Who is theatre for? Can you perform drama online? And should a play make money? PETER CRAWLEYasks some of theatre's leading lights
LATE LAST month many of Ireland’s theatre professionals convened at Wexford Opera House for Theatre Forum’s annual conference. A two-day event of talks, panel discussions and networking designed to stimulate debate and encourage new approaches to making, presenting and considering theatre, it was curated by the arts consultant Anne Bonnar. During the conference, Bonnar and three attendees – Project Arts Centre artistic director Willie White, Rough Magic producer Diego Fasciati and Playgroup director Tom Creed – came together to discuss the emerging themes, which ranged from the shrinking distance between commercial and subsidised theatre, the role of arts and education in the creative economy, the revolutionary nuisance that is Twitter and the possibilities of Irish theatre’s imaginative renewal.
THE CHALLENGES
PETER CRAWLEYThe title of this year's Theatre Forum conference was Resilience and Renewal, an indication of the shocks the industry has recently had to absorb and the recovery that's necessary. Anne, you said in your introductory speech that the thornier the questions you posed, the more responsive people became. What were those thorny questions?
ANNE BONNARThere are sacred cows that we knew we were challenging before the conference, although I think there have also been some that we didn't expect. Some would be the interdependence between commercial theatre and a subsidised approach. Sacred cows to come up in debate would be whether the Arts Council model is fit for purpose. Does digital technology change the way that we make and engage with theatre? Do we need a new relationship between the artist and the public? Those are all things that are really challenging some basic assumptions.
PCThere's been a lot of creative thinking and discussions about the role of the arts in the creative economy, rather than dwelling on funding mechanisms or recently defunded companies or production hubs – the infrastructural questions that have dominated previous years.
TOM CREEDIt's been about working together and considering the metaphysics of how we think, how we apply ourselves and how we co-operate. Even if it wasn't a stated subject at the beginning, the relationship between the theatre and the public – together with discussions about the use of Twitter at the conference – became a focus. So has a discussion about education. The talk by Paul Collard [chief executive of England's Creativity, Culture and Education, which supports partnerships between schools and creative professionals] was really provocative, exciting and important. Is there some way the arts can take an initiative in that discourse?
THE CREATIVE ECONOMY
WILLIE WHITEYou mentioned the creative economy. There isn't a discussion about the creative economy taking place in the arts. As Anne Looney [of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment] was saying, if you look at the Innovation Task Force, everyone says they want creativity, but it hasn't involved the arts and the arts haven't involved themselves. Arts and education need to be properly included in that discourse. I also think Maureen Gaffney's presentation, Flourishing under Fire, was like a coaching session for the whole of the sector. Instead of saying, "We've been knocked back, and we must recover to the position where we were before," we actually have the option of going a different route.
PCOne of those routes may be a new business model for theatre, in which commercial theatre and independent theatre can be friends. When it was learned during the conference that The Importance of Being Earnestat the Gaiety had met its box-office target and that all profit would now subsidise the rest of Rough Magic's programme this year, the risk of a partly commercial, partly subsidised model of making theatre seemed more feasible.
DIEGO FASCIATII suppose it was a calculated risk, because it was such a popular title with a popular star [Stockard Channing] who got us a lot of press coverage. We decided to take the risk because last October, when Arts Council budgets were unknown, no one knew what they could plan for the year ahead. The only way we could ensure that we could do at least two shows was to have one show that could pay for itself. It came out of an economic necessity to try something else. But why shouldn't commercial theatre and non-commercial theatre coexist?
ABI know I'm on the outside [Bonnar is based in Scotland], but it seems that the shift that's happening here is that the theatre community is not defining itself in the context of what the Arts Council does. It's defining itself in the context of what its own values are, and what best works for it. All the themes of the conference were about looking at things in a bigger sense: against the economy, education or internationally. But also – and this is Maureen Gaffney's point – in the context of being responsible for your own happiness. You take responsibility for yourself, know that you can't control everything, and decide what approach can best work for you.
PCThe producer Anne Clarke made the point that if business is good for a commercial production, then it can be good for everyone. There's a trickle-down effect which stimulates audiences for theatre in general. Willie, you seemed sceptical.
WWI'm not sceptical. I say prove it. I know that people will get a P60 at the end of [a commercial production] and it employs theatremakers. But I can't prove, and nor can anyone else, that it means someone who goes to see a show by Rough Magic in the Gaiety will come see something done by somebody else in Project Arts Centre.
HOME AND AWAY
DFWhat's also come out of the whole idea of collaboration is that not only do we have to collaborate within the theatre sector; we have to collaborate with other sectors . . . Equally, we have to engage with the tourism industry. On Earnestwe're doing a pilot project with Fáilte Ireland and hoping to present the findings to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport to show what we contribute.
WWAnother opportunity is touring. In the same way that not everyone can make work that will play at the Gaiety, not everyone will make work that will tour widely around Ireland. But surely some people will make work that can visit the arts centres that were built all over Ireland in the last 15 years, and people who live in those areas, and pay taxes to central government, can have some of that art shared with them, too.
TECH AND TWITTER
TCI think most people who make work – and maybe I'm generalising – do want their work to be seen by loads of people! Some people fear a certain direction the Arts Council is taking by focusing on the audience for the work they fund, but the audience pay for it through their taxes. That's not to say it should be subsidising commercial theatre, but it should be encouraging companies and artists to be as ambitious as possible in reaching the widest audience possible.
In the same way, I've found it really invigorating that there was a parallel Theatre Forum conference happening on Twitter. Some people have given out about it, but the reach of the conference is suddenly much wider than it has ever been before. Tassos Stevens spoke about A Cat Escapes, which his company Coney are doing for children. Even though it's happening online, it's actually live – in a way that a lot of allegedly live performance isn't: it can be closer to what Peter Brooks describes as "deadly theatre". A live conversation with people all over the world on Twitter can be much more in the moment. Just because it's happening in front of you in the room does not actually make it any more alive any more.
PCDoes that mean that theatre must absorb and adapt to new technology to keep pace with its audience?
WWNo, but the palette has become bigger. If they have Twitter in Plough and the Stars . .. Jesus, God help us.
THE FUTURE
PCAnne was talking about questioning sacred cows. Willie, during a conversation about the funding and productivity of national theatres – those of Iceland and Wales – you mentioned "the elephant in the room". That elephant didn't receive much further attention.
WWPeople were looking at the number of productions those theatres did and the amount of money they got to do them, and realising they're quite thrifty. I wasn't really interested in the amount of money so much as the models according to which they made work. To be explicit, I wasn't talking about the Abbey particularly. I was more interested in work on a smaller scale that is more mobile. I've been in situations in the past where I've been talking enthusiastically about Irish shows to international presenters but the show can't be revived without considerable expense and therefore it doesn't tour. That's what I was driving at.
PCIt seems a good moment to consider alternative models for making theatre. Maureen Gaffney spoke to us about flourishing at times of adversity and managed to supply a wellspring of inspiration. Can you take the ideas from the conference and put them into practice, or does its inspiration gradually dissipate?
TCAlmost every time there's a theatre conference people leave and they're going to change everything. But not everyone who leaves here today is going to change their practice. Just coming and listening to people talking about it for a couple of days isn't enough. It's incumbent on the people here and following it on Twitter and who read about it in the media to take up the baton and run with it. Things as wildly different as the National Campaign for the Arts to Werk, the club night at the Peacock, had their genesis at the conference. A lot can be achieved from just coming together.
