Interview: SHOW TiME

Present Attempt (James Bush, Alex Eisenberg, John Pinder) talk about SHOW TiME, its origins, curatorial process and cultural presence. A nomadic platform for new experimental theatre bringing works in progress and polished pieces together, SHOW TiME is now in its second incarnation at Riverside Studios.

DD: Where did the idea for SHOW TiME come from?

James Bush: We wanted to address the wider framework of platform events, which despite always having value, can sometimes be underwhelming. We wanted to mix bold new offerings with the more recently polished work. This broadens the scope of the night for the audience, and artists get time and space to meet one another, share practice and audiences. We are committed to paying everyone who performs no matter the length of their show, and believe offering this support in realizing the work is pivotal in separating what we are doing from other platforms.

The name SHOW TiME is one which we chose knowing that it potentially chimes plays upon a more conventional cliché. We have reclaimed it - simply understood it underlines performance’s remarkable ability to literally show time.

Alex Eisenberg: There is a sense that through ST we want to affirm the value of theatre, emphasizing that ‘amazing things can still happen in theatre!’. There is a self-conscious nodding at the term ‘experimental theatre’, which we’ve reversed to read Theatrical Experiments – a play that on the language of the theatre machine.

­­­

We also want to offer artists a good deal - this means performing in a decent space, in this case a black box studio with good technical support, and remuneration. It was also important to us to create a platform in which we could perform our own work, setting the grounds of operation ourselves. Ironically we have not had a chance to perform in ST yet due to the demands of producing and curating it, but watch this space…

DD: What is your curatorial process?

AE: We are more interested in the artists themselves than the particular pieces of work. We’ve partly taken a cue from the music industry, which places focus on the band as opposed to the piece. This is a great way of building a better sense of an artist’s oeuvre and can form longer lasting cultures rather than more transient ones.

JB: ST is about offering the artist a chance to return with a fully-developed piece which was previously shown as a fragment. We think about which artists complement each other, and think about the pieces in terms of duration. But there are also concerns like availability of the artist or technical demands. Once these factors have been taken into consideration we focus more on content and let that guide the programming. As a curator, the beauty of the work we’ve programmed so far lies in its difference, the space between one show or artist and the next.

DD: How do you situate SHOW TiME within some of the concerns of contemporary experimental theatre, be it narrative or formal?

AE: Form is pretty important to me. I can watch something that is ‘nonsense’ no problem - so long as the parameters are set right. I think meaningful participation is a pretty big question now for theatre - in particular using the web and digital/mobile technology to augment and surround conventional live performance. We are keen to find ways to explore these sorts of questions in future ST’s. Theatre makers have a great opportunity to carve out spaces that say ‘this is possible…it really is!” and to question how we might be human together?

John Pinder: Most of the artists we have worked with are primarily in Britain. The concerns, interests and forms that transpire in the work shown may be universal but are also within the British context. In this sense we come back to the question of ecology. In this sense we are glad that we are working with Japanese artist Mamoru Iriguchi, whose work is invariably influenced by his cultural background. German artist Sylvia Rimat also adds an international dimension to ST. We are definitely interested in presenting international work and have already begun conversations with artists in Europe; it is crucial to be diverse and to move beyond our own borders.

DD: What are some of the thematic connections between the works? How are they experimental?

AE: Greg’s piece ATOMKRAFT is definitely experimental! Firstly, it is about nuclear science, a field brimming with experimentation, and Greg is a good experimenter himself - this is very important. The piece employs a score as a formal way to engage an audience - getting them to ‘call’ the show creates a shift in the power dynamic between audience and performer.

JP: There are lots of thematic connections between the pieces. Michael and Sylvia’s pieces explore ideas of absence and presence. Sylvia asks the audience to imagine her to be ‘there’ and Michael’s piece, The Beginning is the second part of a trilogy which takes Shakespearian stage directions as starting points for a performance. In the first part of the trilogy, The End, Michael promised never to make another show…For ST he is starting all over again. Dan and Greg’s pieces foreground ideas of loss and ruin, and Rachel Mars and Tom Marshman’s works in progress focus on intimacy, personal vulnerability and weakness.

The experimentation lies in encouraging artists to refine their own idiom whilst fostering a spirit of play. To test something in a more institutional setting can have benefits but it can also hinder a spirit of play- there’s the pressure to come up with something that the venue will want to take up. I think ST does well to alleviate those pressures whilst expecting a high standard of work in a supportive community environment.

DD: As for the critical response to these experimental works, how do you feel they are culturally received? What do you feel poses the challenge?

JB: I think we are trying to create a safe, sympathetic environment for people to do things they believe in with ST, talking to each other before and after is encouraged, opinion is an intrinsic part of these conversations, and as far as criticism is concerned, everyone will experience the work differently. The challenges are to avoid pigeon holing and stereotyping, to enter an auditorium with an open mind, to allow things to unsettle you and consequently burden you, licensing the ‘not knowing’ of all parameters.

AE: Criticism is good for some artists; at certain times it can be useful to have the right sort of critical engagement with your work. Other times it can be unhelpful. ‘Critical responses’ should be just that - critical and responsive - a meaningful dialogue, a proper conversation - something new to come out of the performance and it could take a multitude of forms – writing, photos, film or another performance. Judgment often serves other agendas. We need people who can engage directly with the work to make critical responses that come from the work and are not just ‘about’ the work.

DD: How important do you consider carving spaces for experimentation that are independent and nomadic? Would you say ShowTime is one?

JB: In terms of ST, the independence part is better understood as ‘artist-led’. We want flexibility to be at the heart of what we are doing due to the nature of the making process that artists undergo. This has meant the framework of our event has been designed to facilitate this change - the production management is a good example. Within reason we try to allow for as many (last minute) changes as the works require. It is good to note that this degree of flexibility is not just about us as curators/producers, but is only really possible when the venue is on board. Riverside Studios have been fantastic in supporting us on all fronts and we will look to emulate that relationship with any venue we visit in the future.

AE: There is a lack of professional spaces in London that are available for this sort of work and are easily accessible travel wise. We will come in and fill gaps, we want to ‘recycle spaces’.

SHOW TiME is on at Riverside Studios on the 21^st and 22^nd of October. For more information visit: www.show-time.org.uk