Firstly I would like to extend my deepest apologies for having disappeared for so long.
I won't bore you with the details but will simply say that I have had my heart torn out, taught myself to play guitar, been to Paris, found my heart again, been for a great time in Cornwall, had my heart torn out again, possibly more brutally than she tore it out the first time, learned that my brother has terminal cancer and found my heart again with a wonderful Spanish girl.
So many times I've heard it said that you should not allow your emotions to get in the way of your business life. BUT I think everyone knows that it's not really possible to keep them separate without making yourself a completely lifeless and emotionless drone that lacks any form of humanity.
Since I've been away, my group has done 2 more shows. One for motivation.org who are a charity that raise money to aid people with mobility problems in 3rd world countries. This was successful event that managed to raise a very good amount money for the charity. It took place at the Roman Baths in Bath and was a very enjoyable evening for all. The second show took place at The Old Green Tree pub on Green Street in Bath. This pub won city center pub of the year this year and is also my favorite pub in the entire world. The event itself was a Dickensian Evening where the actors all took on characters from Dickens's stories and performed extracts from the books. The evening went very well and was much enjoyed. We have another planned for January 2009 or February, which will be a Pirate Evening.
I hope you are all doing well and will be visiting my blog again soon.
Saturday, 27 December 2008
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Holiday in SA
I’m back from my holiday and trying to get back up to working speed. Unfortunately, after just one week in England and back at work and I’ve decided I need another holiday. So I’m heading off to go snowboarding in the Alps mid March time.
South Africa, was one of the best holidays of my life, but definitely also the most stressful. South Africa is on a steep slope and picking up speed, with no brakes. It’s a sad thing to see a country with so much potential being destroyed.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
Art Versus The Audience
One of my old mentors told me that you should never be self-indulgent when you perform and that the tension and emotion that you perform should be about sharing with the audience.
This is all well and good.
But what if the audience doesn’t want what you are trying to share with them?
Over the passed decade, I’ve performed in quite a few shows in both the southern and northern hemispheres of the globe. In my last post, Art Versus Business Part 2, I came to a rather horrifying and shocking realization…
The first show that I’ve directed and created, was a 15min version of A Christmas Carol, which was performed by my group, Not Quite Black and White and was performed a number of times on the street for a very cold audience. In producing this, we had to take the audience into consideration at every step. We had to think about the acoustics of the area we were performing in or else the audience wouldn’t hear us, we had to think about the time that we were performing for, because it was winter and though every one was wrapped up warm, nobody was going to stand there for a period longer than 15min. Baring this in mind, we had to chop the script down to a point where it only lasted 15min, but still contained all the required information that the audience needed to hear, while being funny and not veering off from the actual storyline. I’m proud to say that we achieved all of our goals and the audience received the show very well and paid what they felt it was worth, which more than covered all of our expenses.
However when I think back to almost every show I’ve ever been in and not been in control of the show, I can’t think of a single time where the audience has genuinely been taken into consideration in the way I now feel it should have been.
I mean this with no disrespect to anyone I’ve ever worked with, because I’ve always enjoyed the work I’ve done.
But, since it’s the audience who are paying for the show, surely they should be put quite near the front of the line whenever a decision is made? So often, I hear about doing justice to the writer or the script, but what about doing justice for the audience?
Of course, sometimes the audience doesn’t know what they want and we do need to perform not just within our means, but also in a way that does not contradict our own beliefs or theatrical practices. Then again, in my experience, most theatre tries to challenge the boundaries in any case.
I’m reminded of Peter Brook’s book The Empty Space, wherein he states with reference to what he calls Deadly Theatre:
One of the gratify things about the show my crew and I have just done is that the audience paid what they thought it was worth. Again this relates back to the last post.
It’s one thing to say that you shouldn’t perform only for your own enjoyment, but then again, it’s the audiences’ money that is paying for the show, so it’s them that should be taken into consideration.
From now on, I’m going find out exactly what the audience wants from a show and I’m going to try and give them that, plus a little something else. Je ne sais quoi?
I’ll let you know what I find out.
This is all well and good.
But what if the audience doesn’t want what you are trying to share with them?
Over the passed decade, I’ve performed in quite a few shows in both the southern and northern hemispheres of the globe. In my last post, Art Versus Business Part 2, I came to a rather horrifying and shocking realization…
The first show that I’ve directed and created, was a 15min version of A Christmas Carol, which was performed by my group, Not Quite Black and White and was performed a number of times on the street for a very cold audience. In producing this, we had to take the audience into consideration at every step. We had to think about the acoustics of the area we were performing in or else the audience wouldn’t hear us, we had to think about the time that we were performing for, because it was winter and though every one was wrapped up warm, nobody was going to stand there for a period longer than 15min. Baring this in mind, we had to chop the script down to a point where it only lasted 15min, but still contained all the required information that the audience needed to hear, while being funny and not veering off from the actual storyline. I’m proud to say that we achieved all of our goals and the audience received the show very well and paid what they felt it was worth, which more than covered all of our expenses.
However when I think back to almost every show I’ve ever been in and not been in control of the show, I can’t think of a single time where the audience has genuinely been taken into consideration in the way I now feel it should have been.
I mean this with no disrespect to anyone I’ve ever worked with, because I’ve always enjoyed the work I’ve done.
But, since it’s the audience who are paying for the show, surely they should be put quite near the front of the line whenever a decision is made? So often, I hear about doing justice to the writer or the script, but what about doing justice for the audience?
Of course, sometimes the audience doesn’t know what they want and we do need to perform not just within our means, but also in a way that does not contradict our own beliefs or theatrical practices. Then again, in my experience, most theatre tries to challenge the boundaries in any case.
I’m reminded of Peter Brook’s book The Empty Space, wherein he states with reference to what he calls Deadly Theatre:
“Anyone who watches the real successes as they appear each year will see a very curious phenomenon. We expect the so-called hit to be livelier, faster, brighter than the flop – but this is not always the case. Almost every season in most theatre-loving towns, there is one great success that defies these rules; one play that succeeds not despite but because of the dullness. After all, one associates culture with a certain sense of duty, historical costumes and long speeches with the sensation of being bored; so, conversely, just the right degree of boringness is a reassuring guarantee of a worthwhile event.”
“Audiences crave for something in the theatre that they can term ‘better’ than life and for this reason are open to confuse culture, or the trappings of culture, with something they do not know, but sense obscurely could exist – so, tragically, in elevating something bad into a success they are only cheating themselves.”
One of the gratify things about the show my crew and I have just done is that the audience paid what they thought it was worth. Again this relates back to the last post.
It’s one thing to say that you shouldn’t perform only for your own enjoyment, but then again, it’s the audiences’ money that is paying for the show, so it’s them that should be taken into consideration.
From now on, I’m going find out exactly what the audience wants from a show and I’m going to try and give them that, plus a little something else. Je ne sais quoi?
I’ll let you know what I find out.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Art Versus Business Part 2
The Singing Librarian (Really worth taking a look at SL’s blog) got me thinking about this. On the previous post Art Versus Business, SL commented on how we should seek to find a good balance between the two, pointing out that Reality TV showed the commercial money-grabbing end of the scale and on the other side, we have the art for art’s sake crowd.
My mind was drawn to ask the question of how to achieve a balance between the two. My answer came in the form of Radiohead, who have given their fans and the customer the chance to rate the music and decide how much they want to pay. Unfortunately, Radiohead has the money already, with which to make such a gamble as this and other small performance groups definitely don’t.
The idea is brilliant though. Certainly, a large percentage of customers were going to take the option of getting the album for free however it also will have boosted sales, because far more people will have got the album, meaning that the album goes platinum far quicker.
On top of that and of far greater value is the information that the band will have gained from the venture. They will have received a true idea of how much their music is valued at, rather than it being valued by the music industry and put on the shelf at a market specific mark-up.
Theatre seating prices are often chosen wither by a set price for the theatre you are performing in or in a way that will hopefully cover all costs.
Imagine what would happen if the theatre-goers paid what they felt the show is worth or maybe better yet, what if they paid after the show and chose how much they felt the show was worth.
I for one have on many occasions wished that I had never paid the price of admission to some shows, which were marketed as being the best thing since William and turned out to be absolute garbage.
I all areas of business, the customer is the one receiving the goods and whether you are trying to cover your costs or make a huge profit or just performing art for arts sake, it is the customer that is putting their time and money on the line. So possibly if we want to achieve the correct balance between art and business we need to look at what the audience wants.
I’ve just had a brainwave. Please come back and read the next post on Art versus The Audience.
My mind was drawn to ask the question of how to achieve a balance between the two. My answer came in the form of Radiohead, who have given their fans and the customer the chance to rate the music and decide how much they want to pay. Unfortunately, Radiohead has the money already, with which to make such a gamble as this and other small performance groups definitely don’t.
The idea is brilliant though. Certainly, a large percentage of customers were going to take the option of getting the album for free however it also will have boosted sales, because far more people will have got the album, meaning that the album goes platinum far quicker.
On top of that and of far greater value is the information that the band will have gained from the venture. They will have received a true idea of how much their music is valued at, rather than it being valued by the music industry and put on the shelf at a market specific mark-up.
Theatre seating prices are often chosen wither by a set price for the theatre you are performing in or in a way that will hopefully cover all costs.
Imagine what would happen if the theatre-goers paid what they felt the show is worth or maybe better yet, what if they paid after the show and chose how much they felt the show was worth.
I for one have on many occasions wished that I had never paid the price of admission to some shows, which were marketed as being the best thing since William and turned out to be absolute garbage.
I all areas of business, the customer is the one receiving the goods and whether you are trying to cover your costs or make a huge profit or just performing art for arts sake, it is the customer that is putting their time and money on the line. So possibly if we want to achieve the correct balance between art and business we need to look at what the audience wants.
I’ve just had a brainwave. Please come back and read the next post on Art versus The Audience.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
We need a Saint!
Around 300 AD it is said there was a man named Genesius who was part of a group of actors who performed in Rome. One day he decided to perform a comedic piece about Christianity for Emperor Deocletian. While on stage, he changed his mind about Christianity and started to tell the audience to convert to Christianity. Deocletian was so enraged by this that he ordered Genesius to be dragged off stage, tortured and beheaded.
It is since then that Genesius has become the Patron St of performers.
What we need is a Patron or two to help us out of this theatrical crisis. Finding patrons is a difficult business, but without doubt, it is a definite path to consider in our attempt to find a way out of the hole that the ACE’s funding cuts have placed us in.
Speaking at the NT’s season launch yesterday, Hytner said that ACE should be “encouraged to act boldly”, but branded its recent funding proposals as “bollocks”, and its spending review a “strategic catastrophe”.
Without doubt, the Arts Council’s decisions have been poorly timed and lacked forward thinking. So we should get rid of them and start afresh with a new look and in a new direction.
It is since then that Genesius has become the Patron St of performers.
What we need is a Patron or two to help us out of this theatrical crisis. Finding patrons is a difficult business, but without doubt, it is a definite path to consider in our attempt to find a way out of the hole that the ACE’s funding cuts have placed us in.
Speaking at the NT’s season launch yesterday, Hytner said that ACE should be “encouraged to act boldly”, but branded its recent funding proposals as “bollocks”, and its spending review a “strategic catastrophe”.
Without doubt, the Arts Council’s decisions have been poorly timed and lacked forward thinking. So we should get rid of them and start afresh with a new look and in a new direction.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
Art Versus Business
One of the oldest wars that has wage throughout history has been the battle of The Arts against Business and Governments. The earliest Greek theatre had Aristophanes making fun of the bureaucrats. Since then, we’ve seen theatre being outlawed by the Church or whichever ruling parties were involved, only to see it come back and poke fun at the Powers-That-Be with ever increasing gusto.
200 Years from now (If we haven’t destroyed the Earth) what will we see when we look back on the arts of today?
My guess is that we’ll see a rather embarrassing and gaping hole in our culture. There will be a collection of odd pieces of art that took less effort to create than breathing, along with a collage of pointless and uninspiring reality game shows that suck the life out all that watch them.
Aristophanes was able to change the world with his plays. Why is it that we are so stumped as to how to change the world today in the same way? My guess is that instead of the government banning theatre like they did 500 odd years ago, they’ve sneakily taken control of it or at the least it seems that they have cast performers into a prolonged state of depression where we are permanently dependent on handouts.
If a small company of actors wishes to perform a piece, but lacks the funds, they have to apply to the Arts Council for funding and if the Arts Council deems the piece to lack the requirements that they feel are necessary, it denies the performers the money with which to produce their show.
Aside from the controlling factor that the Government now has on the arts, there is another subtler yet highly devastating side effect, which stops us from changing the way things are. Because we are given funding, we have started to believe that this is the only way for us to get the money with which to perform.
Here we uncover the most self-destructive element of the performer, his passion
Because we love our profession, we are happy to devote ourselves to it without thinking about the drawbacks, financial or otherwise. This passion, coupled with the governments handouts, have rendered performers in a state where they believe the arts is a poor profession and therefore they have to be dependent on the government instead of being independent and making a stand against them.
Business over the years has become and art form. Any HR consultant will tell you that there is an art to good business.
There are plenty of performers out there that will insist that the arts should never be about business and it should all be free. However, for the most part, this is a capitalist society and attitudes like that will only ensure that the art that we wish to do for arts’ sake will never been seen.
The sooner artists and performers wake up and realize that though we have a great passion for what we do, it is still our profession and should be treated as a business rather than a statement, the better.
The arts council’s decision to cut the funding of nearly 200 organizations, while damaging, is a step that could hopefully place us on a path to a better and more culturally, financially and emotionally profitable future.
Isn’t it time that we took a leaf out of big industry’s book and started to apply a little bit of business to art?
200 Years from now (If we haven’t destroyed the Earth) what will we see when we look back on the arts of today?
My guess is that we’ll see a rather embarrassing and gaping hole in our culture. There will be a collection of odd pieces of art that took less effort to create than breathing, along with a collage of pointless and uninspiring reality game shows that suck the life out all that watch them.
If a small company of actors wishes to perform a piece, but lacks the funds, they have to apply to the Arts Council for funding and if the Arts Council deems the piece to lack the requirements that they feel are necessary, it denies the performers the money with which to produce their show.
Aside from the controlling factor that the Government now has on the arts, there is another subtler yet highly devastating side effect, which stops us from changing the way things are. Because we are given funding, we have started to believe that this is the only way for us to get the money with which to perform.
Here we uncover the most self-destructive element of the performer, his passion
Because we love our profession, we are happy to devote ourselves to it without thinking about the drawbacks, financial or otherwise. This passion, coupled with the governments handouts, have rendered performers in a state where they believe the arts is a poor profession and therefore they have to be dependent on the government instead of being independent and making a stand against them.
Business over the years has become and art form. Any HR consultant will tell you that there is an art to good business.
There are plenty of performers out there that will insist that the arts should never be about business and it should all be free. However, for the most part, this is a capitalist society and attitudes like that will only ensure that the art that we wish to do for arts’ sake will never been seen.
The sooner artists and performers wake up and realize that though we have a great passion for what we do, it is still our profession and should be treated as a business rather than a statement, the better.
The arts council’s decision to cut the funding of nearly 200 organizations, while damaging, is a step that could hopefully place us on a path to a better and more culturally, financially and emotionally profitable future.
Isn’t it time that we took a leaf out of big industry’s book and started to apply a little bit of business to art?
Friday, 11 January 2008
The Turning Point of Theatre
I’ve been lying very low over the last couple of months, however I have been drawn out of hiding to comment on the recent arts fiasco involving cutting grants from the Arts Council.
Have we entered the days of the Dark Arts as opposed to the Dark Ages?
A meeting was held recently to discuss the Arts Council of England’s decision to cut funding for nearly 200 organizations. The meeting was attended by around 1000 people and included some of the top actors in the country. Peter Hewitt, the chief executive of the Arts Council was given a severe roasting by all in attendance. One of the biggest requests put to him was to name the people responsible for cutting the funds. This he refused to comment on, but I’d guess that if the money were followed, it would probably be found invested in the Olympics.
My question however is not whether it is fair that the funds were cut or not, it is about the state of the arts at the moment.
I’ve been reading The Empty Space by Peter Brook. It was first published 40 years ago and I’m planning on writing a number of posts that will compare theatre then as explained by him, with theatre today. I’ve already drawn some very strong parallels.
4 decades previously, Peter Brook spoke about how theatre was dying and if we were truly asked as performers to give one of the spell binding performances the audience actually say they want to see, then we’d be hard put to know where to start. The introduction of TV and the Internet has seen a massive chokehold being placed around theatres neck.
Should we have done something then to counter the threat we were being put under? Have we been complacent?
Is there any other profession in the world that relies so heavily on government funding and is it time that we changed this attitude? Let’s face facts. As performers, we probably get more job satisfaction that anyone else in the world. Do we therefore have the right to complain when we are forced to adapt to economic changes?
If more people want to be actors, then it isn’t the government’s responsibility to make them actors; it’s the individual’s responsibility to become an actor. Yes, there isn’t much money in theatre, but that doesn’t mean that we should rely on handouts, it means that we should be adapting to find ways of making more money from our own hard graft.
This should be treated as the turning point for theatre. At this meeting, the arts council was described as being no longer able to fulfill its purpose. Interestingly enough, the creation of the Arts Council co-insides very well with the time at which Peter Brook was giving his speeches on the state of theatre.
If the Arts Council is unfit to hold office, then they should not be tolerated and artists and performers should look to other methods of making money. Necessity is said to be the mother of invention and the withdrawal of funds, I believe could turn out to be a positive step in the right direction.
At this meeting, Kevin Spacey declared “This is absolutely shocking. The Arts Council is going to have a revolution on their hands if they do not stop this train wreck”
Interestingly enough, I think that that is exactly what we need. It's a horrible thing to contemplate, but if we truly believe in theatre and producing quality shows, then we need to start filtering the good from the bad. This decision by the arts council is the first act.
What we must fear is that the quality shows are not going to be able to stay afloat, while the corporate money spinners finance the production of the same mindless reality-game shows that are clogging up our cultural existence.
Will anyone actors make a stand in support of the Arts Councils decision or will we continue to shelter in the belief that our profession is nothing more than cultural entertainment and therefore requires government support? This thinking is what keeps performance under corporate and government thumb. Until we make a stand and realize that we control theatre, not the council, then we will always be at the mercy of the powers that be. The only way to do this is to turn our backs on the council and embrace a new future in independently funded theatre.
Have we entered the days of the Dark Arts as opposed to the Dark Ages?
A meeting was held recently to discuss the Arts Council of England’s decision to cut funding for nearly 200 organizations. The meeting was attended by around 1000 people and included some of the top actors in the country. Peter Hewitt, the chief executive of the Arts Council was given a severe roasting by all in attendance. One of the biggest requests put to him was to name the people responsible for cutting the funds. This he refused to comment on, but I’d guess that if the money were followed, it would probably be found invested in the Olympics.
My question however is not whether it is fair that the funds were cut or not, it is about the state of the arts at the moment.
I’ve been reading The Empty Space by Peter Brook. It was first published 40 years ago and I’m planning on writing a number of posts that will compare theatre then as explained by him, with theatre today. I’ve already drawn some very strong parallels.
4 decades previously, Peter Brook spoke about how theatre was dying and if we were truly asked as performers to give one of the spell binding performances the audience actually say they want to see, then we’d be hard put to know where to start. The introduction of TV and the Internet has seen a massive chokehold being placed around theatres neck.
Should we have done something then to counter the threat we were being put under? Have we been complacent?
Is there any other profession in the world that relies so heavily on government funding and is it time that we changed this attitude? Let’s face facts. As performers, we probably get more job satisfaction that anyone else in the world. Do we therefore have the right to complain when we are forced to adapt to economic changes?
If more people want to be actors, then it isn’t the government’s responsibility to make them actors; it’s the individual’s responsibility to become an actor. Yes, there isn’t much money in theatre, but that doesn’t mean that we should rely on handouts, it means that we should be adapting to find ways of making more money from our own hard graft.
This should be treated as the turning point for theatre. At this meeting, the arts council was described as being no longer able to fulfill its purpose. Interestingly enough, the creation of the Arts Council co-insides very well with the time at which Peter Brook was giving his speeches on the state of theatre.
If the Arts Council is unfit to hold office, then they should not be tolerated and artists and performers should look to other methods of making money. Necessity is said to be the mother of invention and the withdrawal of funds, I believe could turn out to be a positive step in the right direction.
At this meeting, Kevin Spacey declared “This is absolutely shocking. The Arts Council is going to have a revolution on their hands if they do not stop this train wreck”
Interestingly enough, I think that that is exactly what we need. It's a horrible thing to contemplate, but if we truly believe in theatre and producing quality shows, then we need to start filtering the good from the bad. This decision by the arts council is the first act.
What we must fear is that the quality shows are not going to be able to stay afloat, while the corporate money spinners finance the production of the same mindless reality-game shows that are clogging up our cultural existence.
Will anyone actors make a stand in support of the Arts Councils decision or will we continue to shelter in the belief that our profession is nothing more than cultural entertainment and therefore requires government support? This thinking is what keeps performance under corporate and government thumb. Until we make a stand and realize that we control theatre, not the council, then we will always be at the mercy of the powers that be. The only way to do this is to turn our backs on the council and embrace a new future in independently funded theatre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I Can"t Wait...
