Ok, so where do we start?
Well, maybe with the assertion that live art and contemporary performance thrive on real stories told in different and surprising ways which can make us see the world in a new light.
And, maybe, if that's the case, it ought to be just the form that embraces and celebrates different cultures and different real-world experiences.
But, maybe also, with the perceived challenge... that live art and contemporary performance isn't currently appealing to culturally diverse artists, that the perception is that artist base is white and middle class, and therefore attracts a white middle class audience.
If all these are the case, then why the disconnect?
Has live art and contemporary performance shrouded itself in such obfuscatory and seemingly elitist terminology that it is seen as exclusive by artists and audiences alike?
Is there a gap in understanding within different communities of what those forms might entail?
Is there a predisposition within certain cultures towards certain traditional artforms?
Or is it a question of economics - who in their right mind - or certainly in a less than comfortable financial position - would enter into the most experimental sector of the least stable profession on the planet?
BIG questions... BIG assumptions... and let's get real - none of which have we got a hope of answering or addressing in a 7 day residency!
So let's get smaller... what can we look at?
Who are the artists out there who we might not be reaching? Particularly those from different cultures.
Is there a gap in their perception of the artform?
And what small contribution could we make to bridging that gap and enticing artists to explore different ways of telling their stories?