I am now
back in the UK after finishing my contract with Live Business in Ibiza for the
summer. It was a fantastic experience and I learnt not only a lot about my
practice as a performer but also about myself on a personal level. A lot of
these discoveries were informed by what occurred in and around my workplace
environment. One of the most intense aspects of the job was the constant
dialogue between myself, my colleagues and our audience. These groups have
previously been identified by the BAPP Module Two Reader Five as ‘contexts’
(2015), the personal, professional, organisational and societal. What has been
most interesting is observing when these different contexts communicate with
each other, to what benefit and how they affect one another. There have been
instances, as discovered in my interviews, when contexts have not functioned
efficiently and this has caused discourse amongst others. Speaking of inquiry
tools, my observations and interviews have been completed although they are
currently in the form of written transcripts so I will be writing them up so as
to make sense of the recorded data and also familiarise myself with themes and
ideas that I can later discuss. All consent forms have been signed and I am now
moving into the phase of analysing my findings which is identified by the
Module Three handbook (2016) and the diagram below as stage four.
I have been
previously worried about the pace of my inquiry and how long it has seemed moving
between each stage. However, after a brief recap of the handbook (2016) it is
stated that we as researchers may find ourselves floating in between stages.
The literature review, for example, is something that has been ongoing for me
since the start of the study period. It has been a great comfort learning that
there is so much literature available with regards to collaboration and
leadership within the arts but, on the other hand, this has also required me to
observe closely at what articles and extracts from texts are relevant to my
inquiry topic. I was fortunate enough during my contract’s duration to fully
read through a couple of texts that have been extremely beneficial in realising
what direction my inquiry needs to take. This included finding clarity in what
I am looking to get out of the process and forming tasks for myself such as
organising interview questions in order to realise what I want to achieve from
my inquiry tools. A text I previously mentioned examining before deferring last
study period was Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration in
Leadership’ (2010). After finishing my initial reading, certain areas of the
text have influenced my thinking for the inquiry’s direction, including my
working title for the inquiry.
Inquiry Title in Working: How do theatre production company
structures affect communication for creative collaboration and leadership, and
what methods can improve practice when challenged by discursive dialogue?
Before reading
Cohen’s text I think I was unsure as to what area of practice I wanted to
investigate within creative collaboration and leadership. My literature review
has proved that the topic is fairly robust and without a specific objective for
investigation lacks focus. The phrase ‘theatre production company structure’ in my title does not refer to the infrastructure
of a company in the same way you may speak about a business. It refers to the
mode in which theatre productions operate. In his text, Cohen (2010) refers to
three fundamental models that are utilised when producing theatre productions,
‘institutional theatres’, the ‘single production model’ and the ‘regional
theatre model’;
Institutional theatre – “the majority
of the artistic staff (directors, designers, actors) and virtually all of the
production staff (technicians, dramaturgs, business and publicity offices) are
already on hand when the individual production director is selected. Gathering
the team in these cases may mean simply going down the hall and knocking on a
few doors. With its theatre spaces ordinarily in the same buildings (or at
least the same city) as its offices, shops and rehearsal halls, as well as
close by the normal workplaces (offices, studios) and home-base residences of
its theatre artists, institutional theatre productions easily facilitate close,
frequent and easily arranged face-to-face collaborations among all members of
an artistic team.” (Cohen, 2010)
I referenced
this method of creating theatre when I first began looking at Cohen’s (2010)
work and although I didn’t know it by the term “institutional theatre” I made
comment of Stanislavski’s ‘Moscow Theatre Company’ during my module two
feedback post.
Institutional theatre is not a feasible option for most theatre production
companies today. I will be referring to the model during the course of my
inquiry but the latter two will be the focus of my case studies.
Single-production model – “In this
model, each production must assemble its own team independently, from top to
bottom… The single-production motif is the basic pattern [for fringe theatre],
almost all films, and most small, independent stage productions, including what
are popularly known as “Equity-waver” and “showcase theatre”… To initiate such
a production, a self-designated producer (more commonly today a group of
producers acting as a team), having raised sufficient funds to set a show in
motion, will then engage each individual participant – from directors to
performers to ushers – that will become part of the production company. In such
cases, the “gathering” of such a team – which may be composed of artists living
in different cities or even countries – may for a long time be more virtual
than face-to-face, via web conferencing, emails, attachments and phone calls...
and when actual meetings are arranged, they likely will be on a one-to-one
basis rather than a group gathering, at least in the early weeks or months.”
(Cohen, 2010)
Contrary to
this extensive detailing for the intricacies of this type of production model,
Cohen (2010) goes onto explain the benefits it affords such as “Artists [being]
engaged because of their specific match with particular project, rather than
because they are simply “the designer down the hall”. Cohen (2010) also adds
that “working with artists outside one’s own periphery of local colleagues can
lead to unexpected artistic growth – and professional development – throughout the
individually selected team”. This latter commentary is a product of
transdisciplinary knowledge being exchanged. Cohen’s notion for gaining new
perspective outside of regular communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991)
validates Michael Gibbons (2008) theory, as I discovered during module two
studies, for “transdisciplinary knowledge production… not necessarily [being]
derived from pre-existing disciplines”. Both Cohen (2010) and Gibbons (2008)
suggest that genuine inspiration for projects can be found without
pre-conceived ideals from either or multiple parties.
Regional theatre model – “a middle
ground model… while regional theatres are technically institutional… virtually
none is today funded sufficiently to maintain a large, resident, permanent
company of directors, designers, and, most importantly, actors on yearlong paid
contracts… the “company” is a mixture of a few permanent members, usually
including the artistic, producing and/or managing directors, and core business,
artistic and production staffs.” (Cohen, 2010)
Cohen (2010)
further adds that like the previous two models, the regional has advantages and
disadvantages. He cites that “Since they [company members] don’t have a
year-round salaried company of one or two hundred persons, they are certainly
more economical than the government-funded national theatres in Europe, and can
be far more flexible in who they hire”. This model is reflective of Live
Business’ production structure. The flexibility can be beneficial to all
members of the company alike at one time or another but, with regards to my
inquiry topic, this means a range of disciplinary knowledge that must be gauged
with precision and care.
My
literature review, made up of both professional and academic texts as encouraged
by Reader Seven (2016), has informed me thus far that collaboration and
leadership is thought of broadly as essential to theatre production. Whether it
can be managed well within different environments is what will be at the centre
of my critical review based on my findings gathered through observation and
interview tools. I believe that Cohen’s (2010) text has made it clear that
there is the opportunity for a compare and contrast scenario that can be
structured for my critical review and I intend to examine further as to how
this can be developed. Reader Six (2015) states that the inquiry should not be
about proving “scientific truth” with our findings but to explore a focused
area within our chosen topics. I have discussed methodology from my
professional area of practice but I hope a continued look at academic
literature will help provide for interesting discussion. I will also be posting
a blog detailing my observation and interview findings as well as any new ideas
these have provoked.
Bibliography
Cohen, R
(2010) Working together in theatre:
collaboration and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Middlesex
University, Module Two Reader Five, 2015
Middlesex
University, Module Two Reader Six, 2015
Middlesex
University, Module Three Reader Seven, 2016
Middlesex
University, Module Three Handbook, 2016
