Funding and the value we place on the arts

 Convener: Mhairi Grealis ( a continuation from the day before – original converner unknown)

Participants: Johnathan Peterbridge, Ellis Kerthanen, Billy Buffery, Nathan Curry, Jo Crowley, Rachel Parish, Mary Swan, Hannah Myers, Zoe Cobb and a load of otgher people who didn’t leave their names,

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The discussion was around funding in the arts, a practical and ideological/philosophical look at what we can do if anything to change, should we apologise or demand money, how do we need to adapt. The following points were raised:

1-    the model of the scientific community could be looked at, as public health funding for example is also experiencing asphyxiating cuts – how have they succeeded in getting funding?

2-    The idea was posited we need to make theatre for others not just us  - there was a concensus we’re sick of seeing theatre practitioners at events as the audience. There is exclusivity.

3-    The quality of the artists working on the edges of society has to be good: ie those engaged with creative learning and community projects, one of the avenues of changing public opinion and validating the artform.

4-    “I hope to articulate what it means to be human” the notion that this is much a discovery and process as for instance, hunting for a particle.

5-    It was posited that it’s not useful to break down the artform into different sectors – we all do work of value whether that be avant-garde or ‘traditional’.

6-    It would be good to be able to articulate you’re a theatre maker without meeting with silence (in the pub, for instance)

7-    There are many routes into disseminating the message that we’re of value

8-    For instance, it was posited that you can and should open a dialogue about your practice, process, outcomes….

9-    It was posited there’s an elephant in the room –there are those who want to keep things elitist and exclusive.

10-It was proposed that the easy option is to make work that involves the community rather than just make ‘traditional’ theatre.

11- We should ask: “what do we do, what can we bring to this?” – a conversation to be had with those not in the industry.

12-One group member said the difficulty he has in dialogue with the community is often about aesthetic – ie where his tastes or ideas differ from theirs. In those instances he chooses the idea that will work best.

13- There was a movement a few years ago where the buzz was about our usefulness in the 21^st century – maybe we need to re-open that dialogue.

14-We should and how do we celebrate what we do.

15- We likened theatre to football –t he impetus is all on the premiership, as such.

16- One group member talked about his festival – he puts it on in Barnstable for no money. Each young person in attendance gets to choose an event for their parents or carers to come to – these are events which are accessible – so for instance a 7 minute piece about the killing of an immigrant being deported. They are cheap events, rock bottom prices.

ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD PRACTICALLY:

1 –We find common language with politicians, a kind of Esperanto ?

2 – We go to see local MPs at their surgeries and talk to them.

3 – we get local councilors and politicians on side with ur projects and raise awareness that way.

4 – we open up our processes for discussion and dialogue with outsiders.

5 – we facilitate through creativel learning and let non-professionals make theatre

6 – we invest in the next generation and work with young people to make theatre part of their lives rather than an exclusive activity

7 – we look at other models, like science for answers on how they deal with funding issues and liken ourselves in value.

8 – we actively place a value on the visible street level theatre in the outdoors, using this Olympiad year to point out and celebrate theatre in such accessible and public spaces.

9 – Be flexible and listen: “Sometimes the best thing you do is not the best thing everyone else thinks you do.”

10 – We stop seeing it as a fight with politicians, we rather change their minds one interaction at a time, and open up a dialogue with not only them, but other ‘outsiders’ who often feel very pleased to be a part of the conversation.

11- we have an email and possibly blog group, to keep in touch, remain open and move forward with these actions

12 – we keep thinking of news ways to further our ideas and stay open and inventive. We keep sharing, we keep talking, but most of all, we keep doing.

Theatre Uncut 2012

Participants: Kieran Hurley, Rod at Red Ladder, Emma, Monica Nappo, Topher Rowland, Frabcesca Hyde, Valeria, Daniel Bye, Amardeep Sohi, John Matthew Ward, Aliki Chapple, Tom L Frankland, Rebecca Mansen jones, Ana Brothers, Valentina Zagaria, Annie Rigby, Mark James Maughan, Pascal Porchreon, Lauren N Cooney

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Theatre Uncut 2011 took the form of 8 plays written by Mark Ravenhill, Dennis Kelly, David Grieg, Anders Lustgarten, Clara Brennan, Laura Lomas, Lucy Kirkwood and Jack Thorne. These were available to download from the Theatre Uncut website and could be performed by anyone anywhere rights free for one week. There were over 75 performances of the plays across the UK, Ireland, Germany and the USA.

This year Theatre Uncut will include international voices writing about the financial/political situation in their own country.

Theatre Uncut 2011 was a response to the proposed cuts in public spending outlined by the coalition government in October 2010. This year there is not such a clear moment of focus for inspiration. So what is the focus of this year’s plays?

Is it a response to the current state of global capitalism?

There is an important sense of being part of something bigger (parallels with the Occupy Movement)

How can we work with the communities that are worst affected by the current financial situation? By taking these plays into schools, work places, pubs, community groups etc and inviting the communities to read or perform the plays themselves.

How can we give voice to the audience, allowing them to share their response?  Create spaces for debate. Invite local writers to write plays in response (as was done in Lancaster last year). Use popular education and forum theatre techniques to physically engage the audience.

Where is it possible to perform these plays? In the street, shopping centres, the foyer of the National Theatre, playgrounds as well as theatres.

It’s just as important that this conversation happens in theatres as it is outside.

Would the writers be happy for their work to be translated so many more people can hear the work?

How could we engage a digital audience? Why would we want to do this? To reach many people who wouldn’t otherwise have access to the plays. Ideas were, film the plays, release trailers/teasers, live streaming from various locations.

How can we best organise the management of the project this year? Create online forums for people to discuss and support each other through the process.

Theatre Uncut is clearly a political project. How do we engage people that wouldn’t usually go for political theatre? It doesn’t need to be sugar coated. It wears its heart on its sleeve.

We need manpower now…

We really need a producer. Do you know/are you the right person for the job?

We also need a press officer who will be supported by Elin Morgan of Prospero Communication as consultant.

There is a lot of documentation from last years project in the form of film, image and printed material. This needs to be collected, collated and edited. Can anyone help with this.

Some people offered their help for certain elements (like sorting out the shoddy website) and contact details were gathered for support in the future.

If you are interested in the project and would like to offer support, or just hear more then please do get in touch emmacallander via Improbable

Theatre Uncut is a voluntary organisation all time and work is donated.

Defending the Arts is a fucked up starting point. How do we define a new premise for Arts funding that is useful?

Convener: Emma Adams

Participants: There were a lot of people, some didn’t sign in I think – but here are the people that did (I found some names hard to read, so apologies if I’ve spelt your name wrongly): Felix M, Jo Carly, Louie Ingham, Amardeep Sohi, Rachel Parish, Angie Baul, Matthew Austin, Hannah Myers, Jonathan Petherbridge, Ariane Oifizica, Rosy, Lyn, Mhar Greahis, Dick Bonham, Cristina Catalina, Bethany Haynes, Mary S, Alexis Terry.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

A preamble

I called this discussion because I have a feeling (and I wanted to say it out loud in a place that might feel safe to say it) that the strategy of responding to the assault on the arts by ‘defending them’ has failed. As soon as we start to try and ‘defend’ we are admitting that our place is a place of retreat. And that perhaps then, a more productive response to this would be to say ‘no’ to defending and instead ‘yes’ to putting our energy into reimagining what we are doing / why we are doing and who we look to for permission to do so?  To be explicit, to take the Arts forward  do we need to utterly reject the currant premise (founded on austerity and cuts) and refuse to engage with it and instead get busy with engaging with something more positive? Because here in the world of ‘reality’ that we live in, the need for Austerity and cuts are posited as coming from a ‘logical’ and ‘true’ place. I wanted to discuss the possibility that if this concept is wrong but we continue to act as if it is right, then the likely upshot is that all the solutions we come up with to solve the problems we are faced with will fail.

Or put another way.

Victorians thought typhoid was caused by ‘bad smells’. This meant that for years and years they refused to pay for the sewer system that was needed to stop typhoid spreading.  Because they did not have the right premise they were doomed to fail and people kept dying of typhoid.

I read a blog a few weeks ago on a site called ‘bright green’ I think – and it was about looking at the success of ‘the right’ since the post war settlement. The thrust of the argument was that ‘the left’ won a ton of radical demands (NHS, shorter working days / social security etc) after the war and then stopped dreaming of what it should be attaining and instead turned its attention to defending the gains it had made.   The writer asserted that as soon as ‘the left’ began to ‘defend’ its gains it went into retreat and started losing ground to the new radicals on the right who were busy dreaming up ‘impossible’ things (such as dismantling the NHS / erasing social security) which now don’t feel so impossible. The blog writer called for those in the green movement to learn from the methods the right is using and to dare to start dreaming and articulating arguments for attaining the impossible, because attack is the best defense…

This got me thinking about what is going on for us here in our world in the Arts…

Which lead me to write a blog for the SOTA live blog… Art V Sofa (http://sotablog.artscouncil.org.uk/post/16981740637/art-v-sofa )

And finally this train of thought lead me to thinking it might be useful to try and discuss all this with people here at D&D7.

Because it feels like…

We have been given a pair of shoes to ware, which are in fact Two-Right shoes. Some people noticed and said ‘we can’t ware these shoes’ but still in the end they were the only pair of shoes on offer.  So we decided to put them on. And actually, as it turns out, the right foot put on its right shoe and it felt great. But, just because one of our feet is comfortable doesn’t mean that our left foot is not being squeezed into a shoe that will never be comfortable / right for it to ware.  Which it is.  So we now have a left foot that is complaining.  Only the right foot is more interested in kind of getting on with the job of learning to walk in the new pair of shoes.  So, then my question is… If we continue to insist that the pair of Two-Right foot shoes is the correct and only way to have a pair of shoes, then in the end the pain in the left foot will become the pain in the wrong foot and eventually our body will begin to wonder if it might not be more comfortable if it just got rid of that irritating stupid useless fucking left foot that does nothing but bleed anyway.  And before you know it, under these circumstances will we not convince ourselves that the best thing to do for all body parts concerned would be to just fucking well cut off the bastard wrong foot?  That fucking useless problem bastard wrong foot!  Who needs it?! Not us.  Under these circumstances a perfectly beautiful and healthy foot could end up being amputated all because at no point in the conversation did we think it might be possible to question whether the pair of shoes were wrong instead of the feet.

This may feel a little extreme – but I seem to hear more and more artists talking about ‘the dead wood’ in art that ‘needs trimming’.  I hear more and more people arguing over the small pot of shrinking money trying to make arguments for who is more deserving.  I hear more and more people undervaluing the work that producers and administrators do, because who needs the ‘backroom’ now?

So, are we turning in on ourselves because we are frightened for our life?

This is called divide and rule.

It is a very old technique

Is it working?

Amongst us.

In this room.

Is it?  Is that what is happening?

That’s what I’ve been thinking about.

Because if it is?

If that is what is happening?

It feels like a new premise needs to be found and articulated.

Quickly.

Or as quickly as is possible.

That feels like a huge philosophical challenge.

And a bit impossible.

And so for these reasons I felt a little vulnerable about trying to say all of this out loud because I still have to function and get work in the world as it is.  And I don’t want anyone thinking that I’m a flutter-brain-flake-mother-fucker-type when what they need to hire right now is a get-the-job-done-without-moaning-type of person.

And I’d like to assure you, if you are one of those people looking for a get-the-job-done-without-moanin- type person that I am really very good at looking and behaving like I am that kind of person and I am available for hire.

Right now.

Just in case.

If you were wondering. 

So that’s my preamble. And I wanted to note all of this because the discussion didn’t quite work out in the way that I had hoped or was expecting it might.

‘Be ready to be surprised’ said Phelim and I was and am.

Largely because most of the time, despite my hopes (and possibly because I struggled to articulate what I was thinking. And/or possibly because many who came to the discussion wanted to move from the amorphous to the more tangible?) it became a discussion about ways to deal with the present premise rather than exploring the idea of what a different premise could be.

This lead to some frustrations all round.

Ultimately there was a decision by some people present to pick up the baton, recall the session and try again on Sunday.

So anyway, here is a description of the main themes that were discussed in this first attempt at the session…

I’ve had to do some unpicking of my notes and memory to find these themes.  I may have missed some things.  This is not definitive but an attempt to give a fair / representative snap shot of the main ideas that evolved in the conversation…

Theme 1

There was much discussion about how we might evolve / change the way that we present ourselves / make ourselves valuable / communicate with our community and the ‘political’ world.

This broke down into two sub thrusts:

One about the ideology of the present government and a maxi political response to this.

For example some questions raised:

Will the Arts Council still exist post 2015?

Should it? Should we be preparing for that?

Why did we lose the political battle with the government during the spending review?

What are the implications of knowing we have lost this argument?

Why don’t audiences / communities value the arts / arts venues / arts opportunities that are available to them?

Are arts opportunities really available to communities? What stops people from engaging? Class? Money? Opportunity? The arrogant attitude of artists who are out of touch with what people want?

Do artists have to alter their goals now that the financial situation has changed?  Do artists have a right to make authored work that isn’t clearly ‘for’ something / fails to actively strive to engage with a community any more?

The second thrust was about the more day-to-day / nuts and bolts logistics / realities of dealing with local politicians / the day-to-day personal responses / practical ways / strategies that an individual artist or company might use to further their work.

For example:

Should we be learning to speak the language of the DCMS and local politicians so that we can communicate effectively with them on their own turf? Could the big ‘Royal’ and ‘National’ organisations which are very good at doing this for themselves collaborate with smaller companies to help them learn how to do this?

Should we stop calling ourselves artists at all? One person mentioned that they know a successful theatre maker running a thriving local venue who says,  “I never say I’m a theatre maker. I say I help people feel happier and live longer”

Do we need to think laterally about the worth / value of what we do? For example some one now goes to council social services funding streams instead of the arts Council to find money to do the work they want to do.

Should we be inviting our MP / local councilor to the next show we make, because if they see the work and the worth of the work they will fight for it when it is threatened?

Theme 2:

The best way to safe guard the arts is to build creativity in children / work in school / work in community to develop creative literacy, well being and this audiences agency - so that in the future they will then value and fight for the arts .

This was countered with thoughts that much of the funding (Creative Partnerships in England for example) for this work along with many local council budgets for youth work have been lost in the spending review / cuts and so opportunities to work with children / young people have been lost. And also what about artists who want to make work now?

Theme 3:

Thoughts about trying to define what an alternative premise might be?

Do we need to work out what is valuable about what we do in terms that are not to do with economics?

Would it be useful to read the work of an economist called ‘Umiar Haque’ who works from the starting point of being a capitalist but who questions whether capitalism is measuring the right things when it looks for how successful it is?

What does it mean for us as artists struggling to be valued that when Archeologists measure human development they look for ‘evidence of significant artistic activity’?

Is our argument with George Osborne or with the people who vote for George Osborne?

Can we learn anything from the Occupy movement?

Should we learn from the scientists who study pure science (for example those working with the Hedron collider)? They on one hand believe themselves to be at the frontier of human understanding and justify this endeavor for its own sake. But also they are able to talk about the unexpected spin offs (for example MRI scans / the Web) which come from this research and which are widely / generally valued?

Conclusions / Action Points

A new session to be called to continue this discussion so that some conclusions / action points can be found.

Do we need the RSC?

Convener: SHELLEY SILAS

Participants: Andy Whyment, Sakuntala Ramanee, Ed Jaspers, Eduard Lewis, Jon Pashley, Laura Macdougal, Jacqueline Coombs, Andrew Piper, Melissa Williams, Anna Coombs, Lauren Cooney, Oliver Townsend, Nicky Salmon,  Martyn Duffy, Mark Trezona, Jonathan Bigwood, Nicola Stanford (?), Emma Adams, Stella Duffy, Mandy F, Kas D, Chris Hallam, Rebecca Atkinson Lord, Lynn Gardner, Jaime Zoob, Rebecca Manson Jones, Shakera Ahad, Sarah Boesen, Mhairi Grealis, Rachel Spence, Sarah Dickenson.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

As reported, ‘A well known artistic director of a famous theatre, once said, off the record, that the RSC is not necessary.  This was said in private, he would never let his feelings be known in public.’

The RSC receives @£18m annual government funding, as well as sponsorship and other funding. The Globe has no government funding.

Is funding/money/finances the issue?

Resources should perhaps be put into smaller companies.  i.e. some smaller companies, producing Shakespeare, are so underfunded, actors receive very little pay.

Spread the funding so that smaller companies have the backing to produce Shakespeare.

Do we feel the same way about Opera?

Is the RSC and therefore Shakespeare part of our national identity?

Is the RSC theatrical royalty?

Do we over rate the RSC?

They employ large casts, there was some discussion about actors’ pay – special agreement with Equity, perhaps actors’ receive below the Equity min.

The RSC can reach those living outside the big cities.

Being an RSC actor – is it a loaded job/responsibility?  Is working for the RSC like working for the Royal family?

No writer to pay (in relation to Shakespeare’s work).

Let’s have a moratorium for two years – NO Shakespeare.

If two of Shakespeare’s productions are being performed in separate venues but at the same time, and one of them is by the RSC, chances are, the public will go to the RSC because it has a NAME.  What chance then, for the other company?

The NT has a travelex season, should the RSC have a similar ticketing scheme?  The following is dreadfully paraphrased.

Andrew - ‘travelex is a bad idea.’

Shelley – it’s a great idea.

Others – ‘yeah, cheaper tickets, more people can see the work, people who normally cannot afford top go to the theatre, what’s wrong with that?’

Andrew – ‘No, what I mean is that everyone can get £10 tickets, even the rich.’

Others – ‘Ah.’

Should Travelex be means tested so that the rich old codgers pay higher tickets prices?

Things in favour of the RSC – Diverity, inclusion.  Much box ticking.

RAL – How do you improve access to publicly funded theatre?

What does the RSC produce that other theatres do not?

If we take money away from the RSC will it go to other companies, or will the funding disappear?

That the RSC is a rep, is a good thing, bring back the rep, put money into local rep.

RSC as a national tourist attraction.

LG – the RSC trades on its name.

Susannah Clapp has said something recently about the RSC not producing the best Shakespeare.

LG.  The RSC has an ambassadorial function.  A lot of their productions are v, v average.  Look at the great work of Headlong (Romeo and Juliet).  The German production of Hamlet at the Barbican.  Filter’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Lyric.  The RSC tells us what Shakespeare should be.

RAL.  Fund the RSC’s arts education group and basic operations to allow them to solicit private funding, but cut all the funding for pure theatre and divert it to regional rep.

AC.  Reduce subsidy/stop the machine/make redundancies/cut budgets/advertise legally/pay actors minimum wage/engender collaborations/reduce government subsidies to £2m.

The work which the RSC produces is not as exciting as it could be, as it has been. They try to experiment but generally fail.

Organisations which are funded by the government must offer/create workshops, sometimes these workshops don’t work.

LG. The RSC looks outwards.  The company needs to collaborate more.  Their new writing is not great.

WORLD STAGES.

Be good to see the RSC taking risks and providing the kind of support for theatre makers in the way the NT Studio provides their space for new work, most of which is not produced at the NT, but elsewhere – or never.  It was agreed that the NT Studio is an important, vital space for all theatre makers, the generosity of the NT Studio to allow work created there to be produced elsewhere, is to be encouraged.  Other theatres should perhaps follow the NT Studio model.

State of mind – main stage productions at the RSC v the experimental.  One is not valued as much as the other.

Andrew –Directors at the RSC are predominantly white males.  Should we be seeking out new directors?

Do admin costs far outweigh production costs?

It’s easier to cut artists than administration.

RS.  It’s different working as an actor in house and coming in with your own company/project.

Ticking the ‘right’ boxes = more funding.

Why does the RSC need so much subsidy?

A balance needs to be found between the level of subsidy for the RSC and smaller, lesser funded companies.  Balance of funding suggests that prestige organizations such as the RSC could indirectly support smaller companies.

The RSC needs to realize its responsibilities.

Is the Arts Council best placed to make links with smaller companies?

It was suggested that many people are intimidated by the RSC.

Are we as theatre makers turning in on ourselves?

The Arts Council might want to look at how they fund contracts.

Less paper = more money.  We live in a technological age, bring out the ipads and get rid of the printers and save money.

Why are artistic positions at the RSC mostly never advertised?

Some of the best works at the RSC are not Shakespeare plays.

The RSC is a major employee of Stratford.

RMJ.  If you kill Disney you kill Disneyland.

MT.  Is funding the RSC still necessary?

MT.  The RSC gives workshops in all areas of production – leaning how to speak verse (properly, innit Shelley added innit, not MT), costume skills, set building etc. People trust the name of the RSC.  Cutting grants mean skills will be lost.

At the end of the session, when most people had gone, we discussed the huge success of Matilda and Les Mis, not Shakespeare prods but book adaptations.

Excellence can happen anywhere.

RMJ.  Learning verse is like learning ballet for theatre.

The RSC are very good at bringing in expertise.

In brief…the consensus IMO was that the RSC should be maintained with different funding levels, and that surplus money should be diverted to less well paid smaller companies.

However, when I asked the group to raise hands, for those who thought the RSC should stay or go, there was a groan...’You can’t ask that, it’s a completely different question.’