082 Should actors (and other artists) be running companies and buildings?

Convener: Annie Fitzmaurice

Participants: Lauren, Sophie, Louise, Dee Evans, Paul Hunter - others please add your names…………

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

We opened the discussion by talking about the history of groups of actors led by the actor manager and the current situation where actors are sometimes on the periphery of a company or producing theatre…..the last to be hired and the least to be considered.

Points made….

Actors running or who have run buildings…..including Mark Rylance….

While acting/performing rehearsing how can you do anything else?

Taking on the responsibility of running a building stops you being an actor

Examples of running a building include a chief executive plus an artistic producer (who was an actor) – this didn’t work in this instance

Examples of actors running companies included two actors and a director setting up a company and touring theatres, managing the “other” jobs between them until they had a producer, but they still ran the company and successful combined both roles by having a trusted team to hand over responsibility to others.

One participant explained that she had stopped being an actor because she was frustrated with working in badly run theatres and had now returned to theatre to run a building.

Suspicion of artistic directors running buildings for egotistical reasons and surrounding themselves with non-threatening associates.

We talked about training at certain drama schools (Lamda!) where there was a stigma about actors creating their own work – as though the only reason to do this was lack of commercial success!

The reverse attitude at Le Coq – why are you jobbing in a Shakespeare tour instead of making your own work!?

We discussed whether there is greater egalitarianism in a company set up by actors or whether the important thing is to have an appropriate leader.

Training – teachers who value and encourage creativity – actors making their own work and setting up companies and drama schools who focus on the actor for hire model. Simon McBurney visiting Lamda to talk about work – status of his company rather than understanding and valuing the work he does.

An actor could suffer running a building or a company, if the infrastructure didn’t allow the actors to hand over responsibilities during creative work.

Starting a small company involves loads of responsibilities – doing all the jobs, (but being clear when in each role), there is more of an investment in the work – being multi faceted can be part of sustainability.

Should everyone have performed in front of an audience prior to running a building, so that they truly know that edge of it?

Personality is crucial to the success of running a building whether or not that is an actor - Mark Rylance did an extraordinary job.

In Romania the Minister or Culture is an actor.

In Helsinki an actor is the artistic director of the national theatre.

Could this happen in this country?

Is the training process responsibility for the lack of actors running buildings?

Or is it the expectation?

Or why not a designer, lighting designer etc?

Does the infrastructure of a building affect how work can be made there? Making outdoor performance necessitates the involvement of the designer from an early stage (issues including health and safety affect this work). This is no different to making truly collaborative work in a building.

Who runs buildings?
Directors who run buildings (well) are not necessarily the best directors. Many directors are put off running buildings because they may become limited creatively.

Running a company is very different to running a building. A company working collaboratively with a building can be a good model. It’s a different skill to run a building – and it can compromise creative work.

Relationships between artists and buildings can be particularly productive/important.

Important factors are personality, respect and freedom with the relationship to genuinely collaborate.

It’s possible to be trapped by running a building.

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?

070 An Open Space Building

Convener: Nick Sweeting

Participants: Quite a few – please add your name if you were there

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

- A Building for Open Space
- A Building run by Open Space

Some thoughts:
Is it free?
O/S = disorganised
Fully Alive
How do you bring lots of things together?
A number of starting points; standing points
Spontaneous Audience

Change in Attitudes
Commitment
Eg – Brazier’s Park
Importance of Core Team
What are the terms and conditions?
Community
Passion/responsibility…….Action
Responsibility – separate from tasks

So:
What’s the question?
Who is the team?
Not an existing team?
Audience – work – artistic ethos
Develop Culture/thinking

ACTION
Do it; start it
FIND A SPACE and invite people to come
Keeping doing it – move the space and keep doi

065 Empty theatre spaces after the recession. What inspires you: we have the space.

Convener(s): Dan Simon (Josh Neicho)

Participants: Robert Wells, Sarah Grochala, Ellis Kerkhoven, Mark Phoenix, Thomas Hescott, Jessica Manley, Gary Campbell, Martyn Duffy, Louise Jeffreys, Nick Rutherford, Gary from Stoke Newington International Airport, Tyne Rafaeli, Sara Perks, Stuart Targett, Leslie Godley, Emma Newborn, Kai Hahn Naomi O’Kelly, Oliver Townsend, Colin Atkinson, Michelle Owoo

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Discussion centred around the activities of The Oubliette, an arts group dedicated to promoting emerging artists by reutilising empty space. In April we are running a theatre festival aimed at showcasing three bold new performances, and convened the above session in the hope of spreading the word and finding talent.

The Oubliette have, up to present, taken the rather unorthodox approach to taking over empty space by doing so without the consent of the property owner, in the case of the high profile sites occupied last year, being multinational investment companies.

Our long-term approach is to negotiate for consent and achieve within ‘slack space’ a vibrant multiplatform venue, featuring studio space for artists to create exhibit and sell their work; platforms such as a theatre and cinema to showcase the innovative and the avant-garde; and communal spaces to encourage social interaction important for artists to be able to network, share ideas and further knowledge.

Key questions put to me by attendees of the session were:

1) Do you provide rehearsal space?
a. We provide rehearsal space for free to theatre companies when and where we have the space

2) Architectural limitations on performances?
a. Up until now we have been targeting properties in high profile locations to raise awareness of our project through the press. For our theatre festival in April we are targeting properties specifically suitable for content. We are attempting to negotiate for space that is open-plan, or was a former venue, such as a theatre, cinema or club. We encourage theatre companies working with us to use the space we provide to suit their performance as best and with as much freedom as they are able, with practical support given from our team.

3) What policy do you have in effect to select theatre work?
a. We have a curatorship led by our newly appointed theatre manager who ensures that the work selected fits within our remit – principally that the quality of the work is good and that it has not already achieved mainstream recognition. Several members of The Oubliette are actively involved in the arts and lend valuable insight into the selection process.

4) How is The Oubliette structured?
a. The Oubliette is business-like, without being a business. It is a managed project with an inherent strategy making it vastly different to the ‘art-squats’ that have also used adverse possession to run arts events. The group is divided into two sections – management, which comprises those who oversee The Oubliette’s day to day operations, and live-in and auxiliary volunteers who maintain the buildings, develop facilities, staff and coordinate events, and lend key skills such as IT and copywriting to the group. The Oubliette is a non-profit organisation – the money accrued is reinvested directly back into the project.

5) What about insurance, and health and safety?
a. The Oubliette have, as part of our group, consultants on health and safety whom we rely upon for advice whenever we run a venue. The unusual status of our occupancy means that we are not subject to institutional regulation, allowing a far greater degree of creative freedom to those we collaborate with. We are currently consulting with specialists in property law and entertainment to ensure legality in this department.

For more information on The Oubliette, and to pitch your play, please visit http://theoubliette.co.uk

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.

044 One State Secondary School. What Would You Do?

Convener: Colin Atkinson

Participants: Various – you know who you are.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

A helpfully unhelpful session.

To summarize, I am a producer in disguise in the middle of a state secondary school yet completely independent from the slow and unimaginative mechanics of that school.

The response I was looking for: an imaginative brainstorm around this unique position, the possibilities this provides for producing theatre and what this theatre might look like.

An absolute: it is not a case of parachuting in pieces of theatre.

The session (though more likely my experience of DD in general) mostly illuminated and questioned my position as a producer and my relationship to artists:

Thoughts: what about the producer as an artist? Creating a ‘thing’ - that which holds certain types of work. How does this fit with other artists? Are producers creating art that benefits the art of other artists – people listening, the right audience for that piece of work, the right piece of work for that audience, etc.

Or in other words, is it the model of the art/artists that dictates how/what we communicate? If it is the model, how does this impose on the piece of theatre?

If not, then the Producer is not creating theatre, but only an opportunity for others to create theatre, which doesn’t sit well.

See: ‘Producer’ Session and the criticism of the term ‘Creative Producer’. Perhaps this gives the term more meaning/credibility? Also, the difference between creating a career as a producer against creating something that stands alone – a thing, a model.

See: ‘Stories and Learning’ Session and

While not what I was looking for and mostly still cerebral soup, nevertheless, some more concrete ideas and suggestions did surface:

• Kids as a resource. Ambassadors

• Underground. Not become a teacher.

• Open space the community – build together, rather than show or reveal

• Definitely has to be local, community based