Monday 5th March 2012, 7.00pm
Hosted by Improbable
When it's not over, it's not over. Keeping the space open for D&D7.
Read the full invitation here
You can also see a list of the reports from D&D7 here.
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written, clicking on the title of the session will take you to the report.
Curating. Creating. Community. Survival strategies.
Translating D&D into action- when do we stop talking and do something?
Trying to avoid Tesco- how to find a paid job in the theatre in the time of recession.
Do less designers, technicians, lighting designers etc come to D&D because they don't see themselves as creators or because they are too busy doing it?
Do numbers matter?
I'm making a show about my nationality- what do you know about ISRAEL?
Should I be out and about at this hour?
Paid opportunity: who would like to help me documenting all the DandD reports monthly?
Does D&D exist cos there is no theatrical community and does it matter either way?
Directors please... Looking for directors for some short plays.
How do we keep the devotion alive and how do we know when it's time to move on?
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Posted by Improbable at 10:02
Convener: George Mann
Participants: Just me for now (at the beginning)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Just me for now... (at the beginning)... Going to wait and see for a while.
- Maybe I'll talk/write to myself?
- Perhaps this is quite representative!? No one else will care about your session as much as you do? Is that true...? Not really.
- Why did I call this?
- Because I can't help feeling that the gulf between talking about an issue and doing something about it.
- Re. my session last weekend, all that talking... but now, unless I myself do something it can just fade into obscurity as if it never happened...
- So what is the point?
- Talking is great. It helped clarify the issue, clear things up, air frustrations.. but to actually change anything or do something about one has to act. But is 'one' really just ONE? Does it always come to that?
- Can D&D result in more than just one person with their session "campaigning" alone?
- Should I have formed a committee?
- Asked people to do something?
- Should D&D give more time to action and how can it become action?
- Maybe one Monday morning isn't enough?
- Yes I felt I'd met my community, I'd been hear, agreed with, disagreed with, but so what?
- WHAT NOW...?
- In a way, I came for the community, and because we're stronger together... yet I ended up along after all that trying to Do something about my issue?
- Somehow it feels like something is missing from D&D. The bridge between talking and doing hasn't been built yet, so it remains a social-frustration-airing-gathering of sorts... for now.
- But I still love it
Posted by Improbable at 09:59
Convener: Alyn Gwyndaf
Participants: Various, incl. Jen, Sarah-Jane, Kirsty, Li
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Some sketchy notes. E&OE etc.
Curiosity stirred by comments from ACE State of the Arts 2012, firstly about need for greater integration/participation of community/society, and secondly about reducing separation of artists. What does shift toward arts organisations working with community imply for making a living as an artist? Is curating/facilitating a necessary strategy for economic survival? What if curating were itself community- rather than professionally-driven? Is a natural boundary drawn by the point at which the money stops?
Practice focuses on process of creating. Experience of curating as an incidental activity of simply bringing people together to make stuff happen, aside from core creative work. (Li)
Benefit of curating in that it provides a structure, sustained across several events/festivals, in which work/artists can flourish and grow. Question of whether this is closer to producing (in an artist development model). Or how does this differ from 'programming' – is it just a sexier title?
Curating is itself a creative activity, and artists will themselves self-curate in terms of editing work to create a portfolio. Equally, making a piece of work involves curating different component parts and shaping how they come together.
Sheer volume of work out there now necessitates curator/editor/gatekeeper, to provide clear vision, authority and profile for presentation of work (c.f. filtering massive volume of internet information). Thus audiences buy into particular curator and their vision/taste; artists benefit by having a champion.
Increasing use of the term 'curating.' Does this reflect an increasingly vogue term, or an actual growth in substantive practice? Feeling toward the latter, especially with the increasing number of festivals and other ad hoc events bringing artists together in one place/time.
Curators still rely on artists to lead or stimulate creative process, even where it's located within the community.
Experience as both curator and artist has shown that money can be earned from curatorial activity, but not the creative. (Jen)
Drift into discussion of 'sideline' work, which earns necessary money, alongside the creative, and folk model of this being a legitimate practice, as opposed to privileging the professional expectation of earning a living from creative practice. Question of whether folk model only worked in agrarian/industrial economies with well-structured work/leisure time, and not suited to current 'long-hours' working culture of post-industrial/information economy.
Also, folk model implying a local/community ownership of the agenda. Case that “there's money in the local,” but typically local council wanting to fund activities that tick particular boxes for social mission. Not genuinely 'community' in that money comes with an externally-imposed agenda.
General acknowledgement of curating/creating/community as having fluid relationship, rather than discrete areas of activity. Some artists seeing themselves as rooted in their local community (not separate), and also shifting between creating and curating activities.
Acknowledgement that many of us blend creative practice, local (geographic) community and creative community (curating) activities, along with maybe others again that earn a living. Not problematic for any of us ourselves, but challenge to establish recognition of this externally, e.g. how to articulate precisely what it is we can offer to others. Need to champion the 'nebulous work package.'
Relational art as a relevant perspective on discussion, seeking to locate work in a social, human context, and explore connectedness.
Discussion of exercising (and discussing) cash as an important part of acknowledging integration of artist and community, sharing same economic concerns as everyone else. Shoreditch location provided an interesting model of a community, with local live/work/leisure patterns, albeit heavily monetised.
Acknowledgement that our presence in that location invited community integration by bar spending, and general drift away to exercise social contribution through beer purchase.
Posted by Improbable at 09:34