and Company you may well have found what you were looking for. You mention in your article that

    “What I do want from my culture is something edgy, challenging, something with substance that questions and challenges how we view ourselves, each other, communities and governments… ”

    I think Open House did all of that, in the most extraordinary way. It didn’t produce a drama for us to watch, it invited us to ‘become’ the experience and to join with the performers (which is a very different way of thinking about theatre and for me very exciting / just what Transform should have been doing). I saw the show on the Thursday night and was so inspired by what I experienced that I went and spent the next day in the room and was involved in the performance on Friday evening. So, as an audience member and also as a writer (who doesn’t usually perform my own work) I really value this experience. It’s made me think about what theatre can be. I think that’s really exciting.

    Finally, I think Transform was there to support and develop opportunities for theatre makers. I got the opportunity – through Peepolykus / ‘The Ionian Enchantment’- to work for a day with actors and director Hannah Quigley. We got rehearsal space and the chance to explore devising which ended up with us showing 10 minutes of work at teatime that evening. We got paid nothing and our work could be seen for free. The experience was all about taking risks and having an opportunity to try something and learn from it. That was a gold dust thing for me. I met and worked with some great people who I’d love to work with again. Was our work on that day the best piece of theatre ever? I doubt that! But could it be a foundation to create work in the future that goes on to be really good? Well I’m biased, but I hope so. And if you consider how many makers / artists had similar opportunities like this during that fortnight – that’s a big ecology that Transform has helped to support.

    I would also as an aside like to mention, that as good as Transform was (in my opinion), I don’t think we should forget what ace work the Carriage Works have done over the last few years with the same spirit but a smaller budget. Emerge and the Carriagework’s generally fantastic / interesting / eclectic / fun programming over the last few years in Leeds should be shouted about over rooftops…

    Anyway, I think WYP were brilliantly brave doing Transform. It was great to see them taking risks. I don’t think everything that I saw worked but I’m glad it all got tried. It’s out of work like this that artists develop and how in the end, great work that is popular AND critically successful comes to be made.

    1. Emma, as always, beautiful . . . thank you.

      My quibble, I think, isn’t with the quality, the writing, the venue, or anything to do with the event . . . that’s all genuinely amazing. It was easy to get rave reviews. But, and it’s a significant but, I did get quite a few DM’s, whispered comments, sly asides that were a bit critical – nothing major, and mostly from non-theatre types, that they didn’t really get it. The hype was so intense, they expected an almost religious experience . . . and it was just, well, great . . . but no epiphany. Maybe the marketing was a bit misconceived? I remember hearing someone on the radio pushing it and sounding so desperate.

      And conversation . . . I bloody love conversation . . . glad the WYP were up for that. But it did feel like, “enough of me . . . what do you think about me?” There is fabulous stuff happening all over the city, amazing conversations . . . would be great to see WYP outside of their bunker and joining in. There’s great stuff at Carriageworks, at Seven etc (hope you’ll come to Buerk, btw, should be good fun.) You can’t corral the conversation. It’s happening everywhere, whether you like it or not. Wouldn’t it be great if WYP joined in, became human, on the same level? Would do them nothing but good I think.

      So, let’s have more of it, and get the conversations out there, more theatre, more experiment, more risk . . . and accept that sometimes it doesn’t work. And try to connect. Not everyone is a thespian.

  5. I do so love the Culture Vulture, genuinely.

    But Phil, you really, really do need to stop pushing yourself as the voice of the downtrodden arts Everyman. You have your own, perfectly acceptable and justifiable, position. That’s completely fine. But it’s yours. You would be well surprised at what arty shit people will take, understand and synthasize in terms of their own lives. And do so without any access to symposia or conferences or anything of the like.

    Transform had some great bits and some less than great bits, it could be braver. My guess, however, is that braveness won’t be based around tired old-style definitions of what ‘The Peoples Art’ is (in ref to original review)…. Its much more likely to be based around the stuff that is totally leftfield – in a non political sense.

    The stuff your reviewer actually wanted, defined in the shows she referenced, was the same old WYP same old. Which is cool. We all have our own tastes. But let’s not pretend different, eh?

    I, personally, shall be watching how that conversation develops.

    1. you’re probably right. It was a cheap shot. I was just a bit annoyed I suppose. Annoyed because I think if we are going to get out of that knackered old cliche of common people versus high art then art had better do better than folding it’s arms and tutting at the oiks. I am under no illusion that great art is for everybody (no matter the Arts Council line) but I do think we could do better. So, question is, how do we reach people like our reviewer? Serious question. If the WYP don’t, there’s gonna be a problem.

    2. oh, and please don’t conflate my taste in theatre with the reviewers . . . Though I love the appellation “Downtrodden Arts Everyman” I think it sorely undeserved . . . I am in fact a complete art snob. Hate myself for it, and berate myself as a class traitor, but you’d sooner get me licking my own piss off a nettle than read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist.

      And I do just speak for myself. Don’t have a remit.

      And I do have a fairly good grip on what arty shit people will take . . . hell, I work at Temple Works, give me a break.

      Still, if you fancy a beer sometime give me a shout. Midnight Bell . . . or The Commercial? Happy either place.

  6. Cheers Emma, you are right I didn’t get to see the whole of Transform but how much would that have cost to do? Open House sounds amazing, I’m sorry I missed it. Don’t get me wrong I have a lot of respect for artists and what they do and how they do it but my wider point was that a lot of people don’t get to enjoy that because they are unable to access these opportunities. My opinion on what I did actually see was just that, opinion. My viewpoint stems from the fact that I spend a lot of time in the ‘arts area’ of Leeds working at Quarry House and I see a many people walking past the Ballet, the Beeb, the WYP who just see them as buildings. People who maybe don’t have jobs or have drugs problems, homeless or have mental health issues and I strongly believe that access to the arts could really benefit them. I’m not saying it is the role of the WYP to ‘rehabilitate’ people but perhaps a little more direction in making creative resources available to everyone would be a step in the right direction. I’ve had one person tell me that the idea to use public spaces such as libraries would be great – is this not a viable option? Perhaps I am being a little naive but I still think it’s a valid question.

    1. Hi Nicola, I don’t think anything you mention sounds naive. And I take your point that affording the whole of Transform would be pretty impossible. I didn’t go to everything either. I think what’s interesting about the conversation you’ve sparked with your piece is the breadth of questions coming out of it – Because looking at all of the responses so far we seem to be talking about a lot of different things: 1) How a traditional and regionally important theatre space is used and how that might change? 2) How that experiment is marketed to present audiences? 3) How that experiment is marketed to people who have as yet to come into the building 4)How the building interlinks with other art / art spaces across the city and region. 5)the different but interlinking / overlapping needs of artists and audiences 6) the whole high art / low art thing 7)How public buildings in general could be used better / in a more inclusive way to explore supporting vulnerable people. I think that’s all of them. BLIMEY! I guess when I was responding initially I was thinking mostly about numbers 1, 5 and 6! BUT (re 7) I think you have a bloody big point there. I don’t think its naive. I do think that we need to think about how we use public spaces better to make art available to as many people as possible. Because I agree art is the glue that keeps a lot of people (I count myself one of them) coping with the difficulties of being alive in the world! It saves lives. I do think this new imagining of spaces is something that is happening more and more. Look at the whole art in shop movement that’s been happening over the last few years. That suggests a shift and big organisations will follow in the end. But it needs to happen quickly. These buildings and spaces need to recognise the urgency here – at a time when support for jobless/homeless/elderly/people with mental health issues/young/etc etc is being slashed… Strangely I think the crux of all these conversations comes down to 2+3 – the marketing. Or to use a less tainted word (for some) – the way that makers engage with people before they become their audience. I think artists and buildings need to think ALOT more about this. If something doesn’t look like its for me (even if it really would be if I went) then I’m never ever going to find out it is for me. It’s quite simple. I think that is a key conversation – how do artists and companies and buildings work better with designers and so on to explain their work better? And in different ways to different audiences. I’m minded here of how Harry Potter was given two different book covers. One to make sense of it to kids and one for adults. Lots of people mocked this idea – but it worked and the books got read! Maybe we in theatre land need to think about that kind of approach???

  7. There are questions, big ones, to be answered by us all about how we accommodate people in a meaningful way. Theatre is changing, how we tell meaningful stories, who tells those stories and how we tell them is a hugely pertinent question. Transform was a specific project in a specific building. And heading, the first step, perhaps, in a different direction. There are a lot of people doing similar (less well funded, less trumpeted stuff) but let’s not forget those BIG spaces have BIG significances. They matter. Not necessarily more but differently.

    That WYP will begin something in the direction that Transform did is significant. Not the full story, not the final story but they aren’t pretending it is. There are lots of other people engaged in the same discussion. Those discussions (as is this one) are related.

    It was asking what theatre is for and who it’s for. Personally I found looking into the face of (and singing along with) a serving soldier a very moving experience, one that made me look at both a human being and a political situation in a different way, reflecting on each other. The simple, the understandable made meaningful. If that isn’t the purpose of art I don’t know what is.

    1. can I just point out I was totally behind Transform and love that we have a bloody amazing, world class theatre only 10 mins from my doorstep. I try to get people along to review all the time, but mainly to experience . . . last person I got tix for was his first experience of theatre ever! Seriously . . . think he’s a way off talking about it but was blown away. He’ll get there. But that’s what I’m excited about . . . and, unfortunately, new audiences are going to come along with pretty fucked up taste and some daft ideas of what they want to see . . . how the hell do we win them over? By telling them how thick they are? . . . unlikely to clinch the argument. I’d love to get my neighbours along, and working on it . . . but comments like Simon’s means that will never happen. And, sadly, why should they if they are told that their questions are tedious, we’ve been through this so many times! Let’s be patient, accept the negative, and work with them.

      And beer, yes!

  8. Phil,

    Beer is good for me. I’m not berating and would hope it didn’t come across that way. Have huge respect for your point o view and critique. Conversation matters. It’s the only way we make sense of our world.

  9. I don’t mind being thought of as thick, I don’t mind being told I’m wrong and I don’t even mind being patronised – my self esteem is strong enough to take it! I’m very grateful for Culture Vulture for giving us all the chance to voice their opinions. In future I’m going to be giving my money to events and organisations that make me feel included and valued as a paying audience member. If that means partaking in the ‘same old’ then so be it!

  11. What Emma just said, really.

    I might also add that, for big organisations, I suspect the issue is about models as well as communication. How does what they do on inclusion and ‘outreach’ – horrible word, but hey, link to what is seen on the big stages? Where are the routes through?

    Let’s also not forget that for the vast majority of it’s history the theatre hasn’t been a place where people sit respectfully in the dark and just watch. It was a whole heap more rumbustious, ruder and lively. Where we are (possibly) coming out of is a ‘polite’ blip.

  12. Great blog Nicola, interesting, honest and brave.

    I don’t generally like theatre and have fairly extreme views on its utter irrelevance, elitism and cliquiness that I won’t bore you with here.

    It’s part of theatres justification to periodically have ‘conversations’ with the oiks and as long as the oiks agree and are dazzled by their brilliance all is well. They can then tick their ‘inclusive’ box and get on with what they actually want to do. Produce lots of self indulgent bllx that they and the insiders of the theatre industry can cream themselves over and the occasional remaking of a ’50s musical to actually get bums on seats in the most unimaginative way possible.

    I think on starting up the ‘conversations’ theatres have already decided what the outcome will be. Also the ‘conversation’ usually just involves the insiders with their own lingo and terms of reference chatting amongst themselves and reminding each other just how fabulous and creative and cultured they are. The internal lingo also serves the useful purpose of marking out the ioks to be patronised or whose opinions are to be ridiculed or ignored.

    Contradicting myself slightly, I have to agree that I’ve regularly seen stuff going on at the Carriageworks and thought, Jees, Louise, what’s going on? That looks genuinely inclusive.

  13. Cheers Mick, I didn’t even realise you had to be brave to voice an opinion these days! I thought development, or ‘transformation’ if you will, would allow for a bit of criticism or feedback? And I don’t think I was particularly damning anyway, though I did omit to say my highlight of the event was a woman I saw on stage giving an interview and talking about towels… I thought she was really good so credit where it’s due. Glad to see others chipping in with their thoughts as well, good old Culture Vultures!

Comments are closed.