Round Table on Live Art Part 3

Bearing in mind we saw about six pieces in total, can we call this a vintage year for Into the New?

Naw.
No.
No.

So what is the problem? The quality ranged from good to poor, with many fragments of promise in the middling work. That seems consistent with the usual experience...

We end up saying the same fins evry year. And that means sayin wun year's a vintage is pointless. 

Can you go on, Cyril?

I get all the shitty jobs. Awright then.

Inta The New is necessary, and gives space to emerging artists. And seeing how they cope with the rigours of performance is fascinating, if not really for a general audience. And Bodyhoods was a great mash-up of queer ballroom aesthetics and meditations on the appearance of disability. If ya like, it was this year's 'winner'.

I hear a big but...

And I cannot lie: any critique of the festival is a critique of the CPP training. And what I see, what I feel, is that the course is asking a limited range of questions. We get 'what is performance?' - the extended theatre business. We get 'how can autobiography be performed?' which has a dash of 'where does theatre end and 'real life' begin?' 

There's also the emphasis on solo performance. So much of it... the odd duo, but it is mostly one person shows. I guess that makes marking easier, but it also becomes... it feels like all the songs sound the same, eh?

They all need a dramaturg, huh? There's a surprise.