death of the company
May 13th, 2008 • production process, research, theatre
Ploughing through a final draft of a journal paper, I hit this quote from Barry Wellman in Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs:
Although people often view the world in terms of groups, they function in networks. In networked societies, boundaries are permeable, interactions are diverse others, connections switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies can be flatter and recursive.
It’s an extremely appealing way to think about collaborative and collective performance, from traditional-looking models for theatre companies right through to more avant-garde, ad-hoc gatherings. In fact, it could help us describe the journey between the two modes. How?
Well, it might allow us to think more clearly about the function of theatre companies - and question company formation as a natural early step of creating theatre. I’ve heard a number of credible, pragmatic arguments why company formation is a good idea, not least of which is work creation for writers and directors.
But these and even the strongest arguments for company formation - a shared,specific artistic or political vision - seems to describe the priority of networked relationships. In other words, you’re not in a company for the sake of having a company, you’re in a company for the kinds of relationships and interactions that the company makes possible.
The question then becomes whether those kind of relationships are accessible in different ways - ways which don’t unthinkingly reproduce hierarchies of financial control and liability, hierarchies of artistic legitimacy and commitment. A theatre company - with a board, an artistic director and core of performers - isn’t the only place through which a network of creative relationships can be generated and sustained.
