DEVOTED AND
DISGRUNTLED
SCOTTISH THEATRE 2006:
CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY?
Contents
Issue
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Title
Ethical Values in a Theatre Company
How do we encourage a culture of support and
mentorship
Getting Good Theatre to every possible part of
the Nation
What needs to be Scottish about Scottish
Theatre?
Raising the Level of Critical Debate
Does theatre include Live or Performance Arts
here in Scotland?
Runs too short
Cultural entitlement: can Scottish Theatre
headline Scottish Politics for once?
Urgent stories, engaging with other sectors,
encouraging other voices
Training opportunities with leading practitioners.
Where are they?
How to engage young people in theatre
Defining success and failure
Arts or entertainment – is there a difference?
Theatre/Visual Art is there enough sex between
us and how can we make it better?
More work from England and abroad
Why do we criticize big companies? Seek to
collaborate not to condemn
How can we create an environmentally
sustainable theatre practice
Do we have to tell stories that everyone
understands?
How do we escape the image of artist as
scrounger and dole dodger?
Forget the Hinterland, concentrate
resources/energy where there are most people
Not enough support / training for directors
Why do I not trust the people who fund us?
What’s the point of theatre that isn’t audience
focused?
Why are we so unfashionable?
Bring back smoking on stage- it really matters
What are writers for?
Theatre should take place outside theatres
Star sticker
count
1
6
2
3
9
1
2
2
16
1
14
2
2
6
1
2
2
2
7
4
1
12
7
3
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
What can make us better artists?
You can’t/won’t fund what you have no interest in
understanding
What is Political Theatre and why the fear?
Too few people of colour involved in theatre
Funding and Ideas
How can we dispel the attitude that education is
an add on rather than it being central to
everything we do?
Innovative Management in Innovative Arts
Practice
My gran, my neighbours, hairdresser, friends
don’t get my work, is that my problem?
Do buildings need artistic direction?
How can artists sustain careers/how more
opportunities can be found for playwrights when
commissioning companies are being cut?
Audience mostly consisting of artists
How do I find co-collaborators/Artist dating
agency
Involving new audiences; audiences that want to
be involved
Are we a community and if so how can we work
together?
What difference does it make?
Why must we justify the relevance of the work to
make it
Admin is creative
The state of theatre training in Scotland
How do Scottish theatre institutions respond to
new ideas, forms and ways of working?
What would it take to make Scottish theatre a
leading international brand?
Critics who cares?
Does more money mean better art?
Is there a difference between a Scottish Theatre
Artist and a theatre Artist in Scotland?
8
1
1
8
4
3
9
1
7
10
5
5
1
1
27
Issue number: 1
Issue: ethical values in a theatre company: theatre and the corporation
Conveners(s): Catrin Evans
Participants: Maryam Hamidi
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Ethics of sponsorship
Theatre industry as poverty stricken – ethics seen as a middle-class past-time – can theatre
afford ethics? How do you assess the ethical standard of sponsors and do you have a financial
choice about where you get your money from? Sponsorship requires compromise – both
ethically and artistically – to what extent are we willing to let the corporation dictate to the art
world? Should they be allowed to define rising trends or commercially viable theatre projects?
Does the growing relationship between corporate sponsorship and charitably registered theatre
companies mean that theatre that challenges the very nature of capitalist/corporate society can
not be made? When does theatre stop becoming theatre and become an advert – brand
building?
Often ethics of the individual get sidelined within a company structure. It is not enough to rely on
the individual to uphold ethical/consumer responsibility. Ethical values regarding consumer
culture and the corporate impact on the world very rarely feature in the infrastructure of theatre
companies. Is it time to make these values integral to our practice?
Recommendations: ethical values regarding sponsorship should feature alongside issues like
equal opportunities.
Ethics extends beyond sponsorship – ie. Where and who is your company buying materials from
(for set, costume, office etc) – where can we find the money to make sure we can consider these
issues?
Is it smaller emerging companies who should lead the way.
Why is that we can be ethical consumers at home, but not in our workplace?
Issue number: 2
Issue: How do we encourage a culture of support and mentorship?
Conveners(s): Annabel Rodger
Participants:
Simon Wilkinson, Jamie Harrison, Purni Morell, Daljinder Singh, Candice Edmunds, Gwen
Burns, Muriel Romanes, Sam Stocker
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The group generally felt that the theatre community in Scotland is supportive if you know who to
approach and can find a good relationship.
Candice and Jamie’s company is part of a mentoring scheme for young companies and they
have found that this is usually mentoree led so that their mentors respond to their needs. They
have found this extremely useful and they are keen to mentor other young companies to give
them the benefit of their experience.
We agreed that usually mentoring and support is the result of personal connections, developing
trust, and taking risks.
Annabel as convenor was asked why she had raised the issue as the group generally felt it was
a supportive community. Annabel is about to finish a year’s traineeship with Perth Youth Theatre
where she has been lucky to have a great mentor but as it is about to end she feels she needs
to search a new one out. Also, as someone who works both as a Director and an
education/youth theatre worker she feels that people she approaches expect her to define
herself as one or the other when she is not comfortable with having to choose; she feels she can
do both.
Simon raised the problem within his own field of lighting design of accessing first-level practical
experience which the group recognized as a problem from all practical disciplines. He also
raised that trainee schemes are often not popular with students. The group saw this is a
distinction we wanted to recognize – mentoring is not traineeship, it is support at the first steps
you take beyond training.
It was agreed that although the community is supportive if you can make a profitable
relationship, the community can do more to become more transparent and approachable as a
source of experience and advice. There is an argument for instigating a culture change within
the community to make it more openly supportive without creating another scheme – this is not
something which is finance dependent, rather commitment and time dependent.
Jamie raised that as an emerging artist you need honest and open criticism without
Issue number: 3
Issue: Getting good theatre to every possible part of the Nation
Conveners(s): Eileen Nicholas
Participants: Guy Holland, Daljinder Singh, Julie Ellen
There was agreement that touring is still regarded, by too many actors and technicians as
inferior. The geography of the country necessitates touring so how do we raise its profile, make
it fun and that everyone involved should have a sense of pride in a job well done.
We decided there was no point in moaning about lack of funds and concentrate on what might
work and let the money matters be dealt with elsewhere.
There was agreement and disagreement on there being a more structured data-base touring
system in place. Eileen and Julie thought it would be better for audiences that there was a
pattern to which companies visited when. Guy felt the unpredictable element was part of the
fun.
There was agreement that a weekly residence was much better than a one-nighter, it gave the
audience more choice and reduces their feeling that they are they are getting a raw deal but also
gives the company the opportunity to make connections with the local community. This could
not happen for every tour but should become a more regular occurrence rather than the very
rare one.
Much more research could go into nurturing relationships with amateur groups in rural areas;
this would again give stronger connections between the visited and the visitor.
Actors may be encouraged to regard the tour element of their engagement with more joy if their
wage was increased for that specific part of the contract. Touring allowance is only for the
expenses incurred. Much more information about the venue and the area would be good for
actors.
It was finally agreed that the inferior element to touring would not be overcome until more plays
were rehearsed and opened in rural areas. We called this ‘The Plockton Question’ For
example; if ‘ The Crucible’ had had its four weeks rehearsal in Plockton, the final production
would somehow have reflected that and the consequent tour that it then undertakes to other
parts of Scotland (or elsewhere) would possibly have a different effect than a production that had
originated in one of the main cities. Perhaps this would be a way to
1) Alter the perceived ‘inferior’ of touring. And
2) Begin to nurture the impression that theatre could function nation wide and not just
belong in the industrial belt with the odd foray to the ‘wilds’
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
it being destructive.
It was concluded that often new artists need to be braver in making connections, as hard as that
can be to achieve – a little like asking someone on a first date!
Proposal
The group proposed that there should be a national event – perhaps hosted by the National
Theatre – for emerging artists that could be cross artform. This should take the form of a
debutante ball or speed-dating so that new artists can meet with and interact with each other
and those established in the community.
Issue number: 4
Issue: What Needs to be Scottish about Scottish Theatre?
Conveners(s): Neil Murray
Participants: Julie Brown, Brian Ferguson, Neil Campbell, Julie Austin, Caroline Newall, Pamela
Hay, Sarah Gray, Ben Walmsley, Kate Cattell, Andy Arnold, Guy Hollands, Graham Eatough, M
A O’Donnell, F MacLeod, Gavin Marshall, Ian Smith
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:








We don’t necessarily speak of English or Welsh theatre, so why do we obsess over
‘Scottish’ theatre?
Is it appropriate to look outside Scotland for artists? Only if they originate from Scotland?
We must be able to make creative choices to define our work. Geography and birth rite
mustn’t limit our ambition.
It’s undeniable that Scottish audiences relate to hearing a Scottish voice
The cross fertilization of our community is partly what defines ‘Scottish’ theatre – its
ambition and communication.
Bringing back exiled stars to Scotland helps develop an audience. Let’s not apologize
about it.
Why do so few Scottish directors run Scottish companies/buildings?
Historically, Scottish theatre found its voice in Community theatre, hence a tendency to
relate to hearing our own voices
Conclusion: Scottish theatre is work MADE IN SCOTLAND FOR (initially anyway) A SCOTTISH
AUDIENCE
Issue number: 5
Issue: Raising the level of critical debate.
Conveners(s): Graham Eatough
Participants: Graham Eatough, Vicky Featherstone, John Tiffany, Margaret Anne O’Donnell,
Gerard McInulty, Josephine Ronan, Lorenzo Mele, Jamie Harrison, Ian Smith
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Responsibility for this starts with us.
If we can’t create an environment for a good level of debate about our own work then we can’t
expect anybody else to.
However, not everybody wants to debate about their work. Singularity of artistic vision is
important. ‘Maybe they’re all wrong.’
No critics are here
Zero level of critical debate currently
Lack of connection between artists and the debates that do happen about their work.
We need an agenda-less debate within the community. This is responsibility of the critic (of all
types).
Responsibility of the artist not to be defensive
Seek opinions of a small number of people you trust during process
We’re all too polite
Newspaper criticism in Scotland is very very poor
You get the critics you deserve you anti-intellectuals
The 7 Danish criteria of quality
-honest debate between companies
If I had to formally debate all my work I’d stop directing
Theatre is about audience so solitary artistic practice is inappropriate
“We see each other but we never talk” – just being together can be a relief. Forum for critical
debate / good to know we have a peer group to talk to.
However, even from this morning’s meeting it is clear that there is a divide between (i) the
established companies with long term funding and plans who are clearly interested in huge,
wider reaching critical & political debate and (ii) the small, new companies who plan from year to
year – all funding dependant. How does the debate develop ?
Questions to consider :
Timing – when is the right time ?
Do we need to talk immediately after ?
How do we give people a way in ?
If we make work which is too specific, does it alienate without a means of helping people in –
and does this kill any possibility of critical debate? If audiences don’t understand the motivation
of the work they may feel alienated or confused and the debate will be over before it begins. Do
we need therefore to empower audiences – give them information about our work – before we
can expect a quality debate?
Engagement in criticism is relative to the type of performance and the intentions/desires of the
creators/performers.
Social etiquette (ie politeness) stops debate.
Artists and creators need to be more confident / brave. If they feel “I am happy with this” then the
response will not offend them – they will be strong enough to debate and defend their work in a
more positive and engaging way.
Creative theatre making is a very personal thing. There is a definite limit to the amount we can
absorb from external sources. What if we didn’t make it for you? Why should I invite you to
debate or criticize my work?
It is impossible to create a completely agenda free critical debate in an environment which is so
defined by lack of funding and a need to be recognized for creating “good” work. When we have
to be praised to be funded how can we deal with negative criticism?
The only environment which can invite a true and honest critical debate is a “safe” environment
eg. College/university.
We need to be clear in our definition of “critical debate” – different criticism seeks to achieve
different ends. Eg newspaper criticism seeks to advertise and sell tickets – do we need a critical
debate which seeks to invite discussion and open the floor to debate.
What should we be debating – the process or the experience? We need to separate these?
Are we obliged to let people into our work? If not, are we obliged to invite a critical debate?
Scottish theatre is too defined by a fear of “intellectualism” – this anti-intellectualism means we
don’t want to discuss or debate work? We need to find and understand the value of critical
debate and invite it into our theatre culture.
Issue number: 6
Issue: Does ‘theatre’ include Live or Performance Art here? In Scotland?
Conveners(s): Robert Walton
Participants: Gerard McInulty
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Our initial answer as only 2 people turned up was
NO !
This is an event of the institutionalised and few practicing solo and small scale artists are here.
Do Scottish Theatre institutions recognise alternative and contemporary performance forms as
part of their remit or interest or core values?
Why did no-one from a larger institution come to this meeting?
New work and forms ARE the way forward for theatre.
If you want audiences of young people you have to make something that’s of interest to them
and addresses the issues and experiences of twenty-first century life.
Your old forms die with the OAPs that watch them!
In Scotland (in comparison to England) there is no representation at SAC or institutional level for
‘New Work’, Live Art, Performance Art or work that escapes their definition. (apart from New
Moves.)
We feel that the dynamism that ‘newness’ brings is central to a root and branch change to the
culture of performance in Scotland. How are new ideas incorporated into the mainstream? How
are innovations harnessed and not let go to waste?
How do we escape the institutionalised idea that artists with new ideas for how things can be
done are weirdos, dangerously affecting the status-quo?
The boat doesn’t need to be rocked, but rebuilt with change and dynamism as its hull. We
recognize the innovation in the creation of NTS as similar to this but wonder where a focus on
non-traditional works, forms and scales.
Often the work is of a much smaller scale (through choice) and therefore needs a smaller scale
industry around it. Artists in the New Work sector need support for a continuous practice for
individuals and small groups. E.g. In many European countries money is provided by a system
similar to the ‘dole’ the key idea being that those who chose the lifestyle of ‘artist’ have made a
decision as professionals to commit their life to their practice.
There has to be some recognition that the genuinely experimental performance can’t be
explained prior to the working process.
Works in the performance/live art context place much greater emphasis on the authorial
contribution of the performer/devisors and not the words of dead white men (or even living
Scottish ones). This often leads to a more personal statement from a practice that is often more
akin to fine art (where the artist develops their forms and ideas over a lifetime).
Central to the change needed is acknowledgment that people who chose to label themselves as
artist, making new work need to be freed from funding cycles and enabled where possible to
make work free from some ridiculous social stigma.
Issue number: 7
Issue: RUNS TOO SHORT
Conveners(s): Purni Morell
Participants: Purni Morell
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
So I’m disgruntled.
Perhaps I didn’t choose the title very well, or perhaps it’s a non-issue, but as I’m sitting here, finishing the
morning session; not in the allocated room, but at the computer, I’m thinking: has anyone else noticed
that shows seem to pass me by?
When I worked in London, it seemed to be a standard thing that a show, say at BAC, would be on for a
three week run. This was in the 1990s. I think it’s still the case now.
But all the shows I’ve worked on in Scotland have had a maximum of 15 performances. Not in one chunk,
either, or at one theatre – the longest run I’ve ever worked on in one place was seven nights at the Tron,
which I had to fight hard to get.
I think this is a problem.
We talk a lot about building audiences, and we also know, those of us who spend a lot of time worrying
about marketing, that word of mouth is what sells shows. So I’m wondering: are we missing a trick?
I think we’d do ourselves a favour if we programmed fewer shows but allowed those shows to live a
longer life. I think we’d be able to get a better measure of whether a show is a success or a failure
(however you want to define those terms). I think we’d be able to build bigger audiences, and I think we’d
be able to grow a debate among a theatre-going audience. People could meet over water-coolers, having
seen the same show, and discuss it. They could tell their friends. Their friends could book and go. I also
think directors benefit from seeing how their shows develop over a three-week period. We could build in a
bit more preview time for new work. I imagine actors benefit from performing a show more than ten times,
and I personally would get much greater satisfaction from knowing that a show, which has taken me eight
months to put together, and which has involved £60-70k of public money, will last longer than my
hangover.
Here’s my fantasy: I’d like to go to the theatre between three and five times a month, and I’d like to feel,
having invested my £100 on those experiences (once you include drinks and parking), that I’ve seen
pretty much what there is that I want to see. I’m not talking about being able to see everything. I don’t
want to see everything. I don’t want to see most things, actually. I’m not sure I even like going to the
theatre most of the time. But it really pisses me off that the few times when there is a show I’d really like
to see, as a human and a punter, it’s at the Tron for three nights, and guess what: it closed before I could
get there.
My song goes something like this:
Theatres who produce and receive should receive fewer shows, but have them for longer periods. I’d
restructure theatre schedules, so that shows get in and fit up on a Friday and Saturday. I’d come in to
start the tech on Monday, and I’d work towards a first preview on Wednesday night. I’d open on Friday (to
catch the weekend press) and I’d run until the following Saturday. I’d perform 6 nights, not 5. I’d do half
the number shows that are programmed now.
Maybe you’d lose a few weekend performances. Maybe it would cost a bit more. Maybe you’d have to
negotiate with the union. But you’d have to choose more carefully, and I think eventually you’d gain more
than you lose.
And that would make me happy.
Issue number: 8
Issue: Cultural Entitlements: Can Scottish Theatre headline Scottish politics for once?
Conveners(s):
Jacqueline MacKay, Lizzi Nicoll
Participants: Ailie Cohen, Chrissie Ruckley, Muriel Romanes, Pamela Hay
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What do we mean by cultural entitlements? Local authorities have been tasked by the Scottish
Executive via the Cultural Scotland document to deliver cultural entitlements to the people of
Scotland. It is vital that the arts sector, theatre in particular is part of the development process to
ensure that cultural entitlements are meaningful.
How do we make our voices heard? It’s critical that LAs don’t turn this into a “tick box” exercise
and that their delivery of entitlements utilizes the work that the theatre sector is already
undertaking in access, participation and the creation of work. The theatre sector can help – we
do this already and we need to get that message across. The National companies have been
given a remit to lead on cultural entitlements however we believe that it’s about more than that
and that particular organizations working in specific geographical areas have a knowledge and
understanding of the needs of their local communities.
How? We need to collectively lobby COSLA and the Executive to get our message across. The
2007 elections are fast approaching and we need to ensure that the theatre sector’s capabilities
are made clear, and feature in cross party manifestos surrounding this area. We need to
emphasise that CE are about all sectors of society, all ages and include the artists themselves.
The right to SEE, the right to DO and the right to MAKE.
Politicians assume that the arts are not as important to their constituents as health
education/jobs etc. We need to impress that the arts are involved in all of these policy areas and
more and that on the street, the public have a genuine affinity for arts, if not a profound
understanding. How do we make cultural rights as important to the Scottish electorate as free
personal care?
We need to develop a robust method of communicating our strengths and values that is
understood by politicians and civil servants in that same way that our peers in the sports sector
have done over recent years. Also, it is easy to evaluate the success of initiatives such a
recycling etc. How can we work towards a framework of quality that allows the executive to
assess the impact of the arts in its delivery of cultural entitlements.
Crisis of confidence: we can only transmit the message that we can deliver in this area if we are
confident in our ability, are able to work together and rise above the competitive arena that we
find ourselves placed in due to funding decisions and lack of cultural leadership.
Recommendations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Organise ourselves as a theatre sector, then make connections and alliances cross art
form to increase the impact of our message. We can work with other art forms to
deliver a wider range and scope of CEs.
Take direct responsibility as a sector to work with agencies and funding bodies rather
than be dictated to and led by them. ie it’s important that representative organizations
and individual stakeholders articulate what their expectations are of CEs and the new
Creative Scotland body.
Act quickly to ensure that we are directly involved in the design of cultural entitlement
models across Scotland, acknowledging that these models will be different according
to geographical location, current provision, and social context.
To lobby COSLA, the civil servants of the Scottish Executive, MSPs and local
authorities (councilors and officers)
Confidence to create a stronger structure; work together non-competitively.
Issue number: 9
Issue: Urgent stories, engaging with other sectors and encouraging other voices
Conveners(s): Davey Anderson
Participants: Emily Ballard, Jacqui Skelton, John Tiffany, Neil Campbell, Sarah Jean Couzans, F
Maclean, Adrian Osmond, Catrin Evans, Kirstin McLean, Toni O’Neill, Maryam Hamidi, Chris
Deans, Margaret-Ann O’Donnell, Sarah Gray, Candice Edmunds, Kenny McGlashan, Sarah
Potter, Karen Shaw, Lynda Radley Steve C, Vicky Featherstone, Kate Bowen, Heather Cassidy,
Lorenzo Mele, G S Haisley, Gavin Marshall, Scott Hoatson
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Theatre maker as facilitator as well as “artist”
Production values important e.g. West Side Stories – harnessing craft to make something
relevant
Theatre as an experience rather than “education”
“Lightening up” – comedy/satire
Urgent stories can be explored more through process of education work more than polished
production
Newspaper Theatre – recently done by 7:84 and others
Other voices – letting children create the work, giving them autonomy
Artists viewing “issue plays” as less than art
Devising – including more life experiences
Audience can read their own stories, theatre doesn’t necessarily need to be focused on a
particular themes
Grid Iron’s Roam – flip side of telling stories about other cultures
Dangerous to focus theatre too narrowly
How do we make the work? – takes too long to produce theatre and it has too narrow an
audience
Is there a danger in having a full-time career in theatre?
Group of writers doing research into other communities – SAC Professional Development fund,
Creative Scotland
e.g. Claire Cunningham – exploring dance and aerial work, performing for a different audience
Artists need to be involved with other communities and bring this work back
How do we encourage more diverse theatre making?
Is it appropriate to speak for other people?
Should you always speak from your own experience?
Vanishing Point – discussion between artists and physics specialists
Suspect Culture – symposiums
Job swaps?
Sabbaticals?
High art, good theatre, good art, well informed (?)
Artists to volunteer for 2 hours a week
Artistic mediums – writer/director
Working form the core outwards, from artists to issue or vice versa
Accessibility
Subjectivity – “you can’t be the voice of the whole community”
The artist going to the issue versus the artist being the issue
Finding stories we don’t know about
Identifying an issue/topic for funding bodies
It’s not reasonable to ask for money for underground/subversive work
Encouraging Sabbaticals outside the theatre world
Funding thinking time/resting time?
Community – sharing skills, learning skills to support yourselves as artists
At what level do we mean when we talk about engaging – i.e. participating, is it enough?
Theatre as therapy?
Involving a culture with a section of the community and visa versa.
Creating a structure for exchange and opportunities for it to happen. – the have to be
run/administered.
Are there stories not being told? Finding the front line: i.e. 50/60 years of Asian influence in
Scotland not being spoken about/expressed.
Price of tickets? Creating a diversity of how theatre is produced as well as the diversity of the
content.
Teaming up the artist with people who have knowledge
What are an artist’s hobbies?
Where do we draw the line at our life experience? Our life experience is theatre
How do we get experience? Thorough research – true experience is crucial
Not just what story – how it’s told.
How do we break theatre as minority? Make exciting theatre….
The voice of the enquiring artist – the rest of the creative community will respond to this.
ARTISTS taking RESPONSIBILITY… have a life outside theatre - we need TIME and SPACE.
Theatre that is heavily researched – Theatre that comes from within
Ban theatre studies and learn other subjects first
So introverted in theatre,,, can’t have another life
Theatre as a job/as a part-time pursuit/as your life
Individual voices … finding the balance
If we reach out, the stories will come to us.
Outside of theatres, points of celebration (MELA)
Admit naivety ‘I don’t know’
Definition of theatre. The form of theatre
Challenging how we can discover emerging talent
TV doesn’t require training and discovers very interesting talent
High art….lowart
Working out the performer/audience relationship
Funding requirements can limit movement – Artistic development/growth isn’t allowed within
funding structures.
Not “right” group of disenfranchised people…bureaucracy over-rides common sense.
Create an artistic ‘free market’ – Where does responsibility lie?
Artists should be irresponsible
If one person is accountable, this offers freedom to the un-accountable.
Personable accountability without responsibility for the things beyond you.
Difference between ACE and SAC- focus on different strategies- but artists and companies
allowed to interpret these strategies with freedom.
Cross-sector work – and site specific work – growing relationship
What about the companies already doing ‘invisible’ non-mainstream work? Need to be careful
about how these companies are funded when this work becomes mainstream.
How do we grow from seed-level? Allow long-term growth as opposed to quick development for
large scale productions.
Issue number: 10
Issue: Training Opportunities With Leading Practitioners…Where Are They?
Conveners(s): Daljinder Singh
Participants: D. Singh, M. Romanes, A. Rodger, C. Gormley, C. Evans and P. Hay
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:













Financially it can be difficult to set up, but not impossible.
Why don’t venues like Tramway organize workshops after shows?
Not enough high profile workshops in Scotland compared to rest of UK.
Mixing up participants who are trained as well as untrained.
Companies need to make a commitment to bring more high profile practitioners and
companies over to Scotland so that the Theatre community here can benefit.
More internships should be available across the board – like the ones that the Arches do.
This is almost a critical point for actors who need ‘gap training’ that their course didn’t
cover.
There should be a ‘Practitioners Studio’ in Scotland that is open to the community and will
offer a safe environment to create and experiment.
Directors need skills training too so that they can improve their own practice.
Skills training and workshops should be across the board for designers, stage managers,
music directors, producers etc.
Possibly have an ‘Agent’ who keep in the loop about what high profile companies and
practitioners are showing work in the UK and then work at booking them to come up to
Scotland for a few days to do intensive workshops at the colleges, drama schools and
theatres. Thereby leaving a legacy behind.
Edinburgh Festival, SAC, Venues and Companies need to work together to make this
happen.
Actors should be trained within the community as well. More opportunities for performers
to be attached to a company over a length of time to receive hands on training after they
leave college, drama school etc.
Issue number: 11
Issue: How to engage young people
Conveners(s): Emily Ballard, Kenny McGlashan, Julie Austin,
Participants:
Karen Shaw, Heather Cassidy, Mary McCluskey, Fraser McLeod, Martin Travers, Guy Hollands,
Neil Campbell
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:






















Access to theatre should be a cultural right but should not be forced.
In recent study at Castlemilk Youth Complex, young people’s reactions to cinema all
positive, reaction to theatre all negative.
If young people get access to theatre it can change their perception
Is there a class division in the perception of cultural entitlement?
Theatre divided into different boxes, e.g. Celtic story, panto, “wee community show”.
Peer influence – what shows are viewed as “cool” to go to?
Possibility of a theatre card – both short and long term gains – would need to be “cool”,
special – free? Or would that devalue the work – loyalty card? Nominal fee, £1 or £2?
Are the unspoken rule of theatre putting young people off? How do we explain the “code
of behaviour” - should there be special young people’s performances or does this
assume bad expectations of young people?
Is bad behaviour in theatres a reaction to poor work?
Are young people looking for dangerous/exciting theatre experience that their
parents/teachers wouldn’t attend?
Attention span issue? Do we need shorter work or is that underestimating yp?
Example of Contact Theatre, Manchester – young people preview the work…”gong show”
structure – they chose what is programmed…
Where are young people allowed to hang out at theatres – not allowed in bar, on stairs
etc.
Permission to not understand a piece of work – doesn’t mean you are stupid……
Is theatre believed to be “good for you” and therefore “uncool”?
Theatre in schools does not give the same experience…
Good work being done for younger children. 16-28yrs is weakest theatre-going bracket.
Over 18s using “arty” bar, but not attending theatre.
Theatre going out to yp’s spaces – clubs, street.
Need for market research with young people, facilitated by their peers.
New technology being used to market shows, e.g. text messages, podcasts, my space,
mobisodes etc.
Recent attempts at this needed more marketing, but ideas are good!










We need more money for market research into young people – what would they like to
see? How long should shows be? Shown examples of work? How do they want to be
communicated with?
Taking actors into schools, youth clubs – performing trailers for shows, meeting yp etc.
Tour structures would need to support this – need to be in residency, not so many “one
night stands”…Contractual issue of requiring more of actors’ time.
Actors in costume sell shows during the Fringe – why not all the time?
Need for more responsive programming that reacts to yp’s interests.
Peer marketing – Visible Fictions example, yp in rehearsals, getting to know company etc.
Then going out as “ambassadors” to spread the word…
Theatre needs to be attractive – if we want to get yp to attend voluntarily – need to trade
on the glamour of theatre
Is there a split between drama as a subject and theatre as an artform? Bad and good
sides? Not everyone wants to be an actor – drama as an educational tool should be kept
separate when appropriate?
A lot of 1 of 2 year courses in performance giving false expectations to young people?

Theatre professionals should not take offence to “bad” reactions from yp.
Every audience member’s way of accessing theatre as valid as the next – once a year or
every month etc.
Are we looking for a core audience or different audiences or both?
Competition from cinema – tickets at £3
Variety – cross artform open day? Full day event – beat poetry, theatre, music, food,
graffiti etc.
Arches education day as an example?
Theatre tent at T in the Park?
Law of 2 feet – would this attract more young people? Or would this be destructive?
Pavilion as example of raucous atmosphere – midnight show etc.
Would free access (as in Glasgow museums) increase attendance?
Is money really the issue?
Do we beat ourselves up too much about this age group? Did we go to theatre as
teenagers? Is it ok for them just to come to theatre later in life?
Are people scared to just turn up and book a ticket?

TAG and SYT to meet up to move these ideas forward.









Issue number: 12
Issue: Defining success and failure
Conveners(s):
Participants:
Chris Deans, Josephine Ronan, Lizzi Nicoll, Jackie Wylie, Linda Radley, John Tiffany, Simon
Wilksinson, David Taylor, Brian Ferguson, Candice Edmunds, Pamela Hay, Neil Murray, Vicky
Featherstone, Jaine Lumsden, Lorenzo Mele, Julie Ellen, Scott Hoatson, Cash Gormley, Catrin
Evans, Scott Hoatson, Kirsten McLean




























Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Is anything a failure? Can we learn from everything?
Mutually exclusive?
Is an artist – if you set objectives, does it matter?
We don’t find a way to discuss failure. We do it privately.
How do we create an environment of support?
It shouldn’t be shameful.
Learn from failure.
No space to discuss failure.
The gossip.
Abhorrence of shark-feeding.
“Sometimes I just smile”
constructive criticism – who do we go to?
press, peer, funders and audience
critics awards and star reviews – necessary? Very powerful but should they be?
Critics – can we answer back?
Hunger of audience and combined success – powerful
New companies – new hot shots – press attention
Success – is everything good?
Experienced playwrights are allowed failures – not new ones.
Who do we feel is accountable?
Better at working at who should be accountable.
What are we using a review for? Markers of success? A proper evaluation?
Measure of success – future demand? –
Houses of straw
Shows can build and build – gathering momentum
Dont get caught up on press
Emotional impact of success and failure? Theatre is so open
Reviews live on internet. Things can be read forever











































Commercial – money – audience.
Subsidized theatre is seen as ridiculous by commercial
Emotional impact of failure and success
Turn things round psychologically
Existential strength
Moving form cork – big scale production – success but 2 bad reviews. Right people didn’t
come to see it.
Young practitioners need the support
Reasonable review but bad piece of work
As a team – is it measured like this?
Set out criteria for success and failure
What are the positives?
Realistic vs self-deluding
If we don’t aim high we don’t fall too much
False criteria
Impact on how to move forward
Dissatisfaction lad to wanting to improve
What is your intention?
Criteria with funders and personal intentions
Objectives need to connected to audience
4 previews can turn failure into success
changing a show round after preview
structures – how we create new ones to facilitate good work
developing a product that can be flawed initially
longer previews make shows work better
process orientated – may have longer life spans – different stages of production
why do we make theatre in such a short space of time?
Scotland relatively small market
How does audience define success?
Are we bored in the theatre?
Can you be an audience member and artist at same time?
Audience loyalty
Failing as art but succeeding in terms of audience
Audience having a passive experience
Fear of funding? Does that play in the creation of the work?
How do we meet the objective of funders?
Theatre a risk-taking biz
Perceived penalties for failure
How we deal with failure depends on pour personality
Should tax-payers subsidize our failures?
The role of feedback in discussing our work
Artists have to take responsibility for opening up their work.
Email discussion/chat about the work
Dialogue with audience allows you to redefine success/failure






Posy-show discussion – is it valuable?
Lure free wine for informal discussion
Living with failure alone
Audience being more explicit in debate so that number of tickets bought is not the only
indicator
Funding processes need to change to accommodate new ways of working
Need for transparency and dialogue
Issue number: 13
Issue: Art or Entertainment – Is there a difference?
Conveners(s):
Sarah Jean Couzens
Participants:
Hoatson
Andy Arnold, Ian Smith, Sarah Gray, Steve Collins, Neil Campbell, Scott
Please would you write down your names if you attended.
Thanks.
As a group of people we could not agree an answer to the question:
Art or entertainment – is there a difference?
It is one of those subjective questions, with as many answers as there are people who care to
answer.
But we did agree on some things:
When defining whether a piece of work as either art (good or bad, high production value or low)
or entertainment (same) –
Context is the key.
For example, Café Loco at The Arches ten years ago a different piece of performance art was
produced each and every week for the Club goers. This work would fit in easily at the National
Review of Live Art (Performance Art) and if it was housed at the National Review would be
defined as Art. But because it was placed in the context of a night club it was not Art, but the
incidental entertainment. People who attend the National Review of Live Art go with one set of
expectations, the people who attended Café Loco went with another set of expectations. And
the response to the work seen is often dictated by the expectations.
What the expectations of the audience are…
If one goes to see a Play at The Pavillion Theatre entitled ‘Girls Big Night In’ and the publicity
cites that it is a play about an Ann Summers party, it is fair for one to expect that it will be an
entertaining British Pantomime style comedy. Which indeed it was. It most definitely is not art.
The group accepted this. Why?
With Entertainment [meaning commercial and popular work], the work is created for a specific
audience in mind or with a specific proven style which works. People know what to expect. E.g.
They go to the Pavillion to see Pantomime/Comedy/Variety Shows. There is nothing, original,
innovative or new in the work, it is utterly conventional. Therefore it is not art, but to it’s
audience it is utterly entertaining.
Various definitions/answers offered.
General consensus seemed to lie with
If there is in fact a difference
Art = Innovative and creative work
Entertainment = something which has been done before, is easily understood and enjoyed.
Conventionality.
Good art poses more questions than it answers.
Another suggestion was that with good art, people will go back again and again. Not so with a
piece of pure entertainment.
All good art should provoke response.
But, but, it is extremely hard to separate the two.
If one was to draw the classic venn diagram circles, there would be a large overlap between the
Entertainment circle and the Art one. And it is in the overlap, in the middle where the good work
lives. The work that is both art and entertainment.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to pin down a general definition of the differences
between the two. We would do so at our peril.
Each work must be taken on its own value, by each individual who sees it.
Taking examples from the fine art world
The bricks at the Tate modern and the fuss kicked up about them….anyone could have piled up
similar bricks in a similar way, but the innovation was the placement in an art gallery. The
context makes it art. Jack Vittriano (?) is one of the most popular contemporary painters, but
there is nothing innovative about his work, therefore people do not define his work as art.
The discussion about ‘wanking on stage’ being defined as art. (5 minutes or so)
If the work pays no respect to its audience, it is not entertainment for sure. But people can still
define it as art.
A difference:
Funding: Art tends to be funded by public money.
Theatrical entertainment tends to be funded commercially.
‘There is no art or entertainment – just inappropriate clothing’ - Ian Smith
Issue number: 14
Issue: Theatre / Visual Art is there enough sex between them and how can we make it
better
Conveners(s): Sam Stocker +
Participants: Gavin Marshall, Eileen Nicholas, Ailie Cohen, Sam Stocker, Ian Smith, Robert
Walton
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Stimulus
There often seems to be a neglect in the theatre for the visual arts, is it often the unnecessary bit
? Does it have to be this way? Should it be different? Does it have to be a form of fore play that
happens before they really get down to business? Or is there an exciting an unexplored potential
between them? Or are they partners of the same origin that will continue to flirt and evolve
alongside each other as they have done in the past?
We talked about work where both the theatre and the visual were being taken to a different site
(neither theatre or gallery space) and there was quite a lot of success in engaging the audience
in this environment.
How do we make the divisions
Do we need to make the definitions
Does the nature of contemporary visual lend its self more to theatrical possibilities than the
theater to Visual art?
How do we work when we cannot define what we do
If you define yourself can you do that without cutting away any further possibilities from our
practice?
Do we practice differently?
Are we locked into our ways of working?
When the 2 forms of art work in unison, when the goal is for a total theatrical experience and
where visual art is not separate form this we open up doors of potential not only to the final out
come but also in sharing the creative processes we undertake.
Money is obviously putting some kind of barrier over the 2 taking place with equal great
regularity
The organization of these running together needs to take place from the beginning?
A play can work on its own without the visual art?
In France and Spain there are whole communities of artists working together sharing and
developing there skills and interests in extensive outdoor events.
Is art of any less a value when it does not stand by itself?
The audiences are often looking for different things and experiences, often the visual stimulation
is missing but it’s not important?
To the audience what is heard rather than seen is the most important thing, a pure theatre where
the relationships are the most important thing a very strong visual stimulus would get in the way
of this?
There is a lack of understanding towards the visual art?
If we treat the collaboration between visual art and theatre on the terms of painting and sculpture
then we are fighting a losing battle?
Simplicity?
Big visual arts and theater have combined well on lots of occasions but I can’t remember the
names of those that were said please add them and more
The designer at the Citizens in the early days was actually over powering the production with its
visual aspect actors where un happy because they places around the structure rather than
around the play. The audiences were struggling to see the play behind the visual art.
Could a visual artist give a work of art and then the theatrical piece be made around that rather
than a text? Could this be the total catalyst for the play has it been done before?
The moment of experiment could be in sharing the process across the disciplines as we are
essentially sharing the same language.
Visual art seems to be some where in the process of constantly trying to reinvent itself and the
world around it exists in, innovation an intuitive are really important words.
Where visual art is also been going through are period where the audience is considered it is not
in the same way as the theatre?
The theatre often seems to make to its pre existing industries whilst visual art is often trying to
extend its boundaries, when theatre steps into new territories it is often considered as a from of
visual art rather than theatre.
The Theatre is less sexy if the eye of the general public because it is less sexy in the eyes of the
media. The visual artist are just in the celebrity role they are in the magazines in the papers
ridiculed for experimentation and everything else, is there any way that the theatre could benefit
form that kind of exposure.
The theatre needs to try to appropriate the positive media message the wow wonderful sexy
sheep cutting message.
As artist how can we find each other?
In the exhibition space in the studio space on the streets the studio is a great environment for
experimentation.
Where do we go to find each other, in galleries and theatre in art and drama schools there are
collaborations going on as we speak they don’t always work but the concepts of that
collaboration is an exciting one.
It should not and will not obliterate the independent art forms but there should be a place we
here they are openly encouraged into collaboration into a place where we can consider them of
equal importance.
The lines are not that eagerly defined and people migrate in both directions successfully.
Outdoor street work can often aid this collaboration. The visual impact of this work is of great
value to the productions.
Interpretation is important and promoted in the visual arts rather than specific teaching or
education.
Is the theatre slightly behind visual arts conceptually?
Is the theatre a more personal experience?
We areas cross and role into each other lots of good things can happen
We need to give people ways to engage with the audience’s
We need more connections
We need more dialogue
We need to hate love an understand each other
We need sensual experiences
The answer is for us to have more sex because we like it
Issue number: 15
Issue: “I’d like to see more work from England and abroad visiting Scotland”
Conveners(s): Purni Morell
Participants: Eilidh, Ben Walmsley, Davey Anderson, Kate Bowen. Jackie Graham, Phelim, Neil
Murray, Lynda Radley, David Taylor, Sarah Gray, Maryam Hamidi, LJ Dodd, Annabel Rodger,
Lucy Foster, Fiona Sturgeon
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:






















2 people said “yes” and moved on
Kate Bowen expressed her opinion on Pirates of the Caribbean
Tramway used to be the answer
Is there a demand for foreign work? We think yes.
EIF – has it become a bit samey?
The benchmarks for quality in England (London?) seem higher
Under-resourcing has led to a brain drain
Why are we not part of the same theatre debate as London?
Are we appointing the right Artistic Directors? Who is appointing them? Who is applying
for these jobs?
What happened to Mayfest? Could we use some more smaller festivals?
Is it that foreign work is better or just more fashionable?
Should international programming exist more outside festivals, in the main programme
body of regular venues?
We have a size issue: we can receive small and we can receive enormous, but what’s in
the middle?
Are we comparing like with like? Scottish theatre is better than theatre in Derby
Could there be more funding to help artists get out and work with artists abroad?
Actually though, it’s not just about artists, it’s about dialogue with audiences and wider
cultural dialogue, in terms of theatrical form and also in terms of the stories we’re telling.
Our culture has become insular and inward-looking, which may or may not be a product
of the dominance of English language. Why do we think our own stories are enough? It’s
all part of the horrible legacy of cultural imperialism.
But we’re pretty good at well made plays and theatre writing though
Are programmers too busy to make more complex and time-consuming connections with
companies abroad?
We see lots of international work in Glasgow – more than anywhere outside London
Are we speaking for Glasgow or for Scotland?
What would happen if buildings that receive SAC funding were obliged to do some
international (including English) programming?
Things we can do:
Let’s start discussing what we do as part of UK theatre; let’s have an inclusion of what’s
happening in England rather than bypassing it. It would help not hinder us.
Let’s look at ways of building a dialogue in this country about international work rather than
parachuting in the odd bit and piece every now and again. How do we get a lasting impact on
the culture from this international work?
Collaborations: let’s look outside the box at possibilities for international collaboration –
residencies, exchanges, with some performance element included. It’s about finding your soul
mate e.g. Dudendance and Fabrik
Let’s encourage and support producers to make those contacts – producers meaning artists,
directors and artistic directors.
Let’s see whether it’s possible to get some of the English work we never see up here without
worrying about practicalities until we have to.
Let’s encourage visiting artists to do education and discussion work in our higher education
institutions – let’s have their ideas be fed in more
Issue number: 16
Issue: Why do we criticise bigger companies? We should seek to collaborate, not to condemn.
Conveners(s): Lissa Lorenzo
Participants: Lissa Lorenzo, Kirstin Mclean, Julie Brown + 1 anonymous
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Main points
Why do we criticise?:








Big companies (ie companies which receive large amounts of executive or arts council funding)
eg Scottish Opera, Scottish Ballet, NToS are in the public eye. They generate press interest and
particularly vulnerable to bad publicity. They have been deemed worthy of huge amounts of public
funding therefore have much more to prove, much further to fall, and are much easier to attack.
Many “big” companies also carry the national brand and therefore have a responsibility to serve
that nation – therefore they must justify their work much more.
It is easy to use big companies and the funding they receive as a shield or scapegoat – our work
is of a poor quality because we don’t get the money that they get. We can hide behind this
argument if our work doesn’t do well.
Funding, funding, funding - we are jealous of they money they get.
The theatre community are desperate for big companies to fail because it proves that their funding
wasn’t justified in the first place.
Big companies are responsible for a minute fraction of the creative theatre making in Scotland
and their funding is disproportionate to the work they are making.
Big companies are secure – the executive could politically not afford for these organizations to fail
or fold, so the companies are not accountable for their work in the same way – they can get away
with poor quality work that is not relevant to a modern audience because they are so established
and secure.
This makes big companies arrogant and unapproachable. They fuel the fire of negative opinion.
How should we approach big companies?



We should seek to see big companies as a supportive neighbor and not a financial plug hole.
We should seek to benefit from the success of bigger theatres and companies.
We should be aware of what defines “bigger” for new and unfunded companies this can simply
mean a slightly more established company who have been granted seed or project funding.
What can big companies do to help?



Become better communicators – make themselves available to emerging companies and ensure
that the community as a whole knows what they have to offer.
Be flexible, be willing to embrace new approaches to theatre making and new innovative
companies/practitioners.
See the value of collaboration not just for the smaller companies but for themselves – injection of
new energy, ideas, working practices.


If we are building based or have premises make those premises open and inviting to practitioners
and other companies. This could be the first step towards partnership.
Be willing to be accountable for the work that they produce and the funding they receive.
What can smaller companies or practitioners do?


Be brave, don’t be afraid of approaching a bigger organization. They might well be interested in
helping or supporting. See them as a friend not a threat.
Create a collective of smaller companies – strength in numbers. Perhaps nominate a chairperson
for their forum who is responsible for finding about new opportunities and potential collaborations
and sharing that information with the rest of the collective.
Conclusions:

Scottish Theatre should seek to be defined by its ability to collaborate.

We must fight the fear of communication and sharing of resources, ideas, and funds that is so
inherent in the Scottish Theatre community.

Stop scape-goating and accept responsibility for the work we create, whatever size our company
is.

Nurture not suppress.

Larger companies should still be accountable and if they do not continue to innovate and move
with the times then they must accept that their time is up and they should be replaced by younger
more vibrant and more genuinely creative companies.
Issue number: 17
Issue: How can we create an environmentally sustainable theatre practice? Should we?
Conveners(s): Catrin Evans, Cash Gormley
Participants: Heather Cassidy, Phelim McDermott, David Taylor
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Recognition that current theatre practice is in many ways unsustainable…
Eg, theatre buildings – lights, use up a lot of electricity, we could look into energy suppliers such
as Good Energy who claim to supply the grid with 100% sustainable energy.
Print – thinking of ways of advertising shows that minimizes print could be a creative challenge,
something that works towards more of a dialogue with the audience, could be a part of a move
to engage the audience in our process and in discussion in order to generate their interest in the
work. Edinburgh Festival highlighted as a particularly unsustainable event in terms of flyers and
print, discussion about a revolution in terms of the way in which the festival publicized that does
not involve 100,000s flyers, organizers would have to campaign and encourage companies in
this, focus on word of mouth, platform events, the buzz of the festival generating discussion
about the shows.
Content of theatre exploring/addressing environmental issues:
Theatre as a practical, creative thing could address this issue in a way that empowers, inspires
people rather than having an apocalyptic, disheartened view. Could make people feel like
they’ve actually done something about it rather than feeling hopeless. Facilitate a direct
engagement with the environment through theatre, through site-specific work, allowing people to
examine themselves within their environment and as part of their environment. How can we
address this issue in a theatrically exciting way? Bicycle generators on stage, masks made out
of reused materials, rediscovering play with discarded objects. Good potentials to actively
engage the audience. Theatre can make environmental issues more cool.
Who is responsible?
Should the arts council have a policy in place that encourages sustainable theatre practice
alongside the way in which they operate as an organization? Should NTS as a national
company be flag shipping environmentally sustainable practice? There needs to be a structure
in place for people to operate in a more sustainable way, an avenue to bring this into theatre
organizations’ agendas alongside things like equal opportunities policies.
Companies/organizations need to be able to decide this together. Brings up wider issues about
ethical concerns in theatre practice, how companies assess this.
Sharing of resources:
Does there need to be more of network in place for sharing/reusing each others resources?
Should there be legislation in place that prevents companies throwing away sets etc.
Reusing/recycling should not be dependent on budget, should be common practice.
Political Context:
The government is currently taking steps to investigate the environmental sustainability of
commercial companies, putting pressure on them to reduce waste and pollution. We as a
sector should respond to this and pre-empt any investigations into the way we operate.
Issue number: 18
Issue: Do we have to tell stories that everyone can understand?
Conveners(s): Gerard McInulty
Participants: Lisa Lorenzo, Kirstin McLean, Pamela Hay
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We came to the conclusion: No we don’t have to tell stories that everyone can understand. So
long as it isn’t completely inaccessible.
Audiences can make up their own stories from a variety of elements. Allow the hidden stories to
emerge. There’s more than one kind of meaning.
Theatre can be experienced on many different levels. See an image, hear music, etc.
But who are we making a performance for – the audience or us? It’s important to engage the
audience with something, if not a story.
Work that’s open to interpretation offers audience opportunity and space to think for themselves.
Can we appreciate anything about a performance in another language, without subtitles? Is
there a different level of communication in theatre?
Audiences don’t need to be told too much / patronized.
Idea: established institutions should host large-scale workshops for groups of companies –
watch each others’ work, skill share and honest direct feedback helping to develop non narrative
methods.
Is non narrative theatre an acquired taste? Participants all had examples of shows that had led
to an interest in non text-based work. All theatre-goers have ability to appreciate non narrative
led material.
How do we enable people to take risks? Is there an argument for teaching people to devise
performances at Secondary School level?
Promoters and venues need to be brave to take new experimental work.
Alternatives to story telling as primary element of drama:
There’s an indefinable quality in certain works – something that really engages you and can’t be
explained on a rational level.
Work allowing audience to draw its own conclusions – giving ‘ownership’ of experience.
Cross fertilization of cultures.
Good casting – high quality ensemble.
Strong design – captivating staging.
Original use of music / sound.
Mystery…
The list could go on…
Issue number: 19
Issue: How do we escape the image of artist as scrounger and dole (doll) dodger?
Conveners(s): Robert Walton
Participants:
Ian Smith, Phelim McDermott, David Taylor
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Quick answer: wear a suit!
We are talking about how artists should be acknowledged as valued members of society.
We are talking about people have made a commitment to working as an artist who wish to selfinitiate their arts practice and make a contribution to their community.
We are talking about work that often isn’t associated with established institutions who make ‘new
work’. These could be theatre makers, street performers, devisers, circussy folk, performance
artists, choreographers. These are often people working on their own or in small groups.
Is there a stigma attached to these ‘floaters’? Should they go and get a proper job? How can
we make it easier for these people to survive whilst they make their work?
We are talking particularly about people in their early career, but would affect all of us when we
are ‘between jobs’. It affects all of us because we are talking about the public perception of
professionalism in our field.
Perhaps a modicum of hardship is important for emerging artists? Perhaps it cuts the wheat
from the chaff?
In the past the DOLE has been an unofficial way for the state to sponsor the arts. With New
Deal this has changed for the worse. Ian Smith acknowledges that the majority of his peers
would not be here were it not for the Dole as it was before New Deal?
How are we failing emerging (just graduated) artists by not providing a means for them to
survive? Is this damaging artists and the art they make?
In France, Holland, Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia and other places there are state sponsored
support systems which:
1) Allow artists a basic level of subsistence (like the dole without the hoops to jump through)
2) Legitimise the role of artist as a valuable contribution in society.
The irony of the big elephant in London was that the people who made it were trained by John
Fox in the UK; they went back to France and made the work because they were funded properly.
John Fox however just retired, bored of funding problems and a culture health and safety.
To make this happen we must make the change within ourselves as the theatre community. We
must acknowledge the diversity of the sector and the work that happens outside theatre
buildings.
We want to be part of a sea change in the perception of the role of artist.
We want to find a way to for artists to be cut a bit of financial slack.
Perhaps with this new idea of Cultural Entitlement and the idea that CULTURE IS IMPORTANT
that there may also be the idea that CULTURAL WORKERS ARE IMPORTANT! Is there a way
for innovation to be paid for.
We are talking about giving people a chance to survive whilst developing their new practice.
The space between graduating and seed funding, where mistakes may be made, and trials by
fire engaged in.
Issue number: 20
Issue: Forget the hinterland, concentrate resources/energy where there are most people.
Conveners(s): Eileen Nicholas
Participants: Eileen and Janie Lumsden
This question was put because I have a suspicion that a lot of people think yes but cannot admit
it and I was nearly right because only one person was brave enough to come along and say
“YES but we would never get away with it” We did have a very interesting time discussing the
fact that too many companies, when applying for funding, know they will have to force
themselves to tour if they are going to have any chance of getting funding and that this results in
some unsuitable work happening in unsuitable venues, with the result that audiences could well
be put off visiting the venue again and therefore counterproductive for venue/artist/ community.
We could be losing rather than gaining audiences by trying to spread our resources too thin.
Of course areas other than the central belt must have ‘product’ and the idea that local authorities
could be given resourses from central government to ‘buy in’ what they want or to fund a local
initiative which could ‘tour’ out to other areas was a possible way to create a more mature artistic
nation. We thought that Eire which has several very good producing theatres scattered over the
country and certainly from this perspective seems to have a more vibrant and successful theatre
culture might be a useful example to look to.
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Issue number: 21
Issue: Not enough support for or training for freelance directors.
Conveners(s): Purni Morell
Participants: Candice Edmunds, Guy Hollands, Caroline Newall, Davey Anderson, Steve Collins,
Adrian Osmond, Fiona Sturgeon, Pamela Hay, Catrin Evans
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Problems:
Buildings are run by Artistic Directors who generally direct their own work.
Freelance directors must set up their own companies to create opportunities for them to work,
which wastes resources and means they have no one to learn from but themselves.
Do you have be someone who directs plays themselves to successfully hire freelance directors?
Should creative producers run buildings?
Directors training ends with higher education.
The best training is observing and assisting established working directors.
SAC used to fund Associate Directors. Where has that funding gone?
Answers?
Could venue based directors direct one less show per year?
Has expectation risen? Do directors now expect to get paid work where they didn’t before?
How can Directors be given the opportunity to ask for work? They can’t audition? Be seen in
other shows?
Have the nature of being a theatre director changed?
Are the only options
Freelance/self driven directors working for nothing or employed directors having to run
companies and venues.
How can we ease the journey from the insular world of training to the professional sector?
Should theatre makers be professional at all?
How do we prevent talent from migrating south?
It is easier to make connections in Scotland, but on the flip side it is more likely that your career
will be launched to great heights from a Fringe show in London.
Inn larger English companies, there are casting and literary assistants who go and see work and
feedback recommendations to Artistic Directors? How can we all see all the work? Should
Artistic Directors court opinion from actors and other artists who have worked with freelancers, if
they don’t get the opportunity to see the work themselves?
If you are taken under the wing of one company, doors seem to close at others.
Do artistic directors really want to run a building if they could be paid the same for just directing?
Who really takes a risk hiring freelance directors who don’t have a reputation?
Is it easier for a producer to hire directors than a director? Does any A. Director want to hire
someone who may be better than them?
Is our culture becoming more supportive and development focused anyway?
Actions
Lobby for more funding, for more productions, therefore more jobs.
Encourage directors to keep working, even if for no money – JUST DO IT!
Meanwhile cut budgets wherever possible to find money for an Associate or Assistant.
We need Associate and Assistant Director positions to allow assess and development for
directors at all levels. Not all struggling directors are young and inexperienced.
Artistic Directors need to be generous and committed to nurturing future directors and artistic
directors.
Issue number: 22
Issue: Why do I not trust the people who fund us
Conveners(s): Graham McLaren
Participants: Mary McCluskey, Ian Smith, Jaine Lumsden, John Tiffany, Andy Arnold, Kirsten
McLean, Purni Morrell, Caroline Newall
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
GM A statement about lack of clarity, transparency and communication from Sac drama dept
from Graham, against what are we being judged? What strategy, other art-forms can develop a
strategy through communicating with their stakeholders why not drama dept in Scotland
MM Even when SYT are now better funded than in previous years, the question remains- how
long will this last, so ‘even good news’ clients wonder how long the good will last.
JL
Surely this applies to all funding bodies? Not just SAC
IS
Depend on a good personal relationship with your contact, because we were an
independent non-funded company we never relied on public subsidy however now we want to
grow and develop artistically we need funding but we are lucky that we have a good relationship
with Jaine. What happens if your contact moves on? Huge mistakes made at the top of funding
bodies resulting in massive overspends can render all our hard work and saving useless if it
means they run out of money before it get to the artists. I want to try to keep my independence
keep gigging.
PM
The problem is the committees and councils. There is not enough turnover of members
JL
WE want people from the art-forms to come on to the committee but the won’t
GM
I have tried to get on but never been invited
PM
Are the internal structures of the arts council fucked?
GM
I suspect you are right!
IS
I just want a home for burnt out performing artists. Cos growing pains can kill!
JL
That can be a common problem for companies but they don’t need to kill!
JT
Why do we not value our Scottish theatre artists? Why do we not invest in them?
AA
WE call ourselves an industry but we are not funded like one- we are funded like a lottery
CN
I don’t hold much hope of NTOS trusting The Scottish Exec
Issue number: 23
Issue: Is there any point in theatre that isn’t audience focused?
Conveners(s): John Tiffany
Participants: Neil Campbell, Pamela Hay, Scott Hoatson, Maryam Hamidi, Simon Wilkinson, Neil
Murray, Kate Bowen, Vicky Featherstone, Sarah Gray, Margaret Ann, Lizzie Nicoll, Chris Deans,
Muriel Romanes, Lorenzo Mele, Graham McLaren, Kevin, Jo Ronan
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What is the meaning of audience focused? It’s a term which has been used recently by funding
bodies as reasons for not supporting artists and we tried to get the bottom of the way it’s been
used and what we think it means.
It seems to have been equated with large audiences and accessible work but for many in the
group it was a nonsense meaning.
The term ‘artist led’ has also been used as if it were the opposite of audience focused. This
would seem to be a positive thing. It was proposed that for our funding bodies this means
companies who work with video.
We discussed whether the two phrases were mutually exclusive and felt very passionately that
they weren’t. For us audience focused means work which is created in order to communicate
something to or affect and audience. We felt it was impossible to be artist led without also being
audience focused.
We explored the idea of ‘art-form development’ and what that means and tried to think of the last
time we had seen work which had developed the art-form. Work referenced was ‘that Japanese
thing at Tramway’ and the builders association (although both were seen as only technologically
innovative), Queer Cabaret, the promenading Sultan’s Elephant in London and a Belgian
company called T J Stan.
Do companies who have been categorised as artist led want the responsibility of developing the
art-form for the rest of us?
Does audience focused mean commercial?
Is there any value in creating work that is never seen by an audience? Not in a workshop context
but to actually create full blown productions that are never place before an audience. We felt that
the work only becomes theatre when an audience is there.
Some wanted a return to the days when an audience would feel so involved in a piece of theatre
that they would shout out, throw fruit and viscerally connect with the work.
We were very passionate in our desire to reclaim the phrase audience focused from its ‘large
numbers’ meaning and re-fuse it with artist led. That is our ambition and recommendation.
Issue number: 24
Issue: Why are we so unfashionable?
Conveners(s): Graham Eatough
Participants: Ailie Cohen, Neil Murray, Vicky Featherstone, John Tiffany, Margaret Anne
O’Donnell, Graham McLaren, David Taylor, Kirstie McKenzie, Caroline Newall, Robert Walton,
Maryam Hamidi, Ian Smith
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Nobody wants to be us
We’re all freaks
Actually some people do think we’re cool
It’s better than doing a normal job
Theatre is an anachronism
Plays are so uncool
But not as much as some theatres – they’re a real problem with their bad architecture and velvet
seats
Apart from the Arches which is the coolest theatre in Scotland – Andy doesn’t ask anything of
you
Is it like the fashion industry?
Catwalk = Experimental theatre
High Street = Popular stuff
But they respect their avant-garde fringe and the influence it has
Visual art is fashionable
Why don’t we have a Turner Prize?
Why don’t we have any well-known figureheads who could speak up for the industry?
Maybe we need to piss people off more, be more controversial, that will get us in the papers
The public think we’re self-obsessed luvvies – that’s not cool
We all end up making theatre for our mums
Theatre is really fashionable in Berlin and Ghent – they produce theatre THEY want to see
We’re told what’s fashionable by the Guardian – they don’t care about Scotland
We don’t have anything like that up here
The list is not cool
Issue number: 25
Issue:
BRING BACK SMOKING ON STAGE – IT REALLY MATTERS
Conveners(s): Adrian Osmond
Participants: Adrian Osmond
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I’m sitting here by myself. Which is fine in some ways. (“whoever comes are the right people”).
BUT why has no one else come?
Does this issue not matter to anyone else?
Is it already just a joke? (Noel Coward signed himself up, but sadly failed to show – I was
“prepared to be surprised”, but no such luck.)
OR have we resigned ourselves to it? Have we accepted the fact that the powers-that-be will
not relent on this issue; that, whatever pressure we apply, we won’t be able to persuade them or
make them understand why this issue matters to us? And, having given up and moved on, are
we bored of this topic already?
Let’s put aside the aesthetic beauty of the image of smoking on stage; let’s put aside the need
for characters to express themselves / reveal an aspect of themselves through the act of
smoking; let’s put aside the difficulty of telling touring productions from other countries that they
have to cut aspects of their show when they come to Scotland; and what (to my mind) you’re still
left with is some major issues.
Theatre often walks along a tight-rope of fakery. We accept many levels of make-believe on
stage, often embracing trickery and playfulness. But the moment in a performance of Look Back
in Anger when the audience sees the actor playing Jimmy Porter pretend to light up is the
moment when the audience will say “I don’t believe you. You’re lying to me.” And we will have
lost them for the rest of the show. I’m not yet sure why this is the case. Perhaps because the
act of smoking is so ordinary? (similarly, if in the same style of play you merely pretended to eat
or drink.) When someone dies on stage, we know they haven’t really died, and we happily
suspend our disbelief; at present, this isn’t the case with smoking.
You can view the ban of smoking on stage as an inconvenience. Or you can view it as a
fundamental restriction of the necessary freedom / anarchy that theatre must have the potential
to possess.
Years ago, I was struck by something I read in Howard Barker’s Arguments for a Theatre; in
essence, he wrote that there’s something wrong with the state of theatre if no one’s trying to shut
any buildings/shows down. To my mind, that doesn’t mean that all theatre must be
controversial/shocking/illegal. But at the very least it means that it shouldn’t all be comfortable
and acceptable. In many ways, it is preposterous to ally Barker’s statement with the mundane
activity of lighting up. But, for me, it’s the very fact that the act is so ordinary and mundane that
makes this issue so important. If we’re not even allowed to smoke on stage, how can anything
displeasing be shown?
I imagine that baby in the pram being stoned in Bond’s Saved, and the act appalls me and
makes me think. It’s important this moment exists. Surely this bears no relation to smoking on
stage? Except, perhaps, that if we accept the fact that one act is not a suitable human activity
(even though it happens outside of theatres) and therefore we do not show it, how can we
accept the fact that another act is not a suitable human activity (even though it happens outside
of theatres) and yet demand to show it?
Or is this why no one else came to this session? Would most people rather allow the banning of
one minor act, and save their energy for ensuring that much more awful acts like baby-stoning or
raping in a mosque can be seen, and can appall us and make us think?
I’m also thinking of something that Vaclav Havel said in an interview in the early eighties. That
overthrowing the powers-that-be that were restricting the freedoms in his country couldn’t be
achieved by a major protest or uprising, but could be achieved gradually by stealth, inch-by-inch:
Havel & other artists would ask for one small concession & this would be granted; and then
another; and so on. And, in the end, this approach succeeded.
Are we, inch by inch, giving way? Should we fight for the right to smoke on stage so that our
next inch can be achieved?
IF SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THIS SMOKING BAN THEN
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
- What if everyone involved in the arts signed a petition? If it included signatures from across
the globe? Would the law then be changed?
Perhaps not. So is it worth the effort?
- What if we all started smoking on stage again (when the production required) and flaunted the
ban? What if we didn’t pay the fine?
OR
What if we paid the fine dutifully, even allocated funds for it in our production budgets….
I don’t know what would happen then. Which makes this is an exciting option.
But at present, it feels like many of those that care about this issue have rolled over. (myself
included.) And if we believe in creating and maintaining a vibrant and essential arts scene, how
can this attitude encourage that?
Have we gotten to a position where we’re weighed down by terms and conditions, where we’re
grateful to get funding, where we just want our work (and by extension ourselves) to be liked and
applauded rather than displease and aggravate…..
and where we’ve lost some of our passion for a fight?
Issue number: 26
Issue: What are writers for?
Conveners(s): Lynda Radley
Participants: Lynda Radley and Julie Brown
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Initial surprise at number of participants. Then we just got on with it.
- I proposed this topic because I am interested in discovering what it is that other theatre
practitioners think writers can do/want from writers.
- I am interesting in expanding my working practice and consistently re-evaluating my position
on a team/in collaboration.
- I come from a culture where the literary theatre is valued perhaps even more than it is in
Britain. But I sometimes think that in the vogue for site specific and devised work and in trying to
attract new audiences we sometimes throw the writer out with the bath water.
- As someone who makes devised work in a partnership Julie articulated her
fears/apprehensions about working with writers.
- How would they integrate into the work? The process?
- Would that mean giving over ownership of the work?
- Do words on the page equal law?
- Appreciation of the fact that writing can be very lonely and that as a young person without an
income from it, it requires a lot of self-discipline and self-motivation. Seeing that side of it that
perhaps hadn’t been considered before.
- How do I find writers? - Scratch, Playwrights studio, looking at what theatres are programming
and see who is involved.
- What if you were to approach a writer and say let’s try a creative collaboration for a day with
the goal of something like a Scratch and feel free to walk away at the end if it doesn’t work
out…. Possible action
- Do writers ever approach companies? Isn’t always seen as usually being the other way around.
- What is a dramaturge? Does anybody care?
- Research can be a creative act…
- Putting a structure on something can be a creative act…
- A lot of people who don’t consider themselves writers write all the time… especially while
making devised work.
Issue number: 27
Issue: theatre should take place outside theatres
Conveners(s): Andy Arnold
Participants: LJ Dodd, Jackie Wylie, Sarah Potter, Julie Brown, Mary McClusky, Kenny
McGlashman, Julia Baver, Ross Ramsey, Brian Ferguson, Jaine Lumsden, Gerry McNulty,
Lynda Radley, and others
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We have the pressure of trying to perform to large audiences to maximize box office but the
artistic experience shouldn’t be affected by that ie if it’s best to stage it in such a way that only a
few people can see it and have to climb up a mountain to see it then that’s the right way. There
must be a symbiotic relationship between audience and performers, whether it’s one performer
and an audience of a thousand or a cast of a thousand performing to one. The latter experience
will go on to be talked about by thousands of people which is just as relevant.
We should be able to take an audience on a literal journey to tell a story if that is the most
effective way to do it.
There is the practical issue of access e.g. wheel chair users going up a mountain but theatre
should always be able to deal with every challenge.
Amazing site specific work going on in Scotland e.g. Grid Iron and NVA but it’s only the London
experiences that attract attention.
Issues about the practical problems of converting into theatre spaces e.g. health and safety
access etc will develop with experience as with film companies, location managers etc. This will
improve as theatre is more and more recognized by public bodies i.e. Poorboy’s relationship with
public transport agencies helping the Arches with their site-specific piece.
The idea of a theatre ‘Code of Practice’ that should be adhered to when dealing with outside
agencies and the making of site specific work was suggested. This would prevent
mismanagement that would have a knock on effect on other companies who may in the future
need to rely on the good will of third parties and outside agencies.
Should ticket price increase substantially for performances with small audiences? Would this
effect social inclusion? Audience may or may not be willing to take a chance on an experimental
performance with a very high ticket price. The’ pay what you can’ model maybe only work when
there are supportive audiences i.e. Scratch.
Is mobile work just a trend? – As long as it has soul it doesn’t matter about the increasing trend.
Bad work doesn’t cancel out good work. There was mention of possible problems that can occur
where so much effort is spent on the logistics’ of site-specific work that the piece itself fails or
isn’t as strong as it could have been as a static piece.
Are we too attached in Britain to the idea that plays should be naturalistic? Are we just clinging
on the playwrights because we are scared? Maybe there is a problem in the fact that there is no
funding for playwrights to work on devised projects.
Discussions on the fact that most of our actors are still trained classically, and are not
encouraged to experiment with their own practice/explore different methods that are relevant to
more experimental types of work. It’s positive that RSAMD now have a promenade element to
their course.
Would it be it positive to make promenade styles more mainstream? Discussion on the
responses to promenade/street theatre in areas of differing social and economic class among
children - It was suggested that children from poorer areas were more open minded and had
more experience of promenade/street theatre and experimental work.
Issue number: 28
Issue: What can make us better artists?
Conveners(s): Vicky Featherstone
Participants:
Scott Hoatson
Heather Cassidy
Fraser Macleod
Graham Eatough
Candice Edmunds
Annabel Rodger
Sam Stocker
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We could think of ourselves as artists.
Question is good – makes the assumption that we do think of ourselves as artists
Who decides what an artist is?
Actors often see themselves as “puppet” – not artist
Perception that artists are wanky
People more comfortable with notion of being a practitioner – practical things, not the ideological
or theoretical approach which is an artist – not done enough to feel that
Using the word artist creates an individual responsibility to the process
Having to do office work makes you question your role as artist, feel redundant and removed
from it
Being an artist is a state of mind, an internal sense of being
Visual artists can teach us, they talk about having a practice.
What is our practice?
How can you improve it?
Need workshop space
Being good at other things – finance, marketing therefore not considered creative
No training breeds a lack of confidence. People can’t afford to train.
Application forms now require formal training
Training is introverted and has little to do with outside world.
Clarity of career path, steps to take.
How do we become an artist?
Training in Britain is creating all-rounders, not artists who have been submerged in practice eg
Drama Centre
Need residencies, workshops with the International Artists who come to Scotland.
Cross-fertilization of ideas, practice and forms
Arches artists forum
Think about sabbaticals
Try to be less defensive about work to move it forward, also the responsibility of good critical
debate.
International artists display a greater confidence about their work.
Be kinder to your self to actually see what you have done – how the audience see it.
Should we have an open space about practice?
More workshops?
Creative spaces.
Call ourselves artists…………………………………………………
Issue number: 29
Issue: You can’t/won’t fund what you have no interest in understanding.
Conveners(s): Robert Walton
Participants:
Elise Clayton, Graham McLaren, David Taylor
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
It was acknowledged that this is a provocative subject.
Another question was: how is work that fits between the gaps supported?
It was noted that institutions like SAC were by there nature always going to be ‘a few steps
behind’. However is this the way it should be is there a mindset change that’ll promote new
forms, ideas, ways of working, sector definitions etc?
You cannot understand everything.
Funders within the constituency may be more able to respond in more speedy and ‘less
transparent’ ways. E.g. NTS Workshop creates a space for new ideas to be tried out, NRLA
supports ‘new work.’
Recommendation:
Perhaps SAC could have an ‘innovation department’ that champions the new and emerging
work and places change as a central value of the institution.
The name could change, and its remit alter over its lifetime (in fact this should happen regularly)
but the effect may remain constant: innovation must be harbored and made central in Scottish
support structures for the arts.
It was noted that businesses in the ‘real world’ invest in innovation and risk as a core business
strategy. They even have departments for it. Why not the arts?
Issue number: 30
Issue: What is political theatre? And why the fear?
Conveners(s): Catrin Evans
Participants: Johnny McKnight, Kate Bowen, Neil Campbell, Kenny McGlashan, David Taylor,
Lorenzo Mele, Fiona Sturgeon, Elise
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Oh dear not a soul here!!!! That is scary!
Slowly but surely some people arrived – and the discussion began.
An overwhelming interest in the word fear – whose fear, fear of what?
Audience fear of the word – a kneejerk reaction to this word – feeling that performance will be
didactic/attacking etc, rather than discursive. How do we dispel this fear?
The artists fear of the word – saying you are a political artist limits you – means you are being
judged by certain criteria, different from other artists – an assumption that your work will not be
aesthetically exciting – is it better to leave the word ‘politic’ out of the discussion surrounding
your work. Are we working in an industry where we are too scared to offend – focus on personal
politics rather than political debate – is political theatre at the moment actually too diluted – do
we need more hard-line practice? But don’t tell the audience what to think – offer all sides of the
debate – draw attention to the complexities surrounding issues that are otherwise framed as
black and white.
Political work – it is all about intention (this was a point made again and again – its what is
driving the work that makes something political) – a motivation to stir things up
- but do we need the word political to do this – its not necessarily sexy to be political and
therefore is it not marketable
- the older generation in Glasgow has grown up with explicit political theatre and are
keen/accepting of this convention but the younger generation are more
cynical/apathetic/inverted so does work need to be reframed.
political (small p important) – the word is associated with Politicians and Political rhetoric –
society now so disillusioned with our political system etc that actually doing yourself a disservice
to line yourself along with these associations – people will expect one-sided debate/spin/lies
rather than complex discourse and an invigorating experience.
Is it also inviting academic debate – will your work be viewed as an essay/a manifesto rather
than as a piece of art – will the critique surrounding it be too theoretical rather than
artistic/active?
Truly political work needs to engage with the audience outside of the theatre – we are not a
politicized nation? – really?
If you take away the word political – are you being misleading to your audience – and are you
being dishonest to yourself about what drives your work?
Why are we scared to be honest?
Fear of preaching to the converted – so…we need to take work to new places – this is the real
challenge – engaging people who do not want to engage with political debate – want to
enlighten/shake – this is great art (regardless of its political intention)
But… trying to maneuver new audiences is a crazy, unrealistic task – to huge a task for new
companies
- yes it is hard and ambitious but must still try – otherwise again, not being honest to our
intention.
- Need to find new venues – and work with the surrounding communities – presenting work is
not enough
- Or is it about making work for the mainstream stage that is both political and populist (is this
diluted or really really radical?)
Our generation – in info overload (but arguably saturated by the wrong info) – we are explicitly
aware of the lies – a cynical nation but also one obsessed with PC
There is a huge problem with racism in Glasgow but which artists are actually tackling
this? – everyone too scared to tackle it because we are all trained to say “I am not racist,
racism is bad” – prevents us from actually tackling the real and urgent social problems
bubbling under the surface of society.
We are politicized and depoliticized in equal measure – have to tap into these two spheres of
ourselves – artist and audience. Does work have to be personalized to be political – unless it
affects us we are not interested – should we work with this trend or work against it?
What is the role of verbatim theatre in this debate? Cross between political and reality TV – is
this tapping into the social/cultural climate?
It dramatizes real lives – and potentially can mobilize an audience to want to change things once
they leave the theatre. Example of The Exonerated – celebrities used to pull in audiences – is
this ok?
What is coming out of this debate is that the content of a performance does not necessarily have
to be political – what about the form it is presented in – a political aesthetic – ie. The relationship
between audience and performer – the roles of these two, breaking down the conventions of
theatre to in turn ask larger questions about normalized society.
The creation of the work can be inherently radical – a political form – is this more
threatening to the establishment than performances with political content
Back to issues of intention – and social impact – can what is political be aesthetically
pleasing? Discussion surrounding NTS’s The Crucible – Brian Cox –v- Uncle Bob – professional
and community actors on stage together – very radical – and potentially too threatening to the
theatre world itself. This messes with social structures and clear definitions which are what
uphold status quo – to break this down is to enter into real debates surrounding issues of social
change.
David Taylor tells the group that Mark Brown once said that political theatre is not encouraging
the masses to rise up but to educate the elite because they wield the power. – very contentious
If you are going to educate the elite – it is how you go about doing this
Real social change has always come from grassroots – agitation is still effective.
Living in a world where we are saturated by irony/parody/cynicism – these are devices that
political theatre have always relied upon – but are these now redundant? – where do we go from
here?
The opposite of parody is utter sincerity – is this what we need – back to verbatim theatre – the
search for a raw experience
But does that mean that political theatre has to become poor theatre; a stripped down
aesthetic – is the challenge to push the aesthetic potential of verbatim – do not allow it to be only
poor theatre – a bare stage – create a authentic experience that can shake our base responses
– present a rawness that can be trusted
This is moving away from notions of artifice – which, actually is very
anti-theatrical – a radical aesthetic in itself.
Acknowledging the audiences presence – and making them aware that their presence is
vital to the performance being a finished piece.
But also must continue to value and see the strength in the fourth wall – Snuff by Davey
Anderson – playing with stories/narratives/characters in order to tap into larger political debates
– drawing attention to paradox and ambiguity and allow non PC debates to take place – allows
the audience time to consider/explore these issues through a new lens – opens up perspective.
Theatre can engage with the stories behind what is presented in the news
Makes the seemingly simple complex
But still how do we sell this? How do we dispel the fear?
There were few tangible recommendations but a passionate discussion surrounding why we fear
and what it is that we’re actually scared of – this is debate that has to continue.
But also aware that this debate has been going on for longer than any of us have been working
in theatre – how do we move on from these or find news ways of tackling these questions?
Issue number: 31
Issue: Too few people of colour involved in theatre
Conveners(s): Jo Ronan
Participants: John Tiffany, Lorenzo Mele, Maryam Hamidi, Chris Deans, Davey Anderson, Phil,
Caroline Newall, Graham McLaren,
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The London experience of Open Space – very few attenders from BME theatre community even
though invites sent out.
Is this a special interest? Jo uncomfortable bringing this up – fear of being on her own with
issue. Having worked in mainsteam now with Ankur Arts, a BME orientated Theatre company.
This is an issue that would beeen brought up by someone else
Jo asked : why are we all here at this session?
- London experience compared to Scottish experience – complacency of Scottish theatre ‘
we have enough struggles’
- Some token quick fix attempts
- No seed level long term commitment
- Directors want to tell interesting varied stories
- Iranian background/English upbringing – necessity of intergration (or not?) – own cultural
traditions sometimes forgotten
- Why is this an issue and why people afraid to bring this up
- Creativity comes from Diversity
- Fear of saying something wrong/offending eg sexuality – its an issue still even you don’t
want it to be
- 20 years ago at uni lots of asian practitioners in theatre now in other fields; as playwrights
sorrow at missing stories – our culture would be different these voices were more present.
Tried to set up groups (eg traverse writers) – resistence from funders/venues with
problems emphasized
- devolution has thrown new light on Scottish identity
Iranian tradition – men and women can’t touch each other on stage can become a rich potential
on stage
English example of Talawa theatre company mess.
Do we feel qualified to be involved in these issues? Who is genuine?
Singapore – intergration and pluralistic ethnicities – part of life – here it feels more monolithic
Are skills more important than ethnicity to be delivering work?
2 issues:
- Isolation from theatre – some cultural traditions are not pro-theatre
- Inward focus of Scottish theatre
British Identity not explored in same way in England
Rich Iranian theatre tradition only recently discovered
Ways of getting involved – eg playwrights courses assume people want to tell stories in ‘classic’
ways
Tokenistic attempts can set back integration/exploration
‘we going to allow ‘you’ to come into ‘our’ theatres’ – can this be turned around – support how
people want to tell their own stories
But danger with this of ghetto-ism each culture
Integration between Practitioners of different backgrounds/ethnicities can enhance the delivery
of a project – enables true representation
Pastoral role in schools – young BME people have no tradition of accessing mainstream culture
– we have to access groups in new ways
Level of discourse – who can criticize BME theatre work – everyone can/should
Colour blind casting or scottish accents important for Scottish audiences?
BBC Scotland – deliberate policy of quotas – more of a money making career
Not a status industry – also economic issues about lack of opportunities in longer term – danger
of approaching these issues from class/wealthy perspectives
In London 3rd/4th generations are now changing theatre scene
What was put in place to achieve this? – Contact Theatre in Manchester – community ownership
of the space – DJ and club nights, focus on youth culture.
Edinburgh – afro-carribean not visible – but becoming more so
Ethnic groups are not homogenous – and this should be taken into accounts when creating work
How can different ethnic groups work with each other and with larger mainstream communities.
Why are people more secure among their own ethnic group?
Political drama – people will do it in different ways – tailor-make projects that take certain areas
into consideration i.e religion, gender segregation – do the best productions – that’s what we
should do – alongside grassroots projects
Industry decision – should not listen to press
Force RSAMD to have quota of non-white actors – at present developing cooperation between
RSAMD and ANKUR productions
Racism celebrated in plays on major stages
Casual racism
RSC Othello – had all white cast except black orphelia – tokenism?
East is East – all white production – could we get away with it
Classic plays - is it easier to blind cast – why? Audience don’t give a fuck. Do producers?
How has RSAMD moved on? SYT, RSAMD, NTS – go at it from all angles
BME Actors no here in Scotland to be cast – it’s OK to look further afield until more are trained
here.
Blind casting always the feature of reviews
In Scotland we don’t produce enough so every show is precious – extraordinary pressure so
cannot take the risk
NTS needs to take the lead in casting BME actors
Whatever hang-ups we have it, just do it! Can’t be rushed though or it will counter-productive
SYT have tried but struggled to attract BME
Jo thanked everyone for their honesty.
Issue number: 32
Issue:
I’ve got the funding, what happens now?
Long term plans / ambitions and short term funding
Conveners(s): Julie Brown
Participants: Rob Walton; Sarah Potter; Gary McNair; Julia Bauer; Candice Edmunds; Jacqui
Skelton; Sarah Gray; Jaine Lumsden; David Taylor; Elise Clayton
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Much of this discussion has left us with unanswered questions as opposed to solutions to our
queries.
Our initial starting point was to ask the following questions:
What are the provisions for ‘brand new artists’? Secondly, what about the gaps for project to
project based companies?
Does the SAC recognise a need for ‘creative hubs’ – the general consensus was yes, this is
something which is getting better.
First questions raised included - How can artists and companies gain kudos by not having a
home address as point of contact? How can they surround themselves with other artists and
companies; how do they find a network to collaborate? What opportunities are available out
there for new artists and companies? How do you get you first platform? How do you find people
to work with and build your own artistic community / network?
Does this come only by offering something of yourself and ‘putting the feelers out’ ? Here I am,
this is what I do – would you like to come and work with me.
Models of current platform strategies mentioned include;
PARIP - Practice as Research in Performance.
Arches New Directors Award
Arches offering in-kind support (rehearsal space / technical / press etc)
Tramway schemes –
Dark Lights (now not in practice)
Surge
CCA Lab Nights (now not in practice)
Is the general thinking that building based programmers need to see work before they will put it
on in their venue? Does this apply, not only to new companies / artists, but to companies / artists
approaching venues in other areas of the country?
Where are these platforms? How do we get people to view our work?
How often do we work for nothing?
Do we need the support of a venue? Can we put on our own work without their help?
Funding applications need the commitment of a venue to hold the performance so how can we
make it ‘less difficult to meet the programmers’ ? Furthermore, is there really any point to mailing
lists and forums if it’s the same faces not really tackling any issues ?
Is it possible to use the venues as a tie-in, as a stakeholder in the project ? If they are the ‘initial
way in’, are there entry level points ?
The scheme offered by the National Theatre Workshop was also mentioned – the consensus
seemed to be that they will only take on work which has a possible longer term potential of just
maybe becoming an NT production. Are we educated enough in what is going on?
Much of the discussion at this stage focused on opportunities in Glasgow – what is happening in
the rest of the country? How do we find out about it? Let’s start thinking about what geographical
areas need instead of imposing the same systems everywhere.
There followed a discussion on the ‘gaps between us’. The space between a brand new
graduate / a seed funded company /a project based company…yet the discussion never went
any ‘higher on the ladder’ at this point.
Artists / companies need to get used to working; developing their own methodologies and
working practices. It was suggested that artists / companies need to develop their own strategies
and perhaps think ‘more like a business’ in terms of planning.
What are the pros and cons of continuous practice versus project to project?
Would the provision of non-monetary based resources be useful ?
How can we create an environment of support and mentorship ?
Reference was made to the current SAC shared-resource scheme in which Vanishing Point
mentor four companies – Random Accomplice; Vox Motus; ek Performance and David Leddy.
These resources include the sharing of knowledge and skills which these young companies may
otherwise not have access to and which are invaluable.
Could we perhaps look at a larger scale version of this model – a skills base and the building of
a network. How can we set up these systems of mentoring and pass on the knowledge ?
The discussion led on to venues as mentors and the query was raised as to ‘how many venues
have empty spaces and for how long in any given year?’ Should there be artists in these
spaces? Should they be ‘paying for the privilege’?
Could we start thinking about these as ‘creation spaces’ as opposed to ‘rehearsal spaces’ and
will this happen out of ‘partnering yourself with a venue’? It was agreed that this not only applies
to new artists / companies but also project funded companies who will also still struggle in these
areas.
A suggestion was made of a (potentially FST organised) speed-dating session – can we link up
artists with buildings ? new companies with established ? artists with artists to negate the need
for venues? Moreover, should venues be given incentives for bringing people into the building,
particularly if you are targeting artists / companies from outwith your city.
How do we create –
The Peer Group Support Network / The Internal Support System !!
Reference was made to an English Arts Council incentive known as the New Work Network and
indeed to the Creative Hubs idea currently being considered by the Scottish Arts Council.
A discussion then followed on whether or not artists should be paid to think about and develop
their work, rather than having to go on the dole. What are the options ? New Deal / Bursaries /
Fellowships. The question was raised that could putting a monetary value on this (a weekly
wage) devalue the artist? How do we measure how many unemployed artists there are ? And if
someone chooses to take on a non-artistic job to support themselves, are they still considered
unemployed? It was felt that this was a very personal and individual choice – comments included
‘Choosing to work outwith the arts sector does not make me less of an artist’ ‘I should be given
space to think’ ‘If you really want to do it you’ll make it work’.
Is this when we perhaps can be taken advantage of? We don’t need your time / money /
resources – we’ll make it work anyway !!!!
What are our ideals ?
There is a time period of sustainability but how long can we survive working in these
constraints? Does this affect the quality of our work? Are we losing people in our industry
because of this? What are our choices?
Companies are fuelled by enthusiasm and spirit but there will come a time when we need to ask
whether or not we are still feeding this. There is a tendency to let Dr Theatre take over but we
still need to think about our own wellbeing / our health / our passion.
Is there pressure to ‘stick to the ladder of development’? Do we make work because we are
afraid to have a year out? In case someone else steals our thunder or our ideas? We have a
right to make an artistic choice not to do something.
And finally, long term ambition cannot be fruitful without the input of experienced artists /
practitioners and what their knowledge brings to the table. Who are these ‘community elders’
and what knowledge and experience do they have.
How can a dialogue about longevity take place without these people?
Issue number: 33
Issue: How can we dispel the attitude that education is an add-on rather than it being
central to everything we do?
Conveners(s): Heather Cassidy
Participants: Josephine Ronan, Helen Black; Heather Cassidy
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- Education projects allow personal development for community groups.
- Inclusion of mixed groups brings diversity.
- Learning should be at the heart of our practice.
Critics:
- Do not always know how to assess education work, and so should they come at all?
- Do they stop this kind of work being produced through negativity?
- Does it stop companies working in partnership with community groups?
- Example: Mark Brown (Sunday Herald) responded to the TAG/NTS Co-production of ‘The
Crucible’ by saying that inclusion should be burned at the stake – who gives critics the
right to profess snobbery to educated readers? How can theatre companies best respond
to this? – The Community Participants, in general, learnt so much and got a great deal
from the project, but it is a reality that such negativity stops this from being recognized.
- This kind of work must continue irrespective of criticisms. There is an important place for
communities in theatre.
Artistic Directors / Education Directors and workers:
- What do Artistic Director’s think of the value of education?
- There seems to be a polarity between Artistic Teams and Education Teams. They need to
fuse together to move forward productively.
- Framework tends towards a hierarchy – Education work needs a better level of
recognition – too often Education is seen as an arm rather than being integral.
- Can partnerships be symbiotic?
Marketing / Profile within a Company:
- Example: the Citizen’s Education Team do really invaluable work, developing work with
community members and developing/strengthening existing and new audiences – how
much is this recognized by the Marketing and Artistic Departments?
- Do Venue Programmes/Brochures/Posters reflect the importance of Education work?
Getting a page in the Citz brochure for an Education Production is a real struggle yet a
main-stage or visiting company Production gets a good sized advertisement
automatically. All these productions should have the same profile.
- Posters go up around a venue to advertise productions, but Education productions are
not given the same status. We believe that they should be equally high on the Venue’s
Artistic agenda.
Is this a problem with the structure of companies?
- The fusion of TAG and the Citizen’s Theatre, for example, should raise the profile of the
Citizen’s existing Education reputation, as they are a whole company coming in and in
this way are able to help raise the game to a new level.
Do some activities get recognition above others?
- It is true that some activities are overlooked in favour of others.
- Better explanations about projects for the general public, audiences, critics and funding
bodies, would help to improve understanding of the process and its outcomes.
Should all companies produce Education work?
- No! It should not be essential to do Education productions or provide Education
activities/opportunities if it is not relevant to what your company does. Companies need to
clarify what they are about to know whether this should be part of their make-up.
- Companies who run Education projects that are not at the heart of who they are and what
they do, run the serious risk of damaging the sector. Projects must be relevant and of a
high quality if we want the negative attitude towards Education to change.
- Funding bodies should not position Education as an incentive to gain funding.
- We need to be honest about our strengths and our weaknesses.
Planning & Development:
- Education projects need to be well-planned and organized.
- NTS, as our national company, has to lead on this.
- It is also important to recognize that time for development and training is invaluable.
Pay:
-
There should be an equal level of pay within companies. If you say that Education is at
the heart of what you do, then you have to pay your Education Workers the same as you
do your actors and your technicians. Paying them less is an indication that you don’t take
the work that they do seriously enough or value them as much as you should. Invest in
them!!
Are we targeting the wrong groups?
- Typically Education programmes are not aimed at the main theatergoing public. Perhaps
doing so would help raise the status and open up Educational opportunities to more
people.
- Example: East Renfrewshire Council targeted walking groups in Barrhead and Rouken
Glen, and told them tales as they walked, as a way of engaging them. After 4 of these
walks, participants got a free ticket to see a production, and virtually all of them came
along, and brought more people with them too.
- We need to look at a wider spectrum of people/groups and work more creatively than we
currently do, to raise profile and promote the importance and value of Education.
Networking:
- Education Personnel need to attend conferences like this one.
- Meetings/Symposiums, need to be opened up to more people. For example, the FST
Meetings, should not just be for Directors and Producers because that gives the
impression of hierarchy and an elite.
New ways of working:
- Whole companies should promote ALL of the work, whether that be main-stage company
productions, visiting company productions, education productions, or one-off projects. It
should not just be up to Marketing Departments or individuals to do all the leg-work.
- Institutionally, everyone makes Education an add-on. We need to change the focus to
change the attitude!!
- It is not just about the product, but is also about the process. There is too much emphasis
on the product and there needs to be more of a balance here. Quality should be constant
so that every part of the project is interesting and valuable in itself.
- It is about developing partnerships to make the best work.
- We need to forward plan our artistic programmes, both within companies and within
venues, and all staff should be involved in this dialogue. Forward planning is integral for
successful programming and in this way, education and main-stage decisions should be
reached in the same conversation, rather than education remaining as an afterthought.
The Artistic Agenda should be transparent and enriching.
Issue number: 34
Issue: Innovative management in innovative arts practice
Conveners(s): Kirstie McKenzie
Participants: Lucy Foster, Sarah Jean Couzens, Eilidh MacAskill, Eileen Nicholas, Nick
Sweeting, Sarah Potter, Phelim McDermott
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What does innovative management mean?
Fluid
Flowing of ideas
Changing
Responsive
Proactive
Facilitating
Risk taking (although there was discussion about whether innovative had to mean risk taking)
Inspirational
Exciting
Valuing management
Systems
Codes of practice
Effective and efficient
Perception of management is top heavy and not good value for money. Maybe innovative
management is the opposite to this.
A facilitating system for the work.
What would it mean if we had innovative management?
Good
Would mean can change with the environment, possibly therefore surviving longer.
Could support new and changing work.
Bad
Insecurity
Could create confusion and things could fall into information black holes.
What would it look like?
Ideas can come from anywhere or anyone within the organization, not top down ideas.
Like chaos, on the surface it appears very chaotic but if examined closely is very small detailed
structures interlinked and working together.
Transparent
It takes on a responsibility to share with its community.
The people within in it take ownership of it
Examples of it?

NTS as it has no building means it has the potential of fluidity. There was discussion
around how that process can ripple out into the wider Scottish theatre community.

Other examples are a restauranteur hired their restaurant out to different people each day
of the week, who wanted to try to run a restaurant so that they could experiment with how
they did it and see if they liked it.

Utilising existing structures of support, there was an example of a playwright and director
who hired management staff from within buildings when he was working with those
venues. Not management for managements sake (the film Brazil was referenced).

Artsadmin was an example of sharing resources. The cultural enterprise office was
discussed as a Scottish model although it just offers training which can be expensive.

Battersea Arts Centre training – there wasn’t money for development but instead all staff
got 5 days to do what they wanted that could be training, work shadowing of someone in
a different department, or something completely non-work related.

Bloomburg were mentioned as no one has job titles and someone would just be known as
the person responsible for xxxxx.

Pscychometric testing was suggested as a model to recognize the strengths and
weaknesses within a team
Other thoughts:
There was an analogy of the wolf from Pulp fiction, the idea that there could be a management
troubleshooting team who would go in and help put good practice in place (clean up the dead
body with his head blown off from your car).
As innovative practice is often intangible there is a strong impulse to make management solid.
The need to operate in a way others understand. Funding structure is such that organizations
can receive larger amounts of money than individuals, which suggests that the funding structure
values solidity in this instance.
In the definition of innovation its suggests loss is inevitable, which could be good and could be
bad.
There was some discussion about large organizations and if because of their size they couldn’t
be innovative in their management. Reference was made to profit making organizations such as
Unilever which is large organizations, yet it operates an innovative management system. It was
felt that because it was profit making it could be both. Because its purpose (making profit) is very
easily and obviously defined; there is a real clarity. A lot of publicly funded organizations can’t do
long term planning due to the nature of their funding agreements, which also makes it more
difficult to be a large organization with a changing management system.
There was discussion that one of the strengths of Scotland was that as it’s a smaller pond there
could be much greater sense of community.
We talked about systems and processes and that a system could just be, for example, the one
who gets the e-mail first deals with it and copies the other one in. This therefore suggests that
the system doesn’t have to be rigid it just needs to be named and defined.
Information management was discussed as an important element of administration.
Issue number: 35
Issue: My Gran, neighbours, hairdresser, friends don’t ‘get’ my work. Is that my problem?
Conveners(s): Eilidh MacAskill
Participants: Lynda Radley, Lucy Foster, Ian Smith, Fiona Sturgeon
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Underlying issues:
 It’s difficult to explain my job to people not in the know (probably because it’s not
really only a job)
 Is my choice to make a certain kind of work valued by others – the rest of the
theatre community, friends and family, society in general?
 Something about accessibility …
 Something about the role of the artist
Is the role misunderstood because it’s not a real job, and/ or because it’s so linked to playing,
which is demeaned in society or saved for children.
It sometimes feels akin to the role of the mother in society – something that you do because you
want to, that you personally get a lot out of, that is bloody hard work for little thanks, and is
unpaid. But it’s not actually so altruistic, because essentially, you want to do it to please yourself.
Also, you’re not always producing a quantifiable product.
Link with the Art & Entertainment issue, where the good shit happens somewhere in between.
 Audience Relationships – once the bums are on seats and when trying to reel them in
So then, we’re talking about language; the language we use to describe our practice and the
language we use to communicate our ideas. Theatre is always about communication with your
audience and that happens in a particular context, never in a vacuum. Therefore you have to be
clear about who the work is for….inclusion?
 TOOLS - In getting people to understand what you do (assuming they don’t automatically)
there is often a gap of education and language. People might need tools to get the most out of it.
 Share the process – there should be ways outside of the actual work that help to explain and
share the skills involved in the work. We had a good example of a puppeteer doing a puppet
show for kids alongside a workshop where they get to make the same kind of puppets and so
have a real insight into the work.
Education leads to appreciation!!!
What about other tools perhaps for adults or other audiences coming to more
experimental/challenging/unknown work?
Having reference leads into it – hooks – ‘it’s a bit like this film…’
Showing the game of it…
Example of Lone Twin doing their walking performance across the two bridges and being totally
open to talking to the audience about what they’re up to in a very simple and accessible way. In
fact, in that situation, those interactions become the work.
 So there needs to be clarity and a way for the audience to detect your honesty.
I don’t know if I do want to explain my process…
But you’re always working on different levels, and the work works on different levels. There are
ways and ways.
By being in the arts sector in Scotland we’re in an insecure climate which is bad for the individual
self-image of artists.
 But who creates the demand?
Also, we should be focusing on the people who do come, even if it’s just 10 people who planned
to come and the 2 people who stumbled in.
*Need to get rid of the paranoia and don’t make assumptions about what your audience can
handle.
*People underestimate their audience as much as they confound them.
*Audiences actually will work quite hard and be generous in the right situation.
*Need to make sure not to alienate them.
*HOOKS – need to know something about it to hold onto.
How to look after the audience (in a non-patronising way!)?
 Atmosphere of venue – is it conducive to the theatre experience?
 How do you let your audience feel special/wanted?
 This might be a totally unknown situation for them with no signs to tell them what to do or
how to behave. A more traditional theatre or a club or a bar or a music venue can have
quite clear boundaries and trajectories for their customers, but somewhere like the Arches
or Tramway can be a bit daunting to say the least!
How to look after them in the work?
 Sense of humour – finding universal tools to communicate
 Story about Julian when directing imagining sitting with his Gran on one side of him and
his daughter on the other as an imaginary barometer of what might work. But also, and
importantly, not compromising what he wants in the middle.
 It’s not dumbing down, but recognizing that theatre is a set-up, so how can we use that
and oil the machinery to make it easier for the audience to engage with it. And also to let
people in, in order to slap them with something more difficult.
Accessibility
Need to be touching people’s humanity
What intrigues people?
Hang on, Miss Paranoid Artist who thinks nobody understands! Are you sure that they don’t get
it? That the public are negative about you as a concept as well as an individual?
Don’t be so defensive – this defensiveness, particularly within small-scale experimental work,
is a symptom of and a catalyst for a bubble containing a small number of peers.
Definitions change – Historically, the public’s idea of what an artist is has definitely developed
and is ever-changing and is open to varied applications and types of people.
 Stop apologizing for it – and stand up for it! – Ian Smith
How can people understand, for example, what a performance artist is if they never meet
someone who identifies themselves as that and explains what that might be?! People can
understand that an artist might exist and then it doesn’t take much of a leap to say, ‘That’s what I
am’. You don’t expect a plumber to explain every part of their job to you.
 The public includes the weirdos – Theatre makers and performance artists are members of
the public, too, just like people who have gnomes in their gardens.
 Also, some people are just inspired by the new, no matter what medium – the potential for
failure is exciting. So you could get some people to get the work, just for the fact that it’s new!
Issue number: 36
Issue: Do buildings need artistic direction?
Conveners(s): John Tiffany
Participants: Graham Eatough, Graham McLaren, Davey Anderson, Fiona Sturgeon, Mary
McClusky, Steve Collins, Lizzie Nicoll, Eileen Nicholas, David Taylor, Adrian Osmond, Fraser
McLeod
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The initial majority response was YES (maybe not too surprising given the participants) but as
we talked further it became a much more complex question. We discussed the producer model
and decided we should be wary of any models. But there have been successful theatres and
companies in Scotland with producers at the helm. Does this mean we should adopt it as a
successful model? Were these tenures about the right people at the right time in response to a
particular situation and within a particular context of Scottish Theatre?
We also explore the notion of organisational leadership and how directors are often seen as in
specific managerial roles. Are there too many demands made on Artistic Directors as Chief
Executives etc?
We talked about a theatre developing a body of work and an aesthetic over time and that work
having a relationship with an audience as well as creating an innovative and world class
reputation. Is this only possible with an Artistic Director at the helm? Can producers provide
opportunities We couldn’t think of many world class theatre makers who didn’t have a company
around them, although any of them have opted to work outside traditional buildings and
structures.
Is the producer model borrowed from the commercial sector? We could think of many Broadway
and West End successful producers and driving forces behind work. Placed within the
subsidised sector, does this become primarily strategic in terms of giving opportunities to
developing directors?
It was challenged that young theatre makers don’t have the same strict definitions of
producer/director etc and that this was fresh as there could be something stale about the grey
bearded long serving artistic director.
It was also challenged that an audience didn’t care about or recognize a aesthetic and body of
work. This was refuted using the Giles/Philip/David tenure at the Citz, Joan Knight at Perth and
Neil Bartlett at Lyric Hammersmith.
Boards have a big role to play within this issue and we explore whether they are always qualified
to make such fundamental decisions if they don’t get into the nitty gritty of discussing work with
the producers/directors.
We wondered whether board training could be energized by focusing on critical facilities. We
also wanted to stop trying to recreate success by saying that model worked. In fact let’s talk
about people and not models.
Issue number: 37
Issue: How can artists sustain creative careers/ more opps for playwrights as
commissioning companies are being cut.
Conveners(s): Caroline Newall/Chris Deans
Participants: Kenny McGlashan, Lynda Radley, Pamela Hay, Neil Campbell, Scott Hoatson,
Kate Bowen, Johnny McKnight, Simon Wilkinson, Ross Ramsay, Brian Ferguson.
Maryam Hamidi, Sam Stocker, Davey Anderson, Jamie Harrison, Neil Packham, Lorenzo Mele
joined.
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Playwrights have had opportunities increased on one hnd with additional 10 commissions per
year from NTS, but lost as many with Babel, Borderline, 7:84 and Byre Theatre being cut.
Chris Deans is 38, yes a youthful 38, and has been a professional playwright (which includes
teaching, dramaturgy etc) for 10 years but is finding that for most playwrights, there is a shelf life
that he thinks he might be reaching.
This was a worry for many reasons, but predominantly, what transferable skills does he have?
What else would he do? What else is he good at? Will he be considered a failure if the work
dries up?
How can you an artist and have a life, especially a happy life?
Doe you have to go back into academia?
Johnny and Brian do not have such a fear of not getting work. There are younger, but have had
their share of failure and criticism (and no work). They believe that the only way to sustain a
career as an artist is to diversify. They have set up their own companies or become associate
artists with funded companies to be able to be part of creative processes more fully.
They fear not being able to expand their skills.
They looked at their CVs and asked themselves what skills they were lacking and sought
training/mentoring. Is it dangerous to be categorized as one kind of theatre makers rather than
another?
Is theatre maker a broad and acceptable term for all people working in theatre?
But not everyone wants to do more than one thing? Do we risk being jack of all trades, master
of none?
Should you decide between developing up or out?
The most important tool for creating a sustaining a career is to engage with the theatre
community, be a good communicator and network.
How do artists spot opportunities: Listen, speak up and ask for work available.
Artists can and should create their own opportunities.
Just needing work isn’t creative.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONGT WITH BAR WORK.
Workshop casting: It’s a bad thing to ask an actor to take two days out of paid work for
‘workshop casting’. It is also not the right environment for some people to shine. DIRECTORS
SHOULD NEVER EMPLOY THE POP IDOL METHOD OF CASTING – SELECTING WHO
GETS TO STAY IN THE AFTERNOON IN FRONT OF EVERYONE PRESENT.
The key to sustainability is to empower yourself.
Is being an artist who you are or what you do?
Do artists work in isolation too much? Not understand how decisions are made?
As a freelancer, the success of your career is often linked to the success of the fate of artists
you have a relationship with. If they don’t get work, you don’t.
Can freelance artists initiate a show without a company? Do they want to?
As a freelancer you can never give your all to the job you are working on now as you are always
looking to how you’ll make your next buck.
The best bit of being a freelancer is getting a job, it’s downhill with excitement from there on.
Having to do what you don’t want to, to pay the mortgage.
When do you stop wanting to freelancer? When you want a mortgage, babies?
Should you not have other, non art life ambitions? What if you get ill? What happens when we
get old? There are very few older role models? Everyone has disappeared.
Do you need to have found an employed partner to survive?
Is it acceptable to not be fashionable? For work to dry up? Yes or work will stagnate?
Always worth remembering that when you get a job, you rob someone else of it. You are not
owed anything.
Does working I the same collaboration increase quality of work produced as you share the same
language? Or should you constantly challenge yourself by working with others.
Long term relationships exist only if you learn how to have other relationships.
Do funders understand that you can be diverse in your skills and still deliver?
Who takes the most risk to support artists?
Do you have to undertake a risk assessment of yourself and your work to achieve funding?
Should you? Yes, we all have to be accountable to someone even if you do it for nothing.
Should we have to compromise to succeed?
Are we too reliant on funding? Could we just make great work, and get great audiences, feel
good about ourselves and life and give the funders the finger?
Corporate support – aaaaaarrrgh!
Is it liberating not to have restrictive targets?
There is a fear of being dependent on any one form on funding.
Arches versus CCA. Why aren’t all venues nurturing new talent?
How can we sustain an artistic existence if not a career?
Can people who start in admin become artists?
Is it right to give developing artists admin jobs in arts companies? Does that label them to
negative affect.
Actions
Could all funded companies provide a space in their office for a developing company and
provide them with mentoring, a relationship, connections and non-financial support? What’s the
cost of a computer and desk for most of us?
Venues/companies would have to work closely with the new company in advance to ensure that
they were in a geographical space where they could find money making opportunities?
Workshops, education etc.
Find out from SAC whether Vanishing Point mentoring model will be rolled out, expanded,
sustained?
Issue number: 38
Issue: Audiences consisting mostly of artists.
Conveners(s): Sarah Potter.
Participants: Kenny McGlashan, Ross Ramsay, Josephine Ronan, Elise Clayton, Maxwell X,
Fiona Mansan, Candice Edmunds.
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Emerging artists get support from their colleagues and friends, who are usually from the arts
community. The arts community continues to stay well informed of up and coming performances
from more established companies and often take up a large portion of theatre audiences. Is this
a problem? What are the pros and cons?
For the sake of this document, the term artist based audience refers to an audience community,
i.e. artists, programmers, critics….
Positive aspects to an artist based audience;




An artist based audience can provide constructive criticism.
An artist based audience seeks to be stimulated by content and form that goes beyond
their own knowledge of performance, therefore challenging a progression within the arts
and the artists.
An artist based audience allows the artist to openly discuss dark and personal issues that
are not always ‘entertaining’.
It is important that artists are inspired by other artists.
Negative aspects to an artist based audience;









Target audiences not getting enough opportunities to view the work made for them.
A lot of good work has not been seen by enough people.
Cyclical art work just feeding the art world and not feeding into the mainstream.
A pressure to produce intellectual work.
The artist becomes in danger of under estimating a mainstream crowd.
An artist crowd is a ‘tough’ crowd.
Elements of simple entertainment may be viewed as ‘cheap’ or ‘throw away’, to an artist
based audience.
Limits the effect of dissemination of the work.
Stops the artist from looking outward from their community.
Interesting points of discussion;

Artists are members of the public.












The people who attend, are the right people.
Venues have their own core audiences, marketing and reputation, by performing your
work in a particular venue, you are part of that venue.
We should be proud of the communities we have created for each other.
Not everyone has to go to the theatre, just as; not everyone has to go to the football or
bingo hall.
A piece deemed successful by an artist crowd should hopefully have an afterlife to draw
new audiences.
Not everyone is willing to take the risk to see a piece of performance.
Special interest work can diversify the audience.
Networking helps us to develop our audiences.
It is not always possible to market new work to its target audience in enough time.
Write ups of new work do not usually represent the work.
Who we are making work for can escape us.
Should we use our talents to produce ‘entertaining’ work accessible to mainstream
crowds at the same time as employing our ability to produce ‘intellectual’ work that
stimulates a predominantly artist based audience, or should they be kept separate?
Issue number: 39
Issue: How do I find co-collaborators when you are all strangers to me? / artists’ dating
agency – find your perfect creative partner
Conveners(s): Kirstin and Lynda
Participants: Lissa Lorenzo, Meryl Gilbert, Lucy Hutson, Heather Cassidy, Jodie Wilkinson,
Lauren Biandin, Thom, Mary McCluskey, Sumitra Upham, LJ Dodd and others
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
-
-
-
Are you ‘meant’ to make work with someone – Romantic notion?
Can there be a structure – database, speed-dating etc - that aids us in the process of
meeting co-workers or is it all just born down the pub?
New Work Network – piece of cross fertilization – someone had found out about this in
another group and suggested we find out more (which we did… see below)
There is the Arts Council Website - but it can be difficult to find the information and it’s
not necessarily “grass roots”
Is it better to meet face to face in a social network, or does this mean that you just make
work with your friends?
Some combination of the two seems to be the option: the more ways there are the better.
Could this process be workshop based so that you can try working with potential
collaborators and see how it goes?
Who takes responsibility for this? Who organizes this?
Arches Forums do exist but sometimes these involve the same people over and over
again.
A suggestion: Every building-based theatre co hosts a 6 monthly open workshop
for sharing and networking
What about Artistic Director Swap… Andy Arnold takes over The Pavilion… (tee hee hee)
A very basic problem is that even if you have identified a person through seeing their
work how do you contact them?
Should there be a network of unfunded/young companies: Could we follow the
example of young music makers in Glasgow and appropriate the MySpace format –
this could be a great tool for networking and telling each other about what we are
up to…
The New Work Network seems to offer us something similar so perhaps we should
consider that as an option… you can have your own home page and you can search for
people according to form, location etc.
It is about taking responsibility for putting yourself out there and being open about the fact
that you are searching for potential creative soul mates (or flings?).
Other live possibilities – Arches Scratch, CCA Labs, Surge etc –talk to people after.
Remember what BT say “it’s good to talk”
What about speed comment after events like this – thirty seconds to give your opinion to
the theatre maker?
-
-
-
-
-
-
As an action we would like to ask anybody who knows about existing ways of
making creative connections to come forward and tell us about them… there is no
point in putting a Yahoo Group together is one already exists
Should we formally praise those companies/buildings that we have found approachable?
A suggestion is that we should make the Arts Council aware of who is approachable, but
we need to take into consideration that some people in salaried positions cannot take the
time to respond to every young person who approaches them.
As suggested earlier is there an argument for a central meet and greet once a year,
following on from this forum? Who would organize this? It is our understanding that a
blogspot will be set up from this conference. Can we continue from there?
We were offered the example of Scottish Street Net. This began as a simple Yahoo
Group with simple queries such as “can anyone tell me where I can buy cheap paraffin?”
and developed into a National Organization. A convocation was held and the name
National Association of Street Artists chosen and now larger organizations approach this
group.
Scot Nets is an existing resource
Action – Scottish Youth Theatre kindly offered their building to some of the
younger practitioners presents if they wish to have a workshop or meeting at some
future date.
What would happen if you had a Scottish Theatre Directory? Does somebody need
to be funded to manage it?
Are NTS going to start on online discussion group following on from this
conference?
Issue number: 40
Issue: Involving New Audiences – Audiences that want to be involved
Conveners(s): Kirstin McLean and Lissa Lorenzo
Participants: Helen, Jackie, Sarah, Pamela, Eilidh, Neil, Jamie.
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We talked a lot about marketing and target audiences. How important is it for us to be aware of
these things?
Jamie spoke about Vox Motus, and the group was inspired in hearing about their marketing
philosophy as well as their strategy. They are very clear about who their target market is, and
equally, who their work doesn’t generally appeal to.
As artistic directors of the company, you might be the best person to get out on the street and
sell your show. Actually just going up to people and telling them a bit about it and asking if they
fancy it. If they do, they get a beautiful made little piece of marketing – Vox Motus used credit
cards which entitled the holder to a discount on the ticket.
We must use appropriate marketing. Don’t give your audience the wrong impression about your
show. How disappointing is it when you see a show where you were told it was something
completely different. If you market as a multi-media experience, then don’t just use one screen
with a subtitle on it.
Maybe we need to use the same language that other promoters use in other fields. Introduce a
friend and get a discount etc. – That one in particular might give the audience a bit of ownership.
OWNERSHIP and INVESTMENT and EMPOWERMENT are good words, and if an audience
feel these then we’re in a good place.
Take time to listen to your audience feedback. Do works in progress and invite criticism
afterwards.
If you visit a small community, we reckon it would be more effective to have a month between
your two performance nights rather than having them on consecutive nights. This allows for
word of mouth to work and it also puts a bit of excitement to the event. In addition, people who
were at the first performance might come to the second one.
Don’t harass your core audience with constant fliers. Find a new way of marketing. This really
comes down to personality, and your personality coming through your work, and therefore your
marketing style fitting your work. This is applicable to theatre makers who direct and run their
own companies.
Can we have an online clash diary for all theatre companies? Then we open ourselves to the
greatest audience potential.
Involvement of community is a great way to generate a new audience. The Crucible NTS model
was good. The families of the community cast might now be more likely to visit the theatres.
The cast might feel some ownership when they come to see more work there because it’s the
stage upon which they performed.
MARKETING MUST BE DONE BY PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THE
AUDIENCE.
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL AREAS WHEN YOU RUN A COMPANY.
DON’T MIS-MARKET.
What about performance trailers as a marketing tool?
If you run a big theatre, don’t spend money on marketing to get an audience who are not
interested. Instead, bring a company in whose target audience is that group.
To sum up: You just have to care and work hard.
Issue number: 41
Issue: Are we a community and, if so, can we work together
Conveners(s): Nick Sweeting
Participants: Nick Sweeting, Marie McGarroll, Rebecca Roberts
And Jamie Harrison
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
THE THEATRE COMMUNITY
Hierarchy – difficulty in breaking through; is this a perception or reality?
Mentoring – is there a structure that could be introduced to help mentor students immediately
after college?
Open Space – a “leveling event” – helps to encourage a sense of community
Critics – are they observers of our community? Representatives of the audience?
Audiences – are they part of the theatre community? Is this variable – ie is it harder for a touring
company to build that sense of community?
Building bridges in the theatre community:
- Mentorships
- Working with the Arts Council in a more collaborative way. Do we do all we can together
to secure a bigger slice of the cake; a larger share of the political agenda. Why is it so
easy for Jack McConnell to talk about arts and creativity and then ignore what he’s said.
THEATRE IN THE COMMUNITY
What role does theatre play in the early stages of community formation?
We should be allowing theatre a greater role within the building of communities/education –
nurturing creativity/nurturing and shaping a community and its attitudes and spirit.
We should be making more of a case for theatre and its impact or potential impact within
education.
Issue number: 42
Issue: What Difference Does It (Theatre) Make?
Conveners(s): Julie Ellen
Participants: Davey Anderson, Lorenzo Mele, Chris Deans, Sarah Gray, Steve Collins, Scott
Johnson, Neil Campbell, Pamela Hay, Fiona Sturgeon, Brian Fergusson, Neil Murray, Scott
Hoatson and others….
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Depends what difference you want to make and the difference you make is hard to
quantify
The difference it can make to individuals and therefore to society;
Exercise empathy skills
Kick people up the arse
Define who we are
Feed the soul
Alter perceptions
Sooth
Allow you to find yourself and loose yourself at the same time
Give a sense of Escapism/Immersion
Take you on a journey to another world
Bridge ‘what is’ and ‘what is possible’
Broaden the imagination
Allow social/spiritual communion
Allow you to laugh at life (your own)
Some think that to make a difference theatre needs to be;
A crude elemental force/visceral/working through a connection with the self
Then does the Pavilion Theatre* (populist*) output make a difference?
We could consider a hierarchy of needs and look at which are being fulfilled (not one answer).
Does immediate* and less accessible theatre make the same sort of difference to those who see
them?
There are forms of theatre such as Verbatim which act as a link to ‘real’ issues
Funding is often done for political gain
Useful reading - 51 Benefits of arts inclusion
‘THE BEST THEATRE TRANSCENDS THE FORM – GIVES A KINETIC EMOTIONAL
RESPONSE’
Issue number: 43
Issue: WHY MUST WE JUSTIFY THE RELEVANCE OF THE WORK IN ORDER TO MAKE
IT? Will we ever be allowed to create and then see?
Conveners(s): Adrian Osmond
Participants: Sarah Gray, Duncan Sanders, Pamela Hay, Vivienne McTaggart, Shona Miller,
Michelle Hornby, Sam Stocker, Emily Smith, Ann-Marie Leighton, Brian Ferguson, Lucy Hutson
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There were a variety of opinions / thoughts around this subject, including:
Each member of an audience will take what they need from a strong piece of work. If an
audience member gains something from a piece of art, it doesn’t matter whether that’s what the
artist intended for them to gain or not.
Some thought it to be creatively constricting to justify the relevance of a potential project when
applying for funding & target groups before making the work. Some thought it to be a positive
thing that enabled focus from the outset.
Funders need to justify the allocation of funds; they need to be able to show why the money is
being spent on particular projects and art in general. So it’s necessary that artists justify the
relevance of the work when applying for funding.
There’s a difference between content control and quality control.
More funding decisions should be made by practicing artists.
Would work overall be just as socially responsible / target as wide an audience if it weren’t
required to do so?
There is already a lot of work which doesn’t justify or isn’t relevant to current issues / social
needs.
There are a growing number of funds with the remit to promote specific issues.
Isn’t the justifying useful as a tool throughout the process? It aids marketing, targeting groups,
and telling general audience what they are going to get…
Accountability: part of the role of the artist is to justify yourself.
Issue number: 44
Issue: Admin is creative – or should be?
Conveners(s): Johnny McKnight
Participants: Helen Black, Candice Edmunds, Graham McLaren
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The Problem
Discussion regarding the segregation between the office based staff and the artistic team. The
group were agreed that the segregation seems somewhat archaic and ‘out-dated’ as an office
structure. It is felt that some artistic teams do not value, recognize or support the artistic talents
and skills of their team. Indeed, they are not utilizing their additional skills and aiding with
personal development.
The disadvantages of working within a ‘them’ and ‘us’ environment poses huge problems – it can
create a feeling of apathy towards the theatre product and/or the job that the staff member does;
it can create a negative company image (a feeling of disconnection within the office); it also can
affect the communication flow within the organization (working and talking at cross-purposes).
Creating Change
It was felt that the key terms in relation to building and developing a change in this attitude was
OPENESS and INTEGRATION. Examples of some ways of working towards achieving this
include:



Inviting office staff to post-rehearsal drinks and other social events – this will make the
actors and staff interact and engage more (as well as giving an overview of the rehearsal
structure);
Allowing staff a creative input within the process – for example the producer comes in
early in the rehearsals to watch and then have a discussion re is the venues suitable for
this type of work (should we rethink the marketing strategy);
Create an “all-hands-on-deck” culture within the office environment: all staff are normally
to attend the opening evening of the performance, this should extend across the board
(office staff invited on tour, all staff attend the parallel outreach work so that it is valued
with equal weight);
Obstacles and Solutions
To promote change we discussed that setting up a collaborative working ethos within a small
company can be immediate, and that the goodwill that generate will have huge possibility to
product and productivity of key staff.
However, how can you promote this collaborative support within an existing institution (with
years of Them and Us history)? It was felt that the communicative flow had to be explicit and the
rehearsal process was opened out – directly invite team members to the rehearsal room. That
has to then be followed up with a dialogue regarding that visit (to avoid a feeling of uncertainty or
future avoidance of rehearsal visits). We have to reinvigorate current working infrastructure
and practices if we are to develop a network of support.
Issue number: 45
Issue: The state of theatre training in Scotland
Conveners(s): Annabel Rodger, Fraser MacLeod, Maryam Hamidi
Participants: Neil Campbell, George Lamont, Steve Collins, Ben Grayouer, Ian Smith, Annabel
Rodger, Fraser MacLeod, Maryam Hamidi
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Some graduates feeling they leave courses unsure of why they went?
When there is diverse content courses may become unfocussed in their skills base.
Is the purpose of training about producing artists or people who can work in this industry.
The group looked at the CTP course at RSAMD where the focus is on creating your own work.
In this case leaders should facilitate student led initiative in training and support their individual
needs.
Other than specific vocational training at QMUC, universities are not seen as drama ‘training’
facilities.
Concern was shown over the probable reduction of QM’s drama department due to internal
pressures within the University.
The more courses created the more people to employ (or unemploy).
It was viewed that HND style courses do not provide proficient training.
Courses create money…that is why they exist.
Uniting forces = focus.
Teachers in theatre training institutions seem to be getting younger…do they have enough
experience?
The elitism of fees excludes some communities and people form the conservatoire training.
Do we need less new models of training to support un-discovered talent or those with unusual
training needs (gymnastics, circus etc).
Culturally, artistic careers are not supported…some people access HNC/D’s as they’re less of a
commitment.
Perhaps new talent could be scouted…but this is not encouraged as it could dis-courage
previously under-nourished talent.
Stage schools create false hope and make money from it.
Is there an imbalance in opportunity given to artists pre-training, taking more than is acceptable
into professional training and so over-saturating the industry?
There are a lot of talented people…should they all be encouraged to train or just the crème de la
crème?
There is not much work at the professional level, therefore is there currently too much training in
Scotland? Perhaps this is endemic of over subscription to many industries as more people
choose to study at degree level.
Contemporary Theatre Practice at RSAMD is an extremely unusual course in not only the
Scottish training landscape but throughout Britain. Some feel that it is still not universally
legitimate. It offers training in performance/education/live art/theatre making. It probably
emerged alongside a developing culture at the Arches and Tramway.
Sometimes academic outcomes limit diversity and cross disciplinary work within training
institutions. For example, within RSAMD it is rare to see collaborations with CTP and the music
students.
Should funded theatre companies be offering training and building clearer relationships with
training institutions.
Perhaps we are producing a lot of theatre graduates annually in Scotland…but they come from
few institutions represented few training models and creative sensibilities.
Would more, smaller, specialized institutions be better?
Training that isn’t generic but constantly looking at itself and other institutions to better its
practice. We need to encourage a culture of sharing between training institutions rather than
perpetuating negative competitiveness.
Difference and diversity are undoubtedly needed to re-invigorate the industry so that
practitioners emerge with different practices…not just one or two.
Theatre training can be so bland. This is established in our early perceptions of theatre as
taught (somewhat badly) in schools.
Is teacher training inadequate? How far can a single teachers skills stretch? There is no
dedicated physical performance training centre in Scotland. Training can only offers skills with a
focus on text…even if they wanted to teach beyond this realm they rarely have the skills.
Recommendations:
Access needs to be created for good further training beyond the institutions.
Opportunities to learn through theatre companies are needed.
Theatre companies challenging training institutions with their demands.
More dialogue between (and within) institutions is needed, particularly beyond Scotland.
Varieties of training practices create a richer theatre industry.
More specific focus in training is needed to develop multi-talented artists or highly skilled
specialists.
Create institutions (not drama schools) where you do not need to follow a generic syllabus but
have access to train with a wide variety of practitioners.
All institutions should teach empowering ethics that prepare students for an industry that
demands you take the initiative and learn what you need to learn.
Issue number: 46
Issue: How do Scottish theatre institutions respond to new ideas, forms and ways of
working?
Conveners(s): Robert Walton
Participants:
Lots … including:
Jacky Wylie, John Tiffany, Caroline Newall, Kate Brown, Ilene Nicholas, David Taylor, Eilidh
MacAskill, Davey Anderson, Johnny McKnight, Graham MacLaren, Vicky Featherstone, Graham
Eatough
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What are the institutions in question?
NTS, SAC, venues, educational institutions – anywhere where people get paid to sit around and
organize the work of others.
It was noted that Scotland does have a lot of opportunities for new work.
Surge!/Darklights at Tramway, Arches programmes, NTS Workshops, CCA Creative Labs etc.
Arches defines itself as a risk taking institution.
Where are the over 40 year old theatre makers at this event? Are we in a permanently young
industry? How can you have a sustainable career in theatre/performance in Scotland?
Where is the money/support (and willingness) to support solo artists and small devising groups
whose practice is based on a long, continuous process of developing forms and themes?
Do we acknowledge that devised work may take a long time to create? Where’s the money
that’s invested in playwrights in processes such as these?
Recommendations
Should every funded company mentor an emerging company or artist?
NTS and other institutions should consider commissioning solo artists and devisors as
they do playwrights.
Artistic directors and managers of institutions should keep abreast of developments in new work
(otherwise they might as well close down).
Young companies! Ask! For! Help!
Issue number: 47
Issue: What would it take to make ‘Scottish Theatre’ a leading international brand?
Conveners(s): Candice Edmunds
Participants: Julie Brown, Eileen Nicholls, Jamie Harrison, Candice Edmunds
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Questions raised:
- Does our work feature on the international stage? Is it important that it does?
- Is there promotion outside of the British Council and the Edinburgh festival?
- Are there advantages/is there space for cross-agency promotion of Scottish work abroad
- Is out theatre too text based?
Discussed:
External perceptions of theatre in Scotland. Eileen stated there is a perception in London that
there is a great amount of work going on in Scotland and that it is fortunate to have an
‘identifiable culture’. Candice stated that in Australia Glasgow is perceived as a ‘cool city where
cool work is being made’. Note: not many people have witnessed this ‘cool work’ for themselves.
Strong exportation of Scottish writing. Scottish playwrights making money off translations of their
work.
Scottish theatre in not united by a common artistic language that makes it easily recognizable or
a ‘brand’ as such. You need to be ‘national’ before you are ‘international’.
The need to build ‘reputation’. Scottish Week at the Prague Festival a couple of years ago.
Deemed successful. Why wasn’t work continued to be exported to that festival building on the
success and creating a reputation and expectation of Scottish work? Are we creating one-off
successes that are not followed up and become missed opportunities?
There is a move towards more visual work in Scotland.
Glasgay. International acts were all paid to participate. Two Glasgow-based acts in the festival.
They had to fund their own participation. The value those organizers put on imported product
over local product.
Is there a platform for Scottish work at the Edinburgh festival that is not the British Council
showcase or new work created as part of the International Festival? Is there a way of showing
promoters work that has happened through-out the year, that is ready to tour, and unlike the new
work created specifically for the festival has had a life and has developed to a higher standard not under-rehearsed. Is the Edinburgh festival the best time/place to promote Scottish work?
Scottish Executive – is there an advantage in exporting work? Will this always happen under the
banner of NTS? It doesn’t seem to be anyone’s job to promote Scottish theatre/cultural life
abroad or even down south!
Artists looking into EU funding and collaborations in Europe and further abroad in order to tour
internationally.
The logistics and organization behind international touring and the impact/strain that takes on a
small/mid-scale company. Eileen questioned if there was a place for actors to be involved in tour
organization to relieve some of that strain and allow actors better understanding and
appreciation of the process and the running of a tour and company.
Issue number: 48
Issue: Critics,who cares?
Conveners(s):Margaret-Anne O’Donnell
Participants: Margaret-Anne O’Donnell, Ben Walmsley, Neil Murray, Sam Stocker, Helen Black.
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I wanted to talk about this as I thought about a world without critics, good or bad?
Who reads reviews?
 People who have bought tickets
 People who have been to see the show
 People involved in the shows
Scotland has too few critics, and they are based in central belt for practical reasons.
We wanted more but we wanted a more diverse bunch. Too often the wrong person reviews the
show.” The audience of young hip twenty something loved it but I hated it”. Should the reviewer
gauge audience response or be true to themselves.
What makes a critic? Do we respect them?
Critics from London and Irish critics get more space and have more respect . There is more
interaction between them ands the theatre community.
What comes first? Do we support them and push to get more column inches? Or do we continue
to berate them? We enjoy when they get a change to engage in more commentary rather than
an eighty word review.
We as a sector rate reviews in certain papers as better, more important than others.
Eg we want reviews in the guardian but we know most of our audience do not read this paper.
Wouldn’t it be good if the list could be more like time out
Do they review companies, individuals or shows?
Should we have courses for critics to learn how to criticise?
Should the national push for things to change?
What about the internet? Reviews now have a potential wider readership and a longer life.
We should encourage more critical debate internally and them we can work on raising the level
of critical review if we as a community are more open,honest about our work with a wider
audience.
Arts Council Assessors?
We want the right people to do this. The people who may be right don’t do it as they feel
compromised assessing their peers and we don’t want people form outside the industry don’t
understand the context .
How do we get other audience feedback? Are we behind other industries in speaking to our
audiences?
The future.
Will critics exist, do we care?
Or will we have a future of blogs and everyman as critics? Or will there be a resurgence of a
professional trained critic who we love and respect?
Issue number: 49
Issue: Does More Money Mean Better Art?
Conveners(s): Caroline Newall
Participants: Ian Smith, Adrian Osmond, Simon Wilkinson, Sarah Gray, Kirstie McKenzie, Ben
Walmsley, Robert Walton, George Lamont
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Do companies/artists need more money to move up a level/to generate more ambitious better
work?
More money in pot makes better art overall, better career, experience, status?
People don’t always know what to do with more money – people not used to budgeting such big
sums verses being better at it because used to make a little go a longer way.
Must ambition must be realized by financial resources?
Half arsed attempts?
The importance of being realistic?
More money and profile leads to greater pressure – an unfair risk?
It depends on who you give it to?
Running before you can walk?
Does more success mean more settled and less creative artists?
Is desperation a creative force?
Money well spent makes art better?
Does a bigger production budget make better art?
Is the product better? Or just the experience and lives of artists?
Money shouldn’t lead the art?
More money doesn’t mean more skill?
Does more money allow you to take more creative risk?
More money=more profile so is it easier to take a risk when you are smaller and less well
known?
More money as longer investment can mean better work.
Is it patronizing for anyone other than the artist to decide what’s best for them?
It can make you more creative if that’s what you want to create is bigger?
If not, how can artists ever realize their dream?
There is no respect when you do something for nothing.
It is people who get the money – the best application writers, the best schmoozers?
You must speculate to accumulate.
Should artists get a living wage?
If you want a salary should you be an artist? (controversial)
People run out of steam artistically because it’s so hard to survive financially – in art and life.
Recommendations
Should there be a couple of pot of ‘dream’ money or would everyone then just aim bigger?
Issue number: 50
Issue: Is there a difference between a Scottish Theatre Artist and a theatre Artist in
Scotland?
Conveners(s): Graham McLaren
Participants: Heather Cassidy, Pamela Hay, Kate Bowen, Kirstin McLean, John Tiffany, Phelim
McDermott, Graham Eatough, Julie Ellen, Vicky Featherstone, Neil Murray.
Summary of discussions, conclusions and/or recommendations:
It is important to be ‘not England/story telling tradition/comedy/downtrodden nation/a
colony/does it change your behaviour/fearing expressing yourself/not comfortable being
creative/not having to carry around Shakespeare/is it about class and not nation/what is
attractive is a n outward looking culture/do the English come up here simply to steal our jobs/a
Northern theatre artist/do we have to leave to succeed/are Scottish artist nurtured/does a
Scottish sensibility stop you being creative/we don’t have the Oxbridge birthright/ it’s not for the
lies of you/ do we have a negative approach to articulating our cultural identity/are those
negative myths self fulfilling/others outhwith us are interested in us/Scotland used as a positive
word/national to be international/ LET THERE BE TAGGART.