Paula Varjack: Producing can encompass so many kinds of work and roles, how do you personally define your work as a producer? How do you explain to those who don't have any idea what a producer does? 

Beth Sitek: To me, a producer is someone who brings the whole team together. Producers bridge all departments; artistic, production, outreach (amongst others) ensuring that all work in beautiful, holistic harmony resulting in kick ass projects. I define my work as a producer by ensuring that all members of a team feel supported and well equipped for what needs to happen. As a producer, I feel it’s massively important to be transparent with everyone involved, particularly about finances as money can be something we feel icky talking about as Brits. It’s striking a balance between being realistic whilst also remaining hopeful; trying to predict the future whilst also preparing for the worse. I think it’s really important to think of producers as ‘creatives’, just like all the other members of a team.

Some people like to call themselves ‘creative producers’, I just think producers being creatives goes without saying. It’s just about championing different forms of creativity. We are exactly what Lyn Gardener says we are; young and independent producers are “rare and magical beasts and, not surprisingly, everyone wants one”.

PV: What kind of work are you driven to want to produce and support? 

BS: Everything I produce is gay af – surprise! And also womxn-led, womxn focused and celebratory. I’m passionate about producing original work and amplifying voices of new artists. Stuff that is interdisciplinary and cross-genre, work that’s in your face, absurdist, and colourful. All of the work I produce centres queer and femxle experiences across theatre, cabaret and live events. I love working with all kinds of artists and strive for strong collaborative bonds which champion co-creation and teamwork. I’m particularly passionate about supporting early career artists and lobbying for space in an industry that is very difficult to ‘break into’ and sustain. The kind of work I make is bright and bold with super weird at the centre; I like making work that transforms spaces, immerses audiences’ and celebrates one another, particularly womxn and queer folk.

PV:What aspects of being an early career artist do you feel are most misunderstood by the sector? 

BS: That all early career artists are under the age of 25! Some development schemes and venues require you to be under a certain age to apply for opportunities or access resources (in-kind space, equipment etc.) I find this problematic. You can be in the early stages of your career whatever age you are! This links to the wider understanding of needing to have some form of further education to ‘make it’ as an artist e.g. all actors go to drama school, you must go to university to train in your discipline etc. Opportunities across the sector need to reflect what early career artists actually look like. Not all artists in the early stages of their career are of a similar age, nor is there only one way of getting into the industry e.g. via formal training. Age does not determine whether or not someone is in the early stages of their career. This needs to be reflected in the opportunities available to early career artists across the sector. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

BS: How do you measure the success of your projects? Has this changed over time? Does this differ from project to project? What do you deem as ‘successful’?

PV: This definitely means something very different to me on each project. I often have aims, conscious or not, right from the start of the project, that are tied into how I make them, and how I get them into the world. Sometimes the aims are quite modest. Sometimes they are quite ambitious. Often there is both a creative aim and a social aim. With my project “Show Me The Money” I wanted to restart a nationwide conversation (that Bryony Kimmings had kicked off with #illshowyoumine ) about money in the Arts. It was a success because the 44 interviews I made, the way I shared my research as I went along, the subsequent show, tour and talks, did exactly that.

If I think about critical success, which is how I think about both Show Me The Money and The Cult of K*NZO, that is specific to reviews. Both shows were well reviewed and had a fair amount of media exposure, through features, reviews and interviews. If I think about successful reach, The Cult of K*NZO I think of as critically successful , as it was an extensive tour and many of the shows on the tour sold out. With TheBabyQuestion, all of the work in progresss performances we had felt successful in terms of impact , because all the feedback we have had from audience and peers , suggests people were very engaged and came out feeling both moved and entertained. Most recently with “Coming out to My Father” the work feels successful because I made it not knowing who the audience was, and in releasing it, it found its audience.

BS: Would you rather have feet for hands or hands for feet? 

PV: I am delighted by and genuinely have no idea how to respond to this question. I’m not even going to to try. I will let it hang there like a tongue in cheek conceptual art piece.