Add a Comment

Comment by National Theatre Wales on July 23, 2009 at 22:38

I think that's spot on Deborah. As a company our job is to create conditions where great work can happen. It won't always be 100% successful, but we should go into every project feeling like the elements that could create great work are in place.

Comment by Deborah Powell on July 23, 2009 at 11:35

Quite agree that quality should never be assumed. Reputation or previous success are only indicators not predictors. Harsh reality is, whatever field we operate in, we're all only as good as our last piece of work. Whilst I feel I may be straying into a well-trodden debate here (!), I think quality in creative or knowledge-based industries cannot be controlled ( ie: guaranteed) in the traditional sense and to try do so is barking up the wrong tree. But, whilst it can't be controlled, the pursuit of quality can be actively encouraged. Encouraged & nurtured, essentially, by the infrastructure that is in place to support/mentor the artist. And, delivery of that support, perhaps, goes some way to give reasonable assurances or 'guarantees' up front. Perhaps too, that's where the really interesting debate on quality resides - looking at the sufficiency of the means by which we support and encourage artistic output. Maybe we can go further, saying that assurances on the pursuit of that intention by a National company is all we can reasonably ask?

It's my feeling too, that measures of success DO NOT have to be post production only. Maybe that's been part of the problem. Maybe new measures of success should embrace more aspects of the creative process itself; say, the value of the shared learning experience by those involved, or from the level of engagement with audiences as 'stakeholders' that led up to the final production? I'm sure there are many ways we could look at these issues that are as yet unexplored.
Back to Gary's mum I think ...

Comment by Simon Harris on July 23, 2009 at 6:29

I was reflecting to myself, after leaving that comment, that it would be easier to be talking about "success", rather than "quality." "Measures of success" certainly do engender pride in the artist and make it easier to communicate with audiences. "Quality," however, is a different matter. Where there is a tradition of theatre and a critical mass of work over time, it is easier to build audience confidence through recourse to successful precedent ie. "because the last Alan Bennett play was good the next Alan Bennett play will be good." It does not necessarily guarantee quality, but it is comforting to audiences. However, NTW will not be presenting much Alan Bennett, I suspect. Then the problem becomes about assessing the quality of work that has no particular track-record of success. For example, if an artist or a piece of work has no precedent, does that mean it is not of good quality? I suspect that a lot of NTW's work will be new and innovative. I have faith and trust that some of it will be good, but that not everything will be. It doesn't mean that I would then give up on NTW, if one show disappointed me. While I completely agree that it is possible to have successful evaluation in the way that you describe, it is inevitably after-the-event and many of the producer's choices come before it.

My personal belief is that we do not stick at things long enough here. The choices we make in theatre are generally for the short-term, but, ideally, should be considered in the long term. We seem to believe that good quality work is self-evident, when, in fact, it is just a reflection of our subjective beliefs and experiences. I think this is when discussion around the "quality of the work" can be both destructive and redundant.

Comment by Deborah Powell on July 23, 2009 at 5:36

Simon, if only we knew each other in real life! I am not a natural mechanic and linear-thinking is always a last resort for me, but I can see merit in trying to get a handle on some measures of success if only to engender pride in the artist and her endeavours and to enable easier communication of 'a good thing' to a wider
audience. In my experience, albeit outside the arts, 'new'indicators & means of evaluation can be found if you get enough perspectives into the mix.
'Successful' evaluation tends to be organic in origin, experience-based and touch on soft issues too and I'd hope this is where the Arts Council review is headed.

Comment by National Theatre Wales on July 23, 2009 at 0:00

These are all really important things for us to think about. And the key thing at this point is that we are thinking about them and discussing them. A big part of the purpose of this network is to create a space where we can chew on and consider some of the big questions behind what we do. My opinions certainly change as I read and discuss on here, but here's what I think for now:

Audiences. When I wrote: 'Not sure these are interesting questions' of the comments at the conference 'What about people who just want to watch a show?' and 'How do we guarantee quality', I wrote this not because questions of quality and the traditional audience experience aren't important per se, but because the implication that digital (or participatory, or educational, or community) art is not quality and not for mainstream audiences is always brought up at conferences on these kinds of art, and it seems to me that the question is often used to imply that these kinds of art are somehow 'not proper'. The same questions of quality and accessibility should be asked of all art and theatre. To imply that they are an issue only in some kinds of work seems strange to me. So a big yes for discussions of quality and audience access, but let those discussions apply equally to everything.

In terms of whether there is too much debate on here about 'less mainstream' work. I think it is understandable that people will get energised by discussion of things that are new or different. There is plenty of blogging on here about more traditional work, but the questions surrounding experiment inevitably raise passions. Currently there is a majority of artists on the network, which is as we expected prior to producing work; once there are shows to sell to audiences, I hope that this community will expand, and generously embrace, all kinds of people who may or may not have a history as theatre goers, but who may have something to say, or questions to ask of a growing theatre community.

In terms of National Theatre Wales's programme. Our goal is to stimulate and engage through our programme; so there should be things for people who like going to theatre to simply watch a good play; there should be things for people who currently think theatre is not for them; and there should be things for people who want to experiment and try new ideas. One of the joys of programming of course is that sometimes the very thing you thought was an experimental risk turns out to be a popular hit, and vice versa. From my experience, new audiences in particular often respond well to things that are less traditional (e.g. site specific work). Overall, it is crucial that we present all the work we do in the most open and inviting way possible, that we don't prejudge what people should or will like.

In terms of quality. Simon is right to emphasise what a complex question it will always be. One of my great hopes though, for this online community, is that it will have an evaluative role - honestly debating what does and doesn't work as the programme gets underway.

Comment by Simon Harris on July 22, 2009 at 23:32

Yes, and that leads us back to the second part of the comment that John made in his post ie. 'how do we guarantee quality'... Not sure they are very interesting questions. The world would be a lot simpler if we all agreed on what was good and what was bad. But we don’t. In fact, part of the reason, John may be less interested in the question is that he knows that no artist gets up in the morning and decides to make a really rubbish piece of work, as opposed to a great one. However, like love or beauty, quality is in the eye of the beholder, so it is tempting to focus on the extrinsic aspects of the work – what the audiences thought, what the reviews said, what the cultural historians write, what the funders think. Personally, I think such views about “great work” are retrospective, socially constructed and, to a large degree, unmanageable. Of course a “quality guarantee” is bonkers when you think about it, especially when risk-taking is such an important part of creativity and theatre is adapting in order to survive - becoming much more cross-disciplinary and wide-ranging in its scope. The most important thing is to have faith in the work yourself and try and communicate that to your audiences. That’s why I wish John had been a bit more forthcoming on that subject, because, moment by moment, he will be making qualitative decisions himself and with others about the future of NTW and the work it is involved with. Deborah may be keen to find indicators that help transform good work into great work, but, frankly, I’m sceptical about that happening in the mechanistic way she suggests ie. through indicators and evaluation. However, there’s no doubt that finding a way to grapple with these issues is a subject many in the arts will need to be thinking about. The Arts Council is embarking on a review of the sector in Wales which will be based in qualitative evaluation and artists themselves have strongly argued for a shift away from outcome-based assessments of their work (ie. audience numbers, tick-boxing etc.) to assessment based on the quality of what they do. Anyhow, I’d still like to hear what kind of theatre Gary’s mum might like…

Comment by Deborah Powell on July 22, 2009 at 11:42

I so agree Alex. I'd be tempted to go even further; I want to see good theatre elevated to great theatre in Wales! Suppose the trick though is working out whats going to be good/great really early on and also, what measures of success are the ones that really count?

Comment by Alexander Vlahos on July 22, 2009 at 7:49

Surely all this can be boiled down to, is it 'Good Theatre'?
Because isn't that what we all want, deep down? -from those working at NTW, those supporting it on this forum and the audience who pay to keep it running, we all just want it to be GOOD.

Comment by Rhiannon Davis on July 22, 2009 at 6:45

I have to agree with Gary and Deborah. My background as a theatre-goer is very much watching mainstream stuff - established opera, well-known musical theatre, Shakespeare etc.
Before coming to work at National Theatre Wales I wouldn't have even considered going to see anything that discussed interactive audience experiences or anything involving more than turning up with my ticket and sitting safely in the audience to see a show I was pretty sure I was going to like.

Anything different scares the hell out of me - although I will admit that I'm quite excited (in a tentatively nervous way) about the different types of theatrical experience that I've heard talk about since working at NTW.

I'm sure, though, that there are plenty of people in Wales who feel as I do (did?!) - I know many friends and family in this category - and it is important not to forget these people in any discussions. After all, we need bums on seats and these are some of the people we're targeting. And, as finance manager, I have to at least consider the revenue from ticket sales that these "bums" generate!!

Comment by Deborah Powell on July 22, 2009 at 5:52

I'd like to wave a small flag here Gary in support of the wider audience ... I've continually posted items here around the need to identify & meet the needs of the broadest possible church in terms of attracting and gaining loyalty from our potential audience. The key to success of a national company surely is to meet the needs of as many audience-member types as possible - more of a market spread strategy than a niche, specialist one?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page