WOMEN IN THEATRE

Convener: Vicky Graham

Participants: not noted, but included: Sarah Dickenson, Rebecca Manson-Jones, Rebecca Atkinson-Lord, Dan Baker, Rajni Shah, Holly Roughan, Marie Solene, Stella Duffy, Lynn Cordy, Lizzie Crarer, Bethany Pitts, Sue Emmas, Lyn Gardner

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

 

Following on from the formation of new theatre company Agent 160, its first tour, and Lyn Gardner’s Guardian article on sexism in theatre this week, we asked:

-       Are there women on top?

-       How do we ensure that the astonishing young women in theatre today are still there in 10, 20 or 50 years’ time?

Discussion:

-       Sphinx has data on this, available on their website. They’re hosting a conference at West Yorkshire Playhouse on March 2^nd.

-       Stella Duffy commented that although it has been decades since she started out, with confidence that the climate would change, very little has

-       Women are still referred to as a minority.

-       Opinions divided as to whether women are in fact on top

-       Drama schools have been known to admit majority men according to jobs available, not reflecting 52% female population and talent

-       There are more male roles on screen

-       Scandinavian culture has created more female-led successes (e.g. Borgen, The Killing)

-       Motherhood and childcare requirements make careers difficult to sustain – the industry doesn’t allow for these

-       As creative people, we should be creative and change our working models, e.g. welcoming children into the rehearsal space. The fear is that the industry will default to easier working models – ie. men in charge

-       It’s difficult to square the circle between being a parent and being an artist, but as artists we should come up with creative solutions and “be the change we want to see”.

-       Many examples of excellent female role models and leaders, including Vicky Featherstone, Erica Whyman

-       Feeling was that organisations (especially mainstream) aren’t producing enough female work, e.g. Donmar, Hampstead, Bush seasons have little / no work by women

-       Should it be the duty of women on top to ensure opportunities for next generation of women?

-       Women should be able to be artists in their own write, not just “female artists”

-       It was noted that 10 minutes in to the session, there was only one man present

-       Sisters have to do it for themselves!

-       A call to make conscious decisions in programming – a lot of the problems are down to unconscious choices

-       Female writers aren’t part of the canon

-       We need to see more female writers on syllabus and in schools

-       Growing up, women’s work is equated with a feminist political agenda. What if you don’t want to be political? Will this change for the next generation?

-       Why do people want 30% participation for women, and not 52%?

-       Some organisations operate blind script reading policies – see Lyn Gardner’s article and Bruntwood prize

-       Implications of gendered language discussed. We don’t say “he’s a male director” or a “career man”. Why do we / should we say that for women?

-       Concern about the lack of continuity and support for women’s second and third plays

-       We didn’t have feminism – we jumped straight into post-feminism

-       “This isn’t just about the arts, we need to change the whole fucking thing!”

-       Anecdotes about the aspirations of a group of young producers: all men wanted to be Nick Starr, the women just wanted a job

-       We need to work on women’s lack of a sense of entitlement and audacity, which is endemic in society

-       We all have to be the change we want to see, and do it from our own position, e.g. programming women’s work, only mentoring women and making conscious choices every time

-       The importance of women looking after other women

-       At one drama school, of 10 directing students, there’s only 1 woman. The boys are confident, where as the 1 woman isn’t able to say she’s a director yet

-       In Canada, positive discrimination in education pushed so far that boys underperformed in schools. There’s now a counter drive to address that.

-       Do women help other women enough? Some are territorial, which is endorsed by society.

-       Should a female artistic director programme work by women even if it’s not as good as the male work? The question should actually be “what can we do to ensure that women’s work is as good?”

-       We have to talk about a different kind of leadership, and different types of success

-       85% of audiences outside of London are women, who want work with a strong message

-       It’s important to have sell-able plays, and some think women’s work is harder to sell

-       There’s a tension between programming what people want and educating their taste

-       There’s an idea that work about women is only for women – e.g. if a woman writes a family story it’s a “domestic drama”, whereas if Mike Leigh writes it, it’s “universal”

-       Value and sell-ability: does our society value fun enough? It doesn’t all have to be political. It can be Mamma Mia – all women: producer, writer, director

-       We shouldn’t apologise when work is being made about women, for women. It’s not a dirty word / concept.

-       Why aren’t men involved in the feminist debate?

Wo-Manifesto(a):

-       Blind submission policies

-       Conscious choices about who we work with

-       Being conscious of our working styles and practices, shifting them if necessary to accommodate different needs

-       Diversity in panels / people evaluating work

-       It’s everyone’s responsibility to back women – men’s as well as women’s

-       Being sensitive to everyone in the conversation, but still getting the work done

-       Evolving our working models

-       Celebrating really great work by women and their achievements

-       Starting young and starting messaging with tiny tots

-       Being aware that we need to support women at different stages of their career - not just at the start

-       Not being afraid to challenge stereotyped gender roles in popular culture. E.g. panto

-       Compulsory female mentors for all senior men in theatre

-       Compulsory male mentors for women in theatre

-       Ensuring feminism is NOT a dirty word

-       Next time we choose a play to see, choose something made by women

Women and money:

-       In publishing, men are paid more

-       Nationally, women earn 10% less than men in equivalent roles

-       Women don’t ask

-       Need for consciousness-raising groups so that women know what they’re worth

Positive examples of all-female plays

-       House of Bernard Alba and Playhouse Creatures

-       Tim Crouch’s Taming of the Shrew

Conversations to be continued:

-       Gatekeepers: why do they make the decisions they make?

-       Female narratives and role models when working with young people

 

This message added at the end of the report:

ANYONE FOR FEMINISM/CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING/DRINKS/CHAT/CAKE/SHARING…

Email me via Improbable and I’ll make it :)

MEN WELCOME!!!

(lets do it out of London too!!)

Stella x

How can we trust art organisations wanting to support independent artists/ inventors?

Convenor: Li-E Chen

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

I initially raised this question at the State of The Arts conference 2012 in Manchester few weeks ago. I posted this issue again at the DandD7 as the question hadn’t been properly discussed and I hoped that there were people at DandD7 who could suggest what and how “Trust” could be created and developed between independent artists and arts organisations.

Organisations can support independence within the arts and the production of radical and challenging work. I feel many organisations work too ‘safely’ and often support the same artists. Is this because it is easier for them to work and follow the same pattern of programming and producing?

Artists need full creative freedom, without the limits of expectation and space.

Unfortunately many organisation seem to be results driven and focused on production. This is detrimental to artists work where focus is on the process. There is a notion that if a work is not finished or incomplete it has failed. This is because organisations still caught up in the commodification of art and deem it necessary to show an end product in order to justify money spent or place value on the artist and their work.

Risk taking between artists and organisations:

I think ‘great art’ comes with work that is ‘incomplete’ leaving an openness to it. When work is complete it has already died and become merely a product, no longer art.

The highly rigid structure of many organisations programming and commissioning can in turn disconnect audiences.

In the discussion meeting at the State of Arts conference 2012, , Producers and arts organisations were concerned that artists couldn’t deliver or complete their works. I think they should not under-estimate independent artists’ abilities, even though they may not speak out. I hope the trust can be repaired through conversations. Producers must be prepared to take the same risks as artists in order to achieve greatness within the arts. I wonder which art organisations and producers are willing to take the same risks as the artists do?

Conclusion

“Dream of Trust”

I wonder if organisations can establish their own independent spaces where any artists/individuals regardless of their practice or project, are free to work together. This would be a space for building trust, love, and a better society to live in. Artists could thus be more independent and use these spaces for experimentation, development and have time to understand the work they are producing.

“Achieving great arts for everyone” is not only the responsibility of the arts organisations, it is the artists also who need to take responsibility.  Artists can’t produce ground braking work without the support of time and space; not just time and space, but a supportive environment where cross-generational artists are encouraged to take risks.

Young Vic is an example of an organisation I think successfully addresses this via their young directors programme - this allows individual and independent directors/artists (any ages and backgrounds) to develop exceptional new works. The support that the programme is delivering is focused on directors’ on-going professional development, as well as giving on-going opportunities.

Improbable’s D and D is a great example of an open platform that is given opportunities for artists, arts professionals, and audience to engage in an open dialogue in an on-going process.  It alleviates isolation and allows for genuine and progressive collaboration and dialogue.

I think this is something ]performance s p a c e [  also attempts to do through the provision of space and events it curates - an independent space where artists can develop any kind of works without limit to any artistic practice. However, I wish there are more spaces like this, rather than only a space created by artists.

My dreams of Sadlers Wells, Tate Modern, Royal Opera House, National Theatre, South Bank Centre, and all the arts organisations.... I wish they will have their own independent spaces which are run as an Open Space and open for everyone like Improbable’s D and D monthly. I attended Improbable’s D and D for most of every month since 2009, because this is the only space where is open to everyone. I wish there are more spaces like this within all the arts organizations where any individuals can be part of it. It is really important to recognize the value of this that can change the society and create a better place for people to live in and give opportunities to create greater arts in the future.

I can understand it is really hard for organizations to understand the value of it, therefore, I have created one and want to demonstrate that it is essential to have a public space within each art form where new forms could emerge in this open environment.

Action to take:

Send report out

Tell people about it and create dialogues with arts organization

I dream about this dream imagining that I am one of the art and cultural leaders who want to create great arts for everyone and dream for a better society to live in every day life.

Collaborating to share the dull stuff

Convener: Alyn Gwyndaf

Participants: Kathryn, Dee, Bridget, Kate, Sam, Jon

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Alyn outlined the 'Open arts' online space he's developing, as a means for artists and organisations to avoid duplicating effort and share a common workload where possible. While we like collaboration, there seemed to be agreement that there is a competitive dimension, in that we're often chasing the same funding or development opportunities, or simply want to make our work distinctive. The philosophy of the project acknowledged this, and provides collaboration in administrative space, so differentiation is focused on creative work. A particular challenge/irony is that, though intended as collaborative tool, it's starting as a solo project and needs help to start getting other people involved.

Electronic diary

Very useful discussion testing out the concept of an electronic diary feed, available to and updated by the community. This would allow chronologically structured dates and submission deadlines, to be merged into existing electronic diaries (iCal, Google, Outlook etc). That is, work that people already do to plan for deadlines (i.e. put in diary) could be shared to avoid everyone doing the same things.

ñ What's the scope? Theatre or wider arts; festivals, development programmes or wider funding sources.

ñ Who's it for? Recognition that needs differ, so unlikely that one diary could suit everyone. Question of whether there's enough commonality of need that a single source would serve enough people.

ñ Filtering/vetting information is itself a time-consuming task, i.e. reading details to decide whether it's appropriate for one's own need. Probably wouldn't help with this, which is very much an individual choice.

ñ Need common standards to avoid creating extra work through adapting to  inconsistent ways of working. e.g. may be simplest to use ACE classification of artforms: even if it's reductive and/or imprecise, it's an established taxonomy.

ñ What to include: name of event/fund, who to contact, URL for details. And dates, obv.

ñ Suggestion that it's useful to have notifications when new entries pop up. But also caution that this can cause mail deluge, so best that it's optional and/or a daily/weekly summary.

ñ Conclusion that it's probably best to start with a very specific scope/community focus to create initial support, then broaden as appropriate. Possibility of adding different diary feeds for different purposes.

ñ Big challenge may not be getting people involved at the start, but maintaining support and commitment over time.

Other possible areas for sharing

Resources:

ñ Distributed inventory: who's got what, where. Not attempting to be a physical prop-sharing, with associated space, transport issues, simply a list of who's got what available, where it is and how to get it (a laminator was a popular example). c.f. Couchsurf or similar sites. Two different possible models: project timescale (bulletin board of “help I need this” appeals and responses); permanent timescale (list of “we have these available to share, whenever you need”).

ñ Jargon dictionary: take an arts buzz-word, explain what it means, and give other words for the same thing in other sectors (e.g. “marketing” in theatre = “sales” in business; “marketing” in business = “audience development” in theatre). May be subjective, but just having the conversation helps us clarify what we really think we mean by the jargon we use ourselves. Some examples cited:

ñ Methodologies

ñ Bauprobe

ñ Collaborative

ñ Fringe (as noun, adjective or possibly even verb)

ñ Community: people in the local community (or other related definitions) often those we're [theatre] not reaching, as opposed to social media “community” which is the customers, and more deliberately managed.

Services

Many suggestions, typically services that organisations/artists need in small amounts but for which the smallest 'unit' available is too big or costly for the need, so more feasible or cost-effective to buy in on a collective basis.

ñ Accounting

ñ HR

ñ Financial/business planning

ñ Marketing

ñ Strategy

ñ Internal file sharing/groupware/project tools

ITC offer (companies) advice on these areas.

Theatre Bubble / London Theatre Network (Alex Parsonage) suggested as possible source for information on existing collaborative work.

Follow-up Actions

ñ Kathryn to email Katie to find out about existing inventory swap mechanisms then email Alyn

ñ Alyn to email invitations to the group to test out diary and website

Some more interesting tangents we then went off on...

ñ Pay levels: arts much worse than charity sector; impressive job titles often come with pitiful pay; possibly aiming to compensate.  Any validity in the idea that women go for a job title while men go for money? Little overall support for that.

ñ The 'theatre pound' – aiming to make more explicit the subtle currencies and means of exchange e.g. time, help, favours. A more portable/explicit manifestation of “if you look over this funding application for me I can get you some comps for this show”

ñ Simply getting money on the agenda, creating a more open dialogue about means of exchange and value of what we do

ñ 'I can' thinking vs 'sense of entitlement' – another blurry term used both for those who feel they're owed a living (e.g. benefits), and for those who believe they can achieve great things.

ñ Models of valuing time: fundamentally different mindsets for salaried and freelance people, and its relationship to earning a living. May underpin some tensions between artists and organisations.

ñ Translating theatre skills into business. Not simply about doing corporate role-play, but abstracting the more subtle qualities that we bring. Example of typical corporate job might involve 30% of time on 'work' with rest on politics and the process of being in an organisation; theatre typically more project-focused and disciplined about use of time.

ñ Different dimensions of diversity: ethnicity, sex, sexuality, age, class etc. May have comparable patterns of emergence, legislation and cultural change. Possibility that tribal humanity will always seek out new forms of exclusion, so these patterns can help us look out for what's coming up next as prejudice/discrimination factors.

Do have a look at the work in progress. It's at www.open-arts.org.uk and if you've any thoughts or want to get involved, send them to admin@open-arts.org.uk