A few interesting points came up:
The question of aesthetics and realism within community theatre was raised. Would it be possible to create non-realistic plays within community theatre?
Jan from Stut saw their role as serving the people they worked with as artists, while having to understand that they're not trained as such.
It was pointed out that community theatre can feel like a success before it's even been performed - because of the success of collaboration, dialogue, and what has been revealed in the process. Because of this, judgements on the success of the finished piece are insufficient. The door has to be open from day one - with rehearsals open to visitors, journalists, etc...
However, for Kunq and Qaos, engagement with critics wasn't an issue. The only important thing was for participants to be inside this closed, safe space.
It was acknowledged that community theatre is often dismissed because of its collaborative nature - it's not fully 'authored' in the conventional sense. So the fear of community theatre is a fear of losing property. But Erik Ehn believed work could be both divided and shared, or enjoyed collectively but ultimately owned by the author. He gave a lovely analogy of how you can successfully share a pie, but if you take it for a walk it won't be as appetising. Equally, you can take a dog for a walk, but if you cut it up to share amongst your friends, you'll just have a dead dog. Definitely the analogy of the conference.
Then tea, cake, and goodbyes. I got into Gothenburg after dark, and grabbed something to eat at a Mongolian restaurant beneath the hotel. I was then struck down with painful and seemingly relentless food poisoning. Of course, I cursed the restaurant with each retch, but later I learned that I wasn't the only delegate to suffer. Lund was truly wonderful, but it seemed to be repeating on me.
No comments:
Post a Comment