Issue:
What frustrates/irritates/angers/disappoints and what do we do to move through
this/use it
Convener:
Rod Dixon
Participants:
Chris Hallam, Timothy Bird, Finlay Robertson, Hugh Hayes, Lucy Bradshaw, Julia
Voce …. Then loads of others who joined/stayed and left or returned.
Summary of
discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Fin: You know
that time when you are stuck listening to someone in conversation & you
don’t want to continue with the conversation but you’re too polite…?? you
fixate on their face trying not to look bored, then your biscuit soaks up your
tea and breaks…sinking into your cup… that is a time which makes me feel grumpy
with myself for not being able to find a way to politely escaping…
This led to a long discussion about how to be
authentic or is it honest? In our world this honesty is not very common –
indeed it is rare. We are not very good at taking responsibility for our true
feelings. So…how when a friend asks us to see their show and our true feeling
is that we didn’t enjoy it – how do we give negative feedback?
We are so used to being crushed as workers ourselves –
we don’t get funding or we don’t get a show programmed into a building etc etc
– maybe that is why we are so reluctant to give negative feedback to friends
people we love/respect/admire… maybe we therefore overvalue each other?
The question was raised that perhaps we believe we are
more creative than workers in other
sectors – this arrogance possibly goes into the way we value or undervalue or
criticize the work of colleagues.
Someone asked “What is grumpiness?”
Peth replied “It’s a prejudice I allow myself” He then
went on to suggest that we need neutral mediators to create a safer space to
offer useful critique of our work thereby avoiding the feeling of being
attacked.
Is the approach to begin positively…”I really like you
but your work is shit/poor/flawed/ blah blah”
Someone suggested that we are working in a culture of
(particularly from buildings) of asking for feedback but not really listening
to that feedback. This provoked discussion of Scratch Nights. These should be
places for authentic responses – the best scratch nights allow an audience to
give their authentic response. This then led to a discussion about what IS an
authentic conversation. Phelim pointed out that audience feedback/feedback from
other artists can too often polarize us – we feel the person takes a position
and berates us. Perhaps in an authentic conversation both participants get to a
place which surprises them – not one they are trying to force the other into.
What language are we talking in? Are we embarking on a
conversation in which you are my friend? My critic?
Phelim quoted
“Advice without empathy is toxic”
The point was made that the experience of D&D
allows us to be more authentic because we all feel on the same level – this was
not the experience of SOTA 12 which was depressing and not a place where “we
could all participate”.
What about our work? Should we prepare ourselves
better for feedback by being clear about the end point of a piece – what is its
benefit as a piece of work. So …how do we define usefulness? Too often work is
defined in monetary terms – its financial value. Was the argument against the
cuts that the Arts contribute to the economy playing into the hands of those
who oppress us? Justifying our work in capitalist terms. Peth pointed out that
the word economy does not have to be about money that is their language not
ours. The value of work should be set by us – the makers.
Dan Bye reminded
us that this is really a time for optimism – we are all part of a
movement for change – and it has started we no longer have to wait for it – we
are IN it now. Someone followed this with the comment that often limitations
create more – but don’t deny your inner grump!
No comments:
Post a Comment