The stage is a real place, with real people on it, real people watching.

In 2006 Tim Etchells created a neon sign, flashing the poignant text 'Wait
here, I've gone to get help.' <strong>The</strong> organ<strong>is</strong>ers of th<strong>is</strong> year's <strong>The</strong>aterfestival seem
to have found some inspiration in th<strong>is</strong> text, as they have called on him for h<strong>is</strong>
ass<strong>is</strong>tance. At the official opening day of the festival Tim Etchells will be
reading out a 'state of the union' speech.
An interview <strong>with</strong> one of the UK's most significant performance art<strong>is</strong>ts.
Can theatre bear being defined, as one might be tempted to
do when talking about the ‘state’ of contemporary theatre?
Don’t all attempts to define what theatre <strong>is</strong>, in a way,
petrify it, lock it up in its own definition?
I certainly find it hard to engage <strong>with</strong> d<strong>is</strong>cussions focused on
definitions. I’m interested in <strong>people</strong> and what they do, in
art<strong>is</strong>ts and the work they choose to make, the effect that has
on us as audience. I always find debates about categories (<strong>is</strong> it
<strong>real</strong>ly theatre? Is it <strong>real</strong>ly art? Is it <strong>real</strong>ly dance? Is it <strong>real</strong>ly
acting?) depressing and pointless – in my ‘State of the Union’ I
describe th<strong>is</strong> as a ‘border guard’ mentality. <strong>The</strong> job of standing
at the door of the art-form theatre, deciding which art<strong>is</strong>ts can
come in and which has to stand outside or which has to go
home and put a different shirt on, <strong>is</strong> not a job any of us should
bother <strong>with</strong>. Anyone can come in. Anyone can leave. <strong>The</strong>re’s not
something in theatre we have to protect or
keep pure.
I suppose what <strong>real</strong>ly interests me are
interventions into social and cultural space –
th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong> what art<strong>is</strong>ts do – they throw stones
into the water, to see what happens. If
someone says it’s not art what one person
does, or it’s not theatre I guess I’d always be
tempted say OK, sure.. but look at the ripples
that stone <strong>is</strong> making. Look at the questions
or the fears or the thrills that work, that
intervention evokes. To me that’s much more
interesting than trying to define the
category. In another sense I started to think
that theatre (and maybe art itself) <strong>is</strong> prec<strong>is</strong>ely that thing which
forever tries to escape or slip the bounds of definition. Art
(theatre) always wants to be more, to go beyond the limits that
are understood for it… it yearns for a status or an affect that
it can’t quite reach. It strains in different directions, in
different ways… but it always wants to get out of the defined
space. Maybe that’s what art <strong>is</strong> these days.
You wrote a book on your work, entitled ‘Certain
Fragments’. Is the contemporary art scene <strong>real</strong>ly as
fragmented as <strong>is</strong> often claimed? And if so, will your state of
the union be some kind of counteraction?
To be honest I’d worry more about the fragmentation of society
than I would about fragmentation of the arts. I don’t have a
romantic idea of democracy or what social co-operation in a
nation or city might be – but the harsh div<strong>is</strong>ions we have in
society, in terms of class, race and opportunity are a slow
po<strong>is</strong>on in the Neo-Liberal economies of Europe. We’re
somewhere in the shadow of Thatcher’s “No such thing as
society, only a collection of individuals” and at the same time
in a zone where what’s offered <strong>is</strong> participation in meaningless
ritual and social platitudes – democracy as a rigged <strong>real</strong>ity
show. One thing <strong>is</strong> for sure though - treat <strong>people</strong> like they
don’t matter, like they have no stake, no say and no chance and
it will come back to you in the end. Exposure to education,
“I suppose what <strong>real</strong>ly
interests me are
interventions into social
and cultural space – th<strong>is</strong>
<strong>is</strong> what art<strong>is</strong>ts do – they
throw stones into the
water, to see what
happens.”
employment, culture and above all inclusion – but <strong>real</strong>, not a
pantomime. And it starts <strong>with</strong> education. And investment in
<strong>people</strong>. Get that wrong for too long and we’re all in trouble.
What’s the difference between you and Barack Obama?
My policy on Health Insurance <strong>is</strong> more far reaching and
ambitious than h<strong>is</strong> but I fear both will fail to catch on in the
USA. I would go further than he will in investigating the torture
of detainees and terror suspects in Guantanamo and
elsewhere. I would not stop at the CIA guys who did the work -
I would chase after the lawyers and the government <strong>people</strong>
who gave them ‘perm<strong>is</strong>sion’ and who encouraged them to
believe that their actions might be legal. In the end I’d want
Cheney, Rice, Bush and Blair in the dock. Obama won’t go that
far. He’s black of course and he’s the President of the US which
<strong>is</strong> a combination I still find immensely thrilling and happy-
making, despite any other cynic<strong>is</strong>ms. What
a great sign that <strong>is</strong>. I’m <strong>real</strong>ly glad of it. But
while he’s president I’m just another whiteguy
theatre director, v<strong>is</strong>ual art<strong>is</strong>t, writer
type that a few <strong>people</strong> have heard of.
Obama gets more Google hits than me.
<strong>The</strong> Czech writer Milan Kundera in h<strong>is</strong>
most famous book ‘<strong>The</strong> Unbearable
Lightness of Being’ defined the word
kitsch in a most interesting way, namely
as a categorical acceptance of being.
<strong>The</strong>refore Obama’s motto ‘yes we can’
could be seen as a form of kitsch. In your
state of the union, what word will be used
most frequently: ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
I think the word you’d find most in my state of the union will be
probably be ‘OR’. If not that then ‘Perhaps’. Following these
that there will be a little yes and a big No, courtesy of the Dada
art<strong>is</strong>t George Grosz. <strong>The</strong> Engl<strong>is</strong>h have a special instinct for
skeptic<strong>is</strong>m and reserve.
Which of the following two <strong>is</strong> the most virtual: the <strong>stage</strong> or
the <strong>real</strong> world?
<strong>The</strong> <strong>stage</strong> <strong>is</strong> a <strong>real</strong> <strong>place</strong>, <strong>with</strong> <strong>real</strong> <strong>people</strong> on it, <strong>real</strong> <strong>people</strong>
watching. <strong>The</strong> world <strong>is</strong> a <strong>real</strong> <strong>place</strong> <strong>with</strong> <strong>real</strong> <strong>people</strong> in it, doing
all kinds of things. Both the <strong>stage</strong> and the world are haunted
though – haunted by the stories we tell, by the dreams we
have, overwritten by the sum and force of what has happened
in culture and h<strong>is</strong>tory. So while each <strong>place</strong> <strong>is</strong> <strong>real</strong>, each <strong>place</strong> <strong>is</strong>
also a domain of ghosts, narrative and fantasy – you can’t be
on the <strong>stage</strong> or in the world <strong>with</strong>out tangling in, <strong>with</strong>out
encountering and speaking into th<strong>is</strong> layer of the imaginary. In
fact, when push comes to shove, it’s pretty much impossible to
separate the one from the other. <strong>The</strong> most <strong>real</strong> of <strong>real</strong> persons
aren’t to be divided from what they dream, imagine or inherit
as narratives and tropes from the culture around. We’re
animals that have biology and imagination – the status (and
mutual dependence) of each has to be respected.
[MB]