Convenor: Amelia
Summary:
- No funding cuts
- Let the arts deliver other policies outside the arts policies- embed us in health, education, economy, employment etc.
- The Arts Council to be less wary of commercialism- it is not always a dirty word.
- More sharing of resources between arts organisations.
- Experts in each of the art forms to deliver funding. Job swaps and sabbaticals for Arts Council relationship managers.
- Job swaps between venue managers and small companies
- Funders to encourage and value risk taking.
- Funders to uphold the importance of access and inclusion.
- Encourage diversity by distributing government funding not solely through the Arts Council. Could DCMS give to trusts and foundations?
- ACE officers to train local authority funders.
- A target of number of performances that ACE officers have to see.
- National roll out of the ‘percent for arts’ scheme where building developers must set aside a certain amount of their budget for supporting arts in new communities.
- Performing Arts to be on the national curriculum at key stage 3 as a subject in its own right, not part of English.
- Extension of existing Creative Partnerships to place more artists in schools.
We then got into a bigger, ideological discussion about why every time a new government comes in we have to have to re-establish the importance of the arts. We agreed that as artists we have not made the case to the British public/government that the arts are an incontestable social good.
We discussed advertising campaigns for Theatre as a whole and confidence in speaking out in defence of theatre and the arts.
Jonathan Holmes (jon) is collecting email addresses of anyone who might be interested in joining a policy group that could work on delivering the ideas which have come out of the Arts Campaign D&Ds.
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Monday, 10 May 2010
If Change Funding Where From?
Convenor: Liz Porter
Summary
I called this session as I am concerned that if the Conservatives get in, the Arts Council will become even smaller and I’m concerned we will lose disability arts and that if fear of change. Fear that there will be less support for individuals, lots of pressure to look for corporate funding.
If ACE cut there will be a lack of understanding and would local authorities understand access, how they assess expertise around disability and access issues.
Will we have to tick more boxes?
High levels of competition for small pots of funding
Summary
I called this session as I am concerned that if the Conservatives get in, the Arts Council will become even smaller and I’m concerned we will lose disability arts and that if fear of change. Fear that there will be less support for individuals, lots of pressure to look for corporate funding.
If ACE cut there will be a lack of understanding and would local authorities understand access, how they assess expertise around disability and access issues.
Will we have to tick more boxes?
High levels of competition for small pots of funding
Friday, 9 April 2010
What kind of work is being done? How can we get ACE to tell us (collect statistics)
Convenor: David James
Summary:
1- The Tories want to push the "American" system of corporate sponsorship/patronage. How do we ensure that this is a partner (Vs a replacement) for Government funding?
2- MPs (from any party) DO want to know how/what is being funded in their patch (ACE, LA, Corporate etc). Who will tell them?
These can be used to lobby for further support- or point out areas of weakness
3- Many parliamentary 'groups' (football, beer, to cite obvious cases) are corporately funded. How can we appeal to parliamentarians to get them more actively involved and passionate about the arts?
Summary:
1- The Tories want to push the "American" system of corporate sponsorship/patronage. How do we ensure that this is a partner (Vs a replacement) for Government funding?
2- MPs (from any party) DO want to know how/what is being funded in their patch (ACE, LA, Corporate etc). Who will tell them?
These can be used to lobby for further support- or point out areas of weakness
3- Many parliamentary 'groups' (football, beer, to cite obvious cases) are corporately funded. How can we appeal to parliamentarians to get them more actively involved and passionate about the arts?
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
109 Does it matter to us who’s in the next government?
Convener: Tassos Stevens
Participants: included… Jonathan Holmes, Jon Spooner, David Betz-Heinemann, Mark Moreau, Chris Goode, Lyndsey Jackson, Greg McLaren, Jonny Liron, and many others I don’t have
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The headlines…
It doesn’t matter to us with respect to the likely funding landscape which party is in power. The Tories will cut funding to the arts, Labour will have the rhetoric but very likely that provision will be eroded. We end up in the same place.
If we want to challenge this, then we need to lobby and campaign effectively to make the argument for the value of the arts in our society. Very practical thinking ensued.
Jonathan Holmes has taken the lead and mailed the following around, which summarises beautifully where we’re at; mail him on jonathan at jerichohouse.org.uk if you want to get involved.
[I’ll write up additional notes from the session and post at http://bit.ly/dd5artvalue]
This is by way of a follow-up to the discussion at D & D on Sunday about the importance of the general election result to the arts.
We concluded that, whichever party forms the next government, the likely impact on arts funding will be negative, and the only partisan difference will be the rhetoric and processes accompanying the inevitable cuts. In fact, it's probable that the next governmental spending review will have a devastating outcome for all in the arts unless we act very quickly.
It follows that the time to do something about this is now, when there's a chance of influencing election manifestos and campaign pledges, rather than after the fact, when the task will be so much harder. It's easier to influence a decision in the process of being thought through than it is to reverse one already made.
Several examples of successful lobbying campaigns were discussed on Sunday, such as the campaign to save BAC, the climate change lobby, Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas and so forth. Each of these has elements from which we can learn, and most importantly they all demonstrate that something CAN be done, if we want it to be. If we do nothing now then we'll have no right to complain when everything goes pear-shaped in a few years' time.
An immediate action we agreed upon was the creation of a document in which all the arguments for the value of the arts - economic, social, philosophical, political - were gathered together in one place. This would then form the basis of a campaign manifesto which would sit at the core of all our activities.
I offered to compile this document to set the ball rolling, but it's a lot of work and I'd appreciate your help - if there are any nuggets of evidence you can supply to demonstrate the value of the arts, please pass them over. It's really important that such nuggets be facts or statistics, NOT anecdotes or dearly held personal beliefs; the campaign has to be as empirical and non-ideological as possible.
As to the next step, it was suggested that the best way of organising this might be a kind of cellular structure, with everyone doing what they could in their own way and connecting via a set of principles and methods, rather than setting up a formal organisation. But it seems that this would still need a kind of a steering group to co-ordinate certain activities. So maybe the best next step would be to arrange a particular D & D session at the Actors' Centre to talk all this through?
Finally, to gauge ongoing support for starting such a campaign, could I ask you all to reply to this email, indicating how involved you're able to be? One line will do, and all levels of involvement, from the tiny to the considerable, are appreciated. And if no-one responds, I won't rush around writing the arts value document... Equally, if there are people you know who want to be involved, please pass their emails over and I'll add them to this initial list; perhaps someone else could then take over from me in administering the group...?!
I know from conversations elsewhere that there's a significant groundswell of support for this sort of campaign throughout the arts world; let's not let the opportunity pass by!
Thanks everyone, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you!
a blog on the topic has been started here: http://valuethearts.wordpress.com/
Participants: included… Jonathan Holmes, Jon Spooner, David Betz-Heinemann, Mark Moreau, Chris Goode, Lyndsey Jackson, Greg McLaren, Jonny Liron, and many others I don’t have
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The headlines…
It doesn’t matter to us with respect to the likely funding landscape which party is in power. The Tories will cut funding to the arts, Labour will have the rhetoric but very likely that provision will be eroded. We end up in the same place.
If we want to challenge this, then we need to lobby and campaign effectively to make the argument for the value of the arts in our society. Very practical thinking ensued.
Jonathan Holmes has taken the lead and mailed the following around, which summarises beautifully where we’re at; mail him on jonathan at jerichohouse.org.uk if you want to get involved.
[I’ll write up additional notes from the session and post at http://bit.ly/dd5artvalue]
This is by way of a follow-up to the discussion at D & D on Sunday about the importance of the general election result to the arts.
We concluded that, whichever party forms the next government, the likely impact on arts funding will be negative, and the only partisan difference will be the rhetoric and processes accompanying the inevitable cuts. In fact, it's probable that the next governmental spending review will have a devastating outcome for all in the arts unless we act very quickly.
It follows that the time to do something about this is now, when there's a chance of influencing election manifestos and campaign pledges, rather than after the fact, when the task will be so much harder. It's easier to influence a decision in the process of being thought through than it is to reverse one already made.
Several examples of successful lobbying campaigns were discussed on Sunday, such as the campaign to save BAC, the climate change lobby, Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas and so forth. Each of these has elements from which we can learn, and most importantly they all demonstrate that something CAN be done, if we want it to be. If we do nothing now then we'll have no right to complain when everything goes pear-shaped in a few years' time.
An immediate action we agreed upon was the creation of a document in which all the arguments for the value of the arts - economic, social, philosophical, political - were gathered together in one place. This would then form the basis of a campaign manifesto which would sit at the core of all our activities.
I offered to compile this document to set the ball rolling, but it's a lot of work and I'd appreciate your help - if there are any nuggets of evidence you can supply to demonstrate the value of the arts, please pass them over. It's really important that such nuggets be facts or statistics, NOT anecdotes or dearly held personal beliefs; the campaign has to be as empirical and non-ideological as possible.
As to the next step, it was suggested that the best way of organising this might be a kind of cellular structure, with everyone doing what they could in their own way and connecting via a set of principles and methods, rather than setting up a formal organisation. But it seems that this would still need a kind of a steering group to co-ordinate certain activities. So maybe the best next step would be to arrange a particular D & D session at the Actors' Centre to talk all this through?
Finally, to gauge ongoing support for starting such a campaign, could I ask you all to reply to this email, indicating how involved you're able to be? One line will do, and all levels of involvement, from the tiny to the considerable, are appreciated. And if no-one responds, I won't rush around writing the arts value document... Equally, if there are people you know who want to be involved, please pass their emails over and I'll add them to this initial list; perhaps someone else could then take over from me in administering the group...?!
I know from conversations elsewhere that there's a significant groundswell of support for this sort of campaign throughout the arts world; let's not let the opportunity pass by!
Thanks everyone, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you!
a blog on the topic has been started here: http://valuethearts.wordpress.com/
Friday, 5 February 2010
088 Can I still be an Artist and be in musical theatre?
Convener: Nigel Richards
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Michele Frankel, Nick Coupe, Amy Ip, Sophie Larsmon, Andrea Kantor, Leo Ward, and others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There seemed no argument in whether one can be an artist in Musical theatre. The responsibility, whatever the art form, was with the performer and our innate sense of the need and search for quality/ integrity and truth even in the face of the Accountants and Producers who run the ‘product’. In the mega-musical it should be a given that the artist surrenders him/herself to the ‘magnificent machine’ of a large or long-running production- but does this not deny the special-ness of the Artist? A ballet dancer is expected to fill the template with exactitude- why not the musical theatre performer?
The problem arises because Musical Theatre is the most debased of all the art forms for cultural and financial reasons. The Americans lay claim to inventing two art forms: the Musical and Jazz. Conversely, England considers the written word (through poem, novel and play) as its major cultural legacy. The United states revere both musical theatre writers and performers, and look after the future of the art form by inviting innovation in such buildings as the York Theatre, Playrights’ Horizons and the Lincoln Centre. There is heavy subsidy for the American Musical, whereas here, the Arts Council largely ignored the musical because it was deemed a commercial endeavour, whilst NESTA gave up it final ‘a’ for Arts!
So expensive are the big musicals that there is a poisonous trend to replicate what was a success (Les Miserable spawning the through sung form, Mama Mia gving birth to many ugly ‘back catalogue’ musicals.) What we forget is that Mama Mia and Les Miserables, even Cats, were innovative and ground-breaking in their time, not a perpetuation of an already existing template.
We have no such buildings here in which failure and innovation are encouraged. The play has The Bush, The Royal Court, National and Soho theatres- where is the Musicals’ home? Musical theatre is perceived in the UK as a popularist and commercial form, an arena of the emotion and not of ideas (as in say the work of Sondheim.) If the costs of mounting the big musicals are prohibitive and the producers seek a return on their huge investment (which make the producers have the final artistic power), where are the smaller pieces, the chamber musicals? It seems that these are being sold as plays in which the musical content is ignored in the publicity so as not to wrong-foot an audience with a certain preconception of scale when it comes to The Musical (eg. Enron, Serious Money etc). To perpetuate any art form there has to be allowed an environment of risk, innovation, and failure. When artists/ writers are out of their comfort zone they create something new, vibrant and specific to the times in which they are written.
In the end the new musical has to both have a building (Andrew Lloyd Webber has long promised a theatre specifically for new musical writing but this has not materialized in 10 years) or be borne from the artists themselves (eg Shockheaded Peter).Then we might truly have an Art-form in which the Musical Theatre performer is at last considered an Artist
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Michele Frankel, Nick Coupe, Amy Ip, Sophie Larsmon, Andrea Kantor, Leo Ward, and others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
There seemed no argument in whether one can be an artist in Musical theatre. The responsibility, whatever the art form, was with the performer and our innate sense of the need and search for quality/ integrity and truth even in the face of the Accountants and Producers who run the ‘product’. In the mega-musical it should be a given that the artist surrenders him/herself to the ‘magnificent machine’ of a large or long-running production- but does this not deny the special-ness of the Artist? A ballet dancer is expected to fill the template with exactitude- why not the musical theatre performer?
The problem arises because Musical Theatre is the most debased of all the art forms for cultural and financial reasons. The Americans lay claim to inventing two art forms: the Musical and Jazz. Conversely, England considers the written word (through poem, novel and play) as its major cultural legacy. The United states revere both musical theatre writers and performers, and look after the future of the art form by inviting innovation in such buildings as the York Theatre, Playrights’ Horizons and the Lincoln Centre. There is heavy subsidy for the American Musical, whereas here, the Arts Council largely ignored the musical because it was deemed a commercial endeavour, whilst NESTA gave up it final ‘a’ for Arts!
So expensive are the big musicals that there is a poisonous trend to replicate what was a success (Les Miserable spawning the through sung form, Mama Mia gving birth to many ugly ‘back catalogue’ musicals.) What we forget is that Mama Mia and Les Miserables, even Cats, were innovative and ground-breaking in their time, not a perpetuation of an already existing template.
We have no such buildings here in which failure and innovation are encouraged. The play has The Bush, The Royal Court, National and Soho theatres- where is the Musicals’ home? Musical theatre is perceived in the UK as a popularist and commercial form, an arena of the emotion and not of ideas (as in say the work of Sondheim.) If the costs of mounting the big musicals are prohibitive and the producers seek a return on their huge investment (which make the producers have the final artistic power), where are the smaller pieces, the chamber musicals? It seems that these are being sold as plays in which the musical content is ignored in the publicity so as not to wrong-foot an audience with a certain preconception of scale when it comes to The Musical (eg. Enron, Serious Money etc). To perpetuate any art form there has to be allowed an environment of risk, innovation, and failure. When artists/ writers are out of their comfort zone they create something new, vibrant and specific to the times in which they are written.
In the end the new musical has to both have a building (Andrew Lloyd Webber has long promised a theatre specifically for new musical writing but this has not materialized in 10 years) or be borne from the artists themselves (eg Shockheaded Peter).Then we might truly have an Art-form in which the Musical Theatre performer is at last considered an Artist
Thursday, 4 February 2010
077 The Sectors: Commercial v Subsidized
Convener: David Luff
Participants: About 3
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Issues discussed:
- different funding models
- sustainability of both sectors
- ticket prices
- audience figures
- marketing + outreach + audience development
RESPONSIBILITY:
- towards building upkeep
- towards “art”
- towards new audiences and the “young”
- towards society in general
- who should artists answer to?
Partnerships for funding between both sectors and the collaborations that can emerge: e.g. Kneehigh and Pugh& Rogers with Brief Encounter
Where does the Fringe fall? Is it subsidized or commercial?
• Freedom of Artistic Content - which has more freedom?
-Does the need to to adhere to Arts Council priorities restrict the amount of freedom that subsidized companies can expect to have?
- Are commercial producers “freer” in any sense in that they can produce whatever they want, or are they held back due to the need to make a profit?
- Which sector is best placed to create art for arts sake, as opposed to art governed by political objectives, or art decided by popularity?
Ticket prices:
- Should there be a compulsion on commercial producers to always have a certain amount of cheap tickets (e.g. £10) for people? Or for this sector, should market forces always work unfettered – with producers charging whatever they want.
• Fundamentally trying to work out whether creativity can flourish in the commercial sector – in a sector driven by profit? What are the necessary ingredients for creativity?
Participants: About 3
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Issues discussed:
- different funding models
- sustainability of both sectors
- ticket prices
- audience figures
- marketing + outreach + audience development
RESPONSIBILITY:
- towards building upkeep
- towards “art”
- towards new audiences and the “young”
- towards society in general
- who should artists answer to?
Partnerships for funding between both sectors and the collaborations that can emerge: e.g. Kneehigh and Pugh& Rogers with Brief Encounter
Where does the Fringe fall? Is it subsidized or commercial?
• Freedom of Artistic Content - which has more freedom?
-Does the need to to adhere to Arts Council priorities restrict the amount of freedom that subsidized companies can expect to have?
- Are commercial producers “freer” in any sense in that they can produce whatever they want, or are they held back due to the need to make a profit?
- Which sector is best placed to create art for arts sake, as opposed to art governed by political objectives, or art decided by popularity?
Ticket prices:
- Should there be a compulsion on commercial producers to always have a certain amount of cheap tickets (e.g. £10) for people? Or for this sector, should market forces always work unfettered – with producers charging whatever they want.
• Fundamentally trying to work out whether creativity can flourish in the commercial sector – in a sector driven by profit? What are the necessary ingredients for creativity?
066 How can we create ‘permanent’ ensembles and survive?
Convener: Simon Pittman
Participants: David Luff, Anne Langford, Aaron Minnigin, Emily Kempson, Laura Kriefman, Emma Dedein, Simon Wilkinson, Sophie Austin, Jennifer Moule, Hugh Hayes, Loren O’Dair, Philippa Wilkinson, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Jo Turner, Liz Chen, Lee Evan.
***We are collecting contact details for anyone who wishes to continue a dialogue on this subject and way of working. If you wish to be involved please email me with your name and how you might look to participate in this kind of work: Simon Pittman: simon at roughfiction.com
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion also became a very useful discussion on running a small or emerging company and the risks and considerations that brings up. Here are collected notes on the session which touched on.
- examples of companies operating permanent ensembles (‘permanent’ was originally offered as a loose and provocative term to discuss building ongoing companies and a focus on the actors craft)
- The appeal of a permanent ensemble
- Funding issues
- The risks to the work, people and organisational structures
- Why we want to
- How we keep people together
- How do we survive and sustain?
Example companies to consider:
Steppenwolf, Gardzienice, Theatr Piesn Kozla, various German models, Dundee Rep, Kneehigh, Complicite, Maly St Petersburg, RSC, Propella, Theatro Viva, Colchester Mercury, Strange Face, Likely Story etc, Theatre By The Lake (REP / Building) The Wooster Group, Forced Entertainment, Labyrinth in New York
Notes Transcribed:
Sustainability or funding is key.
We are talking about regular collaborators
Living on premises, a building? – Does it just then become about running a space.
We agreed that a permanent ensemble first and foremost needs to be enabled to make work continuously and that an overall vision is key to the structuring and commitment of the company and its members. We must keep self-reflective on this.
What is The Appeal?
Ownership, quality, deeper and lasting, rich connections and understanding between those working and acting together
THE OFFER OF ONGOING TRAINING
Building a shared understanding of why you are making this work together
No type casting, being able to explore a wider range of role and knowing what parts you will be working on a long time in advance and over a longer period of time: more in depth process: Good example in REP and more traditional models in UK (Pitlochery, Theatre By The Lake for example)
Collective decision making in the company: moves towards a model of the collective…
Difference between the employed actor and the core collective company.
Notes continued
Decision to be made: CREATIVE COLLECTIVE Vs Actor’s Ensemble or company. (Hierarchy and ownership models are different and one should think carefully about these expectations before committing.
‘Ensemble’ was defined by one member of the group as ‘a number of actors paid on regular salary to engage in REP’.
We discussed how an ensemble can be self-selecting as in The Mercury’s model in Colchester: if actors are asked back for a second season they are then in the ensemble – ‘a current core’. This also allows for the passing on of skills through osmosis (another appeal of ensembles).
Putting an ensemble together should be about the work, not about trying to break into or work your way into an industry. It has to come from a passion, a shared interest and desire to create great work first, recognition can follow.
We wonder whether the ‘jobbing actor vocation’ is acting as a barrier to establishing more permanent ensembles in the core of UK theatre.
Survival?
Educational component to the company – e.g.: Creative Partnerships, workshop programs, the’ Extended Schools Program’
Funding through training and offering similar public services
Running a building and renting / managing (also means restrictions and other administrative pressures) and touring
Reputation in training
RFO (Regularly Funded Organisations) or venues as a home
Working in rural, regional and non London locations
Again, a strong and reflective understanding and awareness of why and for whom you are making work.
Supportive Places and their benefits (Venues etc)
- An office
- Links to other ensembles and associates
- Good example models of this are The Point in Eastleigh’s innovative Phase 3 program, Home from Home and Quartered Artists programs or Farnham Maltings etc.
- As with the above, larger funding pots are accessible as a result
- Time, space and less pressure than city based environments
- Links to creative partnerships – new audiences and community inspiration
Mentoring and asking for help
How do we keep people together? (notably larger numbers and those who come together on a post training, professional basis)
A strong vision, energy and clarity of why you are together
Shared and individual recognition of ownership and what you are sharing
Taking time to recognise individuals’ strengths and skills, and our differences
Recognising the need for new blood
The Visionary: the draw of learning and working with/from each other.
Keep asking why in the positive
Notes Continued
Dundee Rep was offered as an example:
Core funding was sourced by one very determined and passionate individual for three years from many different sources
It has a small ensemble of actors, often later in their careers who wish to settle and work with further apprentice members who work over say one year and offer an answer to the need to ensure new blood is offered to keep things fresh.
International links
They also offer professional development for members and those outside the org. (much like RSC).
Notes Continued
Steven Winnery made a practical proposition to us all: He has a studio in Stratford which is available for this kind of work he would like people to submit to for space. June – October 2010: stevenwinnery@yahoo.co.uk
There seems to be a question of scale here too. There are two very different sets of obstacles that present them self on the no-money-work-together-because-you’re-all-passionate side and the fully funded permanent ensembles.
Someone said we must allow for shifts in scale within ensembles
It has to start from a want – a vision from one person and getting a large number of funders to agree and share your vision and its worth.
Funders and artists get excited by the way in which these ensemble setups bring people together and create valuable ongoing dialogue.
If you are giving up everything to put into a permanent company ensemble, do you need existing money (e.g. Middle class structures) to do it?
Why are permanent ensembles under valued in UK Theatre? We felt that they are not as present as they could be.
Casting from a pool – The arts organisation: e.g. Complicite.
Finding Actors interested in permanent ensemble
- Ads, ask the questions: ‘I need creative people to play with. Are you in?’
- Show passion and people are infected! – Communicate your ideas effectively
- The Actors Centre for example: offering workshops for Lab Work Weeks on creating ensemble
- Asking contemporaries, friends, colleagues for suggestions and links
- Seeing work and talking, writing afterwards
- Offering further training, ownership and investment for people
What are the pitfalls / risks?
(applicable we felt, to all creative partnerships)
Lack of feedback and communication to artists – ensuring ‘good house keeping’ and anonymity
Up own bottom!
Incest
Stagnancy
Structures needed to allow for shifts in ability to commit over time… where is the line?
Overlap of employment contracts into the political strength and balance of leadership in an organisation.
Power balance – keeping expectations
Ability to bring new blood in and eject old wood for the good or an ensembles work
It’s important to seek training relationships both within and outside a company’s practice
Clarity and decision of whom and what is being funded: The ensemble? The director / A.D? The Board?
Important to seek out outside eyes and collaborators from outside the company’s practice
Are you building a relationship on work and professional basis or also as friends? Be clear? – What happens with companies who live together (E.g. Forced Entertainment).
Be careful to keep linked/in dialogue with outside world and other professions etc – “NO WANK!”
See also the photograph of our funding diagram: How to fund this type of work.
Thanks
Participants: David Luff, Anne Langford, Aaron Minnigin, Emily Kempson, Laura Kriefman, Emma Dedein, Simon Wilkinson, Sophie Austin, Jennifer Moule, Hugh Hayes, Loren O’Dair, Philippa Wilkinson, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Jo Turner, Liz Chen, Lee Evan.
***We are collecting contact details for anyone who wishes to continue a dialogue on this subject and way of working. If you wish to be involved please email me with your name and how you might look to participate in this kind of work: Simon Pittman: simon at roughfiction.com
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The discussion also became a very useful discussion on running a small or emerging company and the risks and considerations that brings up. Here are collected notes on the session which touched on.
- examples of companies operating permanent ensembles (‘permanent’ was originally offered as a loose and provocative term to discuss building ongoing companies and a focus on the actors craft)
- The appeal of a permanent ensemble
- Funding issues
- The risks to the work, people and organisational structures
- Why we want to
- How we keep people together
- How do we survive and sustain?
Example companies to consider:
Steppenwolf, Gardzienice, Theatr Piesn Kozla, various German models, Dundee Rep, Kneehigh, Complicite, Maly St Petersburg, RSC, Propella, Theatro Viva, Colchester Mercury, Strange Face, Likely Story etc, Theatre By The Lake (REP / Building) The Wooster Group, Forced Entertainment, Labyrinth in New York
Notes Transcribed:
Sustainability or funding is key.
We are talking about regular collaborators
Living on premises, a building? – Does it just then become about running a space.
We agreed that a permanent ensemble first and foremost needs to be enabled to make work continuously and that an overall vision is key to the structuring and commitment of the company and its members. We must keep self-reflective on this.
What is The Appeal?
Ownership, quality, deeper and lasting, rich connections and understanding between those working and acting together
THE OFFER OF ONGOING TRAINING
Building a shared understanding of why you are making this work together
No type casting, being able to explore a wider range of role and knowing what parts you will be working on a long time in advance and over a longer period of time: more in depth process: Good example in REP and more traditional models in UK (Pitlochery, Theatre By The Lake for example)
Collective decision making in the company: moves towards a model of the collective…
Difference between the employed actor and the core collective company.
Notes continued
Decision to be made: CREATIVE COLLECTIVE Vs Actor’s Ensemble or company. (Hierarchy and ownership models are different and one should think carefully about these expectations before committing.
‘Ensemble’ was defined by one member of the group as ‘a number of actors paid on regular salary to engage in REP’.
We discussed how an ensemble can be self-selecting as in The Mercury’s model in Colchester: if actors are asked back for a second season they are then in the ensemble – ‘a current core’. This also allows for the passing on of skills through osmosis (another appeal of ensembles).
Putting an ensemble together should be about the work, not about trying to break into or work your way into an industry. It has to come from a passion, a shared interest and desire to create great work first, recognition can follow.
We wonder whether the ‘jobbing actor vocation’ is acting as a barrier to establishing more permanent ensembles in the core of UK theatre.
Survival?
Educational component to the company – e.g.: Creative Partnerships, workshop programs, the’ Extended Schools Program’
Funding through training and offering similar public services
Running a building and renting / managing (also means restrictions and other administrative pressures) and touring
Reputation in training
RFO (Regularly Funded Organisations) or venues as a home
Working in rural, regional and non London locations
Again, a strong and reflective understanding and awareness of why and for whom you are making work.
Supportive Places and their benefits (Venues etc)
- An office
- Links to other ensembles and associates
- Good example models of this are The Point in Eastleigh’s innovative Phase 3 program, Home from Home and Quartered Artists programs or Farnham Maltings etc.
- As with the above, larger funding pots are accessible as a result
- Time, space and less pressure than city based environments
- Links to creative partnerships – new audiences and community inspiration
Mentoring and asking for help
How do we keep people together? (notably larger numbers and those who come together on a post training, professional basis)
A strong vision, energy and clarity of why you are together
Shared and individual recognition of ownership and what you are sharing
Taking time to recognise individuals’ strengths and skills, and our differences
Recognising the need for new blood
The Visionary: the draw of learning and working with/from each other.
Keep asking why in the positive
Notes Continued
Dundee Rep was offered as an example:
Core funding was sourced by one very determined and passionate individual for three years from many different sources
It has a small ensemble of actors, often later in their careers who wish to settle and work with further apprentice members who work over say one year and offer an answer to the need to ensure new blood is offered to keep things fresh.
International links
They also offer professional development for members and those outside the org. (much like RSC).
Notes Continued
Steven Winnery made a practical proposition to us all: He has a studio in Stratford which is available for this kind of work he would like people to submit to for space. June – October 2010: stevenwinnery@yahoo.co.uk
There seems to be a question of scale here too. There are two very different sets of obstacles that present them self on the no-money-work-together-because-you’re-all-passionate side and the fully funded permanent ensembles.
Someone said we must allow for shifts in scale within ensembles
It has to start from a want – a vision from one person and getting a large number of funders to agree and share your vision and its worth.
Funders and artists get excited by the way in which these ensemble setups bring people together and create valuable ongoing dialogue.
If you are giving up everything to put into a permanent company ensemble, do you need existing money (e.g. Middle class structures) to do it?
Why are permanent ensembles under valued in UK Theatre? We felt that they are not as present as they could be.
Casting from a pool – The arts organisation: e.g. Complicite.
Finding Actors interested in permanent ensemble
- Ads, ask the questions: ‘I need creative people to play with. Are you in?’
- Show passion and people are infected! – Communicate your ideas effectively
- The Actors Centre for example: offering workshops for Lab Work Weeks on creating ensemble
- Asking contemporaries, friends, colleagues for suggestions and links
- Seeing work and talking, writing afterwards
- Offering further training, ownership and investment for people
What are the pitfalls / risks?
(applicable we felt, to all creative partnerships)
Lack of feedback and communication to artists – ensuring ‘good house keeping’ and anonymity
Up own bottom!
Incest
Stagnancy
Structures needed to allow for shifts in ability to commit over time… where is the line?
Overlap of employment contracts into the political strength and balance of leadership in an organisation.
Power balance – keeping expectations
Ability to bring new blood in and eject old wood for the good or an ensembles work
It’s important to seek training relationships both within and outside a company’s practice
Clarity and decision of whom and what is being funded: The ensemble? The director / A.D? The Board?
Important to seek out outside eyes and collaborators from outside the company’s practice
Are you building a relationship on work and professional basis or also as friends? Be clear? – What happens with companies who live together (E.g. Forced Entertainment).
Be careful to keep linked/in dialogue with outside world and other professions etc – “NO WANK!”
See also the photograph of our funding diagram: How to fund this type of work.
Thanks
059 ACE new Vision and Goals – Let’s make them better
Convener: dee
Participants: About 5 then second wave of 4
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Question came out of deep misgivings about the above but no rationale to support that feeling.
Vision and goals were read out.
Comments included;
ACE re-structuring again (3rd time in last 12 years?) - they want new business models for the “industry” when they can’t even work one out for themselves.
What the hell is a “relationship manager” supposed to be?
Document is woolly and oily. Goals are not really goals.
What’s wrong with the 1967 charter where Arts Council exists to
“develop and improve knowledge understanding and practice of the arts”
“increase accessibility of the arts to the public throughout Great Britain”
“advise and co-operate with Government Dept’s, Local Authorities on any matters concerned , whether directly or indirectly, with the forgoing objectives.
ADVOCACY IS A VITAL ROLE FOR ACE (consensus around this one) who should aim with all of us to raise the arts in the prioritiy list for Government and Local Authorities. That should be a goal. Our audiences are clearer about value of the arts than ACE.
It looks like a document that is preparing for cuts.
In Ireland NGO funding has been cut and they await outcomes for arts funding.
Eastern European companies see taking state funding as colluding with the state – artists there work all the time and live frugally.
There has to be an Arts Council and it appears to have to spend money and time justifying and defending decisions – mostly to artists.
Most successful theatre culture’s support long term development of ensembles.
A suggestion was discussed: Big RFO’s (National/RSC plus???) should have ten years funding then none – they have brand and connections enough to float on their own. No organization should have more than 50% of costs funded.
Someone thought ACE corrupt.
ACE has no organizational memory – mistakes repeated and good models not shared.
OVER ALL
No particular consensus – the issues are so complicated and the ACE culture so entrenched probably best to fight with devotion to getting on with making theatre.
Participants: About 5 then second wave of 4
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Question came out of deep misgivings about the above but no rationale to support that feeling.
Vision and goals were read out.
Comments included;
ACE re-structuring again (3rd time in last 12 years?) - they want new business models for the “industry” when they can’t even work one out for themselves.
What the hell is a “relationship manager” supposed to be?
Document is woolly and oily. Goals are not really goals.
What’s wrong with the 1967 charter where Arts Council exists to
“develop and improve knowledge understanding and practice of the arts”
“increase accessibility of the arts to the public throughout Great Britain”
“advise and co-operate with Government Dept’s, Local Authorities on any matters concerned , whether directly or indirectly, with the forgoing objectives.
ADVOCACY IS A VITAL ROLE FOR ACE (consensus around this one) who should aim with all of us to raise the arts in the prioritiy list for Government and Local Authorities. That should be a goal. Our audiences are clearer about value of the arts than ACE.
It looks like a document that is preparing for cuts.
In Ireland NGO funding has been cut and they await outcomes for arts funding.
Eastern European companies see taking state funding as colluding with the state – artists there work all the time and live frugally.
There has to be an Arts Council and it appears to have to spend money and time justifying and defending decisions – mostly to artists.
Most successful theatre culture’s support long term development of ensembles.
A suggestion was discussed: Big RFO’s (National/RSC plus???) should have ten years funding then none – they have brand and connections enough to float on their own. No organization should have more than 50% of costs funded.
Someone thought ACE corrupt.
ACE has no organizational memory – mistakes repeated and good models not shared.
OVER ALL
No particular consensus – the issues are so complicated and the ACE culture so entrenched probably best to fight with devotion to getting on with making theatre.
053 National Theatre – Too Much Public Money?
Convener: Amy Ip
Participants: Christina Elliot, Sam Hall, Emma Newborn, Monica Dolan, Joe Austin, Caroline Pearce
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The question asked was: National Theatre – Too Much Public Money? This was prompted by Amy’s analysis of the National Theatre’s Annual Report and the 2010 schedule of proposed plays. Currently the National received £18.9 million from the Arts Council of England (ACE) and though the 2010 schedule does have five new plays, they are also doing: Women Beware Women, Hamlet and a Sir Peter Hall production of Twelfth Night with his daughter Rebecca Hall.
It is important to note that the purpose of this session was not to slam the National Theatre but analyse whether the monies that are the National Theatre’s pot are being used in an appropriate manner.
It seems as though the National are playing rather “safe” in the current economic climate and are not doing enough to encourage new plays.
However, Christina Elliot’s company: Fuel, will be going to the National next week for ten performances of a new work. Christina noted that the National though very helpful seemed to be overstaffed in the fact that there appeared to be about three people doing the same job.
It was noted that perhaps the National could pare down it’s staffing costs and maybe there should be much more accountability in how they spend their monies.
It was also noted that maybe the National should have it’s public funding cut so that the general ACE pot of money would be bigger and could be shared around more evenly to new productions.
Monica Dolan put forward the idea that instead of cutting the pot of money so that it was down to the ACE to be the arbitrators, individual producers and directors of each production at the National could nominate another (smaller) theatre company for the duration of their project. They could have their budget needs re-evaluated and talked through with them at different points in the process so that set/costumes which are not required are cut BEFORE they are built as opposed to after. Any “leftover” money would then be given on to their nominated theatre company to develop new work, or work in the region or theatre which nurtured that director as an artist on his/her way to the National. This would mean that the funding decisions would be placed in the hands of the artist rather than the Council, and the artists would have a positive incentive to think about the consequences of how they are spending their allocated money at the National, and how that money could be useful elsewhere in the growth of theatre as a whole.
Joe Austin contended that the National serves a useful purpose in the fact that it is our flagship theatre, however maybe it should be more of a national theatre by embracing theatre from other parts of the country as currently the National is very London and tourist centric and does not encompass what the Regions are doing.
It was generally acknowledged that the problem with the National is that it’s scheduling is too “safe” and though they will be producing five new plays, the emphasis still seems to be about tried and tested plays. As a National theatre, more innovative work should be addressed.
The National do a lot of workshops but it seems that not enough monies is invested into creating more new work from these.
It was also suggested that if the National’s funds were cut, it might actually force MORE and not less creative output as it would force the artistic team to think more creatively and more stringent in how they output high quality work without wastage.
Participants: Christina Elliot, Sam Hall, Emma Newborn, Monica Dolan, Joe Austin, Caroline Pearce
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
The question asked was: National Theatre – Too Much Public Money? This was prompted by Amy’s analysis of the National Theatre’s Annual Report and the 2010 schedule of proposed plays. Currently the National received £18.9 million from the Arts Council of England (ACE) and though the 2010 schedule does have five new plays, they are also doing: Women Beware Women, Hamlet and a Sir Peter Hall production of Twelfth Night with his daughter Rebecca Hall.
It is important to note that the purpose of this session was not to slam the National Theatre but analyse whether the monies that are the National Theatre’s pot are being used in an appropriate manner.
It seems as though the National are playing rather “safe” in the current economic climate and are not doing enough to encourage new plays.
However, Christina Elliot’s company: Fuel, will be going to the National next week for ten performances of a new work. Christina noted that the National though very helpful seemed to be overstaffed in the fact that there appeared to be about three people doing the same job.
It was noted that perhaps the National could pare down it’s staffing costs and maybe there should be much more accountability in how they spend their monies.
It was also noted that maybe the National should have it’s public funding cut so that the general ACE pot of money would be bigger and could be shared around more evenly to new productions.
Monica Dolan put forward the idea that instead of cutting the pot of money so that it was down to the ACE to be the arbitrators, individual producers and directors of each production at the National could nominate another (smaller) theatre company for the duration of their project. They could have their budget needs re-evaluated and talked through with them at different points in the process so that set/costumes which are not required are cut BEFORE they are built as opposed to after. Any “leftover” money would then be given on to their nominated theatre company to develop new work, or work in the region or theatre which nurtured that director as an artist on his/her way to the National. This would mean that the funding decisions would be placed in the hands of the artist rather than the Council, and the artists would have a positive incentive to think about the consequences of how they are spending their allocated money at the National, and how that money could be useful elsewhere in the growth of theatre as a whole.
Joe Austin contended that the National serves a useful purpose in the fact that it is our flagship theatre, however maybe it should be more of a national theatre by embracing theatre from other parts of the country as currently the National is very London and tourist centric and does not encompass what the Regions are doing.
It was generally acknowledged that the problem with the National is that it’s scheduling is too “safe” and though they will be producing five new plays, the emphasis still seems to be about tried and tested plays. As a National theatre, more innovative work should be addressed.
The National do a lot of workshops but it seems that not enough monies is invested into creating more new work from these.
It was also suggested that if the National’s funds were cut, it might actually force MORE and not less creative output as it would force the artistic team to think more creatively and more stringent in how they output high quality work without wastage.
052 International touring: looking for some good advice
Convener: Gemma Paintin
Participants: Gemma, Matt, Tom and some others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• The venue should pay for all costs
• You could pay the costs then invoice them with receipts
• Money to be found in coproductions with different venues
• Go to the IETM incognito!
• Use BC rates but break the costs down
• Its not a problem to show the same show all over one country- premiere is not so important
• Local BC offices can help with arranging a tour, as can the first venue, cuts their travel costs
• In France: Office Nationale de Diffusion Artistique
• Some keys festivals to visit, to see work and meet promoters: Dublin, Under the Radar, Kunsten, FTA in Montreal, Push in Vancouver, festivals in Graz, Bogota, Rio, Buenas Ares, Avignon, Barcelona, Salamanca, APAM in Australia
• Propose a package of shows to a venue!
• Don’t need to have your own technician if tech is simple
• Its about a personal relationship with promoters, don’t cold call them.
• Invite people to your shows
• Have a nice, clear pitch ready and appropriate marketing materials that reflect your work
• Could just be the manner in which you give the flyer that counts- charming
• There’s eu funding available for tours to more than one country- hard to apply for?
• Use e-marketing, facebook, twitter.
• THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A FACE TO FACE MEETING!!!
Participants: Gemma, Matt, Tom and some others
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• The venue should pay for all costs
• You could pay the costs then invoice them with receipts
• Money to be found in coproductions with different venues
• Go to the IETM incognito!
• Use BC rates but break the costs down
• Its not a problem to show the same show all over one country- premiere is not so important
• Local BC offices can help with arranging a tour, as can the first venue, cuts their travel costs
• In France: Office Nationale de Diffusion Artistique
• Some keys festivals to visit, to see work and meet promoters: Dublin, Under the Radar, Kunsten, FTA in Montreal, Push in Vancouver, festivals in Graz, Bogota, Rio, Buenas Ares, Avignon, Barcelona, Salamanca, APAM in Australia
• Propose a package of shows to a venue!
• Don’t need to have your own technician if tech is simple
• Its about a personal relationship with promoters, don’t cold call them.
• Invite people to your shows
• Have a nice, clear pitch ready and appropriate marketing materials that reflect your work
• Could just be the manner in which you give the flyer that counts- charming
• There’s eu funding available for tours to more than one country- hard to apply for?
• Use e-marketing, facebook, twitter.
• THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A FACE TO FACE MEETING!!!
028 Playwrights: A dying species?
Convener: Sarah Grochala – sarah at widsith.org.uk
Participants:
Andy Harman, Allen O'Leary, Suzy Almond
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Discussion
Two strands: Financial and Artistically. Original question posed referred to the difficulty of financially supporting yourself as a playwright and also the extent to which playwrights need to evolve in order to expand their role in a changing theatre environment.
Financially: Agreement that it is virtually impossible to support yourself financially from playwrighting. Theatre makes nothing therefore playwrights also make nothing. Having another job is essential. Plus side is that this gives you more freedom to write but the downside is that it decreases the amount of time that you have available to write. Difficulty of getting into the industry through the traditional model, especially if you’re over 26. Need to be pro-active in producing your own work and building an audience for it. The need to produce your own work, however, decreases access to the profession. Building doors rather than banging on them. Not being British and polite in your approach, but instead asking for what you need. Means that most playwrights are inevitably from a wealthy or middle class background. Playwrighting having a high cultural value in UK (related to legacy of Shakespeare), but commercially its value is low. Better position for playwrights financially in the UK than in New Zealand or in the USA. Need for some kind of agency to replace writernet as a supportive body for playwrights. Some to ask for advice about funding etc. from.
Artistically
Need for playwrights to build more of a community network and set their own terms. Nature of playwright’s role is isolated so building a community seems difficult at times. We don’t know who the other playwrights are. D&D providing that forum for a weekend, but could this be extended.
Recommendations – To set up a stronger network of playwrights. Possibility of forming a playwrights support group from interested people at D&D?
Participants:
Andy Harman, Allen O'Leary, Suzy Almond
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Discussion
Two strands: Financial and Artistically. Original question posed referred to the difficulty of financially supporting yourself as a playwright and also the extent to which playwrights need to evolve in order to expand their role in a changing theatre environment.
Financially: Agreement that it is virtually impossible to support yourself financially from playwrighting. Theatre makes nothing therefore playwrights also make nothing. Having another job is essential. Plus side is that this gives you more freedom to write but the downside is that it decreases the amount of time that you have available to write. Difficulty of getting into the industry through the traditional model, especially if you’re over 26. Need to be pro-active in producing your own work and building an audience for it. The need to produce your own work, however, decreases access to the profession. Building doors rather than banging on them. Not being British and polite in your approach, but instead asking for what you need. Means that most playwrights are inevitably from a wealthy or middle class background. Playwrighting having a high cultural value in UK (related to legacy of Shakespeare), but commercially its value is low. Better position for playwrights financially in the UK than in New Zealand or in the USA. Need for some kind of agency to replace writernet as a supportive body for playwrights. Some to ask for advice about funding etc. from.
Artistically
Need for playwrights to build more of a community network and set their own terms. Nature of playwright’s role is isolated so building a community seems difficult at times. We don’t know who the other playwrights are. D&D providing that forum for a weekend, but could this be extended.
Recommendations – To set up a stronger network of playwrights. Possibility of forming a playwrights support group from interested people at D&D?
024 How do we make touring pay
Convener: Christina Elliot, Fuel
Participants:
Eek, I forgot to take a record. They included:
Hannah Ashwell, Tassos Stevens, Phillipa Wittenoom, Mark, Lyn Gardner, Action Hero,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This group was convened to discuss the difficulties of making touring on the small scale sustainable.
We started by discussing the different models for financing tours. These included fees, ACE subsidy, box office splits and a mixture of all three. What is the minimum fee that a one man show with low production costs can tour on? £400 a show? £750 a show? It seemed to depend on a number of factors including level of overheads, whether performers are on weekly fees or per show fees, and so on. Whereas some participants argued that small scale companies should aspire to pay personnel regularly whilst on tour, even when there are gaps in the schedule, and be honest about the hidden costs of making the work, others suggested that costs should be minimized to represent best value to the venue.
There was some discussion of the rural touring model. Hannah from Beaford Arts described her role as a broker for artists and venues, curating a programme which was ambitious but tailored to the communities her organization serves.
This led to a discussion about whether brokers could have a role more widely. Should the model of rural touring networks be expanded to the small scale touring circuit? A related question: should venues form consortiums to make it easier for companies to book joined up tours, and develop their audience over a number of years touring to the same venues.
We talked about other ways of financing tours: a number of participants had experience of offering workshops alongside performances to raise additional funds. Others suggested sponsorship or going to trusts with a record of funding touring e.g. Wellcome Trust, or bartering for support in kind on top of splits or fees e.g. rehearsal space.
Tassos Stevens prompted us to challenge some of the fundamentals of touring: what about making work remotely, or touring work in places where you find yourself already?
Much of the discussion centred on audiences. Clearly one answer to the question about how touring can pay is getting enough people to see it. However, it was clear that small companies find it hard to market their work in places which are unfamiliar – how do you market a show in Liverpool when you are based in London? Again, the role of brokers seemed valuable. We were encouraged to talk to local arts development officers whose job it is to link up organizations and audiences. We also discussed how touring companies could share resources, e.g. clubbing together to pay for a PR company, or reciprocal advertising on print and websites.
It seemed that everyone wanted a greater degree of sharing and collaboration and Theatre Bristol was held up as a good example of a community of theatre makers.
We discussed London touring. Is it possible to do a regional tour entirely within Greater London? Participants were excited about the perceived easing of venue exclusion zones, partly as a result of the Audiences London survey which suggests that audiences are significantly venue loyal.
More joined up thinking seemed to be the answer to the original question. Companies working together to promote their work, venues forming consortiums, councils or local arts centres acting as brokers or middlemen between venues and companies.
Participants:
Eek, I forgot to take a record. They included:
Hannah Ashwell, Tassos Stevens, Phillipa Wittenoom, Mark, Lyn Gardner, Action Hero,
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This group was convened to discuss the difficulties of making touring on the small scale sustainable.
We started by discussing the different models for financing tours. These included fees, ACE subsidy, box office splits and a mixture of all three. What is the minimum fee that a one man show with low production costs can tour on? £400 a show? £750 a show? It seemed to depend on a number of factors including level of overheads, whether performers are on weekly fees or per show fees, and so on. Whereas some participants argued that small scale companies should aspire to pay personnel regularly whilst on tour, even when there are gaps in the schedule, and be honest about the hidden costs of making the work, others suggested that costs should be minimized to represent best value to the venue.
There was some discussion of the rural touring model. Hannah from Beaford Arts described her role as a broker for artists and venues, curating a programme which was ambitious but tailored to the communities her organization serves.
This led to a discussion about whether brokers could have a role more widely. Should the model of rural touring networks be expanded to the small scale touring circuit? A related question: should venues form consortiums to make it easier for companies to book joined up tours, and develop their audience over a number of years touring to the same venues.
We talked about other ways of financing tours: a number of participants had experience of offering workshops alongside performances to raise additional funds. Others suggested sponsorship or going to trusts with a record of funding touring e.g. Wellcome Trust, or bartering for support in kind on top of splits or fees e.g. rehearsal space.
Tassos Stevens prompted us to challenge some of the fundamentals of touring: what about making work remotely, or touring work in places where you find yourself already?
Much of the discussion centred on audiences. Clearly one answer to the question about how touring can pay is getting enough people to see it. However, it was clear that small companies find it hard to market their work in places which are unfamiliar – how do you market a show in Liverpool when you are based in London? Again, the role of brokers seemed valuable. We were encouraged to talk to local arts development officers whose job it is to link up organizations and audiences. We also discussed how touring companies could share resources, e.g. clubbing together to pay for a PR company, or reciprocal advertising on print and websites.
It seemed that everyone wanted a greater degree of sharing and collaboration and Theatre Bristol was held up as a good example of a community of theatre makers.
We discussed London touring. Is it possible to do a regional tour entirely within Greater London? Participants were excited about the perceived easing of venue exclusion zones, partly as a result of the Audiences London survey which suggests that audiences are significantly venue loyal.
More joined up thinking seemed to be the answer to the original question. Companies working together to promote their work, venues forming consortiums, councils or local arts centres acting as brokers or middlemen between venues and companies.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
008 Difficult Times Ahead?
Convener: Mark Price
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
We’re all doomed…
- Public subsidy – local authority, arts councils starting to be cut. Far worse expected over coming months and years. Example of councils having to cut budgets by 20% - arts funding is not their priority.
- A Tory government would be less naturally inclined to funding arts.
- Sponsors are pulling out or cutting funding as corporate budget are cut.
- Anecdotal evidence from regional theatres indicates that audiences in areas particularly affected by recession have been staying away from the theatre.
- ‘Silent’ arts funding at severe risk. Education and other participation projects are likely to be the first to go.
- Public don’t understand and won’t be prepared pay the ‘real’ cost of a theatre ticket.
- Touring already hit with receiving houses cutting fees and passing more risk to touring producers.
Reasons to be cheerful…
- Record West End attendance. Far more West End plays now being produced. Commercial theatre in good shape financially and creatively. The rise of the stay-cation means more money to spend on local treats. The nation is still spending on entertainment (cf Sky TV’s record profits).
- Anecdotally Tory local councils tend to be more generous that others in their arts funding.
- Hard times can produce great inventive new work. Discuss…
Reactions
spaces, admin, marketing and producing personnel and costs.
Sponsors, funding bodies, politicians and audiences. Social networking technology makes it easier and cheaper to keep in touch with our base.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)