New Street Arts
After 10 years of developing a collaborative rehearsal process, PushPush Theater began to make a change toward open-sourcing all of our component programs. We are calling this entire system, "New Street Arts" and it will ultimately be a fully open-sourced arts' complex with global applications.

Each aspect of programming at New Street Arts will allow users access to the components that control programming – from discussions, readings and workshops, to film, stage and music productions. Every component part will have a point of access for every artist and every audience member. They will have the opportunity to be involved and effect changes to future work and programming.

There will still be proprietary elements to much of the work, but there will be an "in" on every aspect at New Street Arts.

Each artist and artistic group working inside of New Street Arts will also become an open-source participant. This is by far the most difficult challenge at New Street as it involves a fundamental change of thinking from the 20th Century, top-down hierarchy. We will make the transition from top-down control, so prevalent in film and stage production, to a new more personally responsible flat-hierarchy.

Becoming an open-source artist
Open-sourcing is a term that is used in many ways. It refers to a system that allows the user access to the structural components that make changes in the system possible. It is often used in identifying computer programming systems, but we are going beyond this and looking at the organizational and human relationships that make up an overall open-sourced system.

The first thing to be considered is the difference between using an open-sourced system and open-sourcing your own work. These are two very different tasks. And this process is what the following pages are about. These pages are not intended as anything more than an update on the work up to this point – and as a point of departure for future changes. This document itself is an open-source document and awaits your input.

An alternative to auditions
In the old system, access to a project involved convincing the project's "leader" or "director" that you were connected to the spirit of a project – that you could relate. It also had to do with your abilities "as judged by the project director". In a fully open-sourced system, a participant's involvement will depend on what part of the project s/he will take FULL personal responsibility for, as opposed to the typical, "Yeah, I'm looking forward to being involved in your project and having you tell me what you need me to do."

It was common in old systems to constantly "audition" and have the approval of the director. If you wanted to work, you had to convince the "owner" of the project how much you deserved to be part of it – and you did this by really believing, or pretending to believe, in his or her concept. The director had ownership and control of the project and you needed their approval to work on their project. Others had permission and were allowed to participate in the project. Once allowed to participate, because of how the project originated, it was difficult for the participant to affect any real change or to have a creative voice during the process.

"Being responsible for a project" is what gave the old-system directors their power. Many artists today disagree that with a system that gives directors all the control. Most of us, however, grew up, went to school, and were trained in a top-controlled hierarchy and even now, when we don't agree with it, it is hard to learn how to replace it with a newer system. It is clearly ingrained in the most open people.

Personal responsibility
Defending yourself or reacting against authority and control was the old approach. Having control and assuming ownership is the new approach.

The old system of top-down hierarchy places many of the areas of greatest responsibility with the producers and directors: "financial responsibility", "over-all time frames" and "project follow-up", were all areas that directors and producers took care of.

In a number of ways, this system had real advantages: "Talent" felt that the old system allowed them to respond spontaneously to their artistic impulses. They often felt that not having to deal with bigger, over-all issues relating to the production would allow them more freedom to "play and discover". Having a director looking after the bigger issues allowed them a safe place to focus on being "creative".

Having someone responsible for the bigger issues also allowed them to blame someone else when things went wrong. It allowed them the chance to demand things from the higher-ups, like wages and salary and benefits, and it allowed them the opportunity to quit or "phone it in" when their demands weren't met. In exchange for this, many felt okay about giving up a say in how the work was chosen and the process used to create the production.

To be in control in a top-down hierarchy, you need to control the finances. This is how to do this in a nutshell: In order to apply for funding (as an organization) or raise capital for producers, you have to make your plans known. If agreed upon, these plans become the contract between the funders and the financial producers. The project producers in turn, hire artists and can give them a portion of the money raised.

At New Street Arts, we help individual artists develop their own plans in a similar manner, in order to allow them to have control in a project, affect change, and to help others to do the same.

In this open-sourced system, you say what you're going to do and when you're going to get it done. If you get it done on time, you ask for more, if you don't, you try again – or you quit.

How does an open-soured approach change daily activity?
Because everyone takes on the responsibility for the project in a flat hierarchy, you don't have the "lower-downs" waiting on direction from the "higher-ups". The plan for the day has already been established or that person wouldn't be on the shoot or in the rehearsal room. The most noticeable change to a rehearsal process or shooting day will be in the continual formation of ad hoc problem solving groups invested in finding an answer to the problem of the moment. Everyone will have goals they need to accomplish, so they don't sit off to the side, while the "higher ups" take control.

Bitching, whining and being a victim is what you're left with when someone else takes all the control of daily planning. Complaining about the process becomes pointless when you created it.

Exactly how does one open-source their work?
You begin when you make public what you're planning to get done. Let other people know your plan. Your plan states what steps you are taking to accomplish your tasks and the time frame in which you are working. It is this stating of your plans and how they are going to get done, that is the "source" you make "open" to others. It connects others to the source – the source of your decision making: what you're planning to do and how, when and where you'll do it. This open-sourcing also allows other planners the opportunity to be your collaborators instead of your competitors. It is also this contract, with yourself and others, that makes you a collaborator in the project. It is what you bring to the table – your "buy-in".

By articulating your plan you expose the steps you are taking to accomplish your goals. Others can therefore offer help, and possibly have a voice and effect change. You can likewise access other plans in the network. In a top-down system, everything that goes on before you hear the words: "we've come to the following decision", is kept behind closed doors. The control of your own plans in a proprietary fashion is a difficult thing to ask folks to give up. One probably never gives it up completely, but the more you can let go of the proprietary ownership of your own designs, the more you allow collaboration. But it takes a pretty confident person to do this.

Plans need collaborators "What's the value of open-sourcing my project?"
Film and performance are unique in that they can't be done alone. Even if it's a one-person, self-developed project you probably need someone to bring the lights up and down, or to hold the boom mic, someone to provide a venue or location, and you need an audience. Therefore, one has to set goals in agreement another person or people. You can't tell someone that you've agreed to have sex with them – it requires an agreement between two or more.

This is the start of collaboration. But real collaboration happens when each collaborator is responsible for a needed ingredient. (One person has a kite and one has a string.) Just being a talented grip on a shoot, or a bass player in a band, or playing the role of Stanley in Streetcar, doesn't make that person a collaborator because you can do all of these things without taking ownership of the project.

The smallest unit of work in an open-source structure is a conversation. A top-down system is built on the man with a plan: a director has an idea and gets others to help him/her produce that idea.

In an open-source system, you start by sharing a conversation. These conversations grow and involve more people and each step of this progress is measured against your artistic planning. When this works well, we find that, as the initial conversation grows to include more collaboration, the planning also develops. This is the heart of open-sourcing versus proprietary thinking – people are affecting change and having control in a system in which they are participating.

Hopefully the conversation grows to include an audience. As the audience grows, if one remains open-sourced, the audience members become collaborators and because of this, they become a more savvy audience. Many business and I.T. companies have shown this to be a major benefit both in terms of quality and financial growth, but only recently have film and performance groups tapped into the bigger advantages of an open-source relationship with their audiences.

Toward a self-sustaining system
One benefit to working collaboratively and not competitively is that it creates opportunities and replenishes your numbers. As you learn from those with more experience you step into more advanced positions. As you leave your old position, you help create opportunities for those who are less experienced. It is necessary, if not required, in this system, to always have someone you're studying with and someone to mentor.

Finally...

Here are some practical steps that need to be taken to get started:

Make an artistic plan. It can sound a little simple minded, but an active changeable plan allows you to make opportunities out of problems in a very real way. Bitching stops and creative work begins. It is your willingness to take on the full responsibility for your plan of action. This allows open-sourcing and open-sourcing allows for collaboration.
The building of new and valuable artistic relationships and personal artistic growth is now measurable. We can't have open access to your work, support you, connect you with others, provide space, etc., if you don't tell us what you are planning. And you can't have access to our work and resources if you don't know what we're planning.

What makes a good plan?

Be specific. A clear workable plan needs to be very specific. An example of a plan not working would be if someone stated that they "hope to get better at operating a DV camera". All you can do at that point is to "hope" with them. Instead of this general hope, they can, instead, set up a six-week DV camera workshop on Wednesdays from 7 to 8:30. Now you have access and something that has a time-line and it is something on which you can build.

Build on what came before. This is very important. It is difficult to collaborate with an artist that makes decisions randomly on a daily basis. Following your artistic impulses is very important, but when there is no thread or consistency, it makes it impossible for anyone else to access your work and to collaborate with you – because you keep changing the playing field. Consistency along with building on existing steps in a progress, allows other collaborators to have access. When you feel a spontaneous change of direction coming on, take the extra step of including the change in your open plan. (trust me, this really doesn't "kill the moment".)

Random decisions or impulse changes are also the easiest way to maintain proprietary ownership of an artistic project and keep others from knowing how, why and when decisions are made – including the daily decisions in your own mind. This is how any special group maintains control over other groups and individuals. It is also how individuals survived in a top-down hierarchy: privacy and secrecy and an ever changing set of rules. It worked for some individuals, but to the detriment of whole groups. In the 21st century, it is not a system that will survive.

Thanks for reading. Now it's up to you to give some feedback on what you've read, and to ask questions and offer additions to make this document better.

The following pages provide two sets of examples for those wanting to open-source their work.

1. Start up advice for those new to this work and/or those you are mentoring.

2. Suggestions for those experienced in open-source work.

For someone just starting out in open-source work and for those you are mentoring:

CHICAGO EXCHANGE
Let's say you want to be involved in our exchange with a Chicago theater. Great. Get involved. Start to catch up to the conversation. Read their website – and read ours! Compare the two. When did they start? What is their mission? Read some of the playwrights they work with or research some of their performers. Talk to folks who have been there. Get to know a bit about Chicago theater in general. Read, research and discuss.

While you are doing this preparation, be responsible: look for bigger conversations that you can take part in and find out what tasks need to be completed. For example: if one of the playwrights you read about on the web-page isn't known well in Atlanta. Great! Attend a reading. Or help set up a reading. Or come and be a reader in the reading. Talk to other folks about the playwright. See where that takes you. You're now becoming a part of the exchange.

Now you're a small part of this ongoing conversation about the exchange but you still aren't traveling back and forth between Atlanta and Chicago. Start looking for things that are needed in the actual exchange. You probably won't start as a director, writer or as a lead actor. But don't be discouraged. People rarely start where they want to end up and if you do, you rarely last long.

TIME FRAMES: Get a real idea about how long it will take to achieve your set goals.

Although you may not come into the project as the lead-writer or director – there are steps to getting there. And these steps come with various time-frames. Most frustrations are caused because someone simply doesn't understand what a normal time-frame is in learning any given position or skill. For example you can't become a director of photography or have a trained actor's vocal projection in only one year. And you can't do it without regular practice, training and several years of planned steps. You can't learn to write a well-structured feature-film script by just watching movies and talking about ideas. Get to know realistic time-frames and what is involved and you can better avoid frustration and career burnout.

Once you've identified a job you're interested in and one that has a time-frame that is a good fit for your commitment, tell people what you want to do and find someone who needs to have that job done. There are always openings! Be persistent. If nothing else presents itself, be an observer. It's a great way to start.

Now, when you finally get to Chicago, don't bitch that the weather's too cold and the food's too expensive. Instead, look for things you can learn. This is why we call it exchange work and not vacation. Be open-minded, create a bigger conversation. Take an equal responsibility for the exchanging of knowledge rather than bitching about things that don't happen to please you. Don't complain that the nightlife in Chicago sucks or that it's better in New York. Make something happen. Your ability to have fun in a strange city is up to you -- not the city and not other people.

As you become an integral part of the exchange, make sure that your own personal goals have a long-term component. This way, if your housing is not up to par, you can take responsibility for making it better next time, instead of wasting everyone's time and patience by complaining about it now. A series of events instead of one "all important trip" allows each project to be a step toward the next. Problems become opportunities for improving the whole exchange.

If everything was perfect according to you, there would be no need for you to be a part of the exchange in the first place. And if everything everywhere was to everyone's liking, there would be no reason for exchange ever. And all the wars would stop. The necessary parts of an exchange are 1. having a need, 2. identifying the need, and 3. finding ways to address that need.

2nd EXAMPLE:
For those who have had experience in collaborative work and are interested in working on the GRFX series...

Open-sourcing is a new kind of thinking. It's new in film and theater process and no one can say definitively what it will end up meaning. Part of the GRFX series is to develop a new language in this regard. Open-sourcing with the GRFX series means that you and others can have access to what's going on. If you ask, we will keep you posted on gatherings, treatments, script work and the other component parts where decisions are made. If you ask, you can tap into the source of the planning about the series. Come to readings, come to workshops -- come to everything. If you can't come, email as much as you can. Fight for your right to play. No one's going to hand this to you, but you can damn well get your foot in the door. What you do at that point is up to you.

You don't have to work with me, or them or anybody you don't want to. Just because it's open and collaborative doesn't mean anyone is making you do something. Some people worry about too many people getting involved and having opinions. Fuck that. Very few people suffer from too much interest in their work. Most suffer from obscurity.

Millions of people use open-source projects like Wikipedia every day. It's open. If you don't understand how Wikipedia stays on track, or has a higher accuracy level that older encyclopedias – or if you're confused as to how it survives financially or how it drives a billion dollar economy – this is a discussion you and I need to have. GRFX is not starting from scratch and we have done our homework. The same information is out there for you in many forms. Talk to me, talk to others, read books and do your research.

Does open sourcing let you hop off your couch and become a famous writer or actor? No. Does it guarantee anything? No. But it's a lot better than not having an opportunity to get involved. In this business, there are no guarantees and success is much harder than you ever imagined. That said, I hope folks realize that what we are doing here is an attempt to give individual artists more control over the work they want to be involved in.

The most common roadblock we face in trying to create an open-sourced system comes when the individual participant wastes time finding all the ways they can shoot holes in the process and/or wastes time telling us how confusing it is. We know there are going to be problems, and we also are keenly aware that this entire process can be confusing. We don't want to waste our time with an old system and we certainly don't want to waste our time working on something that a newcomer can understand fully in a matter of days. This project is far from perfect, and one that is going to take a long time to master. Are you in?

It's always easier to find what's wrong with an idea, or to be confused and "not get it", but with a little effort, working to make the most of our opportunities can be good for all of us. I am asking for your help. I love criticism and trouble shooting as long as the goal is an attempt to step up to the plate. Someone wanting to sit on their ass, not take full responsibility for anything concrete, and shoot holes in creative artists' initial ideas isn't worth dealing with. All art starts imperfect and where there is hesitation and doubt, nothing gets accomplished.

Collaborating or being beneficent
Currently we have a lot of confusion between someone being beneficent and someone being collaborative. Beneficence is what nice dictators think collaboration is. It's bullshit. "I give you the right to make a suggestion and then I may or may not allow it."

Collaboration, on the other hands, is the scariest of processes. It's when one person has a string and another has a kite. It's when we have to work something out. We're trying to build a project that requires collaboration not simply allows it. The scary part is that you have to own something in order to collaborate. You have to take ownership of something. You can't go along for a while and then drop out and blame someone else for it not working. You are the project and its success is your responsibility and not some guy above you that is making you a victim.

The biggest form of this confusion exists when people confuse availability with participation. They say, "I'm definitely interested. Just give me a call and let me know what you need me to do." This immediately creates a top-down, beneficent relationship.

How can you actually get started working?

Start. PushPush is an ongoing process that we began in 1991. The series project began as a follow up to a movie-play that involved three writers and two directors. We then worked on a stage production in the summer of 2006 that involved 15 writers. That project led to the GRFX series that will grow even more. We haven't perfected anything, but we've made lots of improvements. If you're just getting started, get to the heart of this conversation. How? Start listening. Ask questions, talk, argue, and participate. And if you don't live here or if you go to bed early, get one of those new-fangled email gadgets. Email is connecting the world every day.

There are also many jobs that need to be done. Tim, Dave, Shelby and others can always produce a list of tasks that need to be done. If you're not sure what to do next, ask!

Read the updates on the GRFX treatment and ask more questions. Don't just try and find out what you can shoot holes in. Try and see if you can catch up to the conversation. Then get more information to read. And when you've done your background work, add to the conversation that's always moving forward.

Reading something without sharing or discussing what you've read is rather pointless in an open-source system.

Make an artistic plan. Just do it. I mean, put something down that is specific and lets the rest of us know what you're bringing to the table. Tell us what you're going to take responsibility for so that someone can give you credit when you do it, or someone can question you when you don't. Put something on the line.

If you don't have anything else, here's a great starter plan. "I will, by _______(date), hook up with three other individuals who have worked on an open-source plan, and complete a first draft of mine by _________(date). Easy enough?

Taking full responsibility for something is putting something on the line. In the above starter-plan example, this person has to produce his work by the date s/he said she would. Playing poker without putting something on the table is not playing poker – and claiming to be part of a project that you don't have a personal stake in it, is also bullshit. Sorry.

If you aren't interested in getting involved... fine. Obviously not everyone is going to be interested. It's an opportunity for some and won't be right for others. If you don't want to get involved, can you at least hope the best for those who do. Many opportunities will come out of this project. Many things we can all benefit from. Maybe down the line, you'll decide to get involved. Maybe you'll just come and buy a ticket one day.

The point of developing an exchange program is the hope that your city that merits exchange. Paris does not need an exchange program with Dolthan, Alabama. The question is, does Berlin need one with Atlanta? Or America with Germany? If you don't work on GRFX, maybe another project you're working on will go into the creative capital that your city is trying to build. A script you're working on may get a boost from this project or maybe this project will help provide equipment, crew and skills that you can use later.

My question is, "Do I stay here and make it happen, or go to New York or LA where others have already made it happen, and try and join them?"