Last week at my place at work, I received a rather unwelcome wake-up to the plight of some of my new intake of students.
We are six weeks into the teaching term and the students are beginning to settle in. Practical classes are moving on from the ice-breaker 'getting to know you' exercises into more demanding and challenging areas. The dance classes are stretching the students (pun intended) and testing their stamina and strength. The theory classes are encouraging the young people to think more broadly about their chosen subject and the world around them. The acting classes are asking them to look at themselves critically and to engage with one another on an emotional level. I'm not talking the Strasberg Method here, just to give a little of themselves and connect with their peers on a human level; to listen to one another, to drop prejudice and assumption, and to begin to empathise with someone else. As adolescents they are naturally self-centred, egotistical and judgemental. It is part of our responsibility as adults to help them navigate their way through that minefield of social interaction.
One of the exercises we use to get the students to engage with one another is to put them in pairs and ask them to tell one another a brief story about their life, likes, dislikes or interests. The speaker can choose at what level to do this and how much they want to give away. The listener just listens only asking questions if clarification is required. They must pay attention to the facts of the story, the kind of language used and to observe the physicality and facial expression of the storyteller. In this way they not only develop active listening skills but also attention to detail. The roles are then reversed and the listener tells their story whilst the first person listens.
The next stage of the exercise requires each person to re-tell their partner's story as accurately as possible - not only in terms of facts but also tone of voice, expression and physicality. This is not an act of impersonation but rather a re-creation of the emotional content in the teller. The re-telling can be done to the whole group, small groups or just another pair depending on the confidence and comfort levels in the group. It was at this stage that the first signs of a deeper problem emerged.
We asked the pairs to focus on something positive as the subject for their stories - this tends to keep the session lighter and less scary for the least confident members of the class. A long, uncomfortable period of silence followed before the first stories began to be shared. But it was clear that the young people were finding the task difficult. On speaking with several of the pairs it became apparent that these bright, creative 16 and 17 year olds were having difficulty finding anything positive to talk about. They were literally unable to identify any aspect of their life as positive apart from coming to College.
We were gobsmacked. Gentle prompting and guidance on possible subjects (birthdays, holidays, family, nature, music) still only inspired a few students to speak about something positive. The most common thing we heard was, "There is nothing positive, my life is sh*t!" Now we all know that teenagers can be nihilistic and gloom-laden at the best of times, but this was coming from so many of them that it seemed to signify something more serious than just the usual adolescent 'no-one understands me' navel-gazing. After hearing the same kind of comments coming from all corners of the room we pulled the entire class together to discuss what had emerged.
To their credit, the youngsters all engaged with the discussion and there was a sense of relief in the room that someone had opened the conversation and that they could all share their feelings and frustrations. This was still an awkward experience and, at times, was emotional. It wasn't a woolly, liberal, touchy-feely therapy session; it was difficult and uncomfortable but very valuable. We all learned about the difficulties some class members face, heard about barriers to learning and dampened expectations. Some of the stories were literally heartbreaking. But the positive outcome of all of this was that so many of the young people had already grown in confidence at College, so many of them viewed coming to study as a was of transcending their current situations.
What is modern life doing to young people? Why are we not investing the time, care and, yes, money in giving them the best start in life? It might sound trite but these people are literally our future. Instead of demonising them, bombarding them with imagery of how they should look, what they should own and forcing them to grow into materialistic consumers, we should be nurturing their imaginations, reigniting that wonderful curiosity that all childrren are born with. When a 16 year old with their whole life in front of them, the energy to enjoy it, and the potential to do anything instead feels numb, needs to cut themselves just to feel anything or has to drink themselves into oblivion just to 'have a good time', then we have failed in our responsibility to that child.
What started out as an exercise in sharing experiences and observing others became a session on facing up to how we feel about ourselves, about how we are perceived by others (and how we perceive the way others perceive us) and a realisation that we all have a responsibility to be the best that we can be and to allow others to be the same.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Saturday, 2 October 2010
I Value the Arts
"A Cynic is a person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde
There has been much made in the British press recently of the Government's plans to slash public spending across all areas. Education, science, the NHS, Public Services are all facing budget cuts of up to 40%. The Arts are no exception; in fact, in many people's eyes, they are the first place the axe should fall.
One of the (many) criticisms levelled at The Arts is that they cost a lot of money - money that could be better spent elsewhere on social services or the road infrastructure or, I don't know...defence. Another criticism is that there are no concrete 'outcomes' to prove that the artform is giving good value for money. 'Outcomes' are the bane of anyone's life who has to write funding bids. It is nigh on impossible to accurately predict the number of people who will 'engage' with a painting, or listen to a piece of music, or even attend a play. The only outcome that should matter is that the piece of art should provoke some kind of response (ideally a positive one) in the people who come into contact with it.
The people who hold the purse strings obviously have a problem with this concept - that Art has a value of and in itself, that defies quantification and does not sit comfortably in any tickbox. They want proof that their small but valued contribution has been spent wisely. They want to be able to account for their investment; to ensure value for money.
What they cannot understand, and therefore cannot account for, is that The Arts have a long-term, organic, and creative value to society. An auction house may put a price on a Van Gogh but what value can you put on the impact that painting has had on countless people, many of whom may have gone on to create artworks of their own?
There are some instances where a 'value' in the monetary sense can be given. There is a wonderful and very hard-working organisation called Dance Utd. that regularly works with young people who are either in danger of offending or have already been through the Youth Justice system. Dance Utd. takes these youngsters and via a 12 week dance training course instills in them increased levels of self-confidence, co-operation, problem-solving and fitness. This is as well as increasing their awareness of healthy eating, exercise and self-discipline. Some might think that a dance class is a 'soft option' and that it is hardly an effective deterrent against re-offending, but this is not the case. Many of the young people who have been involved with Dance Utd. say that it is the hardest they have ever worked at anything. The difference in the young people who stay the course is marked. Their confidence is improved as is their ability to express themselves. To see the graduation performances after the 12 weeks is an inspiration and is often an emotional event for the parents of these 'bad lads and naughty girls'. Several young people from each cohort progress onto further education or training, and a number have been offered places at some of the most prestigious dance schools in the country.
The cost of taking a young person through the Criminal Justice System is immense (not only in hard cash terms but in the workload and time spent) and custodial sentences rarely work in stopping the cycle of offending. If even one of the young people involved in Dance Utd. no longer offends, no longer needs a case-worker, will no longer re-offend and face prison, then the cost of funding Dance Utd's work has been saved. There are many examples of such projects across all art-forms, each one giving something back to society or allowing people to find some belief in themselves. I would suggest that each of these is worth its funding.
I had a conversation recently with someone about the Save-the-Arts and Value-the-Arts campaigns currently galvanising support to oppose spending cuts. They said that they valued the arts but didn't think that public money should be spent on them. They also said that they preferred the Value-the-Arts approach as 'Save-the-Arts' implies that we actually have to DO something. Herein lies a problem; there is a perception amongst some people that The Arts are something that other people do and therefore are not their responsibility. They happily watch hours of television, visit the cinema, listen to the radio, read a book, buy a CD and not see the connection.
There has to be a sensible approach to arts funding, we can't expect bucketloads of cash to be handed out to anyone with a paintbrush or a guitar. But we can seek to redress the inequalities. We can reaffirm ourselves as a civilised nation that sees The Arts as an important, even vital, part of life. We can be less cynical and stop asking what things cost but how much are they worth.
There has been much made in the British press recently of the Government's plans to slash public spending across all areas. Education, science, the NHS, Public Services are all facing budget cuts of up to 40%. The Arts are no exception; in fact, in many people's eyes, they are the first place the axe should fall.
One of the (many) criticisms levelled at The Arts is that they cost a lot of money - money that could be better spent elsewhere on social services or the road infrastructure or, I don't know...defence. Another criticism is that there are no concrete 'outcomes' to prove that the artform is giving good value for money. 'Outcomes' are the bane of anyone's life who has to write funding bids. It is nigh on impossible to accurately predict the number of people who will 'engage' with a painting, or listen to a piece of music, or even attend a play. The only outcome that should matter is that the piece of art should provoke some kind of response (ideally a positive one) in the people who come into contact with it.
The people who hold the purse strings obviously have a problem with this concept - that Art has a value of and in itself, that defies quantification and does not sit comfortably in any tickbox. They want proof that their small but valued contribution has been spent wisely. They want to be able to account for their investment; to ensure value for money.
What they cannot understand, and therefore cannot account for, is that The Arts have a long-term, organic, and creative value to society. An auction house may put a price on a Van Gogh but what value can you put on the impact that painting has had on countless people, many of whom may have gone on to create artworks of their own?
There are some instances where a 'value' in the monetary sense can be given. There is a wonderful and very hard-working organisation called Dance Utd. that regularly works with young people who are either in danger of offending or have already been through the Youth Justice system. Dance Utd. takes these youngsters and via a 12 week dance training course instills in them increased levels of self-confidence, co-operation, problem-solving and fitness. This is as well as increasing their awareness of healthy eating, exercise and self-discipline. Some might think that a dance class is a 'soft option' and that it is hardly an effective deterrent against re-offending, but this is not the case. Many of the young people who have been involved with Dance Utd. say that it is the hardest they have ever worked at anything. The difference in the young people who stay the course is marked. Their confidence is improved as is their ability to express themselves. To see the graduation performances after the 12 weeks is an inspiration and is often an emotional event for the parents of these 'bad lads and naughty girls'. Several young people from each cohort progress onto further education or training, and a number have been offered places at some of the most prestigious dance schools in the country.
The cost of taking a young person through the Criminal Justice System is immense (not only in hard cash terms but in the workload and time spent) and custodial sentences rarely work in stopping the cycle of offending. If even one of the young people involved in Dance Utd. no longer offends, no longer needs a case-worker, will no longer re-offend and face prison, then the cost of funding Dance Utd's work has been saved. There are many examples of such projects across all art-forms, each one giving something back to society or allowing people to find some belief in themselves. I would suggest that each of these is worth its funding.
I had a conversation recently with someone about the Save-the-Arts and Value-the-Arts campaigns currently galvanising support to oppose spending cuts. They said that they valued the arts but didn't think that public money should be spent on them. They also said that they preferred the Value-the-Arts approach as 'Save-the-Arts' implies that we actually have to DO something. Herein lies a problem; there is a perception amongst some people that The Arts are something that other people do and therefore are not their responsibility. They happily watch hours of television, visit the cinema, listen to the radio, read a book, buy a CD and not see the connection.
There has to be a sensible approach to arts funding, we can't expect bucketloads of cash to be handed out to anyone with a paintbrush or a guitar. But we can seek to redress the inequalities. We can reaffirm ourselves as a civilised nation that sees The Arts as an important, even vital, part of life. We can be less cynical and stop asking what things cost but how much are they worth.
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Faith and Community
On BBC Radio 4 this morning there was a comment from Dr Tom Wright, the retiring Bishop of Durham, that we live in an "increasingly religious age". The producers of the programme asked for comment from the listeners on this statement and many responded. Both sides of the argument were represented with a fairly even spread between those who agreed and those who did not.
The debate got me thinking about the term 'religious' and how it is applied to life in the 21st Century. Highly emotive words are often attached to it - religious fanatics or religious extremism appear often enough but so too do phrases such as 'he follows Arsenal religiously'. It would seem that 'religious' is another word that has lost its real meaning. Religion, Politics and Sex were once the subjects most likely not to be discussed in polite company; it was bad form to ask a chap about his politics or his religion and we British have never been comfortable talking about...well...you know...
But now Western society knows no fear and we are happy to discuss our politics and our sex lives candidly(sometimes with accompanying video footage) and yet to mention the 'R' word can still trip us up. The supporters of Dr Wright's statement offered examples of warm welcomes at local parish churches or how they were offering prayers for the plight of the Pakistani flood victims whilst the detractors were claiming that modern society was essentially godless and didn't need religion. After all, religion has caused more wars than anything else is the familiar saw. But are we talking about Organised Religion or the more personal, lower case kind?
Many people I speak to describe themselves as being 'spiritual' rather than religious, and this is an example of how the term has become almost perjorative. To be Religious is to be pious or intolerant or evangelical but to be Spiritual is to have an understanding that there is something bigger than we are. To be spiritual fits nicely with being 'green' or 'liberal' in the list of things that make us 'good people'.
What I think we mean by 'religious' is that we recognise that we cannot exist apart from everyone and everything else. To feel the interconnectedness of things. To have faith in ourselves and one another to be there for others. We may give our 'gods' different names and follow different traditions and rituals in celebrating them but we all need to feel part of something, to have a relationship with something other than ourselves.
The materialistic and selfish lifestyle promoted in the 19th and 20th centuries has failed us. Society is cracking and we have very little time in which to heal it. This is recognised but not always acknowledged by people who deny that they are religious but who seek the community of others. We reach out to others in many ways and technology can play a part. This is seen in the continued growth of social networks such as twitter and Facebook. One of the earliest social networks was 'Friends Reunited' and it is no coincidence that this has a more human and sharing name than the self-centered 'MySpace' which is losing users to other, more social sites. Twitter was given the name in recognition of the way birds communicate to one another by tweeting little pieces of information that contribute to the survival of the whole flock. Online communities may not be a replacement for the real-life, flesh and blood kind but they can have enormous benefits (think of the money raised to help the victims of the Haitian and Pakistani disasters via twitter) and they do provide the opportunity to be part of something; to be an individual within a larger society.
The play we took to Edinburgh, 2020Vision, discusses this very theme and places the discussion in an extreme set of circumstances to heighten the message. Another, much gentler, production in the same venue dealt with the topic on a more intimate level. 'Of People and Not Things' by Andrew J Hungerford concerns the breakdown of a relationship that has far-reaching consequences for the rest of the World. Two very different approaches but very similar messages. A coincidence? Maybe...
As we reach out to one another so we begin to understand that we can only continue to evolve as a species if we work together, care for each other and truly communicate. God is a name we give the thing that is bigger than us, that guides us, that we all know is there but do not always acknowledge. Call it coincidence or fate or chance or chaos, even call it religion, but understand that it is part of us and we are part of it. Recognise the individuality and worth of the people around you and you will be rewarded with the same; turn against them and you will be truly alone.
The debate got me thinking about the term 'religious' and how it is applied to life in the 21st Century. Highly emotive words are often attached to it - religious fanatics or religious extremism appear often enough but so too do phrases such as 'he follows Arsenal religiously'. It would seem that 'religious' is another word that has lost its real meaning. Religion, Politics and Sex were once the subjects most likely not to be discussed in polite company; it was bad form to ask a chap about his politics or his religion and we British have never been comfortable talking about...well...you know...
But now Western society knows no fear and we are happy to discuss our politics and our sex lives candidly(sometimes with accompanying video footage) and yet to mention the 'R' word can still trip us up. The supporters of Dr Wright's statement offered examples of warm welcomes at local parish churches or how they were offering prayers for the plight of the Pakistani flood victims whilst the detractors were claiming that modern society was essentially godless and didn't need religion. After all, religion has caused more wars than anything else is the familiar saw. But are we talking about Organised Religion or the more personal, lower case kind?
Many people I speak to describe themselves as being 'spiritual' rather than religious, and this is an example of how the term has become almost perjorative. To be Religious is to be pious or intolerant or evangelical but to be Spiritual is to have an understanding that there is something bigger than we are. To be spiritual fits nicely with being 'green' or 'liberal' in the list of things that make us 'good people'.
What I think we mean by 'religious' is that we recognise that we cannot exist apart from everyone and everything else. To feel the interconnectedness of things. To have faith in ourselves and one another to be there for others. We may give our 'gods' different names and follow different traditions and rituals in celebrating them but we all need to feel part of something, to have a relationship with something other than ourselves.
The materialistic and selfish lifestyle promoted in the 19th and 20th centuries has failed us. Society is cracking and we have very little time in which to heal it. This is recognised but not always acknowledged by people who deny that they are religious but who seek the community of others. We reach out to others in many ways and technology can play a part. This is seen in the continued growth of social networks such as twitter and Facebook. One of the earliest social networks was 'Friends Reunited' and it is no coincidence that this has a more human and sharing name than the self-centered 'MySpace' which is losing users to other, more social sites. Twitter was given the name in recognition of the way birds communicate to one another by tweeting little pieces of information that contribute to the survival of the whole flock. Online communities may not be a replacement for the real-life, flesh and blood kind but they can have enormous benefits (think of the money raised to help the victims of the Haitian and Pakistani disasters via twitter) and they do provide the opportunity to be part of something; to be an individual within a larger society.
The play we took to Edinburgh, 2020Vision, discusses this very theme and places the discussion in an extreme set of circumstances to heighten the message. Another, much gentler, production in the same venue dealt with the topic on a more intimate level. 'Of People and Not Things' by Andrew J Hungerford concerns the breakdown of a relationship that has far-reaching consequences for the rest of the World. Two very different approaches but very similar messages. A coincidence? Maybe...
As we reach out to one another so we begin to understand that we can only continue to evolve as a species if we work together, care for each other and truly communicate. God is a name we give the thing that is bigger than us, that guides us, that we all know is there but do not always acknowledge. Call it coincidence or fate or chance or chaos, even call it religion, but understand that it is part of us and we are part of it. Recognise the individuality and worth of the people around you and you will be rewarded with the same; turn against them and you will be truly alone.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
The Sound of Silence?
Has it ever occurred to you that we very rarely experience silence? I don't just mean quiet or a gap in conversation ("we get on so well together, we can even sit in silence and not feel uncomfortable") I mean real silence.
The lack of silence has been brought home very clearly in the last few days here in Edinburgh. I have seen several shows in which characters remark on the silence whilst a minor cacophony of small sounds create a not so quiet symphony to underscore or, in some cases, overshadow the moment. In our own show, 2020Vision, a character remarks on the silence once the technology in their workplace crashes. Thankfully, the audience are willing to suspend their disbelief and ignore the whirr of fans keeping the lighting desk and amps cool, the thumping bass from the show in the venue above ours, and the strategically timed emptying of a bottle bin in the alley outside, and join us in the celebration of 'real silence'.
I know that it is naive to expect silence in an environment as hectic and chaotic as the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. 2400+ shows taking place over the course of the month create a lot of noise. But it has made me think about how much noise there is in our modern lives. Marshall MacLuan described the 20th Century as living at 'electric speed' and we do more than that now; we live at digital speed - claculating our existence in mega-, giga or terrabytes, comparing download speeds - and along with that comes all the digital chatter. Bleeps, pings, ringtones punctuate our hours and minutes. The quiet hum of computers and wi-fi hubs provide a soundbed to our thoughts (if we have time to think).
The American composer John Cage famously 'composed' his piece 4'33'' to highlight the notion of ambient sound - the sounds that we tune out of our everyday lives. Consisting solely of tacit bars, the score can be played on any instrument, and whilst the musician is 'playing' the piece the audience begin to experience the sounds of the venue; the breathing of other audience members, the creaking of the seats as people shift uncomfortably, traffic noise from outside the venue, and any other sounds that might drift into the space. Eventually, they might even begin to hear some internal noises; their heartbeat, digesting dinner or, just possibly, their own thoughts.
Cage's idea was to create a piece of supposed silence in which it became clear that such a thing rarely exists. Deafening silence is an oxymoron but it has a ring of truth to it. Sometimes silence can be very uncomfortable. Coupled with darkness it taps into our very primal fears. Noises in the dark can be scary but at least they prove that something else exists.
So, when the character of Bill in our play says, "This is real silence but it's like there is something else, something living in it." he is expressing the thought that, perhaps, there is a communion with something deeper, more meaningful, something else that can only be achieved if we occasionally experience real silence.
Any noisy objections or quiet words are welcome on this subject.
The lack of silence has been brought home very clearly in the last few days here in Edinburgh. I have seen several shows in which characters remark on the silence whilst a minor cacophony of small sounds create a not so quiet symphony to underscore or, in some cases, overshadow the moment. In our own show, 2020Vision, a character remarks on the silence once the technology in their workplace crashes. Thankfully, the audience are willing to suspend their disbelief and ignore the whirr of fans keeping the lighting desk and amps cool, the thumping bass from the show in the venue above ours, and the strategically timed emptying of a bottle bin in the alley outside, and join us in the celebration of 'real silence'.
I know that it is naive to expect silence in an environment as hectic and chaotic as the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. 2400+ shows taking place over the course of the month create a lot of noise. But it has made me think about how much noise there is in our modern lives. Marshall MacLuan described the 20th Century as living at 'electric speed' and we do more than that now; we live at digital speed - claculating our existence in mega-, giga or terrabytes, comparing download speeds - and along with that comes all the digital chatter. Bleeps, pings, ringtones punctuate our hours and minutes. The quiet hum of computers and wi-fi hubs provide a soundbed to our thoughts (if we have time to think).
The American composer John Cage famously 'composed' his piece 4'33'' to highlight the notion of ambient sound - the sounds that we tune out of our everyday lives. Consisting solely of tacit bars, the score can be played on any instrument, and whilst the musician is 'playing' the piece the audience begin to experience the sounds of the venue; the breathing of other audience members, the creaking of the seats as people shift uncomfortably, traffic noise from outside the venue, and any other sounds that might drift into the space. Eventually, they might even begin to hear some internal noises; their heartbeat, digesting dinner or, just possibly, their own thoughts.
Cage's idea was to create a piece of supposed silence in which it became clear that such a thing rarely exists. Deafening silence is an oxymoron but it has a ring of truth to it. Sometimes silence can be very uncomfortable. Coupled with darkness it taps into our very primal fears. Noises in the dark can be scary but at least they prove that something else exists.
So, when the character of Bill in our play says, "This is real silence but it's like there is something else, something living in it." he is expressing the thought that, perhaps, there is a communion with something deeper, more meaningful, something else that can only be achieved if we occasionally experience real silence.
Any noisy objections or quiet words are welcome on this subject.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Creativity and Criticism
Any artistic endeavour is an act of creativity. A blank page becomes a story or a poem or a sketch, an empty stage is peopled, a cunning combination of wood, strings and metal brings forth sound, a blank canvas...well, you get the picture.
When we create something,we give of ourselves. It is one of the great paradoxes; what is personal and private becomes public. Our ideas, thoughts, desires, dread fears are all exposed in the words or notes or brushstrokes, and we offer them up to whoever may read them, listen to them or view them. It is perhaps the defining characteristic of being human - that we can create.
I believe that everyone has the ability to be creative and I hold no truck with people who claim otherwise (often they have been told that they have nothing to offer and so don't) or who try to diminish the creative acts of others. Children and, indeed the young of many species, learn through play. They mimic the behaviours of others and develop a knowledge and understanding of their place and role in the wider community. Sue Palmer, in her very interesting book 'Toxic Childhood - how the modern world is damaging our children and what we can do about it' (Orion Books 2006) writes very eloquently about the value and importance of play. And play is creativity; it is imagination.
So when we create it should be celebrated, whether it be your child's first paint daubings proudly displayed on the fridge, or a film feted with honours at one of the major international festivals. For what we are celebrating should not necessarily be about the quality of the end result, although there is a fine debate to be had about definitions of quality, but rather a celebration of the act itself. For when we create something we are adding to the experience of life rather than diminishing it. New creations can also be celebrations of others; memento mori. What better way to remember somebody or some event than by creating something new?
This brings me to the second point; criticism. If everyone is creating something and adding to the tapestry of life, do we need someone to filter it all, to sort the wheat from the chaff? Do we need quality control? Sure, we all need a little feedback and comment on our work, especially those for whom creating is their career, and constructive criticism can help us to develop and shape our ideas. In other words, it is another part of the learning process. But, in my opinion, being able to discern between things that are 'good' and 'bad' is a skill we should all develop. The complexities of individual value systems is a subject for someone's PhD and I won't discuss them here. What I am advocating is a tempering of our reliance on and reverence for 'Critics' - professional reviewers etc. - who have been given the status of authority on a particular subject. There is a cliche about teachers,
"those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those who can't teach work for Ofsted" (my addition)
and there may be some truth in the similar cliche that all rock critics are failed musicians and all theatre critics never made it as actors or writers. I am much more interested in the opinions of people who watch our work - Joe and Josephine Public to use another cliche - but often they don't feel equipped to give an opinion because somehow they feel that their opinion is of no consequence. I don't disregard out of hand the views of critics and journalists, but I don't base my decisions purely on their opinions.
This is why I welcome the ability to communicate with the people who make the music I listen to or the theatre I watch. I also welcome review websites where the actual audience can comment on what they've seen or experienced. If we are given the chance to offer opinions then we may sharpen our own critical faculties and begin to make our own judgements on what is 'good' and 'bad'. This may also make us better equipped to receive the opinions of others with grace.
When we create something,we give of ourselves. It is one of the great paradoxes; what is personal and private becomes public. Our ideas, thoughts, desires, dread fears are all exposed in the words or notes or brushstrokes, and we offer them up to whoever may read them, listen to them or view them. It is perhaps the defining characteristic of being human - that we can create.
I believe that everyone has the ability to be creative and I hold no truck with people who claim otherwise (often they have been told that they have nothing to offer and so don't) or who try to diminish the creative acts of others. Children and, indeed the young of many species, learn through play. They mimic the behaviours of others and develop a knowledge and understanding of their place and role in the wider community. Sue Palmer, in her very interesting book 'Toxic Childhood - how the modern world is damaging our children and what we can do about it' (Orion Books 2006) writes very eloquently about the value and importance of play. And play is creativity; it is imagination.
So when we create it should be celebrated, whether it be your child's first paint daubings proudly displayed on the fridge, or a film feted with honours at one of the major international festivals. For what we are celebrating should not necessarily be about the quality of the end result, although there is a fine debate to be had about definitions of quality, but rather a celebration of the act itself. For when we create something we are adding to the experience of life rather than diminishing it. New creations can also be celebrations of others; memento mori. What better way to remember somebody or some event than by creating something new?
This brings me to the second point; criticism. If everyone is creating something and adding to the tapestry of life, do we need someone to filter it all, to sort the wheat from the chaff? Do we need quality control? Sure, we all need a little feedback and comment on our work, especially those for whom creating is their career, and constructive criticism can help us to develop and shape our ideas. In other words, it is another part of the learning process. But, in my opinion, being able to discern between things that are 'good' and 'bad' is a skill we should all develop. The complexities of individual value systems is a subject for someone's PhD and I won't discuss them here. What I am advocating is a tempering of our reliance on and reverence for 'Critics' - professional reviewers etc. - who have been given the status of authority on a particular subject. There is a cliche about teachers,
"those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those who can't teach work for Ofsted" (my addition)
and there may be some truth in the similar cliche that all rock critics are failed musicians and all theatre critics never made it as actors or writers. I am much more interested in the opinions of people who watch our work - Joe and Josephine Public to use another cliche - but often they don't feel equipped to give an opinion because somehow they feel that their opinion is of no consequence. I don't disregard out of hand the views of critics and journalists, but I don't base my decisions purely on their opinions.
This is why I welcome the ability to communicate with the people who make the music I listen to or the theatre I watch. I also welcome review websites where the actual audience can comment on what they've seen or experienced. If we are given the chance to offer opinions then we may sharpen our own critical faculties and begin to make our own judgements on what is 'good' and 'bad'. This may also make us better equipped to receive the opinions of others with grace.
2020Vision
We have carried out a fair bit of research into current developments in science and technology. We have looked at astrophysics, nanotechnology and gaming technology to find the latest ideas and theories. Not much of this actual research has found its way into the final script, but rather has helped us to create the world that the characters inhabit. The play is a realistic look ten years into the future, hence the title '2020Vision'.
It is set in a call-centre of a major multi-national company called Dawn Technologies who are currently developing a new, renewable energy resource. This 'solar-reconstruction' will remove the world's dependency on oil and fossil fuels, and will pave the way for a better, brighter, more efficient future. At least that is what the corporate brochure says...
Working on this project has made all of us think about the future - our own and the planet's. Can we sustain the rate of growth and the speed of development in technology? What happens when all our major decisions are taken by computers? Or when our emotions, feelings and desires can be stimulated and satisfied virtually? What happens to the human soul; the ghost in the machine? These are some of the questions that we have debated during and after rehearsals for this show, and we have attempted to create characters who retain or re-discover their soul when faced with extreme circumstances.
It hasn't been an easy journey (we totally reworked the show two weeks ago) and I'm not sure how the Edinburgh audiences will react, but I am pleased that, as a Company, we have taken a risk in developing an idea rather than reaching for an established text. The next couple of days will see some fine tuning based on the comments made by the invited audience to whom we previewed the show last week. The comments were positive, on the whole, but there was enough criticism to keep us on our mettle. We have made mistakes along the way but sometimes that can be the best way to learn.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Catching Up and Catching On
Another few months have flown by. The 1984 tour went well and we received some very positive comments from audience members and venues alike. Shortly after our performance at Sale, the Company went en masse to The Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester to watch their interpretation of Orwell's dystopian view. We came away really impressed with their version; much bigger budget than ours and very well executed. The fact that we were touring our small-scale version whilst the main-house production at the North West's foremost theatre was producing theirs was quite a buzz. There was a definite kinship with the other actors as we watched. Had we had the time, it would have been great to catch up with them and have a good discussion.
As if two productions of 1984 were not enough, we then heard that Northern Broadsides are to produce their take on the novel in the Autumn. We'll definitely catch that show when it comes to The West Yorkshire Playhouse in September.
So now, here in the Summer months (ignore the sound of the rain on the windows) we are finalising our latest production. '2020Vision' will premiere at The Edinburgh Fringe Festival in less than three weeks. I will write more about the production in the next few days. The piece is an original, devised play about the technology that we are reliant upon and what happens when it fails.
I have an interesting relationship with technology and can see the pitfalls as well as the positives of using it. I know that my Blackberry has a habit of running my day, but I also love twitter and the ability to keep up with friends, colleagues and other interesting people. Just lately I have discovered a number of really talented musicians whose compositions are available on-line. This is one aspect of the internet that I enjoy. I have also had to deal with the consequences of 'cyberbullying' on a group of students. Technology has improved our lives in so many ways but it has also enslaved us: we must use it carefully and consciously to genuinely benefit our lives rather than becoming ransomed by it.
As if two productions of 1984 were not enough, we then heard that Northern Broadsides are to produce their take on the novel in the Autumn. We'll definitely catch that show when it comes to The West Yorkshire Playhouse in September.
So now, here in the Summer months (ignore the sound of the rain on the windows) we are finalising our latest production. '2020Vision' will premiere at The Edinburgh Fringe Festival in less than three weeks. I will write more about the production in the next few days. The piece is an original, devised play about the technology that we are reliant upon and what happens when it fails.
I have an interesting relationship with technology and can see the pitfalls as well as the positives of using it. I know that my Blackberry has a habit of running my day, but I also love twitter and the ability to keep up with friends, colleagues and other interesting people. Just lately I have discovered a number of really talented musicians whose compositions are available on-line. This is one aspect of the internet that I enjoy. I have also had to deal with the consequences of 'cyberbullying' on a group of students. Technology has improved our lives in so many ways but it has also enslaved us: we must use it carefully and consciously to genuinely benefit our lives rather than becoming ransomed by it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)