Carbon Literacy Training. Photo credit: Joe Strickland
I recently spoke at a the Sustainable Productions Summit hosted by the Nottingham Playhouse and since not everyone could be there on the day (it was invite only) I’m going to write some of my thoughts down here so they can spread further if there's demand.
My main thesis for the talk was that theatre has a weird problem with a fundamental aspect of being sustainable. In our day-to-day lives we are told to reduce, reuse, and recycle, with reduction being the most important usually. We get told we should reduce the amount we drive and fly, reduce our meat and dairy intake, consider reducing the number of kids we might have. All the most significant changes we can meaningfully make as individuals involve reduction.
I didn’t notice because I was on stage, but when I mentioned that theatres will praise all of the recycling and reusing they do, but won’t ever really try reducing the amount of “stuff” that they have on or above the stage during a show there was some repulsion to the idea to it amongst the audience. Oh well, you booked me to supply an “alternative viewpoint” and you got what you paid for!
There were some parts of the day where people talked about light intensity tracking software (really cool!) bar stock sourcing and energy logistics for buildings, but set design dominated the day. Almost every aspect of the day was about set design and making the set construction, recycling, and disposal as sustainable as possible, which is important to do, but you can also “just have less set”. I couldn’t help but think that by embracing a more minimal way of staging work that you could achieve an awful lot of your sustainability goals, not to mention saving staff time, organisational resources, and making the work more affordable. This saved time/budget could then be put towards making the work more accessible, the ticket prices more affordable, increasing community projects, saving up for bigger development projects, the list goes on
How can we reuse and recycle if we don’t have either the time to do the extra admin or the money to afford the sustainable materials and waste management? Here are three potential avenues of thought to help us make more sustainable theatre by reducing our consumption of "stuff".
Going site-specific
Why build a set when your set may already exist in the world? Some of our earliest shows at Chronic Insanity were made in site specific spaces for one very simple reason; we didn’t have any money. We could either rent a space as a blank canvas and beg, borrow, and steal to make it look like the setting of our story, or find an affordable space full of ambience and intrigue and then find or write a story to fit the space. We did that for most of our pre-Covid productions and it really helped us be in a position to make the large quantity of high quality work that set out to make as a company.
You also get the added benefits of these spaces often having their own audiences, that may not be traditional theatre audiences, so you can reach more people with your work more easily by engaging this organic audience where they’re happy to visit already and attracting a theatre audience to a new location than the other way round, as venues often try to do with mixed success.
Finally, this way of thinking allows you to programme work and tell stories you might not have considered otherwise, and almost always this work comes from a wider range of storytellers and voices. People who write for theatres know, and are comfortable with, theatres and those people will come from a shrunk pool that doesn’t often reflect the world around the building or the UK in general. By moving not just your production outside of your regular space, but your commissioning mind too, you can engage with a wider range of voices, styles of work (like immersive and playable theatre), and communities that theatre often fails to reach or pretends that they aren’t just ignoring.
Going with a lo-fi aesthetic
Why build a set when theatre is about suspending your disbelief? Do you need to create a living room on stage or can you tell people it’s a living room and save yourself the van trip to collect the sofa? Some audiences want a physical spectacle and come to the theatre for that, sure, but can you not create that with one singular spectacular set piece, sustainably made, or one spectacular lighting or sound effect rather than a full feast for the senses? I think a lot of the time, especially in commercial theatre, the design of a show can be style over substance and I don’t know if in a world with a rapidly changing climate we can afford to do that right now.
We make a lot of lo-fi work at Chronic Insanity, and we find it infinitely more affordable to create and sustainable to deliver. It’s increased portability allows us to tour a full show in a backpack or suitcase, using public transport rather than vans and haulage, and the challenge of a minimal staging is creatively invigorating and allows the performances of your cast to be much more of a focus.
Telling stories might be the only actual thing that sets us apart from other animals (they have languages, meaningful intelligence, and maybe even create art and religions) but when we started telling stories to entertain, enlighten, and social bond our communities all we had was one person standing up in front of a campfire with other people listening. Nothing but a performer and a story. Funnily enough, audiences still respond really well to that same focused minimal style of theatre today, at any scale. You really should consider it.
Going Digital
Why build a set at all? Most of the carbon generated from a theatre production, well over 90% of it, is generated by audience travel. However sustainable your creative practice is, this can’t be changed by your hand. If theatres want to have a serious stab at being sustainable then they should have more digital work in their programme.
“But Joe, won’t people just be at home using their own energy rather than using that in a theatre. Isn’t getting a bunch of people together in one space more efficient than everyone watching something in different spaces?”
No, not necessarily and definitely not when you factor in the emission from travelling
“But doesn’t digital theatre use more technology in its creation and distribution, and therefore more carbon?”
No, all theatre uses loads of technology, and therefore loads of energy. Emails and social media exists for all, phone and video calls exist for all, and energy used for video rendering for projection, sound design, digital drawing for set designs would be the same for an in person or digital show. Add to that the technical and lighting automation for each performance, and compare that to a single live stream or recording of a performance that can be accessed on demand and, if created with care, can feel just as live as most theatre shows then I don’t think there’s much difference between the two media. Taking rehearsals and performances into account, most in person theatre will use way more technology, and therefore carbon from that technology, then most digital theatre being made today in the UK.
Some digital theatre won’t need a set at all, opting for a site-specific, webstie-specific, or minimal approach to it’s design devoid of physical construction, like a text based experience, audio play, or interactive website. Others might need some set to film in front of, but the audience reach of a permanent on-demand performance compared to limited live performances means that any carbon cost for set construction, or any part of the production for that matter, is offset against more audience engagement over time, perhaps unlimited, so the work becomes more sustainable if you compare it’s cultural impact with it’s carbon cost.
Digital theatre is not only more sustainable, but more affordable to make, can be more inclusive in the same ways as site-specific theatre, and can be made infinitely more accessible for people, either because of disability, geography, or finance.
Final ideas
(blunt because I don’t want to tip-toe around my thoughts here)
Get Carbon Literacy Training, I thought I was clued up on climate stuff but I still learnt a whole lot and it has genuinely had further meaningful impact on the way we're planning and making work now.
Don't consider making less thetare, telling fewer stories, or retreating. We have to rise up and face this challenge and we can do that by making the same amount of work we would normally make but via more sustainable processes. Making any artwork at a time of crisis is a politcal act and a triumph, so even if all you can do is go to see sustainble work in your area and being part of the audience for the show, or even just supporting it on social media, show your support and be part of a more sustainable industry today.
Actually consider changing the way you do things. Try things and fail, then try again and see how you've improved. It is ok to make mistakes. You want to look at your output as a creative as a whole and see a reduction in carbon heavy creative decisions moving forwards. We are all creative people and we all have the capacity to think outside of the box when it comes to reducing within our creative practice, but not reducing our creative practice. Don't reduce the art, redcue the waste in it's substance. As individuals we do not have the biggest responsibility but we do still have responsibility to change how we work and to be more sustainable in our practice.
To be honest, at my least patient, I think people need to get over themselves and realise that the high-aesthetic, physically spectacular theatre we grew up watching on stage was being made in a world that didn’t consider the environment. The past robbed from the future, initially without realising it, and then without worrying about it or caring. We are now in a position where we can either continue to rob from the future and know that’s what we’re doing or we can reduce the amount that we consume in order to help the future be more bountiful. Your choice.