2021.10.1 Fri - 10.24 Sun

magazine

The History of Kyoto Experiment

2018.4.23

Yusuke Hashimoto
Former Program Director, Kyoto Experiment

The following text is an excerpt from “A Festival That Is Both Structure and Movement,” published in the Kyoto Experiment 2011 Operations Report (March 2012). It has been edited and expanded.

 

Background to the Experiment

Kyoto Experiment launched in autumn 2010 but now I would like to look back on that history, including some aspects of it that have not been made public before.

First, something happened that led us to crown the festival with the word “experiment.” It was late in the autumn of 2005.

At the time, I was planning the Contemporary Theater Program for Kyoto Art Center. This had started in 2004 and, having successfully completed the second year, we were then searching around for ways to develop it further. For advice, I went to Shogo Ohta, who was one of the judges for the Kyoto Art Center Performing Arts Award, a competition for directors that we were running as part of the program. He suggested the following. “How about making it into a theater festival? An ‘experimental’ one.” Experimental… I couldn’t take in that word so suddenly, but he continued. “If you say something is ‘experimental’ in Japan, it now means something with a specific genre or that’s quite limited—at times it even has a scornful nuance. But if we take a look more widely at the world in the field of the arts, to say something is ‘experimental,’ there is a certain understanding of it as something indicating a somewhat broader artistic tendency or stance than a fixed genre, and there are even festivals that use the word in their names.” While I can’t vouch fully for the accuracy, I think this was the rough gist.

Whether or not I got what he meant at the time is hard to say, but certainly I regarded “experimental theater” then as something troublesome or tiresome, so it was striking to hear Ohta remark that the label did not always have such a negative nuance when viewed more broadly in the world. That being said, this exchange was relegated to some corner in my memory until we started the concrete preparations for the festival in summer 2009.

 

Another Background: The State of the Performing Arts in Kyoto

Before continuing with the story, let’s go back even further to the Contemporary Theater Program, which was the origin of this. The organizer, Kyoto Art Center, opened in the year 2000 and when I visited the production studio in the center in my then capacity as a theater company production coordinator, I was gripped by a strange feeling.

In short, it was a feeling somewhat like surprise at the “comfy” facilities and that someone could have set up such an environment. Until a year prior I had been sneaking into university classrooms at night to do rehearsals and, amid gradually worsening strictures, I was wandering from university to university. But here was Kyoto Art Center, where one could potentially occupy a single room for up to three months if one passed the screening and hold rehearsals while keeping the stage design in place.

Needless to say, it is a fact that the facility came about on the wishes of Kyoto City, who set it up, but I also think that this style of management could not have been realized without people who are involved in artistic activities. I slowly came to see that this was the influence of the meeting of people working in the stage arts in Kyoto—what is today the incorporated nonprofit Kyoto Performing Arts Organization. This first organized network for people in the performing arts in Kyoto started in 1996, centering on such figures as the playwrights and directors Toshiro Suzue, Masataka Matsuda, and Hideo Tsuchida, and the producer Jun Sugiyama.

Around 1997, when I came to Kyoto and began working in theater in, the scene in the city was really picking up steam with the aforementioned Suzue and Matsuda winning the Kishida Kunio Drama Award, and the triumph of the play Cape Moon, produced at Kyoto Arts Festival, at the Yomiuri Theater Awards, while the group Dumb Type was making waves on the world stage. I was a member of the audience at the time but I could nonetheless somehow sense that there was a movement. (Of course, a scene was also developing in Osaka based around private theater spaces.) On the other hand, they also built up an intellectual camaraderie while organizing themselves into such a kind of association, forming opinions as members of the performing arts industry, and producing outward-looking actions as well as magazines such as Leaf, which published scripts.

However, at the time I didn’t realize that an arts-based “movement” and that association’s social “action” were closely related. That is, I couldn’t even envision that an arts-based movement could modify as a social action. As such, I couldn’t understand that Kyoto Art Center came about based on an extremely rare balance between the efforts of my seniors in the theater world and understanding from the government figures involved. This was the cause of my sense of the “comfy” facilities as something abnormal.

And then I came to realize two things. One was that if we merely abide by what our predecessors have built up, we would simply squander it. The second was that the arts center is simultaneously a place and a project base. As such, it became a question of searching for more creative means of operating. In this way, I resolved to work directly on delivering proposals for activating Kyoto Art Center more fully as a place for creativity, and, with Shigeki Marui, who was then working at the center, we started the Contemporary Theater Program project.

The content of the program revolved around the three pillars of producing theater work, a competition for young directors, and theater criticism, and its central concept can be summarized as follows. The artists with whom we produced new work would take part in two years of continued involvement in the program and commit to the initiatives undertaken during that time frame. Our selection process for choosing the next generation of directing talent would be made thoroughly public. Not simply presenting the work, the program would establish opportunities for discussion for engaging with the artists’ interests or various issues related to the performing arts from multifaceted and critical perspectives. Moreover, we decided to preserve and record these parts related to discourse in a report. Imposing feedback on ourselves each time, we proceeded with the mindset of maintaining these three pillars while also remaining open to changing our approach. When it came to the task of expanding this program, we formed a planning team and received input from many others, including Masataka Matsuda as well as Toru Sakai and Naoto Moriyama from Kyoto Performing Arts Center at Kyoto University of Art and Design. (Incidentally, the latter opened in 2001, almost at the same time as Kyoto Art Center.)

Continuing our efforts in this way, the achievements gradually started to become visible. Of the works produced as part of this project, Shiro Maeda’s Isn’t Anyone Alive? won the Kishida Kunio Drama Award and Zan Yamashita’s It is written there was invited to Kunstenfestivaldesarts, the world-famous festival in Brussels. The trajectories of their subsequent activities is well known by people interested in the performing arts in Japan. Even for the parts that were harder to visualize, a network with overseas partners was steadily built up. It goes without saying that these efforts became the seeds that allowed us to work with so many superb artists from Japan and overseas in our festival today.

 

Towards the Next Step: Awareness of Community-based Activities

Unfortunately, in contrast to the growing interest from the people running the program as well as audiences, we were increasingly forced to decide about how we could continue our efforts economically. Since this project was planned in such a way as to prioritize holding events like symposia not expected to be profitable, as opposed to a project aimed at revitalizing somewhere, we were dependent on public support for much of the funding. However, we started to experience difficulties in obtaining public support from around 2008. One of the reasons we received for this was that it was hard to continue subsidizing the same program, given that it had already been going for four years from 2004 to 2007. We were told during the screening process that they wanted more novelty. Moreover, since the screening was by and large conducted by Tokyo-based specialists, we had to propose more easily comprehensible visions and results or it would be hard to catch their attention. I remember being told something very straight by a critic involved in the screening for a certain subsidy program. “It’s going to be really interesting this time, so please come see it,” I said. “In which case,” the critic replied, “do a performance also in Tokyo.” I felt an incredibly strong sense of unease at this.

In addition, it has become the custom in recent years to talk noisily about the importance of regions and communities, and even the arts sector has started to employ community originality as part of assessment criteria. From the situation mentioned above, I could sense the demand for some form of a “region” that people in Tokyo can see, even though they would never actually go there in spite of all their talk of regionality. And I also had doubts about this kind of atmosphere that sort of encourages regions to present themselves as “rural.” Before starting to write this, I found some materials to look back over the situation in the 1980s and 1990s. It seemed like people then, at a time when the infrastructure for public funding was not in place yet, went back home and could achieve original approaches in the ways they ran their projects, thus avoiding considerable overconcentration. I would like to touch on this further at a different juncture. Either way, it was certainly the case that this prompted me to think about the next stage in the development of the program.

The question of how to harness the resources of the region and establish it as a context is definitely not something that comes from external pressure. As such, I thought that if you are aware of the existence of that context, then you become persuasive only by proposing the context not just qualitatively but also quantitatively. For example, if one were to arrange it so that on a weekend people could go sightseeing as well as see two or three performances, then it would form a motivation for going to Kyoto. That is one of the reasons we chose the format of a festival.

 

Organizing the Festival

In 2009, the festival was officially confirmed and preparations began. The management body for the festival was an executive committee comprising Kyoto City, Kyoto Arts and Culture Foundation, Kyoto Art Center, and Kyoto Performing Arts Center at Kyoto University of Art and Design. This committee that forms the decision-making body not only has members from each of the participating organizations but these organizations also supply employees to take roles within the direct running of the festival. As I have explained, these organizations had by now developed connections related to contemporary theater and dance through the Contemporary Theater Program, meaning forming such an executive committee was almost a nature course of events. That being said, they were fundamentally separate organizations. Each had its own style of working and values. At committee meetings as well as on-site, discrepancy between working methods inevitably appeared, and it is a fact that there was conflict at various places. But I myself don’t view this negatively. Rather than inclining towards the styles of each organization, we searched for the format appropriate for running our festival, which, in turn, led the various parties to reassess their own activities. While this may seem somewhat minor, we could discuss and share incredibly concrete approaches to running the festival, from producing and developing publicity materials, ticket prices and ways to sell the tickets, and even venue opening times and arranging how audiences entered the venues. This all allowed us to reinterpret the performing arts not only from the perspective of the content of the theater and dance works but also from the staging. Of course, to date we have only done the festival twice and have yet to hit on the perfect approaches. We must continue searching but, at the least and without doubt, the time spent on this process has value.

back to all articles

あいうえおかきくけこさしすせそたちつてとなにぬねのはひふへほまみむめもやゆよらりるれろわゐゑをがぎぐげござじずぜぞだぢづでどばびぶべぼぱぴぷぺぁぃぅぇぉっゃゅアイウエオカキクケコサシスセソタチツテトナニヌネノハヒフヘホマミムメモヤユヨラリルレロワヰヱヲガギグゲゴザジズゼゾダヂズデドバビブベボパピプペポァィゥェォッャュヴ亜哀挨愛曖悪握圧扱宛嵐安案暗以衣位囲医依委威為畏胃尉異移萎偉椅彙意違維慰遺緯域育一壱逸茨芋引印因咽姻員院淫陰飲隠韻右宇羽雨唄鬱畝浦運雲永泳英映栄営詠影鋭衛易疫益液駅悦越謁閲円延沿炎怨宴媛援園煙猿遠鉛塩演縁艶汚王凹央応往押旺欧殴桜翁奥横岡屋億憶臆虞乙俺卸音恩温穏下化火加可仮何花佳価果河苛科架夏家荷華菓貨渦過嫁暇禍靴寡歌箇稼課蚊牙瓦我画芽賀雅餓介回灰会快戒改怪拐悔海界皆械絵開階塊楷解潰壊懐諧貝外劾害崖涯街慨蓋該概骸垣柿各角拡革格核殻郭覚較隔閣確獲嚇穫学岳楽額顎掛潟括活喝渇割葛滑褐轄且株釜鎌刈干刊甘汗缶完肝官冠巻看陥乾勘患貫寒喚堪換敢棺款間閑勧寛幹感漢慣管関歓監緩憾還館環簡観韓艦鑑丸含岸岩玩眼頑顔願企伎危机気岐希忌汽奇祈季紀軌既記起飢鬼帰基寄規亀喜幾揮期棋貴棄毀旗器畿輝機騎技宜偽欺義疑儀戯擬犠議菊吉喫詰却客脚逆虐九久及弓丘旧休吸朽臼求究泣急級糾宮救球給嗅窮牛去巨居拒拠挙虚許距魚御漁凶共叫狂京享供協況峡挟狭恐恭胸脅強教郷境橋矯鏡競響驚仰暁業凝曲局極玉巾斤均近金菌勤琴筋僅禁緊錦謹襟吟銀区句苦駆具惧愚空偶遇隅串屈掘窟熊繰君訓勲薫軍郡群兄刑形系径茎係型契計恵啓掲渓経蛍敬景軽傾携継詣慶憬稽憩警鶏芸迎鯨隙劇撃激桁欠穴血決結傑潔月犬件見券肩建研県倹兼剣拳軒健険圏堅検嫌献絹遣権憲賢謙鍵繭顕験懸元幻玄言弦限原現舷減源厳己戸古呼固股虎孤弧故枯個庫湖雇誇鼓錮顧五互午呉後娯悟碁語誤護口工公勾孔功巧広甲交光向后好江考行坑孝抗攻更効幸拘肯侯厚恒洪皇紅荒郊香候校耕航貢降高康控梗黄喉慌港硬絞項溝鉱構綱酵稿興衡鋼講購乞号合拷剛傲豪克告谷刻国黒穀酷獄骨駒込頃今困昆恨根婚混痕紺魂墾懇左佐沙査砂唆差詐鎖座挫才再災妻采砕宰栽彩採済祭斎細菜最裁債催塞歳載際埼在材剤財罪崎作削昨柵索策酢搾錯咲冊札刷刹拶殺察撮擦雑皿三山参桟蚕惨産傘散算酸賛残斬暫士子支止氏仕史司四市矢旨死糸至伺志私使刺始姉枝祉肢姿思指施師恣紙脂視紫詞歯嗣試詩資飼誌雌摯賜諮示字寺次耳自似児事侍治持時滋慈辞磁餌璽鹿式識軸七叱失室疾執湿嫉漆質実芝写社車舎者射捨赦斜煮遮謝邪蛇尺借酌釈爵若弱寂手主守朱取狩首殊珠酒腫種趣寿受呪授需儒樹収囚州舟秀周宗拾秋臭修袖終羞習週就衆集愁酬醜蹴襲十汁充住柔重従渋銃獣縦叔祝宿淑粛縮塾熟出述術俊春瞬旬巡盾准殉純循順準潤遵処初所書庶暑署緒諸女如助序叙徐除小升少召匠床抄肖尚招承昇松沼昭宵将消症祥称笑唱商渉章紹訟勝掌晶焼焦硝粧詔証象傷奨照詳彰障憧衝賞償礁鐘上丈冗条状乗城浄剰常情場畳蒸縄壌嬢錠譲醸色拭食植殖飾触嘱織職辱尻心申伸臣芯身辛侵信津神唇娠振浸真針深紳進森診寝慎新審震薪親人刃仁尽迅甚陣尋腎須図水吹垂炊帥粋衰推酔遂睡穂随髄枢崇数据杉裾寸瀬是井世正生成西声制姓征性青斉政星牲省凄逝清盛婿晴勢聖誠精製誓静請整醒税夕斥石赤昔析席脊隻惜戚責跡積績籍切折拙窃接設雪摂節説舌絶千川仙占先宣専泉浅洗染扇栓旋船戦煎羨腺詮践箋銭潜線遷選薦繊鮮全前善然禅漸膳繕狙阻祖租素措粗組疎訴塑遡礎双壮早争走奏相荘草送倉捜挿桑巣掃曹曽爽窓創喪痩葬装僧想層総遭槽踪操燥霜騒藻造像増憎蔵贈臓即束足促則息捉速側測俗族属賊続卒率存村孫尊損遜他多汰打妥唾堕惰駄太対体耐待怠胎退帯泰堆袋逮替貸隊滞態戴大代台第題滝宅択沢卓拓託濯諾濁但達脱奪棚誰丹旦担単炭胆探淡短嘆端綻誕鍛団男段断弾暖談壇地池知値恥致遅痴稚置緻竹畜逐蓄築秩窒茶着嫡中仲虫沖宙忠抽注昼柱衷酎鋳駐著貯丁弔庁兆町長挑帳張彫眺釣頂鳥朝貼超腸跳徴嘲潮澄調聴懲直勅捗沈珍朕陳賃鎮追椎墜通痛塚漬坪爪鶴低呈廷弟定底抵邸亭貞帝訂庭逓停偵堤提程艇締諦泥的笛摘滴適敵溺迭哲鉄徹撤天典店点展添転填田伝殿電斗吐妬徒途都渡塗賭土奴努度怒刀冬灯当投豆東到逃倒凍唐島桃討透党悼盗陶塔搭棟湯痘登答等筒統稲踏糖頭謄藤闘騰同洞胴動堂童道働銅導瞳峠匿特得督徳篤毒独読栃凸突届屯豚頓貪鈍曇丼那奈内梨謎鍋南軟難二尼弐匂肉虹日入乳尿任妊忍認寧熱年念捻粘燃悩納能脳農濃把波派破覇馬婆罵拝杯背肺俳配排敗廃輩売倍梅培陪媒買賠白伯拍泊迫剥舶博薄麦漠縛爆箱箸畑肌八鉢発髪伐抜罰閥反半氾犯帆汎伴判坂阪板版班畔般販斑飯搬煩頒範繁藩晩番蛮盤比皮妃否批彼披肥非卑飛疲秘被悲扉費碑罷避尾眉美備微鼻膝肘匹必泌筆姫百氷表俵票評漂標苗秒病描猫品浜貧賓頻敏瓶不夫父付布扶府怖阜附訃負赴浮婦符富普腐敷膚賦譜侮武部舞封風伏服副幅復福腹複覆払沸仏物粉紛雰噴墳憤奮分文聞丙平兵併並柄陛閉塀幣弊蔽餅米壁璧癖別蔑片辺返変偏遍編弁便勉歩保哺捕補舗母募墓慕暮簿方包芳邦奉宝抱放法泡胞俸倣峰砲崩訪報蜂豊飽褒縫亡乏忙坊妨忘防房肪某冒剖紡望傍帽棒貿貌暴膨謀頬北木朴牧睦僕墨撲没勃堀本奔翻凡盆麻摩磨魔毎妹枚昧埋幕膜枕又末抹万満慢漫未味魅岬密蜜脈妙民眠矛務無夢霧娘名命明迷冥盟銘鳴滅免面綿麺茂模毛妄盲耗猛網目黙門紋問冶夜野弥厄役約訳薬躍闇由油喩愉諭輸癒唯友有勇幽悠郵湧猶裕遊雄誘憂融優与予余誉預幼用羊妖洋要容庸揚揺葉陽溶腰様瘍踊窯養擁謡曜抑沃浴欲翌翼拉裸羅来雷頼絡落酪辣乱卵覧濫藍欄吏利里理痢裏履璃離陸立律慄略柳流留竜粒隆硫侶旅虜慮了両良料涼猟陵量僚領寮療瞭糧力緑林厘倫輪隣臨瑠涙累塁類令礼冷励戻例鈴零霊隷齢麗暦歴列劣烈裂恋連廉練錬呂炉賂路露老労弄郎朗浪廊楼漏籠六録麓論和話賄脇惑枠湾腕𠮷×ん々吾