Issue 3: Why and what for?

Convener: Sarah-Jane Rawlings

Participants: Michael Vale, Paul Hunter, Jenny Byrne, Phelim McDermott, Fay Munns, Hazel Coomber, Chris, Felix, Phil Gunderson, Lucia


Summary of discussion:

I think an interesting thing happened in this discussion – it started off being a serious why and what for? A real need that everyone expressed that TBAI needed to be clear what they were aiming for. Which left Paul desperately trying to come up with an answer, trying to come up with reasons for doing it – reasons that it felt he was being expected to give and with the rest of the group trying to help him out. But there were silences and nothing resonant was really said and it felt a little frustrating. ‘If this question can’t be answered – what are we doing here?’ kind of feeling was permeating the group – a slight sense of despair. There is already a demand for the TBAI one off workshop – if that’s what this is about – then what are we here for? But then it started to bend and shake and metamorphosised into something different altogether. The awkwardness suddenly gave way to true feeling and people started to talk about what it really should be – separate to trying to meet agendas or teach skills. Or TBAI trying to fit into a box that they think they should. It was probably kickstarted by Michael saying what is a participation programme – what does participation / education mean? We are not educationalists – we are theatre makers. Paul completely agrees with Michael and feels it is important it is not about teaching which is why they chose not to use the word education in the question.


Why?

Paul: ‘we want people to participate in the work of the company’ is one thing Paul said in answer to the probing. But what does this mean? “it’s something that should run through everything we do.” Is this getting to the why?

- Is it about getting younger people to know more about TBAI?
- Is it about building audiences?
- Is it about facilitating change?
- Is it about engaging with a wider audience?
- Is it about extending the way we engage with audiences?
- Is it about liberating / building confidence?
- Is it about provoking a group to celebrate live theatre?
- Is it about sharing a distinctiveness?
- Is it only relevant to theatre studies students?

Are there particular groups who would be interested in this programme? Does it matter? Does it matter suddenly seemed the crux of it all.

Or is it about fluidity – maybe there is no right answer – maybe it changes in each different moment and in every different situation.

Like our work can it work for a very diverse group of participants? In terms of age – a 5 year old, a 37 year old, an 81 year old, in terms of culture, ethnicity, experience etc etc Suddenly people got excited, thinking about working with a group that wasn’t the Btec students, or the year 7s from the Harringay school all who would come with a certain amount of expectation and boxes to be ticked.

Is this possible? Forget the three hour workshop attached to the show. Could it be like a flash mob – something so much more spontaneous – where would you find this random group of people – a festival, a train station etc if you went into a such a location where the participants were already there – you would remove the expectation that this was an introduction to a style of theatre, or had some worthy intention – it would just be an opportunity to work alongside a very diverse group of people.

If it is genuinely about people participating in the work of the company – then how can you bring them in – is it a week in rehearsals where they work with you. Is it a post show discussion that becomes more active?

There are models: it is production specific? Is it something more long term and sustainable? How about legacy? Is it about skills based learning?

It’s not about skill – it’s about playing. It’s about anarchy. Its about live theatre. It’s about an ensemble of performers. It’s about having fun and passing it on. We want audiences to be genuinely part of the fun and not just watching it. We can’t ever promise to teach anything.

This seemed to be the crux of it all – in that what seems to happen is that the two different worlds (which shouldn’t be different), the world of making the work and then working with people about and around the work get separated. How can we make it more porous? Surely the point of all of this, is about making the work more meaningful. It should inform our work. We are bored by post show chats and talking about our work. That doesn’t interest us. We do it because it fits into others structures / agendas. Buildings have their own conscious / unconscious agendas which we have to fit into and we bend and squash ourselves into those shapes. Somehow it must be about leap frogging this and letting the school, building have its agenda and we boldly have ours and then see if we can work together.

Jenny B (Barbican) felt this would work much better. There is an honesty to the approach. The barbican can take this and match it with their own sustainable pathway. Is having fun enough? is enough. Happenings and interventions outside of traditional learning channels are relished – something different and provocative and unexpected is happening. All results are intangible but these no less or more so than a more prescribed approach.

Suddenly the group seemed free of having to fit in to the box and the answer to why was ‘to have fun’ and to be ‘comfortable with chaos and mistakes’, ‘for everyone to be creative’. Surely the benefit of something like this could be huge – the experience can be taken and used in lots of different way. Being not specific is good. Fun unleashes potential and keeps the spirit going and enables you to be in touch with who you are. It creates a sense of possibility.

We are entering difficult times and do we not have to make an argument for pursuing this participatory work that is more than just having fun??

There is a key difference that needs to be boldly stood up to between training performers and providing an opportunity to be creative. And TBAI (as I understand it from this discussion) are not interested in training performers – they don’t feel they have anything to teach - they are much more excited to be facilitating creativity.

What ever it is, it needs to have a name that reflects this, set the tone, lowers the expectation! Does Taught by an Idiot do it? Probably does because the word taught is suitably subverted.

Is there an equivalent on line? An on line idiot share – You Tube. How to access fun on line.


So the discussion went far from where it started and everybody seemed to be excited about managing to struggle out of the barriers and strangleholds that questions like these often create. Whatever this programme turns out to be - it needs to be true to the TBAI spirit. It needs to be about having fun and maybe that is enough.