About this website: On the 26th and 27th of November 2009, a group of people came together at the Crescent Theatre in Birmingham to begin to answer the question "How do we create a better future for theatre, here, in the West Midlands". This website holds the notes from the sessions held over those two days, and allows anyone (whether they were present at the event or not) to continue the conversations from the event. You can read Alison Gagen's full invitation to the event here

The future of theatre involves taking theatre out of theatre buildings

Convenor:

Graeme Rose

Attendees:

Graeme Rose; Michelle Knight; Theresa Heskins (notes); Pamela Cole-Hudson; Therese Collins; Paul Warwick; Johnny O’Hanlon; Jane George; Janet Vaughan; Leah Alcock; Dan Watson; Katy [Farnell]; Alison Gagen; Katie Day

Description:

1 Graeme began by suggesting that the collapse of touring circuits corresponds to the rise of site specific work, asserting that:
“Site specific work demands more creative energy.  It’s where the most interesting stuff is happening…”

He suggested that site-specific theatre has been a key characteristic of new theatre-making in the West Midlands over the past 15 years or so (Pentabus, Foursight, Talking Birds, Stan’s Cafe, The Other Way Works, Kindle, etc.)Should this be more recognized?

The discussion kept returning to whether making site specific work is mainly a way to reach and excite new audiences, or fundamentally the BEST way to make theatre?

2 Site specific work is creatively inspiring because:

It offers an opportunity to question the theatrical use of space

It can be a good forum for devised work

It allows found spaces to be explored and refreshed; understood in different ways; engages in a different way with the wider context

It allows artist to dictate the contract, demanding the audience approaches the piece in a particular way whereas in a conventional theatre the audience dictates the contract – they expect a gin and tonic and a comfy seat

It interrogates the relationship between a piece of art and its audience, allowing a break from the 19th century model of artwork/audience interaction engendered by much conventional theatre architecture

It’s a form that’s still evolving

Develops new audiences, engages with audiences in different ways

Forum for development of new theatre practitioners and developing theatre form and practice

Does it create more cross-artform/collaborative processes?

It allows relationships between makers to be different – not so prescribed.  Learning new skills, sharing skills

It can inspire and refresh people working in more conventional forms

Clearly popular – but doesn’t usually aim to attract audiences over a period longer than a few performances – (and often with limited audience numbers)

Community relationships can be revitalised. A site can involve a ready-made community who have an historic or current relationship with the building.

3 BUT

Is there a danger that’ it’s perceived to be at the bottom of a hierarchy?

Is there a glut?  Is it just a fad? Is site specific work is becoming the norm? Getting boring?

Are we reinventing the wheel?  Documenting our learning and production history is time-consuming and resource heavy. 
To some extent reinventing the wheel is a necessary part of every artists’s process

Can the location be more important than the theatre piece itself? Does it matter?  Can sense of place and event be as important as or even replace more conventional elements eg. narrative?

Can be hugely EXPENSIVE!  Infrastructure, health and safety requirements, access issues.

When there are less resources, where will they go?  Does it make as much financial sense to invest in site specific productions as in buildings? Maybe not, but buildings don’t have to be theatres – can be eg hotels, swimming pools, with infrastructure already in place

4 Buildings:

Can theatre buildings be homes for ‘site specific’ theatre events? Ie. Should we treat the theatre as ‘site’?

Challenge of lighting/designing/directing/acting on a massive scale

Theatre ‘factories’ produced makers and artists who develop their skills in an environment that is not constantly changing.

Can the discoveries and ethos of site specific work can be taken back into mainstream theatre making? As way of informing and nourishing ‘mainstream’ practice.

Why shouldn’t there be more collaborative approaches in theatre buildings?  Turnover means systems have been put in place to support certain approaches – discovering new ways of working in these contexts is possible but time consuming and expensive.

The A E Harris building is developing a community – when does it stop being a site and start becoming a theatre building? Is the AEHarris becoming an Arts Centre? Or does the short term nature of the AEHarris lease insure against this. The energy and vitality may get passed on to a new initiative when and if AE Harris ceases to be.

ACTION:
Need for a crack site specific support team to provide expertise, health and safety advice toilets, knowledge of electrics, access info, etc.

Is this already provided by the Independent Streets Arts Network?
Is this provided by Red Tea Pot?
Could a Theatre Bristol model for Birmingham provide it?

Is there a ‘phone-a-friend’ role for development organisations such as China Plate?

5 Closing discussion about:
Birmingham Rep’s plan to work outside the building during closure in 2011 – will it create a new model of working in Birmingham? Is now the time to take these ideas to the Rep and provoke discussion about off-site theatre practice?
National Theatre of Scotland’s peripatetic model which embraces theatre buildings as well as site-specific spaces.

ACTION:  Create a National Theatre of the West Midlands on NTS’s model!