The
following text was sent to Paula last week for formative feedback but some
arguments featured relate to my previous blog
post regarding my choice of literature review for the inquiry.
Since
reading and assessing my module two feedback, I have found that several aspects
of my inquiry have changed. Whilst the topic, ‘creative collaboration within
theatre production’ remains the same, ideas for how the inquiry will be
structured has affected questions that will be implemented for interviewing as
a result new, potential ethical issues. My current idea for an inquiry title is
‘How does creative collaboration in theatre production permeate between
participating members and is this altered by the level of professional
experience shared as a theatre company?’
Whilst
beginning to gather literature for review last study period, I came across an
argument in Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration and
Leadership’. Cohen (2010) proposes that the term ‘ensemble’ has ambiguous
meaning. The first being the common expression for production teams collaborating
together on a singular piece of work. The second was in the awareness of
creative control between participating members and that in order to create
successful work a hierarchy must be put in place in order to maximise productivity
within a company. Cohen (2010) suggests that due to the institutionalising of
theatre as a business model, the industry is made up of professionals who have
trained in particular specialisms. He then goes onto
cite the breakdown of what was formerly known as the ‘family’ company ideal for
theatre, which was developed by Stanislavsky. In his book ‘An Actor Prepares’,
Stanislavsky (1936) references his own professional experience in that his own
theatre company ‘Moscow Theatre Art'. He believed that all members of the
theatre company, whether an actor, director, stage or props manager, should
share an equal role in creating a production. However, Stanislavsky (1936) later
experienced this method not always efficient particularly when rehearsing for
Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s ‘The Village of the Stepanchikovo’. After conducting 196
separate rehearsals and eventually abandoning the project due to his own
opinion for it not meeting a satisfactory standard, it can be assumed that a
lack of decisiveness from within the company led to this decision. Today,
theatre companies cannot afford to work in this manner and members train in
highly specialised, individual roles to fulfil projects. Cohen’s (2010) view
for hierarchy within theatre companies validates an earlier argument made by
Thomas Hobbes (1651), found in Reader Five (2015) and discussed during my
inquiry plan. This was that personal, professional and organisational contexts
are part of a moral social contract that “works on the premise that rational
people will accept it on the understanding that everyone else will as well and
supported by the idea that morality is a set of rules for mutual benefit.” What
Cohen (2010) and Hobbes’ (1651) views suggest is a synonymous thinking that the
product of collaboration will be strengthened by participating member’s
willingness to show leadership in their particular field of the project and
communicate their reasons for action effectively with their colleagues. Cohen believes
that “Discipline may be ordered, to be sure, but the deepest levels of artistic
achievement can only be evoked – and
in large part that evocation must come from within the artist’s own creativity, comprising his or her wildest
imagination, deepest aesthetic sensibility, and wellspring of artistic passion.
No theatre veteran would doubt this.” (2010).
Detailed
example of this interplay is chronicled using real life examples by Tina Bicat and Chris Baldwin in their
text ‘Devised and Collaborative Theatre: A Practical Guide’ (2002). The work
offers a detailed analysis of how theatre company personnel interact with each
other through recording a number of real life professional relationships and
how they evolve and permeate projects. With multiple examples being given throughout
the text, I have been beginning to think that perhaps my observations and
interviews need to extend beyond my current professional workplace in order to
gauge a varied amount of data for analysis. As Cohen (2010) mentions,
“communal” theatre production stills exists today and it may be interesting to
investigate whether companies that compose of the same actors, creatives and stage
and technical managers over various productions tell a differing opinion for
their experience in creative collaboration. With my new company, Live Business,
I will be entering rehearsals in just under two weeks’ time, meeting many of my
cast and team for the first time. An example of a company working closer under
the ‘family’ ethos for theatre production would be my experience on ‘Half a
Sixpence’. The fringe company, ‘Solomon Artistes’, that produced the show are
made up of a team that often work yearly together with the same ensemble across
several productions. Although I had not worked with the company on a show
before a couple of years ago, I knew of it and many of the people who made up
the team before formerly beginning rehearsals for the show. I believe that a
comparison between the two companies, one that is beginning a collaborative
relationship anew and another whose members have crafted a working relationship
over years, could yield for interesting data and analysis especially for the
transdisciplinary knowledge (Gibbons, 2008) between professional and
organisational contexts (Reader Five, 2015). I may find contrasts and equally
similarities between the two companies which will be made clear given the
correct approach and preparation for interview and observations. What this does
mean, however, is a possible alteration in my ethical approval. Although Live
Business are fully aware of my activities, should I wish to engage with
‘Solomon Artistes’ for observation and interview purposes I may need to prepare
a separate ethics form for their consent. Whether this needs to be completed
like the ethics and employer support forms as completed for the module two
submission I am unsure of, however. Would a self-produced consent form
detailing my inquiry project, its intent and safeguarding of all involved be
deemed appropriate to carry out my inquiry tools? This is something that may
need to be discussed.
Bibliography
Baldwin, C, Bicat, T (2002) Devised and collaborative theatre: a
practical guide, Wiltshire: Crowood
Cohen, R (2010) Working together in theatre: collaboration
and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Gibbons, M 2008 “Why Is Knowledge
Translation Important? Grounding the Conversation”, Technical Brief No. 21 [online] Available at: http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus21/Focus21.pdf [Accessed
29 Feb. 2016]
Middlesex University, Module Two
Reader Five, 2015.
Stanislavsky, K (1936) An actor prepares, 2008 re-print,
London: Methuen Drama
Thanks Tom - I really enjoyed our discussion and get together with Granger.
ReplyDeleteQuestion form above text "Cohen (2010) suggests that due to the institutionalising of theatre as a business model, the industry is made up of professionals who have trained in particular " in particular specialisms?
also "Today, theatre companies cannot afford to work in this manner and members train in highly specialised, individual roles to fulfil projects" not sure where evidence is - is this your experience? and if so - that might just be you perception of the theatre companies you have worked with at that particular stage in your career...continue to develop your themes - I mentioned Leavy's book about transdisciplinarity - but you will be very busy so 3rd theatre group might have to stay as web research - yes you wold need new forms - employer and informed consent. Remember you have your journal for personal and confidential observations about your practice - it sounds like you new work place has a high level of professional kudos and I am looking forward to how you see your ideas collaboration develop.
Thanks for commenting, Paula.
ReplyDeleteYes, likewise. It was great to, as you suggested in session, 'rehearse' our ideas. I felt speaking them aloud in front of peers makes it apparent as to whether there is any substance to thinking and if it is worth pursuing.
I apologise for the typo but yes, you are correct in that meaning to read 'particular specialisms'. I have updated the post with this edit.
I remember a comment you made in my module two feedback about remaining vigilant with Harvard referencing. I think the "Today, theatre... fulfil projects" is an example of this. This is a paraphrased idea from Cohen's (2010) text. The quote was a little long so I paraphrased his sentiments in order to keep the idea in the body of the text. I must remember to accurately credit literature. Otherwise, not only do I risk lack of ownership and possible plagiarism but I am also in danger of, as you have pointed out, coming putting a statement across that doesn't necessarily represent my own view or reflect on my experience.
I am very keen to look into your suggestion on Leavy's literature for transdisciplinarity but I agree, it may prove too much to organise. Keeping it to web research could prove effective, however. It also employs another data collection tool (documents). I will also begin preparing forms for my involvement with the company who produced 'Half a Sixpence'. I will be keeping my journal close during data collection. My upcoming rehearsals will in fact require me to have a pen and paper to hand at most times for recording notes as requested by the company.