bureaucratic capitalism 1

A question that's been poking at me for a while now.that I need (and maybe I'm not alone) a way to make performances quickly and outside of the structures laid down by the current status quo. To be clear: the status quo, to me (now, here) includes most "working artists" - since we are deeply invested in and reliant on the current structures.

There are so many systemic changes required on all levels and I believe firmly in a governments role in funding the arts – but I suspect it is up to us, as artist/makers to find a better way.

I don't know what it is but here are some thoughts

- it's cheap. cheap to make, cheap to see.

- it's fast. get's made quickly, or at least is able to respond to the speed of life. (there is another kind of desperately needed work that is not at all about speed, but that's a different post)

- it's funny.

- it has songs.

- it is in relation to the publics that we are a part of. to the stories and imaginations that make it up.

- soft professional liberalism won't help.

While I am cynical and and a little burnt by the big puppet / public spectacle world - I still have curiosity. Especially around Welfare State International. This is a great bit (the whole article is worth it too...)

We joined to make playful art outside the ghetto. Not to work three years ahead in a goal-orientated corporate institution where matched funding and value-added output tick boxes destroy imaginative excess. The art business puts jobs before vocations. Overintensive risk management, child protection, alarm systems, licensing, family-friendly badges and employment laws invade with a suffocating culture of smug inertia.

via Where should British theatre go now? | Stage | The Guardian.

What some one else was thinking

Tim Etchell's blog at the Guardian continues to be very good:

It's watching this small fraction of inspired improvisations (maybe 3% would be more accurate) that reminds me how lucky I am to work with performers who can do this – this very strange combination of tuning and turning, doing and waiting, acting and not acting, pretending, playing, inventing, insisting, listening and taking chances. It might be an odd thing for a sometime writer like me to say, but watching this kind of rehearsal, when the group is on a roll, and being lucky enough to nudge it into shape a bit, reconfirms so many of my doubts about the singularity of authorship that many plays demand. I really do prefer the making by doing, the group effort, its multiple directions and endless live negotiations. Even the cold of the bunker, and the ever-present threat of an eight-hour circular discussion, can't keep me away.