Thanks so much for being the medium of communication between the event
and the rest of us. And for being so frank and fearless.
I wasn’t there, for various reasons…

But its not surprising to hear about the loudest most dominating paradigms– funding, policy and activism.
That seems to be the way these large unwieldy clan gatherings go.
There is rarely much room for nuance or subtlety.
Talk about art… it takes time and LISTENING

I could say more… but I wasn’t there

bless you and your blog .. i like your rock n’roll ending!
xx Nikki

This is my record of my thoughts and ruminations: it claims not to be ultimate nor superior to anything one else’s – its here for conversation and for perspective giving.

As far as Twitter goes – I used it as a public note pad to reference for my later posts and to interact in realtime to the world beyond the forum and within the forum. Live-blogging is mentally and emotionally taxing – and I wanted to avoid that strain as much as possible… and I felt Twitter served my many purposes well – but firs time using it in this way – my methodology needs refining and thinking. The choice of what to write or what not to write is completely at the discretion of the writer. I’m satisfied with how I represented that at the time.

Interestingly I didn’t have a problem with the word “theatre” I just assume it is a general term for “live performance act” and I often refer to it as “art” and “artists.” I think refering to “live performance events” as “theatre” at the “Australian Theatre Forum” is suitable. I would less likely attend a forum on a specific genre of live performance.

I must respectfully disagree with you – there was a HUGE amount of discussion about funding, governmental policy – and the whole forum was geared towards issues pertaining to political or “activist” theatre. There was a huge focus on ownership of story, or identity and who could be in the room and who wasn’t – who left the room and who stayed… there were, in my experiences many instances where conversation was shut down in real time/real space and yet was opened up online (via Twitter and via Blog posts).

I think there was also conversational fatigue – wherein many were so tried by conversation that we started diverting into the sublime and the simple in the breakout sessions. I talked to one person about sandwiches for half an hour. Because it was intense and we needed some comic relief (and some sandwiches).

But, Alex – that was my experience and my conversations. Yours were clearly different experiences and perspectives which I welcome whole heartedly – I can only reflect on my own and I don’t personally feel that there was a dialogue – there was a lot of provocation and interogation and conflict and opinion giving, but not a lot of dialogue or conversation.

But of course Alex, this is just in my humble view.

Thanks again for your thoughts – always lovely to hear from a member of the industry/community/ecology.

Augusta

It might be my generation (I’m almost 30) but there is a wave of us who are struggling with the term theatre, and whether we work in theatre. Live art, hybrid, visual art. I actually like the broad term art the best, and not distinguishing between them.*

I also want to say, I was excited we weren’t talking about funding, marketing or specific areas. Apart from the key notes from main stage companies, it was the key notes from outside our industry, or OK Radio that got us talking. I liked this format very much. It created dialogue, it created unity rather than divide. Which is something I sometimes worry about in our industry/community/ecology (see, i used it too).

x