|
Work of mutual interest: Galleries and artists engaging with audiences through off-site projects
Wednesday 23rd April 2014, Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The work strand of the project was based in Clydebank and was co produced with National Galleries and Visible Fictions Theatre Company. There had been a bit of groundwork, which started before I got on board. Therefore some ideas were already in place that I inherited – from the basis of the project – which was looking at National identity through these artworks and portraits to some other small fragments of initial ideas such as a travelling table or ideas of self-portraits. What was clear early on was that the companies knew what they required and the difficulty for an artist in this situation is how to get on board something that hasn’t been your idea but you know it’s something you want to get involved in I suppose this is a tricky situation and one that I’ve been in since where you are employed to make the artwork and it doesn’t come form you. But if it is something that is similar to your practice and your outlook and you’re excited about it, then you begin the project, you do your thing and then that’s where the real ideas start emerging. Throughout the process of the project, responses were created with the community, with the people, and investigations were formed with the initial idea, and we were constantly redefining what the project should be at every stage – we weren’t bound by the confines of the brief and we weren’t shoehorning anything in to it. And I know that because it very quickly it becomes something else, and it became something that we couldn’t have predicted. Working with a theatre company and a visual art company also meant that our ideas were sometimes a bit complex, but I worked side-by-side Richie and I think it was a genuine partnership. And because of that we always has one foot in each discipline and were very mindful throughout of each others focus. The issue was that both companies wanted something at the end – a finished product. But both knew that this could be open and even something quite abstract. One thing I knew I didn’t want to do was a finished outdoor theatre performance. For lots of reasons – lack of rehearsal time and space, commitment from the participants, sound and staging issues the Glasgow weather, etc etc. So what we did we did was finished outdoor performance which was severely lacking in rehearsal, has issues of commitment form participants, had a few sound and staging issues and it pished down on the night. However, this is a really important lesson – it became clear that this outdoor performance had to be made in that place at that time in that way. It had to be on the site of the former shipyard and be performed by these people and it was important that an audience were present. It wasn’t planned, it wasn’t predetermined – the project grew and became something that we couldn’t ignore, so we had to go for it. In terms of theatre projects and engagement projects there is always something of a disappointment when you go through a rehearsal or a series of sessions and then finished works aren’t staged, and although we can say it’s a rehearsed reading or a work in progress there is always something final about performance and audience in attendance. It is also more complex when community are involved – people feel like you can get away with it more – or you can make excuses because they are not actors, they can’t learn lines, they’ve never done this before. But I disagree with all of that. If you take a group of non-performers through a process and you expect them to do their thing in front of an audience and if you expect that audience to attend, to listen and engage with the ideas then you are looking at a final performance in that sense. Our final performance was faced with a lot of problems, and it was disappointing in a few ways. However, because this was part of a bigger project and because the piece was on-going it meant there other final products along the way. The group created a sound version of the performance which can be heard in the exhibition, the group attended an interim exhibition in Dalmuir where we discussed some of the findings of the project and we also got together for a mini performance at the launch of the exhibition. Now this should be the normal way of things – especially when working with people in a participation context. It’s right that we took them through all parts of the process and this is when we can see that it is a process. That each time we got together they were a bit wiser about the project as a whole and they could see it for what it was because they’d been through a few incarnations of a final product. They were more articulate about their work, they were more confident. So the process doesn’t end: I don’t want you to think that product and process are an either/or. That we get to last day of rehearsal and we go shit Charlie doesn’t know his lines – let’s just say it’s a process. It’s all a process and lets not forget the process of the product itself. This is all about people and it’s all about community and it’s all about me in that community with those people. That to me is a very simple concept. And it seems strange that I’m asked the question why do you work with people. As a writer I’m interested in language, in linguistic structures, in text-based work, in spoken word and poetry, in direct address, in verbatim and personal narratives. These things are all people centric. It was maybe luck that I was employed to this project, and I happened to be a good fit, it was maybe I was sounded out – I don’t know. However even if I wasn’t interested in those things there is no way you can go to a community in Clydebank and not work with people. Clydebank is people. And I don’t want anybody to be cynical about this – this wasn’t a case of me landing in Clydebank and thinking oh I better work with some of theses people, or my idea isn’t working so I better get some of these people involved – it was the starting point. Conversations. I didn’t know very much about Clydebank and to my shame I didn’t know too much about Jimmy Reid. So I had to genuinely find out. I had to talk to people. And that’s why the project became what it was: a reconstruction – the text was made up of reconstructed text from the engagement with people as well as historical transcripts. Again all focused on the experiences of real people. Then we took those words and gave them to other people and it gave the words new meaning when they were spoken by a young person facing leaving school or an older person who used to work in Singers. It became a real reconstruction – I had to ask questions and I had to find information and I had to join the dots and I had to create something that was in the spirit of that history. And it was genuine – and the participants felt it – especially the younger ones – they were constantly confused at our interest in their area and their history – because as far as they can see it’s not worth investigating. Why would anyone be interested in a patch of waste ground where some old yard used to be? Why were we always asking them about employment? And I hope that by us taking an interest in that story they maybe realised that they story was worth telling. There is no way I would want to write that story as a writer or preconceive any of it. Or pretend to know what they wanted, or give them a wee play to watch. So why do I want to work with people? Because people are better storytellers and theatre makers than we are. And when it comes to the question of defining non-art people or the ethics of working with non-art people I totally can’t be bothered even having that discussion – because there is no discussion. Instead ask what are your ethics of being a human being and engaging with another human being? Because all people have the capacity to be an artist and if you’re not interested in people then you’re not an artist.
0 Comments
Now we reach the part of the Mass where the Priest delivers his sermon. And the role of the Sermon is to interpret the teachings of Christ and the stories of the Bible for modern congregations so that can continue to act in a Christian way.
Every night I deliver a different sermon based on what is in the news that day – anything to do with Catholicism in Scotland, or religion and politics. Other topics have included what would Catholics vote in the Independence Referendum; David Cameron’s recent speech where he compared himself to Jesus, claiming he is following Jesus’ moral code; I looked at the idea of Christian charity and modern day foodbanks; and last night was all about the rise of the Biblical themed Hollywood blockbuster. Tonight, seeing as it’s the final performance I’d like to sum up a few pieces of news that I’ve come across today against the backdrop of the Easter celebrations. As well as all the topics I’ve just mentioned, this week I’ve also found out that Catholics now outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland, while a Republican dissident was shot dead in Belfast; I’ve listened to Pope Francis’ Easter service in Rome, whilst a few politicians are calling for Easter peace in the Ukraine and also seeing a few articles about the origins of Easter, it’s Pagan history and it’s Christian message. So what’s the big deal? Why is the news so special against the backdrop of this holiday? For Christians, Easter is probably the second main celebration in the Christian calendar but maybe it’s the most important. It signifies not only the death of Christ for us and for our sins, but it describes his resurrection, his ascension into heaven and the fulfilling of his prophecy. But today, Easter is a bit of a complicated time. For Christians it’s about Christ, but for everyone else it’s about eggs. As with other Christian celebrations Easter was created to replace the pagan rituals, in this case of fertility and the love of sex. I always thought that we ate eggs because Jesus rolled a stone away when he came back from the dead. I imagined that the stone rolled down the hill and that’s why we continue to roll round shaped objects down a hill. It’s also replaced the Passover, which continues to be an important Jewish celebration. But Cadbury’s couldn’t find a chocolate equivalent of the death of the first born son and sheeps blood being smeared on your front door, so Easter eggs is was! In all of the speeches from leaders and from Christian organisations they all have one thing in common – a call for peace. But it’s really hard to celebrate a Christian holiday when violence is still happening in Northern Ireland and when leaders use Christian messages in political situations. It’s been said a million times before that religion causes conflict, but we all know that’s not true: we know that it’s people who cause conflict and they’ll do it in any name. But the situation in Northern Ireland is so complicated, and it sounds hollow when David Cameron call for something just because it’s Easter, and not admitting to and trying to fix the problems that English governments have caused in Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland is so complicated and the situation in the Ukraine is so complicated, and no amount of quoting from the Bible is going to help. So what I’m going to do now is quote from the Bible. What does Jesus say about Easter? The following is from Matthew, and it describes the moment Jesus was raised from the dead and visited his disciples: Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." You’ll notice he didn’t mention who should walk down what street in Belfast. He didn’t say anything about the Ukraine, and he didn’t mention a bunny. But with those words he started a chain of events that have lead us to where we are now. And I’d like to finish on another quote. From another God: Woody Allen. Who said, "If Jesus came back and saw what was going on his name, he'd never stop throwing up" Now we reach the part of the Mass where the Priest delivers his sermon. And the role of the Sermon is to interpret the teachings of Christ and the stories of the Bible for modern congregations so that can continue to act in a Christian way.
Every night I deliver a different sermon based on what is in the news that day – anything to do with Catholicism in Scotland, or religion and politics. Other topics have included what would Catholics vote in the Independence Referendum, and David Cameron’s recent speech where he compared himself to Jesus, claiming he is following Jesus’ moral code. And last night’s topic, which looked at the idea of Christian charity and modern day foodbanks. So it’s almost Easter. And because Easter is synonymous with epic films like the Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, tonight I’d like to talk about Christian films. It’s been in the news today that the new Hollywood blockbuster Noah has opened at the top of the holiday box office. And following that, the news is full of articles looking at the Christian movie boom. Other recent Christian films like God’s Not Dead and Son of God have also been successful and there are more to come – Exodus: God and Kings, and a film about Mother Teresa. Reports show that 2014 is likely to be the Christian film boom year. So what is it about these stories that can be adapted so easily into blockbuster films? Well in the case of Noah it’s maybe the same ingredients for any other Hollywood blockbuster – catastrophe averted by an everyman, struggles of power, natural disasters, feel good endings, a spiritual element…and any of these elements could be the description of any other Hollywood epic film like Titanic. So maybe the Bible is great for Hollywood, but is Hollywood great for the Bible? Sometimes it’s maybe not cool to admit to watching a Christian themed film, and with something like The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, and I suspect with Noah, audiences might say yeah I know it’s Christian, but – as if they have to apologise because anything Christian is so not cool, or justify it by saying it’s got like excellent CGI or something. With Noah and with Mel Gibson’s the Passion of the Christ, there comes a fair amount of disagreement from Christian organisations – upset at the devaluing of the story for entertainment purposes, and the diluting, and changing of the story . Hollywood has hit back saying that it adapts Biblical stories like it would adapt any other book like Harry Potter or the Hunger Games, but I suppose the trouble comes when you treat these stories and stories form a book just like any other. One problem is that the stories in themselves are generally too short to be totally faithful to, and so directors and screenwriters have to use a bit of artistic license to flesh the story out. But mostly any deviation from the original always seems to provoke a “war on Christians” or a ”war on the Bible.” If we take the story of Noah and expect film makers to be faithful to the original story viewers would have to watch him preach for 120 years then sit through 40 days of rain scenes followed by months of just kind of floating along. Today there was a story that the cast of Noah wasn’t racially diverse enough, to which the writer responded – “the story is a myth so it doesn’t matter what they look like. And then “I didn’t want it to look like a Benetton advert or the crew of the Starship Enterprise.” Which isn’t a very Christian thing to say really. So maybe it’s okay that Hollywood is making Bible stories mainstream, maybe that’s the only way for audiences to be introduced these stories, but is it even important that they are introduced the Bible stories? I suppose it comes down to how much value you place on it. I saw an article today that said that these films are cultural bridges to the Gospel. And like any artistic representation of religion, maybe it’s better to try and to miss the mark a little rather than fail to attempt at all. After all, we are told that the words of the Gospel can travel better over a bridge than over a chasm. But having said all of that, I’ve read the reviews for the film and I’ve watched Mel Gibson in the Passion of the Christ and it reminds me of this passage from Psalms: I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless. I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me. A perverse heart shall be far from me; I will know nothing of this evil. Now we reach the part of the Mass where the Priest delivers his sermon. And the role of the Sermon is to interpret the teachings of Christ and the stories of the Bible for modern congregations so that can continue to act in a Christian way.
Every night I deliver a different sermon based on what is in the news that day – anything to do with Catholicism in Scotland, or religion and politics. Other topics have included what would Catholics vote in the Independence Referendum, and David Cameron’s recent speech where he compared himself to Jesus, claiming he is following Jesus’ moral code. I want to continue on that theme for, as it’s been in the news again today. And one thing I mentioned in the last sermon was Cameron’s celebration of Christians, of Christianity and Christian charity. He singled out Christian run food banks, and thanked them for their hard work. So tonight I’d like to talk about Foodbanks and the nature of Christian charity. I asked what are we really to make of that? Rather than celebrating shouldn’t we arguing against the rise of food banks on this country which has plenty to go around and in Scotland where we have untapped resources and the potential to do so much more than we are doing at the moment in a downward spiral of rising energy costs, property costs, speculation in banking and blaming immigrants and the poor for all the trouble they have wreaked on us. And as it turns out, David’s celebration of Christian foodbanks did not impress the Christians who are running them. Yesterday, an open letter was published from 45 Church of England representatives and over 600 Catholic organisations that slammed his comments. And lets not forget the many Muslim–run foodbanks like the Sufra Foodbank in London that are keeping people in food, rather than the BNP foodbank that is feeding white’s only. If he really wanted to talk about foodbanks, then maybe he should have addresses the complex nature of what they are and why they exist in a developed, western country that is supposedly one of the greatest of nations. Charity is a common theme in religion. In Islam it is one of the central forces that reminds Muslims they are humble before Allah, and in Christian thought, charity is highest form of love, signifying the reciprocal love between God and man that is made manifest in unselfish love of one’s fellow men. Before Cameron argues about how great a Christian he is, he might want to remember St. Paul’s classical description of charity in the New Testament If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. And because he’s such a great Christian he probably knows what Matthew has to say about charity too. "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Jesus looked after the poor and helped them. He put them first. Cameron’s welfare reforms aren’t really in the Christian spirit that he promotes. Ian Duncan Smith claimed that we are winning the war on welfare. I don’t remember Jesus saying that, but if anyone knows where I can find that quote I’d be happy to see it. Charity is found in all religions and it’s one thing that proves that all paths lead to God. Jewish people are required to give one-tenth of their income to charity, and with that in mind I’d like to quote another deity of mine, Woody Allen, who said in Hannah and Her Sisters: "If Jesus came back and saw what was going on his name, he'd never stop throwing up" Tonight’s topic is on the recent declaration from David Cameron that his Big Society project was “invented by Jesus”.
Cameron’s “Big Society” initiative was a flagship policy from 2010 and aims to empower local people and communities, and asks citizens of England to take responsibility in their own civic duties. What I’d like to do is read some of the transcript of his speech for you tonight, and then we’ll reflect on it afterwards. It begins like this: Look, a huge – a warm welcome to everybody. The Bible tells us, actually, to bear one another’s burden and you will fulfil the law of Christ; after the day I’ve had, I’m definitely looking for a few volunteers for that. But I – just a few things I wanted to say tonight. I’m proud to hold a reception for Christians here in Downing Street and proud to be a Christian myself and to have my children at a church school, which – I often get my moment of greatest peace – not every week, I’m ashamed to say, but perhaps every other week I pop in to the Thursday morning sung Eucharist beautiful service in St Mary Abbots, and I find a little bit of peace and hopefully a little bit of guidance. Now, look, there were 3 things that I wanted to say tonight about what I hope we can do more of in our country when it comes to Christianity. We should be proud of the fact that we are a Christian country, and I am proud of the fact we’re a Christian country and we shouldn’t be ashamed to say so. But I think the 3 things I want to focus on – and I hope we can all work on this – the first is to expand the role of faith and faith organisations in our country. Second thing is I hope we can do more to raise the profile of the persecution of Christians around the world. It is the case today that our religion is now the most persecuted religion around the world. We should stand up against persecution of Christians and other religious groups wherever and whenever we can, and should be unashamed in doing so. This third thing I wanted to say, which I suppose is a little bit more controversial, but I was reflecting on this meeting tonight and what to share with you and I have a thought – which is not a new thought, but I think it is a true thought –which is when I think of the challenges which our churches face in our country and when I think about the challenges political institutions face in our countries – in our country, I see a lot of similarities. Whereas actually, what we both need more of is evangelism. More belief that we can get out there and actually change people’s lives and make a difference and improve both the spiritual, physical and moral state of our country, and we should be unashamed and clear about wanting to do that. There are some really big things that this government is doing which are about that improving state of the world and evangelism. And when I look at churches I see that the – you’re trying to do exactly the same thing, to fire up your congregations with a sense that actually, if we pull together, we can change the world, we can make it a better place. Whether its providing services for children at risk of exclusion, whether it’s teaching prisoners to read, whether it’s dealing with breakdown, whether it’s provision of food banks, there are some extraordinary organisations run by faith groups and Christians in our country and I want to see the possibilities for that to expand . . .Thank you. Now, I just want to talk about a few things that he has mentioned in this speech: First of all he starts with the word Look. Which kind of makes you think he’s starting really defensively. Sometimes when he’s being questioned in interviews he answers with ‘Look’ and it seems a bit telling he starts this speech in the same way. He also talks about how often he goes to Mass every other week, mentioning his parish in the same way a racist always says ‘I have lots of black friends, but…’ He openly claims his religion, which is always a dodgy thing for politicians to do – apparently Tony Blair was told to keep his Christianity a secret in the beginning, and Nick Clegg recently admitted he doesn’t believe in God. What are we to think about this? What are we to think about politics and religion mixing? Do we think that the Prime Minister should be free to declare their faith? Or are we allowed to be a little cynical? Maybe he’s just trying to appeal to a large section of voters in the same way he recently appealed to the Jewish and Muslim communities. What are we to say to the fact that his education minister has just declared an all out war on Birmingham schools which he fears are spreading Islamic takeovers? And what are we to say to the last section of Cameron’s speech – where he celebrates church run food banks? Shouldn’t we be lamenting the fact that food banks even exist in England? And he mentions teaching prisoners to read even though they are rolling out a book ban in prisons in England and Wales. Let’s finish with a quote from Matthew and you can decide for yourself if this is what Cameron believes he is doing: Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell. Tonight’s topic is inspired by a recent article in the Herald which claimed that Catholics are most pro-Yes of religious groups when it comes to Scottish Independence.
Professor Tom Devine, who is one of Scotland's leading historians, used recent data from the Scottish Social Attitudes survey, that suggested that Catholics were both most supportive of independence and least fearful at the prospect of a Yes vote. Why would that be? Well he talks about a "silent revolution within the Irish Catholic population since the 1970s, the main reasons being the death of structural sectarianism and labour market discrimination, which means that Catholics are now much more confident in their Scottish skins." Now for my generation I suppose I was never really aware that Catholics might be discriminated against, or that, a few years ago it was claimed that Scotland is still an anti-Catholic country. I suppose this relates to some stories I’ve heard of my parents generations being discriminated against in their jobs because of their religion – with certain councils only employing protestants and certain trades only employing Catholics and so on. It seemed like you only got a job based on your surname, but now all of that seems like totally ridiculous, but actually it was only about 30 odd years ago. And when I’ve worked in certain communities, people hear my surname is O’Connor and they still react to it. In this article John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde, said that Tom Devine's point illustrated how voting habits among Scottish Catholics had changed. "It was certainly true in the 1970s that Catholics in Scotland were less inclined to vote for the SNP and therefore by implication less likely to vote for independence. At that point the concern among Catholics was that an independent Scotland might become a replication of Ulster," he said. In 2012, 30% of Catholics supported independence, compared to 26% among those of no religion, and 17% among Church of Scotland identifiers. Contrary to this – Gorgeous George Galloway waded in, mentioning a "historic crossover between Scottish nationalism and anti-Irish-Roman Catholicism" and warned Catholic schools would be threatened by independence. But this seems to be a real concern to people – one of the questions put to Nicola Sturgeon during a BBC Q and A was “Will Catholic schools still exist in an Independent Scotland?” And to be honest, I never even thought that would cross people’s minds – I don’t really know why that would be. But it seems in the small amount of research that I’ve done – there is a worry about the continuation of Catholicism in and Independent Scotland. So on the one hand we have Catholics in fear for the continued presence of their religion in an independent Scotland, yet on the other, I would have thought that there was a huge ‘Protestant’ basis for Unionism, and so Catholics would think the opposite. But this makes me ask the question: if Scotland’s Protestants oppose constitutional change because of deep-rooted Unionism, and Scotland’s Catholics say ‘no’ because they are afraid of the Protestants, then how did we get to the point of devolution, never mind getting to the point of seriously considering independence? Do these religious groups really have the power to influence politics? It seems not actually. Other things I’ve been reading recently shows that voters living in poorer areas are more likely to vote for something radical. And, actually, a high number of those will be Catholics, descendants of Irish immigrants, and a lot of them living in the East End. Historically, Catholics clung to the Labour Party for protection, and shunned any alternative, in case it might ruin what little they had. So it would seem now that given Tom Devine’s findings and looking at the historical standpoint of Catholics – they might be the key swing group. The rise of the independence movement has coincided with the rise of university education, and it seems its has grown with a decline in the social significance of religion. And attitudes towards independence are maybe better explained by thinking about secularism rather than through religion or sectarianism. In some online research I’ve been doing, which always leads you to a forum and user comments, which you know you shouldn’t read, but you end up doing it anyway, made me realize that there are Catholics out there worried at the prospect of independence. And this comes about because they confuse the current leading party in the Scottish Government with everything there is to know about independence (which we all know is wrong, right?). It seems there are Catholics out there who are opposed to Independence based on the Scottish Government’s achievement in bringing forward same-sex marriage in this country, and they believe that this will lead to increased secularism and that there will be no place for religion in the future of the country. But this is the problem when political groups try to legislate matters for the Church. It can’t be denied that there is a movement towards a progressive, modern Scotland much like the rest of small countries in Europe which doesn’t have religion at it’s core. But the point of sermons is to link all of this modern chat with what Jesus would have done. What would Jesus say about Scottish Independence? Well if you Google ‘What would Jesus say about Scottish Independence you don’t really get much back. Instead, if we look at the Bible, we find that when it comes to politics, when it comes to voting, for standing up for what you believe in, when it comes to nationality, we are urged to stand up for the teachings of God rather than nationalism and fight a spiritual cause rather than a political one: There is a story in Jeremiah of a potter working at his wheel, which goes: Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it” Here God is saying that he alone can destroy nations and that any attempt to do this ourselves is futile. The only fight we should be fighting is in his name, and we should shun politics in favour of spreading his word. Here, we are asked to wrestle against powers, against rulers of the darkness. And for me, that’s not the darkness of same-sex marriage, that’s about people who assume power for themselves. The spiritual wickedness in high places isn’t about the constitutional change that might happen in this country, but about the abuse of power that we see daily from politicians, from law makers, from policy makers, from councils and from those in positions of responsibility. And I’m sure Jesus would have a few things to say about them, because he was totally rad, destroying the temple when he saw the desecration that was happening in a holy place, where money and profit comes before humanity and prioritizing your fellow man. For me principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in high places. Refers not to same sex marriage or secularism but instead conglomerates of influence that assume power for themselves and abuse that power. Jesus destroyed a temple. Maybe Jesus might want to destroy this temple and start again. |
AuthorMartin O'Connor. Archives
February 2017
Categories |
RSS Feed