In many ways, new and popular technologies, when harnessed effectively, can be used as a bridge to young people’s engagement and participation. Reframing theatrical activities thus has the potential to invite them and their care-givers into the creative process, enhance aesthetic experiences and build community-wide relationships via online channels; thereby provoking questions about the future of participatory work and audience development. Integrating technology in performance, as educationalist Christina Carson argues, develops innovative ways of “talking to audiences” that could “reinvigorate the theatre as a centre of public debate in the twenty-first century” (Carson 2011, 183). With the enforced "digital turn", her claim, which was made a decade ago, resonates even more deeply in today’s climate. The challenge, perhaps, is how to maintain a constructive balance between theatre and technology, in which the aesthetic and educational imperatives extend, rather than diminish, their capacity to excite, move and provide an imaginative vision of the future. There is, of course, no single solution and this ongoing search, in the words of Kuo, requires “compassion, vulnerability and openness”.
This delicious mix of optimism and contemplation is also captured in In Hope: Future Praxis of Theatre for Young Audiences—a four-way dialogue among Kate Cross, Bebê De Soares, Sue Giles and Adjjima Patalung that shed light on perspectives and practices in their respective contexts. Through the lens of TYA, the panellists discussed challenges and possibilities that emerged from overlapping boundaries of education, theatre and policy. The central thread that connects these concerns is that live performance is, at the moment, undergoing a significant change. In particular, cross-fertilisation between live and recorded media has become part and parcel of contemporary theatre-making practices and audience engagement. This has led the visual medium to be even more vital now that digital technologies have informed the language and aesthetics of theatre. Resultantly, the rise of new forms, new technologies, new thinking about drama, theatre and dance, and innovative approaches to story-telling (with growing budget limitations) calls for strategies, practices and programmes that can intersect with this shift.
What is pertinent to note is that while artists have found innovative ways to generate new forms of participation and spectatorship, some have also turned this into an opportunity to engage new audiences that might have been previously excluded from participating in the arts. This increased access is especially important in light of the growing awareness of the need for inclusion in theatre more broadly. For example, some progress has been made to better welcome audience members with certain disabilities, such as relaxed performances that are adapted to suit people with autism or sensory communication disorders. However, systemic issues of race, class and ableism continue to exclude many potential spectators. Echoing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which affirms children the right to participate freely in cultural life and the arts, De Soares passionately asserts:
“We advocate for every child, and fight for
their right to be in contact with art; especially
the performing arts. And through the digital,
we have seen performances from Toronto to
Alaska. There are children in places where
theatres do not reach them… And this (digital)
reach is beginning to happen. We are now
reaching much more children and families
and we should not underestimate this impact.”
However, there is also a need to consider the other side of the argument. Describing the struggles of children in rural communities in Thailand, Patalung states that access to the internet and mobile devices might not always be readily available. And those who might be fortunate to possess these tend to isolate themselves. The paradox here is that while technology might enhance communication with people from around the world, it can also “further disconnect communities”.
These shifts and changes in the landscape reveal that the performance on stage only represents part of the creative efforts of TYA, and there are lots of ways for the field to grow and reach new audiences in this new chapter. Of course, some projects that set out to be inclusive and artistically engaging have sometimes missed the mark. But like any other creative endeavours, taking risks, improvising and figuring things out along the way is part of the process. Part of the success of creating works that are genuinely inclusive therefore lies in having conversations and finding ways that can encourage the exchange of skills, stories, and ideas across different communities, artists and stakeholders, recognising that creativity is always in the making, rather than ready made, and developed over generations.
As I watched these events online in my living room in London, I wondered if, and why, theatre in this challenging time still matters; especially when viewing a performance via a streaming device will not have the enchantment of a live theatre experience. There are no concrete answers, and it would be naïve to assume that all children will have the same response to a streamed performance or a simulated experience. However, the tireless efforts of the wider TYA community in trying to capture children’s imaginations illustrate that there is still a strong desire to cultivate creativity in the next generation and create a better future for them. And perhaps that is the point: theatre for children, has always been fluidly responsive and adaptive to political, environmental and social change. Therefore, it will continue to penetrate into the cultural lives of children and be the subject of many future debates.
