The trip gave me the opportunity to reflect on the CarriageWorks approach and its strategic plan. two things come up for me.
The first is that we have had to be much more like a performing arts centre than a centre for the development of contemporary arts. i have put this down to the level of funding being too low, mostly because we have the right approach in our strategic plan. But I do not want to let that be the excuse. I want to investigate how much we can focus on how much we can curate a program of activities that promote the core beliefs and vision of the centre rather than just take everyone hire that comes along. This does not mean a radical shift but rather to see how far we can move towards it given the funding that we do have.
Secondly the strategic plan needs to change slightly to accommodate a new understanding of hybridity and its relationship to what artists and audiences are looking for. Our program actually reflects it more than what is written in the document, but we also do not have enough of a focus on some core principles that I have outlined throughout the blog.
This adjustment to the program does not as I say radically change the direction, or vision but rather looks at them from a different direction. I am hoping that this refocus will actually help us define our work and our direction in the immediate future.
It might even give us a stronger position from which to go looking for sponsorship, and other support.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
What is Hybridity
This is a fundamental part of what a space new and different from typical arts centres, particularly those presenting more traditional forms of work than CarriageWorks was designed for. For me Hybrid work is that which looks to engage audiences in a new way with the works presented.
So there is a different relationship between Arts, Audience and the Space.
The space might be a driving force for the creation of the work; or the audiences might interact in a new way - a way that is not just sitting in a darkened theatre on the receiving end of the performance; and the art may be non-traditional. However I do not think it has to be non-traditional. But if you think of the three elements (Arts, Audience and Space) as being an interrelated triangle then at the work has to be effected by the others. So you could present an orchestra for example, but the audience might sing with them; or the leader might have specific reason to work in the space.
Hybrid is therefore different from inter-disciplinary work, because that type of contemporary practice is bring different types of arts/practice together while hybridity must involve the audience and has a relationship to the space.
So there is a different relationship between Arts, Audience and the Space.
The space might be a driving force for the creation of the work; or the audiences might interact in a new way - a way that is not just sitting in a darkened theatre on the receiving end of the performance; and the art may be non-traditional. However I do not think it has to be non-traditional. But if you think of the three elements (Arts, Audience and Space) as being an interrelated triangle then at the work has to be effected by the others. So you could present an orchestra for example, but the audience might sing with them; or the leader might have specific reason to work in the space.
Hybrid is therefore different from inter-disciplinary work, because that type of contemporary practice is bring different types of arts/practice together while hybridity must involve the audience and has a relationship to the space.
What is it that makes a new space for the arts?
What makes any space like CarriageWorks different from a regular performing arts centre?
It might be the style of work
It might be the resident organizations
It might be where the space is located – often in an area thought of as “bad”, given over to artists because people thought they would accept it and survive. Then they flourish and draw community and activity to them – the space and the artists flourish and then development follows and the area changes
It might be that contemporary artists are more willing to engage with the space that the traditional – in our case those organisations drove the form that was created
The phenomenon is that of space and place. They are in areas of dereliction, subject to potential urban renewal.
Why would it be that artistic practice would drive urban renewal without government support when it does not happen by pure market intervention?
The phenomenon is not about time in Australia particularly, if it is in Europe
It is not just of our time – these sorts of spaces have existed in Australia before. La Mama, The Pram Factory, Anthill
These spaces and artists were part of a counter-culture and while giving over the space to them is low risk, continuing to fund them is in some way more risky than to more traditional art forms and organizations.
The contradiction of supported art forms having to be self-supporting.
Why is that many of these spaces are then meant to be self-supporting, when the art forms and the artists do not have large audiences; do not have support structures around them
Is it just that the traditional organizations are more capable of advocating?
It might be the style of work
It might be the resident organizations
It might be where the space is located – often in an area thought of as “bad”, given over to artists because people thought they would accept it and survive. Then they flourish and draw community and activity to them – the space and the artists flourish and then development follows and the area changes
It might be that contemporary artists are more willing to engage with the space that the traditional – in our case those organisations drove the form that was created
The phenomenon is that of space and place. They are in areas of dereliction, subject to potential urban renewal.
Why would it be that artistic practice would drive urban renewal without government support when it does not happen by pure market intervention?
The phenomenon is not about time in Australia particularly, if it is in Europe
It is not just of our time – these sorts of spaces have existed in Australia before. La Mama, The Pram Factory, Anthill
These spaces and artists were part of a counter-culture and while giving over the space to them is low risk, continuing to fund them is in some way more risky than to more traditional art forms and organizations.
The contradiction of supported art forms having to be self-supporting.
Why is that many of these spaces are then meant to be self-supporting, when the art forms and the artists do not have large audiences; do not have support structures around them
Is it just that the traditional organizations are more capable of advocating?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
