The Future For Janus/ The Fence
Discussion: Leeds 2006
The Festival in Leeds marked the culmination of the Janus project: the first project
to have emerged from the Fence Network. In this session, which took place on the
11th May half-way through the Janus Festival in Leeds, The Fence members were asked
to reflect on the project and look to the future. What did they want to see next?
The session was chaired by Jonathan Meth, Director of writernet, and is split here
into three sections for ease of navigation: Introduction to the Discussion and Background,
Participant Feedback and Participant list and Introductions
- Introduction to the Discussion and Background,
- Participant Feedback and
- Participant list and Introductions
Introduction (Jonathan Meth)
Jonathan: We’re still in the middle of our programme here in Leeds, so we’re
not asking you to reflect on what is happening here; there will be time to do this
on Sunday before we go home, and we will have some very simple questions to ask
you, to jot down your thoughts and let us have them.
This afternoon is about the bigger picture, it’s about the future, it’s about where
do we want to go next? What do we want to do next, if anything? This is what I intend
to facilitate us discussing. We won’t need 3 hours; it’s hot, we all want to get
out into the sunshine and have air, and those of us who are feverishly working away
rehearsing or doing scratch nights, can continue that process. But I do want us
to have a fruitful discussion, and I do want us to really hear from you, all of
you. But to begin with I’m aware that I pretty much know who everyone is, but others
of us don’t, so if we could just go around and quickly and succinctly introduce
ourselves, just so we know who’s in the room.
[Introductions then followed. For these see the participants list for this discussion.
What do we want to do next?
Jonathan Meth: When we met in Graz we asked people to think about four questions:
- What it was that we had done?
- What they wanted to do with what we had done (so if there were readings, did they
want productions, did they want translations)?
- What they’d learned?
- What they wanted to do next?
Because we are still in the middle of our experience here in Leeds, I don’t propose
to deal with the first three questions today. Really it’s the last question, the
last of those four, that I want you, I want us, to explore for a little time this
afternoon in the heat.
So I am mindful that the prospect of sitting here for three hours and doing that
is fairly abhorrent to most of us, so I want to try to make this as fruitful and
succinct as possible so we don’t all suffocate. But it’s very important that we
try to hear from you.
The Fence network was established on the principle of Offers and Requests. It is
OK to ask for something, even if you don’t necessarily know fully what it is you’re
asking for, but also OK to make offers, even if you don’t necessarily know fully
what you’re offering. It doesn’t have to be perfectly formed or beautifully realised,
unlike the readings that we’ve seen so far.
So this is the spirit of collective inquiry that I wish to invite you to join me
in this afternoon, and in particular I want to hear from people who might be here
for the first time, who have questions, who have observations, who have comments.
It’s not going to be very easily to say that at the end of 90 minutes we will be
very clear about what we do next, I am not expecting this, this may be an additional
bonus. But really it’s up to us, these people, now, here in the room, our collective
intelligence, to apply this to ourselves, to this issue. Who would like to speak
first?
Gabriel Gbadamosi: Without pre-empting an evaluation
of Janus, perhaps it might be quite good in terms of getting people to speak, to
speak to the ongoing experience of this translation process we’ve set afoot from
the Fence. Perhaps that’s the best way to begin. Julie?
Julie Ellen: I wonder if there is a little step
back from that on the difference between the Fence and Janus, just for the people
who are here for the first time, I know that I got confused about that when I first
came to a meeting.
The Difference Between The Fence and Janus
Gabriel Gbadamosi: We first met some years ago as a smaller group, but intending
to grow, of playwrights and people who facilitate playwriting from across Europe,
from my perspective so that we can speak and learn from each other’s context, it
seemed to be very straight forward.
At that time we met in a small house in the country and we really bonded, we really
got to know each other, and as a group meeting each other for the first time, we
moved from there to the IETM, which is vast: 400 people meeting together, producers
mainly, administrators from the theatres across Europe. And that was our baptism,
not of fire, but of cold water.
Suddenly we recognised that we were about playwriting, we were playwrights, and
we don’t get together and we don’t do these power meeting. So, twice yearly since
then we’ve been meeting, at the IETM and other festivals around Europe, and out
of this process a request came that we wanted to be able to see each other’s work.
But of course this raises the issue of translation, which is always the issue for
playwrights across Europe, because if you cross a border, not always, but generally
speaking, some kind of translation has to happen. So, three partners within the
group, Alex from West Yorkshire Playhouse, Edith from Uni-T, Riitta from Finnish
Information Centre/Tampere, then became the institutional partners around which
the Janus translation project arose.
This was translation of playwrights not necessarily just in the group, but in that
principle that the group has of saying “hey there’s someone over here, or there’s
that play here, it would be good if people knew about it”, a series of plays were
nominated, suggested, from writers we’ve never met or heard of before. And that’s
what we have been doing, and the West Yorkshire Playhouse is the third stop in which
we’re seeing a raft of plays that have been generated for translation in a way that
brings the playwright into the process more fully. Perhaps another playwright does
the translation.
But we certainly, as the Fence, are present at each of the Janus stops, we see it,
and we can feed back to it, we can speak to it. That’s what Janus has been, and
is, in its last stop here at the West Yorkshire Playhouse. However, there is still
the Fence, we can still meet, how do we want to do it? What do we want to do next?
So maybe now as we go on, initial thoughts about Janus, about what we’ve seen, about
what we think.
[It was then decided that the participants would split into smaller groups chaired
by each of the current Janus partners, to discuss what they would like to see happen
next. Feedback from these discussions can be found in the next section (click here)]
The Future For Janus/ The Fence: Feedback from Groups
Having discussed their thoughts for the next stages for the Fence network, the participants
came back together and shared their main points with one another, finally broadening
out into wider discussion. It was agreed that groups would not repeat points already
mentioned.
Group One
Spokesperson: Julie Ellen
Smaller Discussion Groups
A big please for the future for smaller discussion groups and workshops, as our
numbers have grown, the big discussions have become more boring and less fruitful.
You actually get a bigger contribution from people in smaller groups.
Importance of Informality
There was a lot of support for the informality of exchange. That structure is needed
within that to give us focus, but that what a lot of our group felt, was that there
was a definite need for the informal contact, writer to writer, producer to producer,
cultural operator, whatever you are. The informality is one of the greatest things
the Fence can represent in the future.
Creative Interaction
We were generally most excited by bringing people to work together. The creative
interaction was considered to be a vital part. That should have depth to it. E.g.
A writer might go and do a script development project in another country, that would
give them the opportunity to understand in its widest sense how the theatre market
there works, as well as what the linguistic differences are and all those other
cultural aspects around not only the creation of the work and presentation of the
work, but the culture of theatre infrastructure. So that deeper level of contact
was considered valuable, and that we should try to capture that, that those experiences
weren’t lost. And that we were a bit more active in how we captured and shared that
learning experience, so one of the suggestions was that some artistic activity should
happen as a stimulus to a meeting, and then there was a witnessing, sharing, gathering
exchange for a bigger meeting around that.
Exposure to Cross-National Contact
Exposing writers to cross-national contact with writers and producers is a value
itself. This also builds the profile of the writer in a long-term way, and a very
interesting example of how Andrei and cultural operators in New York, how a dialogue
had started to build through a range of informal contact, but this has helped to
develop an informal platform, just for example for one of the writers here.
International Competence
Something that was also very important was that we started to develop an international
competence, that a language of understanding of artistic values and standards as
represented in people here continued and was maintained. Now a lot of us have understanding
of how we could work in another country, and just the knowing the quality of an
individual in their country and the strength of their connections was really valuable
understanding. And that could very easily be lost in the sands of time.
Artistic Outcomes
There should be opportunity of non-specific outcomes of artistic activity.
Thematic Discussion
Another suggestion was perhaps we could, our meetings could, have discussion themes
as a stimulus. There was an example of the way that the IETM operated, and that
there should be opportunity for people to prepare so they could come armed ready
for discussion with their own personal and country- wide perspective.
Residencies
One of the more concrete ideas coming out of that was, could there be a residency
programme perhaps?
Lobbying for Change
Note that the size of the gathering is big, and that’s quite hard sometimes, but
it’s potentially a very powerful lobby. That when we’re getting around the 100 number,
there’s a strength there.
Practical Research
Creating the possibility for placements for practice or for research. Very active
things that individual countries could bring to wider international contact.
Publication and Information Sharing
There was quite a lot of talk about information opportunities, bulletins, could
there be more active information that way, more active use of the website as it
exists. Included in that could be articles written by people who’d had their play
translated, somebody could write something about their scratch experience maybe.
And those kind of things could be a bigger resource.
The general theme was, let’s be creative together, let’s have an artistic focus
in our discussion, let’s not be in big groups for too long….. so I’ll end there.
Group Two
Spokesperson: Jonathan Meth
We focused a lot on Janus and took as a given that the Fence would continue in one
way, shape, or form, and tried to imagine what we might take forward from the specifics
of the Janus project. We had a number of suggestions:
Capitalising on what we've already done
We have a body of work now, of experience. We have a body of showcased readings.
We have a body of translations. We have a group of playwrights who have been through
the process either of having their work translated or of working on the process.
How can we further exploit and develop this as an asset? One suggestion was that
we thinking about offering either some or all of this to a number of key festivals
as a way of capitalising on all the work that we have done. Various suggestions
range from Wiesbaden to Sibiu to Nitra festival in Slovakia and I am sure there
are others. But this idea of “How can we capitalise on what we’ve already done?”
This is not to suggest that it is not necessary to replenish and renew and bring
on new artists and new talent. This is just to recognise what we have done, what
we have created, the enormous amount of work that has gone into it, and how we might
further benefit from further development of that work.
Fence Festival
Another way was create a festival ourselves, to say, OK that’s another way of going.
Where you think, alright, now there are a great many people working across the Fence,
as has already been said, people like the act of co-creation: writers, directors,
actors, others who are involved, we have shown that it’s possible to find, through
our growing international competence that there are ways in which we can work together.
Do we need to wait for negotiations/ invitations from other festivals, what about
finding a way to do it ourselves somehow?
Playwright as Translator
Another idea that came out was this idea of the playwright as translator, and whether
there was some workshops we could run that would develop this idea. Or some of these
different models we’ve been exploring, both practically and in reflecting in what
we’ve seen, and the processes that have been undergone both for Tampere, for Graz
and for Leeds. This might be the pairing of playwrights together, there are other
ways that might develop, but how do you enhance that? Support that?
There was a value that was felt, possibly, simply to take the model and say this
is a good model, we think it works well. But if we need other partners and other
playwrights to come through along a model which is like Janus, then why not consider
this as well.
Group Three
Spokesperson:Sarah Dickenson
Audiences and Critical Discourse
We talked about productions of work and about the notion of audiences and sharing
the work that has been developed through Janus with audiences and getting feedback
from audiences. There was a feeling that the discussions that had been going on
around the work itself had been very rich and very illuminating, fantastic for developing
intercultural competencies and ideas, but we wanted to have that dialogue with audiences
as well.
Publication
Publication, there was a feeling that we should be thinking about publishing plays
and sharing those with one another. Maybe this could happen in a region way, in
terms of regional neighbours getting together and sharing some sort of publication
which could then feed into the larger Fence network.
Ex-pats
We reflected on how the Fence and the Janus project has benefited from harnessing
the energies of ex-pats in one another’s’ countries: for example the way that Alex
was able to find so many readers who were living in the UK but also spoke other
languages, and that we should continue to capitalise on that knowledge, because
those people are very useful for us on issues of translation.
Passion
The passion and the ideology of the Fence/ Janus was really praised and people felt
we should keep the passion factor whatever happens.
Who's Missing?
Growing and developing into other countries, there was discussion around countries
that are missing from this group at the moment. We need to really make efforts to
bring those countries in.
Group Four
Spokesperson: Riitta Seppala/Gabriel Gbadamosi
Riitta Seppala: Thank you, I’ll start and then Gabriel continues.
The Network
First we considered Janus, the results of Janus, our expectations and roles, and
what did we reach and what didn’t we reach. We concluded that we would still have
to wait to see all the results of all this networking. But what is already important
is that the network exists, there are more friends now who want to work together
and know more about each others’ countries in various ways, and you can still see
that some people have found each other and that they want to continue to work together.
And then we tried to discuss what could be done in the future, the Janus funding
is finished, will be finished in a short time, and we need new ideas if we want
to find new funding.
The Fence Continues Regardless
We noticed that the Fence will continue anyway, the Fence network exists and will
continue even without funding, with different offerings and requests and wish to
work together, but if we want to structure a new project, then we need some ideas.
Artistic income
We had similar discussions as Julie Ellen, expressing the artistic income and smaller
groupings, and also the collaboration of writers with directors and producers. We
did discuss also the possibility of having a developing text around specific theme
together, but then we noticed that there are skilfull, experienced writers and young
writers in this grouping, and workshops like that for a short time, they are costly
and there are those kind of workshops already. But maybe it’s too difficult to arrange,
from this network which is not an organisation itself.
Devised Theatre
So then we thought about that kind of event, where there are some 10 writers and
10 producers/ directors, and maybe some actors, working together in devised theatres
from different countries.
Scottish Festival
Then we thought that for next, it’s worthwhile to apply for EU funding from some
funds, for instance, cultural funds and other funds. And the only big idea there
is that Scotland should be the leading partner, because we noticed that the Playwrights
Studio… anyway there are good playwriting unions and hatcheries of playwrights and
good festivals, and good partners here in our gatherings and they have a very natural
relationship with Jonathan, who also has the skills of writing project applications.
The Value of New Contexts
Gabriel Gbadamosi: We did say amongst ourselves that Janus was a good project,
and if it ain’t broke, you know…don’t try to fix it, try to see how you might extend
it, and then we looked at how we might extend it, and looked at what it was, from
the initial request that we want to see each others’ work, and that probably involves
translation, and Jackie [Bolton] pointed out that there was also a developmental
quality, this collaboration between playwrights in the translation, playwrights
and translators, and somehow if we wanted to continue the idea of Janus, then perhaps
we should take the core idea of it, of translation, and begin to look at that in
a new way, just to turn it around, turn it around again. What might it look like,
and that was our conversation, looking at the success for example of Janus in Finland,
because it’s one way, as a Finnish writer to have a tall Fin Horse[play],
which does well in Finland for a set of audiences and theatres that you know really
well, but when you see it fall or ants fall out of it in Graz, what happens when
it moves.
Playwrights learn a lot from this movement, from this new context. And since the
Fence is a place where artists find a different kind of audience, they feel it,
they see it. But this might change the practice of the artists themselves, this
somehow is part of the core value of the Fence, and might constitute an understanding
for a new idea, within the Fence to follow Janus. Something around this idea around,
what is it now, about your practice, that you’re no longer working in your city,
your region, your country, that somehow there’s a possibility that your audience
has changed, your knowledge of it, and even what it’s possible to do, has changed.
So perhaps the Fence could foster a new project, a new idea, around this change,
this translation.
Group Five
Spokesperson: Peter Arnott
I think I’m going to be very brief because a lot of what we talked about has been
covered.
The Role of the Audience
The role of the audience in the readings is something we thought about a little.
What, for one thing, the plays that were read in Finland, of course, that reading
was primarily for a public audience, but who is the intended audience for a public
reading is something to bear in mind when organising readings, who is it actually
for and what part in the process does the reading play?
Festivals
We all kind of assumed that the Fence would continue, but would continue being attached
to other things, and festivals seemed to be the favourite place, as a group as to
what Fence meetings might be attached to. Rather in a sense, although we have used
the IETMs, Festivals were felt to be in some ways a better choice because a specific
offer can be made to those festivals from this network.
In-between Meetings
Milos in particular talked a lot about what happened in between meetings, that in
a sense the meetings become presentations of what happens in-between. And what happens
in between is perhaps these translations, we’re talking perhaps about translation
exchanges, workshop events taking place in different countries, the matching up,
marriage, matchmaking of playwrights in Janus was thought to be very interesting.
And I think again, something that Riitta talked about, which we’ll feed into, as
to who you match up with who? Because if you have young playwrights working together,
do you also have a place for middle-aged, old playwrights working together, and
even would they work together?
We talked about the example of the Channels project at the National Theatre but
that again might be putting something of our own together, inventing a new way of
doing something like this, although obviously that’s a huge institution.
Co-writing in Two Languages
At the very end, we had the notion of would it be possible for two writers to get
together and write a play simultaneously in two languages? Would that be interesting?
English as the Lingua Franca
Practical thing about the English language as the bridge, which goes back to who
is the audience. If the audience is us, then I think in a sense that English is
everyone’s second language, and English as the lingua franca.
Points for Clarification and Upcoming Offers
[Jonathan Meth asked if there were any questions or points for clarification.
Peter Arnott suggested that participants should reflect on what they had heard and
then come back with concrete proposals to take forward.
Jonathan Meth agreed that it was a good idea. He clarified that writernet has the
responsibility as part of the project to document, evaluate and these conversations
and the recording of them and their annotation. But in terms of what happens in
the future, this conversation in a sense needs to continue.]
Jonathan Meth:Peter and Milos have drawn attention to what happens between
the meetings, and this is something that we need to pay attention to in order to
be able to realise collectively some of the ambitions that we’ve begun to articulate
now. It’s not the closure of the conversation, it can’t be. The homework really
is, how can you continue to develop your ideas, how can you continue to develop
the requests that you want to see happen, the things you want to ask for, and how
can you also continue to develop the offers, what will you bring, how might you
be able to make this happen. That in a sense is the continuation of the conversation
that I ask of you. What we offer in return is to try and curate that conversation,
to try to listen, to try to synthesise, to try to make the information and knowledge
shared so that you can all participate in this. Thank you.
The conversation can continue in small groups or through email if you have other
things to say that you don’t feel you can say here now. But there are one or two
other things about what we already know is happening that we want to share with
you, as a way of concluding this session. Let me hand over now please to Riitta
European Year of Mobility (Riitta Seppala)
I don’t know how many of you have noticed that the European Union has declared that
2006 is the European Year of Mobility. We have been mobile as theatre people are,
both in minds and in practise. But anyway, there are special funds also which could
be applied from DG Employment and Social Affairs, and we did apply for funds for
a project, together with some partners, so our partners in this application were
IETM, On the Move organisation and Visiting Arts, UK and PEARL which is a European
organisation for associations of performing arts employers. And then also Goethe
Institute. We got funds and in this one year project we will have, hire a lawyer
from Poland, and he will be offering a help desk on the internet for any kind of
questions concerning mobility, funding, whatever. And also he has been doing research
before and will be doing throughout this year, and everything will be published
through Internet pages.
But also we will organise the next IETM plenary meeting, bigger than smaller meetings,
because there are other organisations, from 9th -12th November in Helsinki. It will
be an IETM meeting in that sense that there will be lots of different working groups,
info cells and training sessions, and plenaries and so on. Many at the same time
so that the participants which we think will be something like 600, will have to
choose where they want to go. We will be in the centre of Helsinki, in the old student
house, and you can’t be more central. We will also arrange a showcase of Finnish
performance showcases, theatre performances, dance performance and contemporary
performance art and also maybe some circus, we’re not quite sure. Anyway, there
will every evening possibilities to go to performances and meet people. I’m offering
the possibility for the Fence, if you are willing, to organise one of those working
sessions, during this event, we can find places also, but funds for travel, I can’t
offer which we can only offer for moderators of working groups, so if some of you
would like to moderate something, you can always offer your service, ideas to us,
so we can discuss. So the first announcement will be in IETM’s pages like normal
in June, and then more programme after the summer, beginning of September, the performance
programme, working groups and performance sessions. Registration starts in June
if you want to.
I have a card here for everyone to remember this. Also the IETM has some travel
scholarships that one has to apply to the IETM for. If you are interested I am welcome,
if not, I don’t feel offended, because there are other possibilities and you have
already been in Finland, it’s a possibility, of course by email I will send you
more information.
CEC Arts Link (Catherine Coray)
I am representing an organisation which provides funds for artistic exchange between
the United States and Central/ Eastern European countries. It’s called CEC Arts
Link, and I have some information I’ve brought with me and if anyone from those
countries would like to apply for funding to travel, to have a residency or an independent
project in the United States, I’m happy to provide that information. And also about
the Lark Development Centre in New York, which again is very committed to developing
international plays for workshop productions. So just ask me, I have some information.
Plans for Future Fence Meetings (Jonathan Meth)
Turkey
Just then a short update on the plans I have made for future Fence meetings. I have
been liasing as some of you know with Kemal Basar, who some of you saw in Graz and
some in Tampere, who cannot be here, unfortunately, because he’s working on his
own festivals, directing his own plays. But Dieter, Andrei and I had the pleasure
of going out to the festival in Trabzon and meeting. He’s very keen and happy to
facilitate the Fence meeting in Turkey towards the end of this year.
Scotland
I’ve also been liasing with Julie around the possibility of making the next but
one Fence meeting next year in Scotland, somewhere outside of the central belt of
Glasgow and Edinburgh, it would be more of a rural retreat experience, but Julie
and I have more work with others to do on this but we are quietly confident that
we can make this happen.
Romania
Beyond that I’d like to try and do something in Romania, we heard from Andrea today
that this year’s International Theatre Festival at Sibiu is having some problems.
Next year Sibiu is, with Luxemburg, one of the two European capitals of culture,
I would like to try to find a way to see if the Fence can have some kind of participation
during that year. At the moment, that’s as far as we’ve got with our plans, but
I think that the next two Fence meetings are looking positive. Now it’s up to you
to continue with these ideas and these offers and requests, but now please, thank
you very much.
Future for Janus/ The Fence - Session Participants Introductions
Jonathan Meth – Director of writernet in the UK. We created the Fence network, out
of which the Janus project partners put together and made this project together.
Sarah Dickenson – I am the Information and Research consultant at writernet, and
I’m also a freelance dramaturg.
Anne-Marie Draycott – administrator at writernet and also does comedy writing and
performing.
Annette Brook – Student on placement with writernet and studying Arts Administration
and Cultural policy MA at Goldsmiths College, University of London.
Christian Winkler – Also studying an MA in Arts Administration and Cultural Policy
at Goldsmiths, also playwright from Austria, working currently at the Gate. Dramaturg
at the Finborough, and a director at Edinburgh Festival this summer.
Birgit Logar – from Austria, Uni-T, helped to organise the literary festival in
Graz.
Evelyn Tschernko – also working for Uni-T, helped also to organise literary festival
in Graz
David Overand – Literary Assistant at the Traverse
Edith Draxl – from Unit-T, Austria
Gabriel Gbadamosi – playwright UK
Claudia Gabler – from Germany, writer
Charles Mulekwa – playwright from Uganda, I’m here to observe and plan
Jackie Bolton – I’m a PhD student studying dramaturgy and literary management at
the University of Leeds and here at the Playhouse
Marlgorzata Semil – Poland, literary manager, publisher, translator
Catherine Coray – New York City, I’m part of the faculty in the theatre wing of
the Tisch School of the Arts, and organise an international play reading festival
called hotInk at the Tisch School of the Arts. I’m also here representing Lark Play
Development Centre and CEC Arts Link.
Paul Brodowsky – Germany, playwright, and Fish Soup was produced at Tampere
Sonja Novak – from Croatia, student of English and German
Vedrana Stakic – from Croatia student of English and German
Juri Ruldolph – producer and director, Slovenia
Peter Arnott – playwright, Playwrights’ Studio Scotland, and Scottish Society of
Playwrights, union in Scotland
Aiste Ptakauskaite – a writer, Lithuania
Judith Wendel – playwright and being Anja [Krans] in her absence, Netherlands
Riitta Seppala – Finnish Information Centre, Finland, partner in Janus. Organised
Tampere.
Kamelia Nikolova – Bulgaria, lecturer on theatre
Sara Clifford – playwright and also on the board of writernet
Julie Ellen – Playwrights’ Studio Scotland
Jose Maria Viera Mendes – Portugal, playwright
Alexandru Berceanu – Bucharest, Romania, Director and member of Drama Now project
for new Romania drama
Peca Stefan – Romanian playwright
Alex Chisholm – literary manager of WYP
Joanne Frazao – editor for Portuguese Theatre Magazine, from Portugal.
Dieter Boyer – Director, Austria
Neil Fleming – UK playwright
Ewald Palmetshofer – playwright, Austria.
Andrea Valean – director, Romania
Milos Kreckovic – dramaturg form Jugoslav Drama Theatre, Belgrade
Marija Stojanovic – playwright, Serbia