Great Expectations

What does Josh Bell on a street corner teach us?

Recently I got a chain email about taking the time to appreciate art. The email referred to a social experiment that the Washington Post conducted in 2007.

In a nutshell, the Post commissioned violinist Josh Bell to play classical classics on his $3.5 million Stradivarius in the middle of a subway station for change. The question was: would anybody notice?

You can read about how the experiment played out here.

The email got me thinking about theatre producers and our choices of venues when we want to make new work. It made wonder about taking audience types into account.

For example, whenever the Fringe comes into town, I invariably see a Chekov or a Moliere in the program. But is this the right venue for this kind of show? A typical Fringe audience is looking for a specific type of experience. But the same goes for a Soulpepper audience, or a Stratford audience, or a Tarragon audience. Each is particular, and each is looking for something different.

(The wonderful thing about the Fringe is that you can produce anything you want -- I get that. I'm only using it as an example because it's current.)

In Washington, no one stopped to appreciate Bell's music precisely because of the choice of venue. That doesn't make his playing any less brilliant, but I believe the experience of the art is an integral part of the art itself. The audience's expectations are a huge part of that equation.

It's the paradox of community or "amatuer" theatre. Some of the most wonderful theatre can be created in this setting because both the company AND the audience wills it to be brilliant.

Choose your venue; choose your tribe. Knowing your audience means knowing what its expectations are predisposed to be.

If you can connect with your audience, you can both mould those expections and you can exceed them.

Making Money on the Web

Indie artists, new-media journalism and DPI

Yes, the Internet is changing everything.

Following up on last week's post, my buddy Adrian emailed me to discuss some of the ideas in the post in more depth. He writes:

I think things are also in transition, and the piece speaks to that in a way - the 'answers' have not yet come out... the problems and opportunities in the democratization of the arts via the web. It's kind of exciting to be working at such a turning point; it's tough, but exciting to see the conversations happening, people inventing and creating ... like that indie singer/songwriter who managed to make 19k in 11 hours using Twitter, and basically just being creative. But she ended up making the money on merchandise - shirts mostly. Not selling her music. This seems to be the bottom line - the art is a promotional tool - you have to sell something which is not in endless supply (ie: an mp3). But, these can still be creative products which are an extension of your art.

Is this new arts business model? Selling items that are associated with your art while giving your art away for free? Then, magically, Trent Reznor weighed in on the same topic, in entirely different conversation elsewhere in the blogosphere:

The point is this: music IS free whether you want to believe that or not. Every piece of music you can think of is available free right now a click away. This is a fact - it sucks as the musician BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS (for now). So... have the public get what they want FROM YOU instead of a torrent site and garner good will in the process...

What's interesting to me is how everyone is trying to rethink traditional models of monetizing their practice in the age of the Internet... and I'm not just talking about the culture sector.

Case in point: journalism. Rebecca over at The Art of the Business points out an insightful article about the future of arts journalism today by András Szántó. He notes:

Amid the doom and gloom about arts journalism [...] innovations offer a glimmer of hope. There is no going back to the cultural and advertising dominance that newspapers once enjoyed. We should be mindful that the emerging landscape offers asymmetrical odds for art criticism (which can survive by the labour of individual writers) and arts reporting (which requires institutional firepower and protections). Writers will struggle to reclaim the access and influence they achieved with the backing of prestigious journalism brands. Even so, the faint outlines of a new system are starting to emerge.

This is a great article about the future of one sector of journalism. Everyone knows that this industry is under tremendous pressure, and a "new model" needs to be created. Although, nobody is quite sure what that model needs to be. There are various theories -- Jeff Jarvis recently wrote a book about basing all new economic models on Google's business model. In short: focus on networks rather than traditional distribution models and shift to an economy of abundance rather than one of scarcity.

An economy of abundance assumes that you can charge the least amount for a product or service by making it available to a nearly unlimited source of buyers (or users) via the World Wide Web. Very interesting theory. But... what if the access to the Web itself becomes limited?

This brings me to Deep Packet Inspection or DPI, an Internet issue garnering so much attention that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has dedicated an entire website to it.

What is it? Essentially it's technology that allows Internet Service Providers' (ISPs), or anyone else I suppose, to examine web transmissions to figure out what kind of content is being sent. Today the Big 3 Canadian ISPs (Bell, Rogers & Telus) are defending their positions to the CRTC to use DPI technology. From what I understand, they want to disuade peer-to-peer file sharing. Their arguement is that it allows a small share of users to eat up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.

Now, privacy issues aside, why would this affect artists', or anybody else's, attempts to monetize their practice on the Web? Well, DPI technology basically allows ISPs to "throttle" users at their own discretion. In other words, if your ISP believes you are using too much Internet, they can and will slow down your connection. And, apparently they can do this even if you bought a package marketed as "unlimited" or if you are using a small indie ISP, like TekSavvy or Execulink. If you want to know more about why and other politics surrounding this issue, check out this cool, informative post on Technology, Thoughts and Trinkets.

And, if you were planning on producing a play that, say, required you to upload a large amount of data to the Web in order for a variety of users to stream the production live... well, you'd be concerned about ISPs limiting users' access to the Internet too.

On the other hand, there are ways around everything, it seems. For you hackers out there, this is a link you might find interesting...

Cool debate

On the merits of a "Luminato Fringe"

Me and MK are chatting about the pros and cons (and the likelihood) of Luminato starting up a 'Fringe' festival.

I'm pretty sure I'm talking about issues that are way above my head, but it's still been a cool chat thus far. Anybondy else that has an opinion on the matter should weigh in. I'm a little tired of my own opinions and would love to read what other people think...

Check it out.

Twitter's Rotten Day

Facebook-esque problems plagues social network

No, I'm not tweeting yet. But I know that many other bloggers do... so I thought you'd all be interested in reading about this.

Did any of you notice the problem? What did you think?

Is Twitter getting too big or "corporate" now? Is going to start to decline in popularity like Facebook?

Thank you Praxis Theatre!

Several days ago, I saw this post over at Praxis' blog.

As a result, this afternoon I'll be playing with some really cool Brits and some likeminded TO artists.

I've said before, and I'll say it again: Gawd, I love the webbernet.

Thanks again guys.

In the land of the blind...

...the one-eyed man is King

My wife said this to me a couple of weeks ago as we walked by a little food shop advertising the “Best Seafood Schwarma in Toronto.”

(Blek!)

Good laugh, but it also got me thinking about my REALITY project, and my penchant for ‘innovation’ in theatre, in general.

In other words, I got a little scared.

My little bone-chilling thought went like this: what’s the point of experimenting with new technologies in theatre if nobody cares?

I’ve written in past blog posts about the dangers of marketing experimental theatre. And yet, I keep coming back to it. The basic experimental premise of REALITY is how to use multimedia to present the work in two spaces: a physical space and a virtual space. This essentially means that the production requires two designs, and the challenge is ensure that the designs compliment each other, rather than distract from one another.

However, a larger concern should be: “Is there even an audience for that kind of work?”

I’m convinced that digital technology and the web is going to become more and more integrated into theatrical work. Many of the theatre blogs that I follow focus on incorporating social media into marketing plans for productions. A smaller number of them focus on using digital technology to enhance design elements, like lights and sound.

I’ve read very little about integrating the web into actual production… but I think that’s going to change.

Consider the success the New York Metropolitan Opera has had in screening its productions in HD in movie theatres. Canada’s Stratford Festival has also tried doing this with last year’s Caesar and Cleopatra.

Stratford has actually jumped on the internet train by broadcasting web interviews with creators and stars of its productions. (I also heard a rumor that they’re planning to broadcast a couple of rehearsals too, but I can’t confirm if that’s true or not…) Both of these initiatives are remarkably brave considering how terribly theatre can translate onto video or film… (And, moving forward with my project, this is a challenge that is particularly daunting.)

You can call this marketing, or you can call it “alternative revenue streams,” but I’d like to think that it’s also a design trend.

The internet is changing how people work, relax and relate to one another. There’s a lot of fear out there that this is negatively affecting theatre: that the web encourages people to stay at home rather than assemble to witness a live event.

(Well… so does TV.)

The thing is, I don’t think that combining the two platforms is going to give me any kind of competitive edge. A theatre audience will come out to a show – if it’s exciting, fresh, marketed-well, and ultimately good – regardless.

If I’m going to have a second, digital-based platform to share my work, it should be designed specifically for the intended audience: web-heads.

It should be designed for an audience who may not be interested in going out to watch a show, but rather enjoys surfing, watching new You-Tube vids, Facebooking, blogging, downloading, connecting with friends on social media sites, etc.

I don’t necessarily want to broaden the appeal to an existing audience (although, that would be nice, if it happens). I want to expand my work so that it appeals to entirely different audiences.

Consider this: I currently live in Toronto. The bulk of my career was spent in Edmonton. I also lived in Germany for two years, and have friends and family there too. Not to mention, this blog has had comments from people who live all the way on the west coast.

If I get REALITY produced, I could conceivably share my work with all these people who would have no chance of getting to T.O. to check it out. They could share the live experience, and the communal experience, in a virtual way. Online. On a platform designed specifically for them.

That excites me. And so we move forward… shivering with fear, or not.

Answering my own question

Before I move on from politics...

This will be my last political-based post for a little while as I'm going to start to focus more on artistic process and theory now that I finally got my first grant since moving to Ontario in mid-2007. (Yay!)

But before I do, I thought I'd answer my own question about arts funding in Budget '09.

Did we get what we wanted?

Well, no... but I don't really think it has much to do with how much money was earmarked for culture, nor do I think it has much to do with how the money was distributed (although this is a side effect of what's really ailing us).

What I think we really wanted was a government that recognizes the value of arts and culture in Canada. We still don't have it and, as long as the Harper Conservatives retain power, I don't think we will.

With the 2009 Budget, the sudden appointment of 18 senators immediately preceding it, and the establishment of a firm end-date for the Afghanistan mission during last year's election, the Conservative government basically stopped being... conservative. Or, at least it abandoned the lion's share of policies that it used to stand for.

(Don't take my word for it though. Here's a pundit that knows more about it than I do. Here's another. And another.)

But I don't think this represents a seismic shift in where the party's long-term goals are. Rather, I think that it's a natural consequence of a government whose immediate focus is survival at all costs: compromise.

But that doesn't mean Mr. Harper, his party, or his base now values culture any more than it did when they used arts funding as a wedge issue in the 2008 Federal election. In fact, I've written earlier that the new arts funding in Budget '09 is less a policy than a temper tantrum.

What bugs me, and I think most artists, is that Mr. Harper painted us as leeches in order to win a few votes, and the budget does nothing to salvage our reputation. And we can see that he still thinks we're leeches because no new money is going to arm's length organizations (i.e. Canada Council) that fund us.

What we wanted, what we still want, is a little respect. We want recognition that we do provide an important service to our country, that we are a boon both in raw financial numbers as well as in quality of life.

We want a partnership with our government that is both respectful and responsible. (We don't want to waste taxpayer's dollars anymore than the taxpayers want us to.)

We recognize that not all of our art is going to be brilliant... in fact very little of it will be. In fact, a large portion of it will be shit. That's a fact of life. Art is like science: you must fail, fail, and fail again before you finally discover another secret of the universe.

I think each new secret is worth it. I just wish more people agreed with me.

To project or not to project

More random thoughts on multimedia theatre…

Starting with, “What the hell does multimedia theatre mean anyway???”

It’s one of those lovely bits of language that gets used all the time but nobody really has a handle on its actual definition… just more of a sense of the kind of reaction it’ll produce. Like “physical theatre” or “new media.” Or, “group think.”

Let’s do a quick Google search, shall we? According to Whatis.com, when multimedia is used in live situations it can be “the use of a speaker or actors and ‘props’ together with sound, images, and motion video.” Or, if you check out Scala.com, “The term multimedia describes a number of diverse technologies that allow visual and audio media to be combined in new ways for the purpose of communicating.”

A slide show? A film strip? With (gasp!) sound design??? … yah ok. But nowadays, more likely than not, we’re talking computers. The last few shows I’ve been involved in, a good portion of the production was run off of a Mac laptop. Most young indie producers and designers I’ve recently met own a Mac laptop. Which means more and more shows will continue to incorporate multimedia elements, whether they are designed to fall under the umbrella of “multimedia theatre” or not.

Accessibility is wonderful. But just because my sound design is collection of mp3 tracks played during blackouts, I’m not going to label my show a multimedia production. In fact, few artists would describe a piece as multimedia… even if they’ve included digital projections or other elements... because there is a negative perception that persists.

Why?

Maybe we should look at artists who would rather describe their productions as multimedia than not (… and I’m going to grossly over-generalize here, so please bear with me). I’m going to wager that any theatre artist that labels his/her work as “a multimedia production” has either made a huge error in marketing the piece, or is generally much more concerned with form rather than content. Or, (if I’m more charitable) said artist is more willing to experiment with form… but still at the expense of its substance.

This is a problematic approach. I mean, yes, there is a market for experimentation. But it’s a small one. If you’re okay with that, then go hard. But don’t expect the general public to swarm to your show. An audience’s greatest fear in checking out new works of art is to be made to feel stupid. Experimental theatre usually makes a lot of smart people feel stupid.

I believe in experimentation in theatre. However, I don’t believe in experimentation for the sake of experimentation… unless you’re in school or (maybe) if you’re workshopping a piece. The difference lies in approach. Are you asking, “How can I incorporate multimedia into this work?” You should rather be asking, “What do I need to tell this story?”

A cynic would answer, “You don’t need anything except an audience.” Which I suppose is true, in a kind of fundamentalist point of view. But the key to the question lies within the artist who’s asking, “What do I need?” Because any story will speak to each artist differently, and each artist’s approach to communicating an impression to an audience will be just as unique. S/he is only limited by what tools are available for use.

… Am I then saying that some artists are more predisposed than others to incorporate multimedia elements into their productions? Of course I am. Just as some dancers are more predisposed towards contact improv rather than ballet. And some directors are more predisposed to Shakespeare rather than collective creation. And so on.

As much as my career thus far has generally played out on the sunnier side of experimental theatre, I may be more conservative in my approach than one might guess. While performing in Edmonton, I labeled myself as an actor specializing in physical theatre and collective creation. This didn’t necessarily mean I was always looking for a way to incorporate those elements into my work. It was more of a call to likeminded souls who saw the world in similar ways. It meant that the questions were larger than "How do we incorporate physicality into the work?"; rather, the questions revolved around “What do we want to talk about/ what do we want to create?” Content was key. Form -- experimental/ physical/ collective/ whatever -- was intrinsic.

Now, again, our mistake was less about approach (in my humble opinion) but rather in marketing. (… And, to some extent, execution, but that’s another issue altogether…). We advertised under those labels: ‘collective creation,’ ‘physical theatre’ and even ‘experimental’. And, somehow we were shocked when throngs of people weren’t lining up to buy tickets. Go figure.

Anyway, enough about me: I was talking about incorporating multimedia into theatre, and ended up somewhere along the lines of audience stigma and perception. And marketing. Why on earth does every blog entry always end up about getting bums in seats???

My point is this: multimedia will be used in theatre more frequently because it’s easy to use and increasingly accessible. Does it signify a grand shift in theatrical style? Maybe. Will it lead to larger audiences coming to check out theatre? Probably not – but, as with anything else, it depends on the specific production.

… Is it necessary?

It depends. Start here instead: Who are you?

OYR in TO

I just stumbled upon a nice little profile at the G&M of One Yellow Rabbit's Denise Clarke.

Even though we come from nearby stomping grounds, I’m not as familiar with OYR’s work as I am with their enviable reputation. Namely, how they’ve taken a mandate to create and produce experimental theatre and, somehow, made it sexy. Not just among fellow artists (although OYR is adored for their artist outreach and training initiatives, like their annual Summer Lab Intensive.) They’ve been around for over 25 years, and their annual High Performance Rodeo is one of Calgary’s signature festivals. People flock to OYR’s weird little shows, and I’m envious and grateful for this all at the same time.

Sexiness is a state of being. For theatre, it’s not just the responsibility of a single performer, although a performer’s state of mind, confidence and physicality can definitely help. But it’s more than just the performers. It’s an entire image – it’s a brand. OYR is one of the few theatre companies that actively court sex appeal as a part of their overall raison d’être (maybe not in it’s official mandate, but…). As such, it also courts an audience that sees itself as ‘sexy’ by association. Which is really cool.

… And smart as hell.

In January 2006, I was especially lucky enough to participate in the first ever Interrium project, offered by Springboard Dance, listed as an “adjacent festival” to the HPR. (I say “especially lucky” as it was the one and only year that it paid artists to participate rather than the other way around.) During week 2 of the project, we got to work with Denise. I don’t know about the other artists, but I was very intimidated to meet her. OYR’s sexy brand can also be intimidating – we associate “sexiness” with “hardness”. The moment I did though, any apprehension I had just melted away. She’s an incredibly warm and giving person beyond just being a talented artist. I learned a tonne from her. I hope to work with her again someday.

If you’re in Toronto and you have a chance, check out some OYR shows at the Young Centre for Performing Arts.

"They blew it"

... is what my wife said to me as the grainy, Youtube quality video of Stephane Dion was broadcast over some national stations. I sighed, and then agreed.

Hard to disagree. While this whole battle for hearts and minds of the Canadian public may not make a whole hooey of difference to what's happening now over at Rideau Hall, but if the GG does grant prorogation to Harper, then this video will haunt the coalition's quest for legitimacy.

Harper's an idiot. While he stokes the fires of his man-made political crisis into a national unity crisis, he would have a helluva an easier time convincing the nation that the coalition is unstable due to incompetence more than anything else.

Mr. Dion, if you want to quell fears that you're not staging a coup d'etat, then it might help if you avoided making your video look like it was filmed by Al Qaida. For goodness sake: you have the ENTIRE CULTURAL COMMUNITY BACKING THIS COALITION... you could've probably gotten one of us to help you.

Well... I should probably calm myself down. All is not lost, of course. As an artist, I know what's like to occasionally fail miserably (scroll down, you'll find me). However, like Andy Field sez, "don't fear failure."

Here's an excerpt:

So what do you do when the dust settles on a show like that? After the polite and slightly pained smiles and thank-yous? What did (Orson)Welles think, standing there in the darkened theatre, after the acrobats and the stagehands and the chorus line had gone home? Did he agonise over what could have worked better, what he could have changed, how he might have worked harder? More likely, he was already charging blindly on to the next project; the songs and the dances and the collapsing scenery already a forgotten memory.

Onward friends. Onward.

Diabolical

Harper's cuts to the arts earlier this year showed more than a callous attitude towards Canadian culture... it revealed how he intends to govern, period.

What's happening on Parliament Hill right now is almost unheard of. And it hinges on a relatively small cut that will have a huge impact on a target group that is politically unfriendly to Harper's Conservatives.

Sound familiar?

Like the cuts to culture funding only a few months ago, the Conservatives' plan to eliminate public subsidies to political parties does nothing to solve the current economic crisis. It does, however, solidify their core support (presumably to distract from upcoming and unavoidable deficit spending the government will be forced to engage in) and it will also nearly destroy the opposition's ability to compete in the next federal election (which will probably be coming up in a matter of months, or even weeks, based on these moves.)

Like the culture cuts, the $30 million the government will save is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the $3 - $10 billion that economic forecasters are saying next year's deficit may amount to. However, just as the culture cuts disproportionately damaged the long-term viability of the exports component of our industry, cutting subsidies to political parties will also disproportionately hurt the opposition parties' finances and viability to construct a future election campaign (at least in the short term... when it will matter most).

During the election, I wrote that the culture funding cuts could be used as a political tool for progressive voters to describe a pattern of ideological governance by the Conservatives. However, I thought that Harper's capacity to do so would be contained by the context of a minority government and a worldwide economic crisis. Who knew that his ambitions would be so naked or bold.

As the Globe's Jefferey Simpson wrote

Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage.

Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his.

The Conservatives have altered the parliamentary schedule so that a vote of non-confidence won't happen until at least December 8. The G&M is reporting that the Conservatives are going to embark on a massive public relations blitz to build public opinion against a possible Liberal-NDP coalition government, relying on (ick) Bloc support.

As much as I am skeptical that this coalition would work for any extended amount of time, at this point I'm positive that anything would be better than this current bunch of goons that running the show.

What can we do about it?

Remember that the optics on this one are not so good for the progressive parties, and that's why the Conservatives tried to pull this fast one in the first place. Their plan is too shout as loud as they can to anyone that will listen that:
1) The opposition is trying to force an election because they are not willing to give up taxpayer-funded subsidies; and
2) The Conservatives won the election fair-and-square, and the opposition was not given a mandate to govern.

Please, shout back:
1) In a minority government situation, it was the Government's responsibility to maintain the confidence of the House, and the Conservatives failed miserably only six weeks after the election;
2) The Conservatives tried to use the most serious financial climate in seven decades in which thousands of Canadians have lost their livelihoods for their own political gain;
3) It's actually the Conservatives that want another $300 million dollar election, the opposition is actually taking extraordinary steps to avoid one by setting up a coalition government; and
3) The Conservatives were not given a mandate to govern either -- they lost 62% of the popular vote.

Remember: if this wasn't a blatantly political move, then why didn't the Conservatives also impose election advertising spending limits along with cuts to funding? Or alleviate individual donation caps?

The Department of Culture also has more tips about how to get involved and avoid being railroaded by this weekend's upcoming publicity blitz.

Seriously. What a friggin mess.

Content is key, my friends...

Everyone is still gushing about Barack Obama's remarkable online political campaign, and many are looking for applicable marketing lessons for their own industries.

Even theatre. Check out the Guardian's Theatre blog to see what I mean.

I fully agree that there are lessons to be learned. However, let's all make sure not to get too swept up with the free marketing tools that Web 2.0 provides... because that's all they are, just tools. And those tools are going to see a surge in popularity in the next few months, rendering them less effective.

While the Obama campaign was masterful, its core strength was not the tools that it used but the idea that those tools were promoting. The concept was its core strength.

All you artists out there, please don't forget your core purpose: to make truly ingenious, exciting and captivating art. Learn about the tools to be able to market your work and utilize them to their full extent, but don't exclusively rely on them. Well-marketed but ultimately mediocre theatre will not serve you in the long run.

To paraphrase Scott McCloud, the content, not the surface of the apple, must be our primary focus.