Session called by: Ben
Checking in and checking out at either end of the day as both an active process in itself and for what it signals.
· Avoid check in/outs becoming orthodoxical. It doesn’t always have to be the same. There is no right answer. It’s ok to be ok. It’s ok to be not ok. Uphold and encourage the right to feel out of step with the group.
· Make the offer that people can check things in at the door if they want but also don’t have to if they don’t want to.
· Think through what it means to have a ‘duty of care’.
· Your process has to be real, genuine and not just pay lip service.
· Think through how you see individuals in a group. And how they see each other.
· Transparency and honesty feel important. Share as much information as possible, but also know when it’s not necessary to share everything.
· Think about who you are as a director in the process of checking in and through the day. Think about how you want to frame your process and roles within it.
· Remember: you may never make another show after this one. Make the most of it.
· Collaboration is the matching of strengths. Working together can make us work better.
· Decisions about timing of when things happen, when things become apparent, when things are shared is a useful tool.
· Roles.
· ‘Sticking with’ vs. ‘the law of mobility. Or perhaps a balance between the two.
· Balance feels important.
· Disciplines of time-keeping etc coupled with an openness towards people leaving their phones on or sleeping in rehearsal or going out for a bag of crisps. If we’re in this room we’re working.
· Make deliberate, considered choices about how you are going to work. This in itself is a way of taking care of everyone. Set the tone.
· Care and trust and love. A sense of being held. Really hear people and hold open an accepting space
· How do consensual group processes operate? Can I share my role/responsibilities with others?
· Human = complex, fluid.
· A sense of lightness feels vital.
· Working ‘serially’ means things are going to change day to day and moment to moment, including how we feel.
· What do you want to feel like at the end of the day?
· Baking as preparation and a gift to the room.
A question to consider: When I’m taking care of everyone else, am I not being taken care of?
Merry Christmas,
Ben x
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Monday, 5 December 2011
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite: writers and devisers
November 21st at Ovalhouse
Hosted by Stella Duffy and Chris Campbell
Facilitated by Phelim McDermott
Do writers and devisers have anything to say to each other,
or should we proceed directly to violence?
A D&D for us all to ask how we can talk more, work together, come out of our corners and engage...
Read the full invitation 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.
Does longevity matter?
Does devised theatre always have to look devised? Does written theatre always have to look written?
Can devisers work with dramaturgs?
Are we a bit too reverent about the written word?
Where do we begin?
What is the lifespan of a devised piece?
Authorship. Who owns what?
Don't pigeonhole me man! A session for people who do more than one thing.
Collaboration: how can a writer and devisors work together (better)?
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
Can a scripted play be devised?
Where are the writers writing performance texts, rather than plays?
ME, ME, ME How can devisers work with writers on the autobiographical?
Butcher amongst vegans? What does that mean?
Are writers programmes talking about devising as a "dirty" word?
Let's get Physical (on paper)
I'm a designer... Get me out of here!
What's the difference anyway? Is it just a question of how many people are in the room doing it?
Dream devising/writing: experiences and strategies?
Hosted by Stella Duffy and Chris Campbell
Facilitated by Phelim McDermott
Do writers and devisers have anything to say to each other,
or should we proceed directly to violence?
A D&D for us all to ask how we can talk more, work together, come out of our corners and engage...
Read the full invitation 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.
Does longevity matter?
Does devised theatre always have to look devised? Does written theatre always have to look written?
Can devisers work with dramaturgs?
Are we a bit too reverent about the written word?
Where do we begin?
What is the lifespan of a devised piece?
Authorship. Who owns what?
Don't pigeonhole me man! A session for people who do more than one thing.
Collaboration: how can a writer and devisors work together (better)?
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
Can a scripted play be devised?
Where are the writers writing performance texts, rather than plays?
ME, ME, ME How can devisers work with writers on the autobiographical?
Butcher amongst vegans? What does that mean?
Are writers programmes talking about devising as a "dirty" word?
Let's get Physical (on paper)
I'm a designer... Get me out of here!
What's the difference anyway? Is it just a question of how many people are in the room doing it?
Dream devising/writing: experiences and strategies?
Does Longevity Matter?
Session called by: Rebecca Manson Jones of Just Jones &
Attended by: various including Kate McGrath, Phelim McDermott, Alwyn, Sarah G, and several others whose names I didn’t catch, sorry.
I called this session in response to some other sessions which I heard being called. I called it out of curiosity and with a leaning towards wanting to understand why the devised theatre-making (or the D&D) community might be considered to be “vegans”.
It seems to me that the question follows on from the “ownership” theme which came up early in the session calling, but is also linked to legitimacy of the work as it is viewed in the theatre community (linked at least in my mind to Chris Campbell’s opening remarks). Is devising work’s “poor cousin status” connected to its lack of visibility beyond the time in which it is performed? For me, some of the most exciting, important and enduring performances I have been part of and have attended since 1990, are those for which there is no conventional performance script. After the event itself, there is not much record except in the memories of the people who witnessed or made the work.
Whereas, with the ubiquity of the published text by Oberon, Methuen, Nick Herne etc I house a few undistinguished playscripts as part of the production programme. Some plays which I missed I can easily pick up on Amazon. Those plays remain on sale, they can be accessed continually. (It was pointed out to me that many more devising and multi-media performances are recorded via DVD than previously and can be found via Youtube these days - but I’d still argue you don’t see people buying them in the National or Royal Court bookshops, onsale at Waterstones etc).
It is still easier for writers than devisors to evidence their work to those who haven’t witnessed it in performance and for some of those scripts to be revived. Hybrid works like Pool No Water are credited to Mark Ravenhill and are revived by companies other than Frantic Assembly who originally made it. (I know a performer who was part of the original devising process who was asked to audition – with mixed feelings - for a revival of this show she’d already helped create and then didn’t get the gig – weird viewed from several angles.)
My experience is that devised work is often regarded as a poor relation to written texts partly because of its even more transient nature than the written script. I wondered if that contributes to the issues of legitimacy of devised work. As a director who has made devised and text based work, I had forgotten that the divide between the two worlds is still so clearly defined. I use both strands to make work – it’s what suits me.
[A bit later in the week, I met another senior figure in literary management, and was amazed to discover he had never heard of D&D. When explained - especially with the “butcher amongst vegans” anecdote - , he thought the principle very interesting.]
A few years ago, when getting new plays on was becoming increasingly hard in the light of budget cuts, I was in a discussion about longevity with “new writers”. Did anyone think about the future or posterity of the work, or were they writing for the moment? I wanted to ask the same of devisors now. I wanted to ask makers of this kind of work if a life beyond the production matters to them? And how would they feel about other people who weren’t involved in the original production reviving their work in other manifestations later on.
In the end I think we covered these three themes
• Does having a record of the performance in something like a text-based published script add legitimacy to the work?
• Do devisors think differently about the future of their work from text-based playwrights?
• How would devisors react to other people/companies wanting to revive their work or to reviving works themselves?
The following is the best I can do from scrappy note-taking. Apologies if your comments are bowdlerised or omitted.
Q - Do written texts command more respect because they are written down?
Q - Do they justify revival?
Caryl Churchill it could be argued writes up a devising process in some of her plays but brings to it a genius for unifying the work.
I asked KM about Will Adamsdale’s work. Would he ever accord the rights to someone else to perform it, as I believe there have been revivals of by other performers of Tim Crouch’s “My Arm”? KM thought it unlikely at this point. She mentioned that agents have contacted her about onward productions of work that has been made in collaboration between a playwright and a company and each time it has to be referred back to all of the collaborators. Phelim mentioned that Improbable had been approached by a band in Hamburg to remake Shockheaded Peter without the Tiger Lilies and Improbable collaborated on that and kept their artistic link with it. I mentioned that Oily Cart have licensed one piece of their work to be made in the US but this in response to a request. Not something they have considered doing for themselves.
I asked him whether hypothetically he’d consider granting the rights to other performers to revive 70 Hill Lane. Phelim said it was his story and that would feel weird. There is such a strong emotional attachment to the process, could it be given over to other people and what would be the point?
There seemed to be a theme that much devised work was very close to the originator’s personal experience so detaching the lived experience, and the original making process from the performance might just render any revival a cardboard facsimile re-enactment thing.
Phelim (?) considered that he might go back to a subject to revisit it if there was unfinished business. Looking at that work 10 years on - might bring something new – watching other people in those roles might be interesting.
We agreed that most of the time, the people making the work were interested in its theme at this particular time of making, it was a personal or public response to the world as it is now and posterity never entered their heads. The audience is here and now. Playwrights who joined the discussion including Sarah G commented that sometimes playwrights have to think of the future because they have no guarantee the play will be put on now, even if under commission. Devisors tend to know when the show is planned for, where, when and why it will take place. Someone mentioned that Shakespeare had no sense of the future or revival. He wrote and performed and the future was another story.
The idea of documenting and notating the work like Laban notation was mentioned. There seemed to be a concensus that preserving the work like Becket’s work would not be favoured. Phelim felt that it would be important to him if revival were ever to take place that people understood the energy that inspired the show, the process that went into its making and that a revival might look, sound and feel quite different, rather than being a re-enactment of the original.
I asked whether a sense of legacy was important for future theatre-makers and academics? I think it would be great if more people could be aware of this work in the future so that when Performance is studied and this past 20 years is looked at, it isn’t just the published texts which are focused on. War Horse will be remembered and celebrated but will all the work of all those companies which lead us up to War Horse be known about? I used the example of suffragette plays mostly unpublished, frequently not very good, but important in their time and for us to remember that they happened. Someone mentioned that some companies do make source books for their shows and sell them (was it the Wooster Group) so these works are taught on university courses and in drama schools.
Q - does the British Library contact devising companies for a copy of their scripts?
We talked about archiving live performance and how we can do that better than with a fixed camera video. Capturing the specificity and rigour of the process seems to be important. Re -creation could kill the magic – is it possible to repaint a Picasso? Is devised work another genre from a written-down play, that is even more transient than a text-based play. Is part of its essence?
If the originators went back to a work later, they’d probably do it differently - playwrights often rewrite for a revival if they’re still alive (directors/dramaturgs edit texts).
Can these devised works evolve or is the continuum like the folk tradition in that each generation refinds the discoveries and deals with them in a new way, with the new production tools and other conditions available to them?
Perhaps a devised work might be revised 30 years on from its creation because the time seems apposite. A revisit might throw new light.
Phelim mentioned that Opera’s are commissioned to be created so that they can be done again (perhaps musical too). Nature of the genre.
Playwrights now hope their plays will last because it may not be picked up at the time of writing. And it can take so long for the play to be written, then workshopped,....
WHOEVER PUTS IT ON IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE.
Often with productions what we are left with is script, photos, reviews, publicity materials. The devised productions which may be celebrated may be the ones where a case book is created. In the digital age, perhaps we have the possibility of better, cheaper documenting of process and production which may put these productions into a debate about work 5, 10, 20 years on.
Wooster Group, Philip Glass were mentioned, Pina Bausch who kept revisiting her work and whose work continues after her death.
Phelim mentioned that Spirit produced by the Royal Court never got a published play text as anticipated for sale as the programme because the script wasn’t finalised. By the time it was finalised on tour, the publishers weren’t interested because without the door sales it wouldn’t have sold in sufficient numbers. There was some consideration of how it would be watching the originators perform that “play” now or whether a younger team could do it. Phelim imagined it would have to be a different way into it...however hard it is documented... the nuances in the realisation would elude verbal capture... video helps a bit, but turning it over to new people.... hard to know if it could be revived.
A playwright mentioned that revivals are less troublesome in that way because by the time the script is handed over for a first performance, there is already some emotional detachment, the play has been given over.
Who would make such a revival? -
• would it be other devisors or a director auditioning for a company?
• It could be ghastly – could be the worst sort of flattery ending up in a grotesque of the original, like bad Ayckbourn.
• It could be reproduced brilliantly if it was more in the spirit of the folk tradition because it was passed on, reinterpreted, enjoyed, passed on....
And then Kronos got in the way and it was over, but perhaps it’s not over.
Attended by: various including Kate McGrath, Phelim McDermott, Alwyn, Sarah G, and several others whose names I didn’t catch, sorry.
I called this session in response to some other sessions which I heard being called. I called it out of curiosity and with a leaning towards wanting to understand why the devised theatre-making (or the D&D) community might be considered to be “vegans”.
It seems to me that the question follows on from the “ownership” theme which came up early in the session calling, but is also linked to legitimacy of the work as it is viewed in the theatre community (linked at least in my mind to Chris Campbell’s opening remarks). Is devising work’s “poor cousin status” connected to its lack of visibility beyond the time in which it is performed? For me, some of the most exciting, important and enduring performances I have been part of and have attended since 1990, are those for which there is no conventional performance script. After the event itself, there is not much record except in the memories of the people who witnessed or made the work.
Whereas, with the ubiquity of the published text by Oberon, Methuen, Nick Herne etc I house a few undistinguished playscripts as part of the production programme. Some plays which I missed I can easily pick up on Amazon. Those plays remain on sale, they can be accessed continually. (It was pointed out to me that many more devising and multi-media performances are recorded via DVD than previously and can be found via Youtube these days - but I’d still argue you don’t see people buying them in the National or Royal Court bookshops, onsale at Waterstones etc).
It is still easier for writers than devisors to evidence their work to those who haven’t witnessed it in performance and for some of those scripts to be revived. Hybrid works like Pool No Water are credited to Mark Ravenhill and are revived by companies other than Frantic Assembly who originally made it. (I know a performer who was part of the original devising process who was asked to audition – with mixed feelings - for a revival of this show she’d already helped create and then didn’t get the gig – weird viewed from several angles.)
My experience is that devised work is often regarded as a poor relation to written texts partly because of its even more transient nature than the written script. I wondered if that contributes to the issues of legitimacy of devised work. As a director who has made devised and text based work, I had forgotten that the divide between the two worlds is still so clearly defined. I use both strands to make work – it’s what suits me.
[A bit later in the week, I met another senior figure in literary management, and was amazed to discover he had never heard of D&D. When explained - especially with the “butcher amongst vegans” anecdote - , he thought the principle very interesting.]
A few years ago, when getting new plays on was becoming increasingly hard in the light of budget cuts, I was in a discussion about longevity with “new writers”. Did anyone think about the future or posterity of the work, or were they writing for the moment? I wanted to ask the same of devisors now. I wanted to ask makers of this kind of work if a life beyond the production matters to them? And how would they feel about other people who weren’t involved in the original production reviving their work in other manifestations later on.
In the end I think we covered these three themes
• Does having a record of the performance in something like a text-based published script add legitimacy to the work?
• Do devisors think differently about the future of their work from text-based playwrights?
• How would devisors react to other people/companies wanting to revive their work or to reviving works themselves?
The following is the best I can do from scrappy note-taking. Apologies if your comments are bowdlerised or omitted.
Q - Do written texts command more respect because they are written down?
Q - Do they justify revival?
Caryl Churchill it could be argued writes up a devising process in some of her plays but brings to it a genius for unifying the work.
I asked KM about Will Adamsdale’s work. Would he ever accord the rights to someone else to perform it, as I believe there have been revivals of by other performers of Tim Crouch’s “My Arm”? KM thought it unlikely at this point. She mentioned that agents have contacted her about onward productions of work that has been made in collaboration between a playwright and a company and each time it has to be referred back to all of the collaborators. Phelim mentioned that Improbable had been approached by a band in Hamburg to remake Shockheaded Peter without the Tiger Lilies and Improbable collaborated on that and kept their artistic link with it. I mentioned that Oily Cart have licensed one piece of their work to be made in the US but this in response to a request. Not something they have considered doing for themselves.
I asked him whether hypothetically he’d consider granting the rights to other performers to revive 70 Hill Lane. Phelim said it was his story and that would feel weird. There is such a strong emotional attachment to the process, could it be given over to other people and what would be the point?
There seemed to be a theme that much devised work was very close to the originator’s personal experience so detaching the lived experience, and the original making process from the performance might just render any revival a cardboard facsimile re-enactment thing.
Phelim (?) considered that he might go back to a subject to revisit it if there was unfinished business. Looking at that work 10 years on - might bring something new – watching other people in those roles might be interesting.
We agreed that most of the time, the people making the work were interested in its theme at this particular time of making, it was a personal or public response to the world as it is now and posterity never entered their heads. The audience is here and now. Playwrights who joined the discussion including Sarah G commented that sometimes playwrights have to think of the future because they have no guarantee the play will be put on now, even if under commission. Devisors tend to know when the show is planned for, where, when and why it will take place. Someone mentioned that Shakespeare had no sense of the future or revival. He wrote and performed and the future was another story.
The idea of documenting and notating the work like Laban notation was mentioned. There seemed to be a concensus that preserving the work like Becket’s work would not be favoured. Phelim felt that it would be important to him if revival were ever to take place that people understood the energy that inspired the show, the process that went into its making and that a revival might look, sound and feel quite different, rather than being a re-enactment of the original.
I asked whether a sense of legacy was important for future theatre-makers and academics? I think it would be great if more people could be aware of this work in the future so that when Performance is studied and this past 20 years is looked at, it isn’t just the published texts which are focused on. War Horse will be remembered and celebrated but will all the work of all those companies which lead us up to War Horse be known about? I used the example of suffragette plays mostly unpublished, frequently not very good, but important in their time and for us to remember that they happened. Someone mentioned that some companies do make source books for their shows and sell them (was it the Wooster Group) so these works are taught on university courses and in drama schools.
Q - does the British Library contact devising companies for a copy of their scripts?
We talked about archiving live performance and how we can do that better than with a fixed camera video. Capturing the specificity and rigour of the process seems to be important. Re -creation could kill the magic – is it possible to repaint a Picasso? Is devised work another genre from a written-down play, that is even more transient than a text-based play. Is part of its essence?
If the originators went back to a work later, they’d probably do it differently - playwrights often rewrite for a revival if they’re still alive (directors/dramaturgs edit texts).
Can these devised works evolve or is the continuum like the folk tradition in that each generation refinds the discoveries and deals with them in a new way, with the new production tools and other conditions available to them?
Perhaps a devised work might be revised 30 years on from its creation because the time seems apposite. A revisit might throw new light.
Phelim mentioned that Opera’s are commissioned to be created so that they can be done again (perhaps musical too). Nature of the genre.
Playwrights now hope their plays will last because it may not be picked up at the time of writing. And it can take so long for the play to be written, then workshopped,....
WHOEVER PUTS IT ON IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE.
Often with productions what we are left with is script, photos, reviews, publicity materials. The devised productions which may be celebrated may be the ones where a case book is created. In the digital age, perhaps we have the possibility of better, cheaper documenting of process and production which may put these productions into a debate about work 5, 10, 20 years on.
Wooster Group, Philip Glass were mentioned, Pina Bausch who kept revisiting her work and whose work continues after her death.
Phelim mentioned that Spirit produced by the Royal Court never got a published play text as anticipated for sale as the programme because the script wasn’t finalised. By the time it was finalised on tour, the publishers weren’t interested because without the door sales it wouldn’t have sold in sufficient numbers. There was some consideration of how it would be watching the originators perform that “play” now or whether a younger team could do it. Phelim imagined it would have to be a different way into it...however hard it is documented... the nuances in the realisation would elude verbal capture... video helps a bit, but turning it over to new people.... hard to know if it could be revived.
A playwright mentioned that revivals are less troublesome in that way because by the time the script is handed over for a first performance, there is already some emotional detachment, the play has been given over.
Who would make such a revival? -
• would it be other devisors or a director auditioning for a company?
• It could be ghastly – could be the worst sort of flattery ending up in a grotesque of the original, like bad Ayckbourn.
• It could be reproduced brilliantly if it was more in the spirit of the folk tradition because it was passed on, reinterpreted, enjoyed, passed on....
And then Kronos got in the way and it was over, but perhaps it’s not over.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite: How can we tour better?
October 26th at Toynbee Studios
Hosted by Kate McGrath and Louise Blackwell, Fuel
Facilitated by Nick Sweeting
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written up for the issue, click on the listing to read the report.
Can a tour be run in an open space?
Cutting a deal- different ways- discuss
How can we be more environmentally responsible in our touring?
What are the best, most effective ways of communicating with bookers/venues?
Is there a better way to fund touring? What should we be telling ACE?
How can we market better for tours?
Its too expensive
How do we break the tyranny of the end-on space?
How best to start new relationships with venues?
Relationships- why slightly disappointing?
The FIRST tour
How can touring companies work better together?
To what extent are tours effective in developing new audiences?
How should we co-ordinate a press campaign?
Doing it alone
Quality, not quantity?
What do we do about Opera and Music Theatre?
Hosted by Kate McGrath and Louise Blackwell, Fuel
Facilitated by Nick Sweeting
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written up for the issue, click on the listing to read the report.
Can a tour be run in an open space?
Cutting a deal- different ways- discuss
How can we be more environmentally responsible in our touring?
What are the best, most effective ways of communicating with bookers/venues?
Is there a better way to fund touring? What should we be telling ACE?
How can we market better for tours?
Its too expensive
How do we break the tyranny of the end-on space?
How best to start new relationships with venues?
Relationships- why slightly disappointing?
The FIRST tour
How can touring companies work better together?
To what extent are tours effective in developing new audiences?
How should we co-ordinate a press campaign?
Doing it alone
Quality, not quantity?
What do we do about Opera and Music Theatre?
Can a tour be run in an open structure?
Background to my issue to the event wednesday 26th Oct 2011. City, crowdy busy city, competitive, being on time, reaching to the top floor, Artsadmin, being early or being late. Whenever starts it's the right time. Improbable, Fuel
Hello!?
Waiting time, waiting room, singing a song in my head to clam me down.
How to tour better?
1 23456789101234567891012345678910123456789101234567891012
12345678941012345678910
1
2
12345678910123456789101234567891012345678910
1
2
12
1234567891012345678910123456789101 2 3 4 5 6
1234567891012345678910123456789101234567891012345678910
1
1
1
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12345678910
12345678910
1
12345678910
1
12345678910
12345678910
12345678910
1
1
1
2
My question to the group: Can a tour be run in an open structure?
Touring is very boring sometimes, it seems to me it is just showing your show or building your audience. Dry! Things are already complete, works/productions are very well-prepared/made/constructed/set out, too perfect, lack of real and life. Not good enough, audience's demand are high, especially the audience who are in the arts industries. Possibility: How to tour better is to run a tour in an open structure.
What I mean by an open structure, it's where the work is incomplete. Work is continuously changing, yes, durational, and we don't know what to expect, what it is going to happen. Both artists and the audience do not know what the event is going to be. Touring theatre doesn't make sense to me at all, touring theatre doesn't apply to what I want to tour. My question will be better if I put it as: how can you tour a show/work in which nobody know what it's going to become?
If I do a tour or organise a tour, I would like audience not to know what it is going to happen.
Always being an outsider of everything, by chance meeting an outsider (Cathy) from Canada, we had a great conversation about many things that are happening and not happening in the arts, UK and Canada, - dance, theatre, performance arts, performing arts/live art, or the unknown territory, durational arts, "no plan" for a tour, tour with friends/ the local communities - whoever comes are the right people, an open structure.
I am very interested in hearing more about Improbable's tour of open space in 2012.
Li E Chen
Hello!?
Waiting time, waiting room, singing a song in my head to clam me down.
How to tour better?
1 23456789101234567891012345678910123456789101234567891012
12345678941012345678910
1
2
12345678910123456789101234567891012345678910
1
2
12
1234567891012345678910123456789101 2 3 4 5 6
1234567891012345678910123456789101234567891012345678910
1
1
1
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12345678910
12345678910
1
12345678910
1
12345678910
12345678910
12345678910
1
1
1
2
My question to the group: Can a tour be run in an open structure?
Touring is very boring sometimes, it seems to me it is just showing your show or building your audience. Dry! Things are already complete, works/productions are very well-prepared/made/constructed/set out, too perfect, lack of real and life. Not good enough, audience's demand are high, especially the audience who are in the arts industries. Possibility: How to tour better is to run a tour in an open structure.
What I mean by an open structure, it's where the work is incomplete. Work is continuously changing, yes, durational, and we don't know what to expect, what it is going to happen. Both artists and the audience do not know what the event is going to be. Touring theatre doesn't make sense to me at all, touring theatre doesn't apply to what I want to tour. My question will be better if I put it as: how can you tour a show/work in which nobody know what it's going to become?
If I do a tour or organise a tour, I would like audience not to know what it is going to happen.
Always being an outsider of everything, by chance meeting an outsider (Cathy) from Canada, we had a great conversation about many things that are happening and not happening in the arts, UK and Canada, - dance, theatre, performance arts, performing arts/live art, or the unknown territory, durational arts, "no plan" for a tour, tour with friends/ the local communities - whoever comes are the right people, an open structure.
I am very interested in hearing more about Improbable's tour of open space in 2012.
Li E Chen
Monday, 26 September 2011
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite: What are we going to do about Impro?
September 15th at Battersea Arts Centre
Hosted by Improbable
Facilitated by Lee Simpson
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written up for the issue, click on the listing to read the report.
There are lots of women in the room- why are there still so few on the stage?
The action of 'nothing' & not knowing. Preparation has reached _____________ _____________.
This is the most spontaneous thing I've done this year- is it improvisation?
Improv ⇔ Funny. From the audience's point of view
Should short-form comedy/gag-based improv be treated separately ti longer-form, story-telling based improv.
How can we make impro better theatre?
Lets play your favorite impro game
My story Your story
My group seems to have left our audience in Edinburgh. Where/how do we find them? (in London)
Making theatre through improvising- am I just being too lazy to write?
Is Impro not mainstream because of the audience or the impro
What is threatening about abandoning structure
It's not often this many people who care about improvisation are together.
What's the one thing we would like to make sure happens and commit to is?
Improv + finance - how do we make money from improv?
Non-theatrical applications of improv
Who wants to start and impro school in London
Who wants to play the Life Game with Phelim Mcdermott?
How can I make you look good?
For many impro = comedy. Why? How do we feel about this? Do we do anything about this? If so what?
Handcuffs or Blindfolds?
Is our acting good enough? If not, why?
Impro/v: The North/South divide (AKA come and take part in the Manchester Improv tournament this October)
Hosted by Improbable
Facilitated by Lee Simpson
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written up for the issue, click on the listing to read the report.
There are lots of women in the room- why are there still so few on the stage?
The action of 'nothing' & not knowing. Preparation has reached _____________ _____________.
This is the most spontaneous thing I've done this year- is it improvisation?
Improv ⇔ Funny. From the audience's point of view
Should short-form comedy/gag-based improv be treated separately ti longer-form, story-telling based improv.
How can we make impro better theatre?
Lets play your favorite impro game
My story Your story
My group seems to have left our audience in Edinburgh. Where/how do we find them? (in London)
Making theatre through improvising- am I just being too lazy to write?
Is Impro not mainstream because of the audience or the impro
What is threatening about abandoning structure
It's not often this many people who care about improvisation are together.
What's the one thing we would like to make sure happens and commit to is?
Improv + finance - how do we make money from improv?
Non-theatrical applications of improv
Who wants to start and impro school in London
Who wants to play the Life Game with Phelim Mcdermott?
How can I make you look good?
For many impro = comedy. Why? How do we feel about this? Do we do anything about this? If so what?
Handcuffs or Blindfolds?
Is our acting good enough? If not, why?
Impro/v: The North/South divide (AKA come and take part in the Manchester Improv tournament this October)
The action of ‘nothing’ (not knowing) Preparation has reached: _____, __________.
Spoken form of the session:
The action of ‘nothing’ and not knowing.
(Hands covering ears, head looking down) Preparation has reached: 41, I am your anti-matter.
Written form of the session:
The action of ‘nothing’ (not knowing)
Preparation has reached: _____, __________.
Convenor:
Li E Chen (Full report with images: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
People who attend the session:
Paul
Un-edited Notes:
No action, there is no action.
But it is an act with structure. A structure: a structure of not knowing.
“A structure of 3 on nothing”
Are you waiting for an idea to come along? Don’t wait, it will be too late.
Just keep doing, keep doing, not stopping, don’t worry, don’t even have time to worry, don’t even have time to think. Nothing makes senses. Doesn’t make senses at all.
John Cage’s 4”33 – “Nothing” is structured in the action of (Nothing). Silent performance/music. Player – Not Knowing -?
Just did it.
Just do it.
(no time to worry about it, no time to feel scared, no time to think.)
Actions to take:
1. Seeing a white crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the floor.
2. Drawing the shadow of the crumble ball on the paper.
3. Taking the piece of paper and crumble ball home.
Actions after the session:
4. Recorded the crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the bus. (Link: http://vimeo.com/29526332)
5. Revisited John Cage’s exhibition “Everyday is a good day”, 18 September 2011, at the Hayward Gallery (Link: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
Discussion/un-edited notes of someone else’s session “What is threatening about abandoning structure?”
- Abandoning: Give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking)
- Formal structure
- Emerging structure
- Short forms (Bored with the same structure, doing the same structure again and again.)
- (Complication dynamic)
- Structure – good dangerous – dangerous
- Structure=formal (less interesting)
- Structure comes without knowing
- Expectation – Going to be so shit (can also be so brilliant)
- No structure at all?
- Drama schools/educations system & learning
- Impro: How do you solve the problem? But it is more than that?
- Fuctional result, education system.
- Bored/Bored with your own structure.
- Some creative people do not like structure or learning improvisation through structure.
- Your ego is always need to completely ‘let go’ and ‘free’ (completely not worry about it.)
- We are creature of structure with no structure at all and allow structure to emerge.
- Just keep doing it and doing good work, not to worry whether audience like it or not, etc.
- Ref: Keith (Being afraid of the structure; Killing the structure.)
- Other way: you know everything happening, but actually nothing really happen.
- A structure becomes a story that you tell.
- How do you ask your whole self? = (Body)
- Not being worried about things going wrong, not being worried about audience not like it.
- John Cage “Structure without life is dead. But Life without structure is un-seen”
- Noticing yourself your ego. Just noticing your ego is there.
- “Structure without life is dead. But life without structure is un-seen.” John Cage
The action of ‘nothing’ and not knowing.
(Hands covering ears, head looking down) Preparation has reached: 41, I am your anti-matter.
Written form of the session:
The action of ‘nothing’ (not knowing)
Preparation has reached: _____, __________.
Convenor:
Li E Chen (Full report with images: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
People who attend the session:
Paul
Un-edited Notes:
No action, there is no action.
But it is an act with structure. A structure: a structure of not knowing.
“A structure of 3 on nothing”
Are you waiting for an idea to come along? Don’t wait, it will be too late.
Just keep doing, keep doing, not stopping, don’t worry, don’t even have time to worry, don’t even have time to think. Nothing makes senses. Doesn’t make senses at all.
John Cage’s 4”33 – “Nothing” is structured in the action of (Nothing). Silent performance/music. Player – Not Knowing -?
Just did it.
Just do it.
(no time to worry about it, no time to feel scared, no time to think.)
Actions to take:
1. Seeing a white crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the floor.
2. Drawing the shadow of the crumble ball on the paper.
3. Taking the piece of paper and crumble ball home.
Actions after the session:
4. Recorded the crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the bus. (Link: http://vimeo.com/29526332)
5. Revisited John Cage’s exhibition “Everyday is a good day”, 18 September 2011, at the Hayward Gallery (Link: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
Discussion/un-edited notes of someone else’s session “What is threatening about abandoning structure?”
- Abandoning: Give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking)
- Formal structure
- Emerging structure
- Short forms (Bored with the same structure, doing the same structure again and again.)
- (Complication dynamic)
- Structure – good dangerous – dangerous
- Structure=formal (less interesting)
- Structure comes without knowing
- Expectation – Going to be so shit (can also be so brilliant)
- No structure at all?
- Drama schools/educations system & learning
- Impro: How do you solve the problem? But it is more than that?
- Fuctional result, education system.
- Bored/Bored with your own structure.
- Some creative people do not like structure or learning improvisation through structure.
- Your ego is always need to completely ‘let go’ and ‘free’ (completely not worry about it.)
- We are creature of structure with no structure at all and allow structure to emerge.
- Just keep doing it and doing good work, not to worry whether audience like it or not, etc.
- Ref: Keith (Being afraid of the structure; Killing the structure.)
- Other way: you know everything happening, but actually nothing really happen.
- A structure becomes a story that you tell.
- How do you ask your whole self? = (Body)
- Not being worried about things going wrong, not being worried about audience not like it.
- John Cage “Structure without life is dead. But Life without structure is un-seen”
- Noticing yourself your ego. Just noticing your ego is there.
- “Structure without life is dead. But life without structure is un-seen.” John Cage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)