How The Atkinson provoked an interrogation of the values of public spaces in the arts
I had coffee this week with Joseph Rynhart, one of the founders of Untold Theatre, to talk about an upcoming collaboration. A conversation about the company’s past experience of rural touring led to an interesting discussion on the relationship between space, community and intentionality.
It is an assertion no less true for being commonplace that the use of non-theatrical space for performance taps into a romantic conception of authenticity – that is, authenticity in the sense of ‘naturalness’, a derogation of mechanical excess, and a communion with the sweat, sawdust and stylistic atavism of willingly undisguised artifice.
It is a well-rehearsed, if valid, conceit, and one instantly recognisable to undergrad admirers of Grotowski’s Poor Theatre.
Less well interrogated, perhaps, is a decentring of the conversation from the practitioner to the public: what is the effect of space, and its intentionality, on audiences and their intentionality?
It is a fair contention that playing in non-theatrical spaces diversifies reach; and that by reversing the trajectory of power – artists operating in a community’s space rather than communities operating in a more rarefied artists’ space – barriers to access, be they real or perceived, may be demystified.
It is arguably, for example, less intimidating, or to be less piquant, simply more ordinary, to check out a play at the same village hall in which you go to a U3A class or buy your vegetables at a farmers’ market, than it would be to go to the Theatre Royal this or the insert-modish-abstract-name-here Theatre that.
The conversation seemed particularly relevant as we were meeting at The Atkinson, Southport’s multi-purpose cultural venue, comprising theatres, a museum, a gallery, a library, a shop and a café – as well as being a host for a number of community-engaged programmes.
In a sense, it’s a venue that enables the potential for cross-genre bumpings-into: go in to borrow a book, leave having discovered a play; visit the museum, chance upon some contemporary artwork. What may be thought of as more commonly perceived open-access public realm spaces (such as a library) encounter, and maybe demystify, the rarefied spaces of the theatre or gallery. It is a concept that recalls the maxim that ‘No man lives without jostling and being jostled; in all ways he has to elbow himself through the world’.
But is this to soften the edges, especially if we attempt to extrapolate the idea? A building – any building – with a name over the door, solid walls, exit signs, fire extinguishers, reception desks, staff or volunteers, is still a demarcated, codified space, despite all of the jostlings and bumpings-into. It opens and closes. The lights go on and off. There are structures of authority that can say yes or no. It is a place of patterned binaries.
Perhaps it is only outdoor spaces that have the ability to respond to these limitations. These are spaces that seem less predicated on power structures, even if that isn’t true. They seem more democratic because they appear more communal, less strictured, less owned. The ground beneath our feet, the sky above our heads – we are used to these spaces feeling like autonomous, disinterested parts of the natural world, whether a council or estate management company tends to them or not. We don’t have to ask to walk down a high street any time of day or night, and we don’t think of it being controlled by anybody. It is the public in the public realm that makes such spaces conceptually inclusive.
What does this mean for performance? How do we utilise these spaces more, or devise ways to bring their strengths indoors? Simply trumpeting ‘site specific’ or ‘immersive’ like they’re blaring truisms maybe doesn’t go all the way. Sticking Macbeth in an abandoned building or A Doll’s House in someone’s kitchen is lovely, inventive, entertaining. But it’s not quite the same thing. They’re still taking place in a space demarcated by a normative set of rules that regulate imaginative mimesis.
Examples that adhere more closely to purer notions of popular, communal, democratic engagement tend to be at a vast scale: from Reinhardt’s Everyman (Jedermann) at the 1920 Salzburg Festival – incorporating everything from the cathedral to the town square’s unwitting pigeons – to Liverpool’s Giants in the modern era. Can the same principles be scaled down so as to be obtainable to organisations of all capacities?
A starter for ten may come from the Russian director Nikolai Evreinov, who, in his 1927 work The Theatre in Life, suggested adopting a theatrical view of life itself: ‘sit on a park or square and look at passing crowds and automobiles’, so that, as producers of our own performative experience, we may reach ‘self-transformation, new feelings, new sensations, new conceptions of the world we live in’.
(Evreinov, quoted in Marvin Carlson, ‘Whose Space Is It, Anyway’, Theatre Symposium, 24 (January 2016), 9-20 (p.19).