Nothing fits easily into the notion of traditional theatre, and the diversity of styles - God Loves a Trier owes much to the comic experiments of Byrony Kimmings, Minotaur/Monitor is classic Performance Art with added mask, From Above Here echoes the performance installations that were a feature of the lamented National Review of Live Art - suggests a generation of young artists adapting a variety of traditions to their own, personal ends.
Fire into Song and Minotaur/Monitor, in different ways, return to classical mythologies and question their contemporary meaning. For Calum MacAskill, this means donning massive headpiece and shoving Pasiphae's shameful issue into a room beneath the railway lines: the juxtaposition of a clinical analysis and the ancient story recasts the Minotaur as a victim of parental failure, bellowing in pain and more cripple than ancient archetype of horror.
Meanwhile, Cara Berger retools a Graeco-Roman creation myth before cracking open the story of the divine being who gifted humanity fire. Fire into Song is impressionistic - a first draft at rewriting the Greek myths for an age after the ascent of feminist thought. The rigorous, intellectual approach is palliated by an elegant reading of Ovid and associated texts from the ancient world, and a symbolic dance to fragments of Prometheus' passion: the creation of the universe is mirrored by a clearing of the stage - a beautiful parallel to the work of the demiurge tidying up the undifferentiated mess of chaos.
Roses are Dead is far easier to understand: a couple fight over the remains of their relationship. He is condemned as obsessive, deceitful and more in love with the idea of romance: she seems more conwith cerned blaming his self-love than engaging in the process of understanding. The vicious arguments that snake through the performance articulate the bitterness of romantic failure, but the image of love as a battlefield is only occasionally displaced to show the couple's emotional connection. Both characters come across as self-interested and complacent.
What all of these pieces share, alongside from Above Here which is structured around a long conversation about friendship between Stephanie Black and Aby Watson, is a presentation of youthful ideals and experiences. It's appropriate that much of the work feels unfinished, hinting at further development: Arches Live! is designed to offer the opportunity for artists to sketch out new ideas. In these first performances, a storehouse of strategies, philosophies and experiences is being constructed for future construction.
Arches Live! presents a critical conundrum. Jackie Wylie, boss of the Arches is very clear that the intention of the festival is to offer a chance for either young artists to make their first work, or for more experienced artists to take a risk and try something new. The usual rules of engagement are shifted in favour of the performers, allowing them to fiddle with formats, head off in a new direction, chuck out a work-in-progress or generally mess about with new ideas.
This year's line up, which includes the legendary Criticulous messing about in the foyer on the final saturday, reflects that vision. Black Sun, a heavy rock trio, went all Test Department and had a crack at Macbeth. Stephanie Black, better known for durational adventures, teamed up with Abby Watson to discuss friendship. Lou Pendergast is giving it some reggae in a car out the back. And Harry Giles gets subversive on economic theory. Given the age and format of these shows, it's unlikely that their development could happen anywhere else - although Summerhall's Anatomy Nights are getting ready to offer an east coast alternative.
In this context, however, the critic ought to be circumspect. Without disrespecting any artist, there are unlikely to be many four stars shows on display. Without getting into the whole star rating issue, a four star generally suggests that a piece is worth a punt.
I have just realised what a terrible discussion that is going to provoke. Let me try... most of the work at Arches Live! is going to be for people who are already interested in performance, and who like to see possibilities for future work, to check the general atmosphere of the latest artists coming along, or are supporting their mates. This is reflected in the audiences. There are more performers in the crowd than general public.
And this is great. It's a safe space for artists to try out new ideas. In past years, there has been a secret slogan - "freedom to fail." Nobody likes that very much anymore - it suggests that no-one cares about the outcomes, which is not true. But it does voice a truth: Arches Live! is a good place to test out that whacky idea, like the critic who wants to try out his debut play.
Then the actual audience, being pretty informed, can offer some great feedback. They know the score, they have a specialist knowldge. And they aren't likely to kick the shit out of an artist for not being good enough - at least not in public. Whsipered complaints are common, but as I found out two years ago when I tried to get audience members to play critic, few people are willing to put it down in writing.
This, by the way, is another reason why the critical cohort in Scotland deserve more respect. They are willing to put their opinions out in public.
The danger is, of course, that the whole thing just becomes incestuous, a bunch of artists telling each other how great they are, until it ends up like some progressive rock jam: no criticism, everyone noodling away, no meaningful communication, endless acts of self-pleasuring.
Fine. Let's the artists deal with that. I am interested in the best critical approach. Here are the challenges.
If the work is meant to be experimental, aggressively critiquing is not appropriate. They were trying something new. Give them some space, even that freedom to fail.
If the work is genuinely experimental, it succeeds. Give that a positive review, and it is suggesting that here is a work that is accessible to the general public. Chances are, it isn't.
It's all a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. The answer, of course, lies in the immense skills of the critic, and the reader's awareness of the critic's personality. Part of that is knowing where the critic's subjectivity happens to be.
I am left with a slight problem. In the first week, I saw work I liked and work I didn't. If I am embracing the spirit of Arches Live!, how do I approach critiquing this work?
