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.

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

064 London Fringe, Edinburgh Fringe, Too Much Fringe?

Convener: Josh Neicho

Participants: Patricia, Jessica Manley, Anonk Mishti, Thomas Hescott, Dan Simon, Tyne Rafaeli, Robert Wells, Lindsey Hope Pearlman

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

LONDON FESTIVAL FRINGE to run this summer, same dates as Edinburgh festival, moving force is GREG TALLENT, South Bank university lecturer in social media, “jazz pianist, fashion photographer, sound recordist, stand-up, used to run model agency”, others on board include Holly Payton of the World Festival Network. Tallent ran London Bridge Festival July 2009. Venues signed up so far include the Southwark Playhouse, Old Operating Theatre, New Players Theatre in Soho, Leicester Square Theatre, Actor’s Church Covent Garden, Rosemary Branch and the 20th Century Theatre in Notting Hill. Aims to celebrate and promote London as the “biggest arts capital in the world”, showcasing young talent in comedy, burlesque, music, fiction writing, instant film-making as well as theatre with a “broader scope than Edinburgh”. Focused around 8 AWARDS given by specialists in different arts fields. Feeling that Edinburgh has become too established and London event should be held at same time as August is peak tourist season and London is big enough to command an audience at the same time as Edinburgh. Long-term vision to get big London arts venues involved so there is a London Festival as well as a London Festival Fringe. The Conservatives nationally and in City Hall have been supportive. But criticism in the press eg from SIMON FANSHAWE, and VERONICA LEE who says it is “incredibly wrong-headed” and “remarkably ill-mannered” to hold such an event at the same time as Edinburgh when theatre is under lots of financial pressure.

Participants felt the Festival was bring held in the wrong venues if it was trying to showcase emerging talent (why established theatres albeit Fringe ones) and inappropriate for the time of year and the festival mood. Also wrong time to hold it at the same time as Edinburgh in August, there would be more sense bringing together Edinburgh previews as a festival in their own right in July. Querying of the old-fashioned way of paying up front to be considered to perform (is this just a cash cow, taking advantage of young students who want to do a show after they graduate?)
Better to get out of London to Latitude, Brighton, Edinburgh etc for summer fun. How about a festival in a tent in a London park like the music festivals. How will press come if all the arts critics are in Eburgh? What about maximizing disabled access to come and see the shows?
Comparison with NEW YORK where the International Fringe is a bit of a joke (why get NY theaters doing huge numbers of shows all year round have to 300 more in a short space of time?) URINETOWN an exception as a success from the New York fringe festival. The distinction between a curated festival with the best of a particular art, which is appropriate for a big city, and a festival with open entry. Better model is the Canadian fringe circuit – CAFF, completely open entry and participants get 100 per cent of ticket sales back. Some US festivals under the CAFF banner – could London be too? ☺

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.

027 What BIG things do SMALL groups of people do best?

Convener: Annie Rigby

Participants: Jonathan ‘Peth’, Rachael McGill, Jo Turner, Matilda Leyser

(a small group - perfectly so!)

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Why is it that bigger organizations with more resources have less time?

Are small groups of people less encumbered, more elegant, lighter on their feet?

CONNECTING:
Small companies know their audiences on a more conversational scale. The relationship is more personal.

FAILURE:
It is less shameful for small companies to cancel/abandon projects. And less costly – they probably haven’t got 10,000 brochures for the 2011 season printed yet…

It’s easier for small groups to TAKE RISKS. There’s less to lose. They can just stop.

LOOKING AFTER STAFF:
A small company can be more responsive to staff. If it lets one person bring a dog in, it doesn’t have to implement a company-wide ‘Pets at Work’ policy.

Smaller companies can more easily involve all their staff in intelligent conversations.

(Small companies can still be shit, mind.)

BRINGING ALL OF OURSELVES:
In a smaller group people bring more of themselves, and have less narrowly defined roles.

SCALING UP AND DOWN:
Small companies are good at morphing and changing scale temporarily.
Freelancers make more of an impact.

No one expects small companies to have the answer, so they can do more ‘kite-flying’.

Small groups fit in one car.

MORE FUN:
Working in small groups means sometimes you have to do unusual things (making a 1940s-looking newspaper quickly for a Fringe show).

Isn’t this where we had more fun...?

What is dangerous for small groups:
- Assuming that being a small groups means you need to think small
- Knocks can hit harder
- One person disappears and the whole thing goes (although is this sometimes ok?)

COMMUNICATION:
It’s quicker amongst a small group of people.

COLLABORATION:
It’s easier to collaborate more deeply with a small group. There’s time to share what each person is doing; to get involved in each other’s process.

What SMALL things do BIG groups of people do best?

Small talk.

Big groups always have good gossip.

And a contribution from Twitter which put a whole new slant on small groups/big power:
“It reminds me of that old saw: ‘the British Empire’ was built on the playing fields of Eton”…

025 Running a company: Where are our support networks?

Convener: Sebastian Warrack

Participants:
Dee Evans, Sebastian Warrack, Lisa Maguire, Jonathan Petherbridge, Annie Rigby, Many more (please write names below)

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
• Working for a small organization means that you don’t have a support network close to hand – whether this is practical support or emotional support
• Who can you turn to?
• The need for reassurance
• To know that there are others who are in the same boat
• Often this is most useful from people doing a similar job
• The “imposter syndrome”
• We all feel that we are imposters and that everyone else knows what they are doing – we’ll be found out!
• This can be debilitating, isolating
• It is a relief to discover that we are all feeling our way
• Is there support from the board – that is what they are there for
• Sometimes they are not supportive
• Sometimes they are supportive but don’t have the requisite skills
• Hence the need to choose board members carefully – skills audit
• Does the Arts Council offer useful support?
• Often the personnel don’t come from the sector so don’t have the skills
• Important for ACE to consider this when recruiting in the current major wave of recruitment
• Peer mentoring is an important way of getting support
• The need to share information
• Improbable has a mentoring scheme
• ITC has the General Managers’ Forum
• Actors’ Centre surgeries – primarily aimed at young companies just starting out
• Creative mentoring is often easier to find because we work in the creative industries and we are mostly creative animals, mixing with other creative animals. It comes more naturally
• There is a real need for business mentoring
• Who can match-make?
• Where can these mentors be found? How can relationships be brokered? ITC? ACE?
• Cross sector mentoring can also be really useful – not only refer to one’s obvious peers
• E.g. Subsidised sector seeking advice from commercial sector
• Also cross arts mentoring – theatre, dance
• Also important to acknowledge the need for well-being support
• Hard in small organizations for staff support, owing to limited number of staff and time – everyone so busy
• Should support networks remain informal or have a bit more structure so people recognize their responsibilities
• Should large well-funded organizations have these responsibilities included in their funding agreements?
• Important to acknowledge that large organizations also have a lot to learn from smaller organizations – the ability to be flexible, media and technology
• Networks for companies can feel invisible – more “in the air”
• Online support, run by users
• This can mean more people have access to this advice and support – greater benefit
• No need for repetition
• Individuals should commit to hosting a session
• What specific support has one to offer?
• This support should stimulate the giver as much as the receiver
• National Theatre Wales has a website for news and one for community use – on line community
• Young Vic model for directors
• Stan’s Café on line support – setting up a company

008 Difficult Times Ahead?

Convener: Mark Price

Participants: Jo Hammett, Jim Shelley, Christina Elliot, Alice Massey, Laura Farnworth, David Luff, Chris Grady, Rebecca Gould … and others

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…

1. 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).

2. Anecdotally Tory local councils tend to be more generous that others in their arts funding.

3. Hard times can produce great inventive new work. Discuss…

Reactions

Pressure on programming inevitable, as theatres become more risk averse. That’s not a reason not to do good work – but need to be innovative and have an eye to marketing when programming – an obscure play is a world premiere.

General surprise that we’re not seeing more feelgood shows at the moment.

There is danger in taking sponsorship but it can be a valuable source of revenue. While corporate marketing is in flux, we have an opportunity to make an approach to business for sponsorship as a cheaper and more effective alternative to their traditional marketing methods.

Sponsors are harder to find without a building. Sponsorship of touring work is virtually impossible – difficult to provide the guest nights etc that they are looking for. However, belief that if there is an audience for a work then somewhere there is a suitable sponsor.

Politicians want our vote over the next few months – we have a rare opportunity to make our case while they are listening. RSC and other large organisations are engaging with shadow ministers. Some London seats (eg Islington) are marginals – get out and lobby. We have a good story to tell – a rare successful export business sector which repays every pound in subsidy many times. Theatre subsidy is value for money.

Tory policies have changed since Thatcher – less anti-arts rhetoric. Group not expecting a complete disaster if/when they get power. Scepticism about their philanthro-capitalism idea – there are many things that can’t/shouldn’t be funded by business.

Local funds local. US style subscription theatre. Links with local business.

Is there too much spent on administration compared to creative costs? Room for cuts?

Larger arts organizations have a responsibility to smaller organizations: Mentoring, lobbying, practical help (sharing spaces etc)

Smaller companies can expand links with each other – share resources:

spaces, admin, marketing and producing personnel and costs.

Need to be even more careful about building and nurturing relationships:

Sponsors, funding bodies, politicians and audiences. Social networking technology makes it easier and cheaper to keep in touch with our base.