tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79156733726109013392024-03-08T16:37:47.158-08:00Futureproofing - Making Theatre in the 21st CenturyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-61795908448126625192014-09-06T07:03:00.000-07:002014-09-06T07:26:07.600-07:00The Arts Act - For God's Sake Burn it Down<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">I mentioned in my last post that the <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0024/index.html" target="_blank">Arts Act</a><span style="font-size: small;"> needed to be rewritten. </span></span><span style="line-height: 200%;">It needs to be rewritten because its the single biggest obstacle to the development of a vibrant and sustainable cultural space. It is narrow, patronising and oppressive. The next arts act must be drafted by a wide constituency - including people who work in the arts and the cultural industries - if it is to be fit for purpose in this century. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;">You see every strategy or policy document that comes out of the Arts Council or out of any local authority Arts Office is shaped and coloured by the Arts Act, which presupposes that the vast majority of the audience and the artists are disinterested, uneducated and substandard. The language of the act also implies that there are a privileged few (those who wrote the act and their descendants I assume) who are burdened with the task of elevating the majority. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%;">But what does it actually say? Well the vast majority of words are spent in describing what the arts council is, how it employs people and how it pays them (really the act is mostly a scope document), but if we strip away all of that we're left with very little.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;">The objectives and purpose of the council (which the Arts Act establishes) have been constant since 1951:</span><br />
<div class="normal">
<div class="normal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="normal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
"(a) Stimulating public interest in the arts or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="normal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
(b) Promoting knowledge, appreciation or practice of the arts, or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="normal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
(c) Improving standards in the arts, or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="normal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
(d) Otherwise assisting in the development or advancement of the arts"</div>
<div class="normal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="normal">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">The </span><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="background: white;">“Arts” means "any creative or interpretative expression (whether traditional or contemporary) in whatever form, and includes, in particular, visual arts, theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus and architecture, and includes any medium when used for those purposes” </span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%;">So whats wrong with this picture. None of the acts contain an explicit
definition of what Art is, a clear statement of why it is important,
or a reason why it should be considered a suitable object for state funding.
Rather the logic remains implicit, and the arts are defined as essentially
problematic and in need of an audience, education and general improvement. This has remained consistent since 1951. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%;">There is a disturbing lack of intellectual clarity in the language. Are we concerned
with Art or with Creativity? Is a computer game creative? For that matter is
the creation of any piece of software? Is journalism an interpretative
act?</span><span style="line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">And why has design dropped off the
list of Arts? And why is circus suddenly on the list? At what point is an extension to
a house considered artistic and worthy of support. Is Riverdance a piece of
art? If U2 reincorporated as a non-profit distributing company would they then
qualify for arts council support? And when we say “any creative or
interpretative expression” do we include mediocre expressions? How do we decide
what is and is not mediocre? (And don't get me started on the fact that the act considers interpretative expression to be art but the revenue will not extend tax exemption to interpretative artists).</span></div>
</div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">This wide definition of the Arts assumes that the words
“Culture”, “Arts”, and “Creativity”, are interchangeable and suggests a misplaced belief that they are
“universal”, and “timeless” as opposed to existing
in constant flux with the society. It also acts
as a catch all to avoid offending or excluding anybody; but while it
acknowledges creativity everywhere it goes on to narrow the spectrum by saying
“i<span style="background: white; mso-highlight: white;">n particular, visual arts,
theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus and architecture”,
bringing us back to the original list set out in 1951 with the addition of film
and circus. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; line-height: 200%;">If
the arts are “any creative or interpretative expression” and we do not include
any objective criteria for quality evaluation (which is in itself fraught with
difficulty) how then are we to identify that which should be funded? What
happens is that we exclude from the frame all “creative or interpretative
expression” that does not require funding (house extensions, U2, Riverdance)
and so the key definition of the arts is those activities which require
funding. Essentially the continuing crisis of funding is defined into
existence. The funding is predicated not on the Art or the Creativity or the
Culture but on the inability of some Arts/Culture/Creativity to directly create wealth in the short term (which, by the way, is an economic phenomenon known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease" target="_blank">"cost disease"</a> and not the result of bad art, poor management or marketing).</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; line-height: 200%;">From
one point of view this is a non-point. Why would we fund it if it didn’t need
funding? But behind it lies a more relevant truth. In defining the arts in this
way, creating a category of arts that constantly require state funding we fail
to grasp the totality of the industry and the relationships between the many
parts. We build an assumption into policy that Culture and Art require funding,
but that Industry and Creativity do not. Which, of course is a lie, as industry is funded to the hilt through direct and indirect supports (grants, tax relief, low minimum wage, job bridge, bailouts, infrastructure etc.).</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
But lets consider the assumptions underlying the four objectives:<br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;">"Stimulating
public interest in the arts" </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">suggests that public interest is low and needs to be stimulated. The arts are perceived as separate from the general public - essentially a consumer model of cultural impact.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%;">"Promoting
knowledge, appreciation or practice of the arts" </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">suggests that one social group has the knowledge and appreciation and should share that with the “public” mentioned in the first item - a very elitist view of the arts. I have to ask, is "practice" a function of "knowledge and appreciation"? Also promote practice among whom? The public? The artists. Does practice belong in this sentence? </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%;">"Improving
standards in the arts", </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">suggests that standards are low - but measured against what benchmark, in what context and by what criteria? And what standards are we talking about? Standards of conception? Of imagination? Of execution? Living? Reward?</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%;">"Otherwise
assisting in the development or advancement of </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">the arts" i</span><span style="line-height: 200%;">s a catch all phrase to allow for activities not captured in the previous three; but what kind of development or advancement are we talking about? Development and advancement toward what end?</span></div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="normal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
Most important of all is that the first three core objectives are essentially educational: if you want to stimulate interest in anything then you educate, if you want to promote knowledge, appreciation or practice then you educate, and if you want to improve standards then you educate.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
The Arts Act as it stands is more an Arts Education Act than anything else and those objectives should form part of the Education remit. Perhaps this made sense in the 1950's but today Irish art and culture is internationally acclaimed (not all of it and not all the time but that is normal). The output of our cultural sector stands comparison with the best in the world. What artists do not need, what the cultural sector does not need, is a patronising and outdated Act <span style="line-height: 200%;">that addresses a tiny part of the arts equation, and reflects a society where a privileged few decide what is good for the rest. What we do need is an act that clearly defines the place of creativity in the wider society, understands the contribution it makes to that society and to the economy, acknowledges the quality and potential, and creates opportunity for expression and development. What is needed is vision.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">In fairness the last Arts Council strategic review, <a href="http://www.artscouncil.ie/uploadedFiles/Inspiring-Prospects-Report-2014.pdf" target="_blank">Inspiring Prospects</a>, acknowledges the constraints but rather than recommending the fundamental change to the founding legislation which is so necessary, the document looks inward, recommending changes within itself and the current relationships within the sector. (It also uses the word "should" far too often).</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
It seems to me that I'm always giving out and never saying what should be done. In acknowledgement of this compare for yourselves the narrow, constraining and patronising language of the Arts Act with the <a href="http://creativeaustralia.arts.gov.au/full-policy/#m-179" style="line-height: 200%;" target="_blank">Creative Australia</a><span style="line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">document which states: </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="normal" style="line-height: 200%; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<div class="normal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-family: Times; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 32px; orphans: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 14px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Culture is created by us and defines us. It is the embodiment of the distinctive values, traditions and beliefs that make being Australian in the 21<span style="line-height: 0; position: relative; top: -0.5em; vertical-align: baseline;">st</span> century unique—democratic, diverse, adaptive and grounded in one of the world’s oldest living civilisations.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 14px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Australian culture has a firm base in heritage and tradition. It is also dynamic, evolving in response to a changing world and the increasing diversity, in all forms, of those who call this country home.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 14px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Culture is expressed in many ways—through the way we live, speak, conduct public life, relate to others, celebrate, remember the past, entertain ourselves and imagine the future. In sum, this captures the Australian spirit—a distinctive way of being that others recognise. Australian identity has a common core, but is not singular. Rather it is like a constellation, greater than the sum of its parts.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 14px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Culture is more than the arts, but the arts play a unique and central role in its development and expression.<i>Creative Australia</i> addresses the central role of the arts, heritage and creative industries in cultural expression and includes the individuals, enterprises and organisations engaged. This policy aims to enhance their special and evolving place in Australian life.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 14px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Creative Australia</i> also articulates the aspirations of artists, citizens and the community, and the paths to agreed goals. It responds strategically to the economic and social challenges that the next decade of the 21<span style="line-height: 0; position: relative; top: -0.5em; vertical-align: baseline;">st</span>century is likely to present.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 14px; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">
<b>Creative Australia<i> is informed by the belief that a creative nation is a productive nation in the fullest sense of the word—empathic, respectful, imaginative, industrious, adaptive, open and successful."</i></b></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
Australia has its problems; but that is an inspiring and intelligent statement. We could do with a bit of that here. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-36185994674632665572014-08-05T08:39:00.001-07:002014-09-02T15:33:32.726-07:00Inspiring Prospects - From Funded by the Arts Council to Developed by the Arts Council<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: justify;">The document, <a href="http://www.artscouncil.ie/uploadedFiles/Inspiring-Prospects-Report-2014.pdf" target="_blank">Inspiring Prospects</a>, published by the Arts Council earlier this year. has identified the
necessity of moving from being a funding agency to a development agency. I
would wholeheartedly agree. Ireland - in general - is very poor at development in all areas. I welcome this shift in focus, but we need to analyse it. Lets' be honest, with the council on the back foot financially it would be very easy to see this statement as a necessary cover-up: we can't afford to fund anything so lets say we're in development. (I remember a very senior local authority person at a board meeting for an arts organisation some years ago, when he finally realised that the organisation actually had no money, suggest "could we not do a few community projects? You know, they cost nothing and you get a load of people involved". Let's hope we're not heading for that kind of development.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The document uses the terms ‘Development’ and the ‘Public Good’ but does not really explain what they mean by these terms (sure we all know what they mean, don't we?). When we talk about development are we talking about the development of the audience (a much
needed increase in market size) or are we talking about the development of
artists (what kind of development and how do we achieve it?), or are we talking
about the development of the arts sector, (transforming it from a community of
occasionally shared interests into a viable Cultural Industry?) And of course we have to ask, development to what end?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
And how do we measure the impact of what we do on
the ‘Public Good’? This is a real question and a real economic conundrum– what
are the metrics and the methods? There are numerous ways of assessing the value of the Public Good, but they are complex, time consuming and not all are in agreement. (As an aside, the ‘Public Good’ concept does
not carry much sway in <a href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376" target="_blank">neo-liberal economic ideology</a>). What we can say is that The Public Good will not be significantly impacted for at least a decade,
so are we to divert limited resources to a ten year longitudinal study and expect
the political system to wait for those results?<br>
<br>
A shift from funding to development can be compared to a losing team switching from an offensive to a defensive strategy when the real issue is they shouldn't be playing the game at all and they certainly shouldn't be on that pitch. In other words if we are to move to development then the wider context of the arts needs to change and not just the intent and funding tools of an already hard pressed Arts Council.<br>
<br>
The arts are facing a raft of challenges created by the alleged decline in
audiences, by new technologies, by rising costs, and by shifts in economic ideologies; these challenges demand a
reappraisal of the role of the arts in our society, of the relationship between
the arts and the state (and the economy) and an understanding of the changing intellectual framework in which the
debate on the arts and “the cultural industries” is carried on. We really don't need to be rearranging the deck chairs again. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The challenges facing the Council and the arts community at this time are far greater than those brought about by the decline in what was – even at its height – a below par level of state funding. The challenges are not just a function of how much
money the council has to disburse but are embedded in the legislative
framework (the arts act really needs to be rewritten and made fit for purpose), the tax environment, the funding sources and models, the simple mathematics of
market size, and the wider political “culture” of state funding that has
created a ghetto of grant dependent, exclusive, high art categories and has no
real faith in, or understanding of, the inherent value or the social function of the arts.<br>
<br>
(It's been suggested to me over the last few months that the problem is further exacerbated by a lack of understanding and belief in - at the most senior levels - the artists and the art produced - but that's another story).<br>
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
If the arts council is to become a development
organisation then we need to ask what will it develop, and at what point the
development becomes sustainable? <o:p></o:p><br>
<br>
This shift toward development is informed (as nearly everything is) by the <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0024/index.html" target="_blank">Arts Act,</a> in particular the phrases “stimulating public interest in the arts, promoting knowledge, appreciation or practice of the arts, or improving standards in the arts”. But all of these are educational activities and really should be returned to that portfolio at the earliest opportunity. Even if the Arts Council ceased funding all of its clients and tried to run programmes to meet these objectives they would have very little impact without the co-operation and integration of the educational system (which is also under enormous pressure).<br>
<br>
I would agree that audience development based on community involvement is an essential component of any plan but audience and arts production must be developed together and that is one of the big challenges. There is no future in developing an audience for a product, service or experience that either does not exist or cannot attract and retain an audience, and conversely there is no point in developing a product, service or experience for which there is no audience. The dependency model of state funding deployed over the last twenty years has created a situation for the cultural industries where their principal customer is the Arts Council, and their efforts are all turned toward winning that customer, despite its ever-decreasing purchasing power. The side effect of this is that the cultural industries have put less time into developing and working with their audience than they have into creating approved art. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The Council, the Department, the Government and the Cultural Industries must work toward creating new, real
sources of funding if investment strategies and behaviours are to be changed,
but we need to acknowledge that the council engages in funding and not
investment (although that can change). We also need to acknowledge that
everything in Ireland is funded – either through direct state spending or soft
loans, tax relief, low corporate tax rates, FDI support, bailouts, underwriting
and other incentives. The availability of funding is not really the issue, it
is the availability of multiple sources, channels and forms of potential funding that effectively distribute risk and can maximize potential returns that need to be
addressed. (There are numerous effective ideas emerging from the UK and from
Horizon 2020 to do with tax relief, incentives, debt underwriting and risk management all of which should be factored into any model of development). <o:p></o:p><br>
<br>
For example, it should be possible for an arts project to be debt financed with that debt underwritten by the arts council over several years, and if funded by the Council then the council should share in the rewards if that project is commercially successful.<br>
<br>
The problem with the current arts funding model is that money is perceived to leave the government coffers and never come back. It does of course come back in direct and (punitive) indirect taxation but optics are everything. For example the €12 Billion corporate tax that Apple managed to avoid paying is not seen as funding - but that is precisely what it is. A development approach needs to understand the many, many ways that funding can be accessed. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
It is a commonplace of <a href="http://youtu.be/qHbORkb_9sU" target="_blank">contemporary cultural economics</a>
that commercial and subsidised are not two opposing forces but opposite ends of
a continuum. We need to make it easy for artists to travel along that continuum (they certainly can't make a living in the subsidised sector), and we need to realize that the "commercial" artist has
the right to fail and the non-commercial artist has the right to make money. As a development agency the Arts Council can either develop a type of work that it likes and approves of or it can develop an industry in
which many permutations and possibilities thrive, and in which the risks
of failure are effectively managed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As a final note it is important to say first that the
Arts have always been undervalued in Ireland, and second that we need to stop
apologizing for the rising costs of the arts – it is in their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease" target="_blank">economic nature</a>,
not a function of greed or mismanagement.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In summary I would say that the future of the cultural
industries – of the Arts in Ireland - depends on our ability to create and
manage multiple sources of funding and on our ability to create wealth from
that which is funded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is what a
development agency does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let the artists
get on with the art. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-60635023593961555492014-05-09T15:05:00.001-07:002014-05-09T15:58:07.359-07:00You Can't Fund Art and You Can't Fund Artists<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OK. Lets consider the idea of the subsidised arts for a moment, and lets consider the implications of the use of the words "art" and "artist".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Funding Art - that is committing money up front in the belief that the eventual product will be Art is perhaps the highest risk use of public money you can think of. Why? Because there is no guarantee that what will be created with that public money will be Art. Further, before a piece of work can be designated Art , a whole bunch of people have to agree that it is Art - and they can't agree if it doesn't already exist. You can't decide on Art in advance. So really, you can't actually fund art, because art only - hopefully - exists at the end of a process. Yes, you can invest in art (ask Saatchi), but again the art has to exist before you can do that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The same logic applies to artists. For a person to be designated an artist they must have a body of work behind them, and a whole bunch of people have to agree that that persons work contains sufficient Art for them to be considered an Artist.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So you see the problem? If you talk about Arts and Artists as the object of funding, then logic immediately dictates that you allocate the lions share of your resources to established work and individuals with an existing reputation. Development, the life blood of any organisation or industry, becomes less important because new work and new people - by definition - cannot be considered art or artists and are therefore not suitable objects for arts funding. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, you can argue that the "arts" is different to "Art" and an "artist" is different to an "Artist" but the words are the same, and confusion will, and does, ensue. Of course the other real problem is that the status of art and artist are both entirely matters of opinion. One person, or activity or organisation gets funded because another person or group of people like it - or worse, thinks that they should like it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would suggest that we need to move out of this logical and semantical dilemma by admitting to ourselves that art is not a process its a product and we don't start as artists we become artists (perhaps more accurate to say that we move in and out of an Artistic state), and that Art is never, ever a guaranteed outcome. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, what is it that we want as a result of this funding? And if we can't fund art, what is it that we want to fund? Creativity? But creativity in what and for who? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe, if we stop using the words art and artist when we talk about funding we might discover a better way of using that funding. A way to support a sustainable environment that can devlop creativity and maybe produce some new art along the way.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, what do we all think?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-18759056374455044342014-05-06T05:56:00.000-07:002014-05-06T06:02:32.324-07:00Get Some In! The Hunt for an Audience<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've been hearing for a while now that a lot of companies and organisations are feeling a lot of pressure to justify their existence in terms of audience numbers. A pressue manifesting inself under the rubric of Audience Development.<br />
<br />
I'm a great believer in audiences: one of those people who feel that the work is almost pointless without an audience. However, can any of the organistaions currently feeling this pressure actually develop the audience, actually make it bigger?<br />
<br />
If you look at the audience statistics for live theatre in Ireland, the UK, the US, Canada and Europe (in general) a remarkable pattern emerges. On average, accross all these territories, the theatre audience comes in at about 20% of the population. There are of course highs and lows but the standard deviation is not particularly significant. More importantly this rate has been fairly consistent over time.<br />
<br />
When you see a pattern like that you realise that what you're looking at is a "base rate". There are a couple of important things about a base rate: there may be variations in any given time period but the tendency is for the figure to return to that rate. In other words about 20% of the population attends theatre and that's it. No ammount of marketing strategies or audience development programmes will boost that in any significant way. True, an effective marketing campaign or development programme may boost a particular organisations market share (they get more of the 20% than another organisation, which means of course that the other organisation loses market share) but all the shows are fighting each other for a share of that market. <br />
<br />
What we can do is shift our focus from increasing the audience to increasing repeat business. We can have very little impact on the base rate but we can influence and affect the number of times an audience member comes back to us. Repeat business is about the quality of the experience; and quality of experience is only partly about "how good" the show is. Its about how a person is welcomed into the theatre, its about the atmosphere once they're in, about the facilities, its about the quality and quantity of the communication with them, and its about what happens when the show is over. Its about inclusion and belonging. By all means lets have a small audience so long as we have a good relationship with them and so long as they come back again and again. As Anne Bogart says, we must tend the audience.<br />
<br />
Can the base rate be shifted upwards. Probably, if we knew what was driving it. It's not been driven by marketing or by outreach or by development programmes. Common sense would suggest that the base rate is driven by education, by accessibility, social class, and income levels. If you want to make the base rate grow then you need to address these areas across the whole of government - and that is out of the hands of the individual organisations. <br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-50618599125994756892014-02-12T06:58:00.000-08:002014-02-12T08:18:21.151-08:00Assessing the Abbey, Branding, Joss Wheedon and The Need for Soul<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Some years ago the great Tom Coughlan, pipe in hand and smile on his face as always, told me his plan to revitalise the theatre industry in Ireland (the perennial problem). Let the Arts Council give a shed load of money to Saatchi and Saatchi to run a twelve month campaign selling the "idea" of theatre to the general public. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
Tom is a hard man to disagree with so I nodded but secretly thought it was a bit simplistic and off the point.<br />
<br />
The recent <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/2.636/panel-raises-doubts-about-abbey-theatre-s-world-class-status-1.1659770" target="_blank">Abbey debacle</a> over assessment brought Tom back to mind. Before I go any further let me say that, in my opinion, this debacle is precisely that: neither party should have suggested or agreed to an outmoded, discredited and secretive process; the assessment should have been contextualised by extending it to all other major clients; the media shouldn't have allowed themselves to be played the way they were and we could have done with a bit less bandwagoning.<br />
<br />
I'm also a part time conspiracy theorist so forgive me for suggesting that - from a certain point of view - the whole thing smells like a plan to discredit Senator MacConghaile and justify further funding "rationalisations" coming down the track.<br />
<br />
Personally I've seen some great shows in the Abbey and some absolute shit (in my opinion), but I've had the same experience everywhere. The worst show of the last twelve months was an RSC production in Stratford. But that's the nature of the process - win some, lose some: fail again, fail better.<br />
<br />
As I mulled all this over beneath the naked swinging lightbulb of my conspiracy chamber deep in the recesses of my mind I suddenly realised that Tom Coughlan had hit upon a great Truth.<br />
<br />
It seems to me, having spent a year in the company of people with no professional involvement in theatre, that from their point of view there is no "theatre experience" in this country. Don't get me wrong, there are theatres and theatre companies, productions and personalities and artists, but they don't add up to anything coherent, greater than the individual parts. There's no sense of an "experience" that exists over and above any given production.<br />
<br />
Tom would have said there's no Brand. And I think he might be right.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2014/02/the-you-called-brand.html" target="_blank">Brands and Branding</a> can sometimes be thought of as dirty words, a trick employed by rapacious corporations. But a brand doesn't work if you think its something you can put on like a ready to wear suit. The best brands emerge from a deep understanding of the emotional connection between you and the people you engage with, they emerge from passion and focus and creativity. They change your behaviour and they change the way you think, they are an expression of vision, belief and perception that exist over and above, independently of, any particular manifestation.<br />
<br />
Think about Apple.<br />
<br />
Apple is bigger and more significant than any of its constantly replaced and upgraded products. The iPhone, the iPad, the iMac are - more than anything else - proof, talismans if you will, that you are a particular kind of person. Like many people I have done the pilgrimage to the Apple store in New York. Not to buy anything. Just to experience it.<br />
<br />
A brand is an experience. It is something that people belong to; it expresses and defines us and - and at its best - it is something that is loved passionately. If Apple produce a dodgy product we forgive them and defend them against all critics (although if we get a slate of dodgy products we lose faith, we stumble with them, and the brand begins to break).<br />
<br />
So, does theatre in Ireland, not any particular instance of it but THEATRE, have a brand identity? Or is it just a random dispersal of places and events, silos ultimately, manifesting nothing beyond themselves.<br />
<br />
A brand exists when the experience takes precedence over the thing. When the experience, the emotional investment, the relationship, of being at the theatre (not at a particular place to see a particular company) takes precedence over the strength or weaknesses of the specific production, we have a brand; we have a culture.<br />
<br />
In the absence of that we have a collection of random, discrete events expressing only themselves for their brief hour upon the stage. We have marks out of five and the assessment of the Abbey.<br />
<br />
A brand is a manifestation of soul, an expression of purpose and community. I would suggest that the absence of brand is a hallmark of society, not just theatre. When our national leaders run around desperately trying to "rebrand" Limerick and the like they are expressing a desperate national need to find a soul again, to find purpose and community.<br />
<br />
As one of my heroes, Joss Wheedon, remarked in an interview, "You can't make something that people like. You have to make something they love. And they have so much love to give".<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-29604803213135154752014-01-04T03:47:00.001-08:002014-01-05T09:17:10.605-08:00Limerick: ask the question.<p dir="ltr">The recent controversy emerging from Limerick City of Culture stems from that unresolved debate on the function and purpose of culture and the arts industry: who is it all for?</p>
<p dir="ltr">There would be no controversy if the answer to the question "who is this for" was made and given clearly and unambiguously at the start of the process.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is the City of Culture for the people of Limerick? A year long initiative to improve the quality of life.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is it for the artists of Limerick? An opportunity to develop and create work.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is it a commercial opportunity? A chance to use culture and the creative arts to rebrand the city internationally, attract some tourists and some FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) and boost the local economy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">These objectives are not mutually exclusive but thier prioritisation needs to be clear from the outset and all the stakeholders need to understand and AGREE on it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Shared vision. Clear objectives. Agreed outcomes.</p><p dir="ltr">I suspect that this open and frank conversation did not happen in the first phase of the project. Which is why the stakeholders are now viewing each other with suspicion and pulling the project in opposing directions.</p><p dir="ltr">(What's most shocking is that you would expect a city council to be up to speed on best practice in project management. Clearly they're not.)</p><p dir="ltr">If this assessment is correct, that the important conversation did not take place at the outset, this begs the question, "why not?"</p><p dir="ltr">There are numerous reasons we don't have frank and open conversations at the start of any relationship - business, personal or otherwise. The reasons are nearly always a mixture of fear and contempt. Harsh words, but reflect on them for a moment, and consider the words that have been used by all sides over the last few days.</p><p dir="ltr">What the City of Culture controversy has highlighted is a national, systemic and cultural problem: we have no shared vision of our society that can incorporate the needs, skills and aspirations of all stakeholders. We have no common language nor mutual respect and the default mode of engagement is how we can exploit the other. </p><p dir="ltr">With regards to the Limerick situation no amount of resignations, reappointments or apologies will mend the situation. It needs an intervention: everyone, EVERYONE, needs to talk about Art.</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-32772891840336485722013-01-22T13:21:00.003-08:002013-10-03T15:39:14.572-07:00Never Waste a Good RecessionAs the recession continues to deepen and the cuts in arts spending continue apace I want to share a fantastic quote from <a href="http://www.johnberger.org/home.htm" target="_blank">John Berger</a>. Its from his introduction to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundhati_Roy" target="_blank">Arundhati Roy's</a> collection of essays - "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Infinite-Justice-Arundhati-Roy/dp/014302907X" target="_blank">The Algebra of Infinite Justice"</a>. Berger says this: "For those living with some comfort in the First World, the future no longer exists as a common reference point. Yet, for human beings, being sane depends on the acknowledgement of a continuity between the long since dead and those waiting to be born. The richer societies are being increasingly deprived of a temporal dimension essential to any spiritual life".<br />
<br />
When I read this it occurred to me that the word I hear most frequently in the media and from the mouth of politicians is "back". Back to the markets; back to 2007 levels; get our sovereignty back; get back to where we where.<br />
<br />
But aren't we where we are because of where we were? Surely the point is to move on from where we are to someplace better? Somebody once remarked that every organisation is perfectly designed to achieve the results it achieves. In other words we are where we are because where we were was perfectly designed to get us here. So why would we want to get back to it?<br />
<br />
"...the future no longer exists as a common reference point" says Berger, implying that we cannot, collectively, imagine a future. Sure, we can imagine more stuff, but can we actually imagine a better way of organising ourselves? The mainstream media and the mainstream politicians don't seem to be able to imagine a better world. They can imagine the same world and promise that they'll manage it better next time but what evidence is there to support such a claim. (The latest <a href="http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf" target="_blank">Oxfam report</a> has claimed that "Globally the incomes of the top 1% have increased 60% in twenty years. The growth in income for the top 0.01% has been even greater." Never waste a good recession).<br />
<br />
Any suggestion that there is another way of organising a society, managing resources, providing services, exchanging stuff is dismissed as silly, or as dangerous, or worse, as Leftwing.<br />
<br />
Imagine another way of doing it.<br />
<br />
One of the common themes in the literature of Leadership, dating back to the Greeks, is that of Vision. Leadership is equated with the ability, first and foremost, to imagine a desirable future. Yes, the Leader is then expected to be able to communicate that vision and motivate us to want to reach for that vision, but first and foremost the Leader must be able to imagine that new world. "I dreamed a dream" as <a href="http://www.thekingcenter.org/" target="_blank">Martin Luther King</a> said, or in the words of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/technology-obituaries/8810037/Steve-Jobs-obituary.html" target="_blank">Steve Job's</a> favourite ice hockey player "I skate to where the puck is going to be; not where it is".<br />
<br />
What we really lack right now, within the official structures of our society, is Leadership. The ability to imagine a desirable outcome, communicate that desire and marshall the available resources to undertake the journey. Many people have anger and passion. Others have nostalgia masquerading as Leadership. I fear that the latter group have their hands on the wheel.<br />
<br />
But this is meant to be a blog on arts. So is there a crisis of leadership in the arts. I would say yes. At this point everybody starts citing examples of great people doing genuinely great things. I know some of them and envy many of them but this is not about the people doing incredible things despite the constraints. This is about the constraints. As one writer put it, I can't remember who, "we should not confuse Leaders and Leadership". <br />
<br />
I would argue that the structure in which arts struggle has to change. The structure is in the keeping of the Government and its appointed agencies. They are ones who, at this time, control the investment and make the policies, decide what art is good and what is not, decide who gets the resources and who doesn't. The cuts continue and they continue as if there were only one way of doing business - the way that it has always been done. No vision. Sit tight and it will all be fine. We'll get "back" to where we were eventually.<br />
<br />
No. We won't.<br />
<br />
There will be more cuts this year, and for the foreseeable future. Lets not forget that the reduction in state spending is not a temporary measure. Once state spending is reduced it will stay down because that is what this economic ideology demands and because unless we return to double digit growth (which is not going to happen) we will not have the money to get funding levels "back" to where they where.<br />
<br />
I had a conversation with Paul Meade of <a href="http://www.gunanua.com/biographies/" target="_blank">Gúna Nua </a>late last year. We were talking about funding and funding cuts. The point was made that the arts could never win the "which do we fund? The play or the Hospital Bed" argument. And the Arts cannot win that argument.<br />
<br />
A Leader would say that this is the kind of argument managers have. The real conversation, the Leadership conversation is what kind of world do we want to live in and what place do the arts have in that world.<br />
<br />
But we can't have that conversation because, according to the people in charge, we already know what kind of world we want: it's this one, we just have to fix it.<br />
<br />
The last two lines of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Brenton" target="_blank">Howard Brenton's</a> translation of <a href="http://www.samuelfrench.com/p/1520/life-of-galileo-the-brenton-trans" target="_blank">Brecht's Galileo</a> come to mind:<br />
"Unhappy the age that has no heroes.<br />
No. Unhappy the age that needs them"<br />
<br />
Never Waste a Good Recession, as some famous business man said prior to a bout of asset stripping and "rationalisation".<br />
<br />
The Arts - like every other institution in our society - have an enormous opportunity now. Previous strategies failed to create a resilient, sustainable and integrated industry. The Arts are not the heart of our society, not at the heart of our educational system, and are dependent on a single source of investment supporting an overwhelmingly consumer model of social value. If we wait to get "back" to where we were then the size of the arts sector will dwindle. The challenge to us all is can we imagine another kind of industry, another way of doing it.<br />
<br />
So. First step.<br />
<br />
Vision.<br />
<br />
Do we have one?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-20580596578605050612012-07-24T03:56:00.001-07:002012-07-25T07:02:55.524-07:00So thats where the money is.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
A friend of mine informed me of two new Arts Council inititiatives recently. Both were built around donations. The smaller one offers to add 50% of the value of what you raise and the bigger one, called <a href="http://newsletter.artscouncil.ie/zxeclp11865osnb4v7p8op?email=true&a=2&p=25696095&t=17684674" target="_blank">Raise</a>, offers mentorship to large organisations to help them implement an effective fundraising campaign. This focus on alternative sources of income is to be welcomed.<br />
<br />
We all know how hard it is to raise a donor base and sponsorship in this country, so have they got the strategy right? Will theses schemes make it easier for organisations to raise money? Of course they won't. <br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Because the incentive is in the wrong place. We don't have a culture of giving because the giver is not encouraged or supported in the giving: there are no tax breaks for charitable donations that can compare with international best practice or that can compete with the available business investment opportunities.<br />
<br />
I remember sitting down with a very qualified prospect a couple of years ago while trying to build a donor base for <a href="http://www.gunanua.com/" target="_blank">Gúna Nua</a>. The guy owned a successful, medium sized business in management training, was a friend of the family, and loved theatre. I'd finished my training with <a href="http://www.forimpact.org/" target="_blank">Tom Suddes</a> and I made a good presentation and a clear ask. He considered and said "I spend about a €1000 a year on tickets. So does my wife. I pay a lot of tax, some of which makes its way to the arts. And you want me to give you more money? Why? I think what you do is great, but why?"<br />
<br />
The mad thing is that if I was looking for money to start a business then the answer to his question would be that even if the business flops you'll get most of your money back within three years in tax breaks. If I'd been able to make that answer then I'm pretty sure I'd have walked out of his office with a cheque in my hand.<br />
<br />
If you'll excuse a small digression I want to quote from an <a href="http://newsletter.artscouncil.ie/1ri0rdfy6fqosnb4v7p8op?email=true&a=11&p=25696095" target="_blank">Arts Council Newsletter </a>introducing the <a href="http://newsletter.artscouncil.ie/zxeclp11865osnb4v7p8op?a=5&p=25696095&t=17684664" target="_blank">Raise</a> programme: "<i>Income from fundraising by arts organisations in Ireland is less
than 3 percent of total income. This is a much lower ratio than in
other countries such as Britain or Australia, where arts organisations
secure up to a third of their revenue from fundraising</i>". It's probably just me but the tone of this seems to suggest that the arts organisations in Ireland have been very bold, and haven't been working as hard as they should, but now that the council knows what is going on in the UK and Australia we wont be allowed to get away with it any more. I don't think this tone is deliberate or conscious. I just think that there is a cultural tendency to blame somebody (usually the wrong person, and usually the person at the bottom of the decision making ladder), rather than admit that the system is flawed or broken or whatever. At no point in the Arts Council news letter on fundraising does it mention the fact that the tax regime in both the UK and Australia - and particularly in the US supports and encourages donations. It also doesn't mention that both the UK and Australia have larger populations and significantly larger GDPs - essentially they are bigger (and incentivised) markets. If a comparison is to be meaningful then we need to compare like with like.<br />
<br />
The Arts Council newsletter does not acknowledge that most Arts Organisations have been working extremely hard for many years with various levels of success to raise sponsorship and donations, and that those organisations are fully aware of the obstacles to successful fundraising. It is worth bearing in mind that in the three years, <a href="http://www.abbeytheatre.ie/behind_the_scenes/article/the_abbey_today/" target="_blank">2005 -2008, The Abbey Theatre</a> - one of the largest cultural institutions in the country with a highly skilled and experienced staff raised a total of €189,768 (about €63,000 per year on average). This is not an indictment of the Abbey's fundraising abilities, but a very clear indication of the level of interest in donating to the arts.<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how many schemes are run to improve the sales techniques of the donation hunters, unless the tax regulations are changed to support and incentivise charitable giving, these schemes will have minimum impact. Its basic sales: do not try to sell something to somebody who is not predisposed at a number of key levels to buy. <br />
<br />
All I'm saying is that these schemes are great, but without changes in the tax environment they incentivise the seller and not the buyer. The net result of theses schemes will probably be a number of already overworked arts managers making massive, well planned efforts to score money that actually isn't available, and probably being penalised by the Arts Council for failing.<br />
<br />
But c'mon, John, there's no way the tax regulations are going to change. Really? Why not? Why can't the arts avail of the same kind of tax incentives as film or small businesses? Well, we don't want a lot of people avoiding tax by hiding their money in the arts. But isn't that exactly what they do in business and film? Ah, yes, but, investment in business and film results in net employment and a significant tax take. Okay, but aren't the arts one of the most labour intensive activities available and - given their current VAT status - wont they produce a bigger tax yield?<br />
<br />
I haven't heard an argument against changing the tax regulations governing charitable donations that was not based on ideology, prejudice or fear. There is no real reason for the Arts in Ireland not to have the same kind of tax incentives supporting charitable donations as prevail in other countries. Put the incentives in place and the money will start to move.<br />
<br />
But it will just take too long! And this is a serious problem. There will be more Arts Cuts in the next budget, and in terms of theatre, that tiny constellation of companies orbiting the big five will start to burn out. When you watch the bullish Michael Colgan unable to defend Arts Funding in the face of the visceral "do we save a life or do we watch a play" argument you realise that the big five will be in danger eventually as well. What's important to remember is that these cuts are mostly driven by ideology, not by economics or accounting.<br />
<br />
So what to do. OK, here's a rediculous idea. Start a theatre investment fund. Raise say, €5 million from some people with real money. Put that money into a medium risk fund yielding 4% per annum. (which is about what these investors would get if they sheltered the money offshore). In three years that fund is worth €5, 624,320. The investor's money is safe and they get it back with a small profit if they want it back at the end of the three year period. They might not want it back because its performing as well there as anywhere else in the current climate.<br />
<br />
Now, what this fund does is, it goes to a bank and in year one it borrows €1,000,000 and invests it in theatre production. The loan is guaranteed by the fund. There is one stipulation, and that is that whatever number of shows the fund invests in it must make its money back and show a small overall profit. Let's be optimistic and say that it makes a 20% profit on the year. It pays back the bank €1,040,000 and puts the remaining profit, €160,000 into the fund. It repeats this for all three years and the fund is worth €6,123,776.<br />
<br />
You can increase the size of the original fund depending on the required final yield.<br />
<br />
But surely this is pure fantasy? is it any more fantastical than expecting the Abbey to raise over €3million a year in donations and sponsorships when they couldn't raise €200k over three years outside of a recession? Is it any more fantastical than expecting the arts industry to replace the lost millions with a potential donor base coping with higher taxes, lower incomes and negative equity?<br />
<br />
Do we really think that there are enough people in the country earning in excess of €200,000 a year able and willing to donate to the arts in such a quantity as to support the whole industry? <br />
<br />
Of course there isn't, and Oh gosh look, rather than focusing our attention on changing the context in which we work so that a stable sustainable industry can be built, we're back fighting each other again for limited resources. <br />
<br />
I look forward to your thoughts. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-16205194421568365452012-06-23T05:25:00.002-07:002012-07-24T05:24:03.821-07:00So where is the money?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<div>
<br />
I was really pleased by the reaction to my last post, so thank you to everybody who commented on it on Facebook. Only one person has left a comment on the blog so far, so please feel free to leave comments here this time. There were negative comments but I had to search for them and I wish they'd been left on the blog. An interesting conversation could have ensued. One prevailing complaint was that I was just stating the obvious: that we had to look for money somewhere else, but I wasn't saying where we should go to look for that money. I'll try to answer this. <br />
<br />
So, now that the <a href="http://www.artscouncil.ie/en/homepage.aspx" target="_blank">Arts Council</a> has fulfilled the logic of numbers set out by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmc_ireland/4754855590/" target="_blank">John O'Kane</a> in Wexford in 2008 and admitted that it will fund only five clients where does that leave everybody else? (Incidentally at least three of those clients had better start thinking about a succession policy or they too could suffer the cut).<br />
<br />
Anyway, on to the business of this blog: where is the money. The simplest model is the commercial one. Calculate your potential box office income. Set your budget at no greater than 50% of that figure. Raise that amount in advance. Raise it from family, friends or friends of family. At 50% of potential income there's a good chance they'll make all or most of their money back. If your box office exceeds 50% of potential income they'll make a profit. You will need to prepare an <a href="http://issuu.com/landmarkproductions/docs/between_foxrock___hard_place_investment_document" target="_blank">investment prospectus</a> for them, so check out this <a href="http://issuu.com/landmarkproductions/docs/between_foxrock___hard_place_investment_document" target="_blank">link</a>. Remember that these people are investing, not donating. They are underwriting the cost of your production and they expect to be paid back so they have first call on the box office income. However, If you're playing a 100 seat theatre for 2 weeks you can't raise a lot of money (probably about €9,000). Spend it wisely and have a smart marketing plan in place. Remember your choice of show and cast is part of that marketing plan (At the very least make sure you read the <a href="http://artsaudiences.ie/2011/10/arts-attendance-in-ireland-tgi-report-2011/" target="_blank">Arts Attendance in Ireland</a> report).<br />
<br />
However, if you are a charity, you can't look for investment. You can look for donations. Under <a href="http://www.wheel.ie/funding/fundraising-guide/tax-relief-donations-charities" target="_blank">Irish tax regulations</a> at present if a PAYE worker gives you a donation they get...nothing. You can apply to the revenue and they will top up the donation based on the donors higher rate of tax. A self employed person can apply for a rebate based on their higher rate of tax. Compare this to the US where every donor can reduce their taxable income by the amount donated, or the UK where a theatre investor can write off the gains on one show against the losses on another. Also in Ireland an individual can invest in a start up business and claim 41% back and if the company fails to show a profit after 3 years they can sell their shares back to the company at a discount and claim a <a href="http://www.taxassistance.ie/CapitalGainsTax.htm" target="_blank">capital gains loss</a>. It seems to be that the tax regulations are heavily weighted against charitable donors. Lobbying for change on this would benefit us greatly.<br />
<br />
It's also worth thinking about how much you want to raise from donations and how much work you can put into it and - most importantly - who you can ask. Lets say you want to raise €20,000 in donations. You set a target of 40 people at €500 a head. Consider this: a PAYE worker on <a href="http://www.hookhead.com/Tools/tax2012.jsp" target="_blank">€100,000 is taking home</a>, after taxes and charges, just over a €1000 per week. Factor in living expenses commensurate with their income (and a little bit of negative equity) and that person does not have €500 to give to you (They might have it there was some real tax benefit to them). So you could reduce the amount you ask for and increase the number of people you ask but this increases the time and the cost of the fundraising. You could target people in the €200,000 per anum bracket but do you have ready access to them? Bear this in mind as well: according to The Arts Attendance in Ireland report mentioned above there are only 484,000 arts attendees in Dublin. Your question now is how many of these are sympathetic to theatre and how many are in a relevant income bracket. You'll probably find that the people who could donate to you have already been recruited by the major institutions. Again the market is small and the numbers stacked against us. Without meaningful tax incentives the donation windfall will remain elusive.<br />
<br />
So what about sponsorship? The brand managers talk a lot about shared
values. This is important. How does your event, your brand support
theirs. Remember that what you are selling to the sponsor is your
audience. Not your event, your audience. So you need to know your
audience and how you intend to reach them. The more focused your
demographic and sales channels are the better chance you have.<br />
<br />
I've
spent a lot of time looking for sponsorship over the years and the big
question is how much can i ask for? Usually we ask for too much and
that's the end of the conversation. It used to be the case in the US
that it was calculated on an 8/10 ratio. That was $8 for every 10
audience members. That works out at about €6.40. So if you're playing a
100 seat theatre for two weeks that gives you an ask of about €760.
Which, in my experience is about right. Bear in mind that this is not
worth your while or theirs. Also bear in mind that a Dublin festival
with a large title sponsor only gets €10,000 in cash so you can see the
figures are not far off. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.
Remember as well that the real value of a sponsor is the marketing
support they bring to the sponsorship which will boost your box office
making the project more attractive to investors. <br />
<br />
There is of course <a href="http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/" target="_blank">corporate philanthropy</a> which is different from sponsorship (I think a lot of people in Ireland confuse these two). Corporate philanthropy is a long game built on smart networking and personal relationships.<br />
<br />
So, where is the money? What lessons can we learn? On the commercial model we need to ensure that audience capacity is high (about 400 seats minimum), the run is about four weeks and the recurring costs are kept low ( i.e. small cast and crew). Always, always pay back the investor. It doesn't matter if the show is a box office flop and you made no money; if you paid back the investors then you can can ask them to invest again.<br />
<br />
On sponsorship, size is also important and we need to remember that what we are selling is our audience so we need as much accurate information on that audience as we can get. Also the real value of sponsorship is the marketing support provided.<br />
<br />
On donations we need to remember that the numbers are working against us. Without a change in the tax regulations there is no incentive for small, significant donations. We have to target high net worth individuals and for most of us that's a long game and a lot of networking. How many of us know fifty people willing to give us a grand each?<br />
<br />
A final word on crowd funding. It takes a lot of careful planning. To my knowledge the biggest amount for theatre raised on <a href="http://www.fundit.ie/browse" target="_blank">FundIt</a> was €15,000 for <a href="http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/?lid=69371" target="_blank">Misterman</a>. And that had <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0614165/" target="_blank">Cillian Murphy</a> in it. A brilliant marketing decision.<br />
<br />
So that's my experience. Think big. Think of the audience. Plan your networking and then work that network. Prepare for a long game. Work out the mix. Demand a change in the tax regime. Always pay back your investors.<br />
<br />
What do you think?</div>
<br />
There is another aspect to this question of where the money is. Ireland has a population about the same as greater Birmingham. Just over half of the population are "regular" (not less than once a year) arts attenders; 1.3million people claim to have attended a play not less than once a year, and Dublin has a total of 484,000 regular arts attenders. Its a tiny, tiny market. Whether we're looking to sell tickets, convince a sponsor, or raise donations the numbers are not stacked in our favour. There needs to be a lot of very creative thinking to make the numbers work. Perhaps that's the real challenge.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-20935371302214403312012-04-02T15:04:00.001-07:002012-04-06T17:01:05.730-07:00A Business Plan for the Arts? Should we even Bother<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
"The Avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" - <a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/babylon-5/" target="_blank">Babylon 5 </a><br />
<br />
I was looking at the job description for Director of Theatre Forum recently and I began to think about the purpose of these organisations. This, combined with <a href="http://www.irishexaminer.com/features/culture-clash-cutbacks-will-paint-arts-out-of-society-188971.html#ixzz1qg1xK518" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this article</a> from the Irish examiner, prompted this post.<br />
<br />
OK, so here are some of the questions: what is the future of the theatre sector in Ireland in a
political culture committed to a strategy of continual cuts? What is
its future in a society in which rising unemployment and declining wage
levels have consumed the greater part of all disposable income? What is
its future in a country where an arts based education has never been on
the table for serious discussion?<br />
<br />
In short what is its future
when the traditional sources of income (funding and box office) are both
being squeezed and its support base is being reduced by short-sighted
educational and arts policies?<br />
<br />
The size of the theatre industry - and with it the range and type of imaginations available - is being reduced. It will shrink around the five major clients and it is possible that those clients will be seriously affected in a couple of years.<br />
<br />
During the years of growth in Arts Funding the support organisations were mandated to provide information and resources that would professionalise the industry and give it a "voice". During the first years of the cuts the the purpose of the support organisations began to change, to refocus on lobbying, on making the case for the arts. <a href="http://www.ncfa.ie/" target="_blank">The Campaign for the Arts</a> ran a strong campaign: the arguments were sound, the lobbying was intensive, the cuts continued.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.ncfa.ie/" target="_blank">NCFA</a> argument was based on the "multiplier effect". The straightforward, essentially Keynesian, argument that investment (state spending) on the arts created wealth, provided employment, consumed resources, pushed demand. This is a <a href="http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-demand-side-economics.htm" target="_blank">"demand side"</a> argument: investment stimulates demand, pushes growth. Its a good argument. Unfortunately it never had a snowball's chance in hell.<br />
<br />
We live in an economic culture dominated by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"supply side"</a> economics - a school of thought beloved of Reagan, Thatcher, the Republican party and others. You get the picture. Trying to win a demand side argument in a supply side culture is a sectarian struggle. I'm reminded of a line from the <a href="http://www.royalcourttheatre.com/whats-on/rat-in-the-skull" target="_blank">Rat in The Skull</a> that went something like " ...two fellas in a ditch clubbing each other till one of them gave up and died". <br />
<br />
The funding argument as it is currently formulated cannot be won because of fundamental differences between the suppliers and the consumers of funding. Cutting state support is an article of faith.<br />
<br />
So what is the role of the support organisations? What use is their advice and drive for professionalism when we can no longer afford to be "professional" and when they themselves will be in line for cuts sooner or later?<br />
<br />
In terms of the theatre industry, Theatre Forum in collaboration with its members and the NCFA needs to address and answer these questions, needs to formulate strategies based on
those answers, and needs to support the implementation of those strategies.<br />
<br />
In short, I would argue that the industry as a whole needs a new business plan - and Theatre Forum is ideally positioned to deliver that plan.<br />
<br />
It is possible that when we look a the industry in its entirety, as if it was one large corporation, we may find that it just doesn't make financial sense and that all of these cuts are the only way forward. Or we may find that the industry - as a whole - is way more powerful and profitable than any arrangement of discrete, small, underfunded companies. That a large co-ordinated self managed industry is capable of creating not just a diversity of voice and expression but capable of generating properties with significant profit potential, reinvesting that profit and returning investment directly to the key investor - the tax payer.<br />
<br />
If an industry is to survive we need to stop talking about art and artists and start building a context in which a artists can create and make a living. <br />
<br />
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
Over the years the industry paradigm was to make funding strategies and decisions focused
on the quality of the art and the artists (without ever providing a
set of criteria against which the quality could be measured). Again,
this is not a criticism - the "quality" of art is very hard
to systematically describe and usually comes down to a personal
opinion or preference. However, in favoring individual artists or
specific endeavours they failed to build a sustainable industry,
failed to even understand the nature of such an industry.<br />
<br />
On the other side of the coin those of us working in the industry
( and I include myself in this) were very concerned with process -
the right way of doing it. Whether it was the right way to rehearse
or - when the emphasis moved on to administration - the right kind of
company to have or the right way to put on a show. This concern with
doing it the right way was reinforced by the funding strategies (if
you were funded you were doing something right), but it meant that we
too were not concerned with building an industry that could sustain
us.
<br />
<br />
I would argue that we all became so concerned with creating the
right kind of art that we failed to attend to the context in which
that art was being made.<br />
<br />
You can solve a problem by tinkering with the innards (creating new funding tools) or by examining the context - there may be nothing wrong with your car, its the potholes in the road causing the problem. <br />
<br />
There will be less and less money available from the traditional sources over the coming years. That's a fact. No funding tool will create more money. So how do we create a sustainable industry when the traditional source of investment is drying up. That's the problem. That's the challenge. We have to solve it in the language and within the parameters of the dominant economic ideology.<br />
<br />
I never made the application to Theatre Forum. I missed the deadline. </div>
</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-58970105984504524512011-10-01T09:45:00.000-07:002011-10-02T14:25:51.677-07:00Front End or Back End? Where's the Real ActionHow do we produce the vast majority of shows in Ireland. If we're honest a small number of highly motivated people multitask for far less time than the project needs, pay themselves a pittance and by some miracle a show opens on time, runs for a very short period to an average of about 55% capacity in an auditorium that couldn't make back the cost of production even if they sold out.<br />
<br />
For most shows that's it. Some shows develop legs, they do the <a href="http://teatrolinks.com.sapo.pt/theatrefestivals.htm">festival circuit</a> for a bit, grow tired and fade away. But in terms of the overall industry these shows leave no legacy. All that work, that funding is gone. Get drunk and plan the next one.<br />
<br />
Take a moment and think what would happen if every other industry used the same approach. It would be like a developer building a whole load of houses and then not bothering to sell them, just walking away and leaving them empty....<br />
<br />
Just a second, am I suggesting that the <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/03/michael-lewis-ireland-201103">economic meltdown</a> happened because the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble">construction industry</a> borrowed their business model from the arts!? There are similarities: the developers started to believe that all the money was at the front end, at the point of construction, and so they kept building and borrowing and destroyed their own market. In a sense the theatre sector has been doing the same thing and making the same mistake. (The <a href="http://www.irishfilmboard.ie/irish_film_industry/reports/">film industry </a>displays the same symptoms by the way). The theatre industry for years has focused on the front end, the point of production, believing that this was where the money was. Very few people knew, or believed, or understood that money could be made at the back end, at the point of sale (and we're not just talking about tickets here; Back end includes royalties and sell on values, territory options, film rights etc. <a href="http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/otherresources/interviews/DavidPugh.htm">David Pugh</a>, one of the West Ends leading producers has pointed out that with many projects the real return is not in the theatre run but in the the other property rights acquired). <br />
<br />
So, both theatre and construction share an unsustainable business model (believing that money is made at the point of production and not the point of sale) and they both deal in property. Chunks of land on the one hand, bundles of <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/index.html">intellectual and artistic property</a> (scripts, productions, performances) on the other.<br />
<br />
In the same way that the flow of money into construction dried up, the money available for production is drying up. State funding will be cut even more, we don't have any tax incentives in place to attract investment in theatre from those able to invest, and the big shiny sponsor on the big white horse is not going to come over the hill because the sector is too fragmented and too uncoordinated (these are the words of several senior brand managers and one international sponsorship broker). Oh, and the audience have less disposable income and for many of them, theatre is just not value for money. In the face of all this can we turn a profit, reinvest some of that profit and make the theatre industry sustainable? <br />
<br />
There are a couple of things that can be done. Sell more tickets (subject of a later blog); expand the audience size for any given event (subject of a later blog) but I believe that even before that we need a fundamental rethink. Producers and production companies really need to consider how the properties they invest in can best be exploited, and they need to invest in exploitable properties. They and the state funding agencies need to rethink and move away from the "grant aid" mentality and start thinking about this relationship as an investor relationship. Yes, funding for the arts carries all kinds of <a href="http://www.artscouncil.ie/en/news/news.aspx?article=33a49432-54c4-4cc8-8076-499fb4fa1b58">secondary socio-economic benefits</a> and there are all manner of multiplier effects which are great, but lets - for the sake of argument - keep it simple. <br />
<br />
In the classic funded situation. A project receives an amount of money from the <a href="http://www.artscouncil.ie/">Arts Counci</a>l which is invariably less than the cost of the project. A deal is done with a <a href="http://www.irishtheatreonline.com/ita/advsearch.aspx?tid=2">venue </a>whereby either the venue, (funded by the Arts Council and <a href="http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalAuthorities/">Local Authority</a>), "invests in" or does a box office split with the project. Any remaining shortfall in the production must be "met" by the producer/production company either from their own resources or from their "share" of the box office. The main sources of money are the Council, the Venues (using Council money), the box office and the production company (funded by the Coucil). The problem here is clear - the risk is too high, the return too low. (The audiences too small in many cases to justify the cost of the production, but that's a different days work)<br />
<br />
The Arts Council is clearly the principle investor but at this time it it receives funds from central government which it disburses to selected artists. Money comes into the Arts Council, money goes out of the Arts Council, money is gone and no obvious wealth is created. <br />
<br />
What if the council - as the primary investor in the sector - looked for a return on that investment. To use one very simple example and one very simple model lets take a theatre production in Project Upstairs. The event is budgeted at €80,000 and the potential take is €100,000. The Council should underwrite the total cost of the production, (ensuring that an effective marketing plan is in place and correctly budgeted).<br />
<br />
The Council should then take back all of the first 50% of the potential box office (€50,000), 50% of the box office from there to the 75% point (€12,500) and 25% of the balance (€6250). The council has recovered €68,750 of its grant (86%!), the producer has earned a profit of €31,250 (which can be used for further productions or development work) and no unacceptable risk has occurred. <br />
<br />
If you applied this to every project funded by the Council, then when a show has the potential to "go commercial" the council, as well as all the other artists involved including actors, get to share in that success.<br />
<br />
It's possible that if you apply this model of investment in property to all the other arts supported by The Arts Council, then in a very short space of time the arts sector would become a net benefactor of the state as opposed to a net beneficiary. Impossible? Bear in mind that approximately 70% of all funding goes right back to the state in various taxes already so we only have to earn enough to bridge that 30%.<br />
<br />
Look at it this way, if we put away the medieval model of patronage and disbursement that characterises state funding models, and if we charged the funders to invest public money, taxpayers money, in such a way that wealth is created, allowing the successful artists to repay the public investment in their work over time then the Arts Council can make a simple, direct and honest case that it is a profit and not a cost centre in terms of public accounting.<br />
<br />
A whole lot of stuff has to change for this kind of model to work. (I was told, by an arts council officer, that the main reason it couldn't work is that the council had no mechanism for receiving money.....I guess that's that then), but the principal change needs to occur in the relationship between the Arts Council and its clients. <br />
<br />
The council should not concern itself with the nature or the quality of the art or the artists it supports. The artists and the public will work that out. The council needs to begin the process of investing in a robust and sustainable infrastructure that has the capacity to provide opportunities for all artists. A sort of Cultural <a href="http://www.idaireland.com/">IDA</a>.<br />
<br />
On the other hand the artists and producers/production companies need to realise that they are in the property game, and that a property is developed in order for it to be sold on; and that the security and freedom they seek in and for their work as artists lies at the point of sale not at the point of production.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, if a sustainable industry is to be established as we head into a very bleak future we need to understand what business we're in, we need to realise that the real money, the stuff that allows for growth and investment occurs at the point of sale, and the model of funding and the relationship between funder and clients need to change.<br />
<br />
Seems simple enough. Blogging is fun.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-11674168966169997132011-09-11T06:00:00.001-07:002011-09-11T06:00:19.877-07:00m.guardian.co.uk<p><a href="http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/08/good-bad-mulitplex-mark-kermode-review?cat=books&type=article">http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/08/good-bad-mulitplex-mark-kermode-review?cat=books&type=article</a></p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-87773599030160580082011-09-08T08:28:00.000-07:002011-09-09T10:10:47.302-07:00Who has to turn up for an event to be live?I saw a play and there were no actors in the building. And you know what? It was great.<br /><br />Internationally acclaimed Theatre Company <a href="https://www.facebook.com/panpantheatre">Pan Pan</a> presented their production of Samuel Beckett's ALL THAT FALL at <a href="http://www.projectartscentre.ie/">Project Arts Centre</a>, Dublin a couple of weeks ago. Beckett wrote the play for radio, so Pan Pan decided that rather than stage the play they would very simply record it (with a great cast) and play it back in a theatre. There was no stage, but there was a design that occupied the whole space. I went in, chose my rocking chair with black cushion adorned with white skull, sat back and listened to Beckett's radio play in the company of a packed house all sitting and rocking. Not an actor to be seen.<br /><br />Pan Pan's production of All That Fall begs a really interesting question: who has to be present for live theatre to be live?<br /><br />For years one of the key arguments for the continued significance of theatre was the very fact of its "liveness", of being in the presence of real people acting out a story in real time in the same space as you. Pan Pan's production has dealt that argument a devastating blow. The audience loved the production, making it a 98% sell out hit. Nobody minded that there were no actors actually present, nobody minded that the performance they were hearing was identical to every other performance in the course of the run, and nobody minded that there was nobody to applaud at the end. In fact nobody minded that the show lacked some of the key characteristics in the traditional argument for why live theatre is uniquely different from cinema.<br /><br />It would seem that all that is required for Live Theatre to occur is for a bunch of people (the audience) to gather in the same place to witness a story: the medium of retelling (is the teller present or not) is irrelevant.<br /><br />It would have been very possible for Pan Pan's production to have occurred in any number of venues simultaneously, greatly increasing the audience and significantly reducing the costs of touring.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">A couple of months ago I attended a production of <a href="http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/62808/productions/frankenstein.html">The Royal National Theatre's Frankenstein</a>, directed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Boyle">Danny Boyle</a>. Except I wasn't in London - I was in Dublin, in a cinema. Frankenstein was part of the <a href="http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/ntlive">NT Live programme</a>. The live theatre event was beautifully captured for the screen by multi camera director <a href="http://www.timvansomeren.com/Tim_van_Someren_DIRECTOR/FRONT_PAGE.html">Tim Van Someren</a>. Again, the absence of actors did not affect the quality of the experience. I saw an excellent piece of theatre - on a big screen.<br /><br />Here in Ireland theatre has been bedeviled by a massive overdependence on inadequate state funding: unwilling to invest during the boom times and unable to invest now (but that's another story). Quite simply the cost of production and subsequent touring far outweighs the potential income from sales. That no longer has to be the case. The NT Frankenstein and Pan Pan's All That Fall have proven that it is the quality of the experience and not the "liveness" of the actor that is paramount. If we accept this and then understand that the technology for opening a show in many different venues simultaneously now exists (and is becoming cheaper all the time), allowing theatre to access a global maket, and continue to generate revenue long after the live show has ended, we realise that the economics of theatre production is undergoing a fundamental shift.<br /><br />(Cinema folk refer to this screening of live theatre, opera, ballet etc as "<a href="http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/alternative-content-rides-digital-delivery-theaters-26174">Alternative Content</a>". That's a little bit cheeky, when you consider that theatre, ballet etc has been playing to audiences in specially built venues for a lot longer than cinema has).<br /><br />So what makes Live Theatre Live? It would seem that the audience does. But this in itself raises all manner of interesting questions.<br /></div><br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-26902356218697715112009-11-20T14:43:00.000-08:002011-09-26T15:06:16.623-07:00The Weight of SmokeNEW THEATRE ASSESSMENT<br />
<br />
A story was told by either Harvey Keitel or the other guy in the movie, SMOKE, that some historical figure wanted to know the weight of smoke. So, he weighed a cigar before it was smoked and then weighed the ashes at the end - the difference between the two was the weight of the smoke. The only problem of course is that now neither smoke nor cigar actually exist. Although I'm sure the guy doing the experiment felt great - a combination of nicotine and new knowledge.<br />
<br />
I read with interest a recent email from Theatre Forum about the new asessement process being piloted by the Arts Council. New, although mind you they commissioned Francoise Matarasso to write the paper on this assessment in 2000. A paper called Weighing Poetry. The point of this exercise was - and is - to help the Arts Council Team evaluate artistic work.<br />
<br />
Among the key criteria for evaluation we have<br />
<br />
* Ambition (innovation, risk-taking, originality)<br />
<br />
We have a problem here, right at the get-go. What if the artist's notion of ambition, innovation, risk taking and originality are at odds with the evaluators? Or vice versa. What if both their notions of ambition etc are at odds with what the audience are prepared to engage in? Originality is one of the most questionable concepts here, because the more we are aware of the work of other artists in other times and other places the less original much work becomes. But to the artist who knows nothing of what what the viewer knows, their work seems so terribly original to them. Who decides what is ambition in an artistic context and do we exclude social, political, philosophical ambition from the artistic?<br />
<br />
* Execution (quality of technique, skill, performance, sceneography, direction, etc.) Yes, but is the evaluation of the execution to be at all mitigated by the ambition (etc) and by our awareness of the economic context of production? Or are we to assume that the evaluators have some absolute knowledge of and skill in the techniques they are evaluating against which they will measure the achievements of the artists?<br />
<br />
* Effectiveness (connection with the audience, engagement & audience response, the extent to which piece affects change and leaves a lasting impression). Now this is an absolute beauty! What happens - as has been known to happen - when an audience cheers and weeps and stomps their feet at what is patently (from a particular point of view) a piece of shit! Does the evaluator reevaluate their own criteria to try to comprehend something about the shit that they missed. Or indeed, when the evaluator sits nearly alone in the theatre, moved beyond tears by this piece of theatre that the rest of the population is staying away from in droves, will this ambitious, innovative, original and risk taking - in their opinion - theatrical event be marked poorly because it has so clearly failed to connect with the audience. And will the extent of the connection be considered with reference to the size of the marketing budget?<br />
<br />
I really don't think that any of those criteria in the hands of any group of people fill me with confidence, quite simply because artistic evaluation is a subjective event, which is slightly more credible than a matter of opinion.The arts council have been running around in circles for decades trying to base their decisions on, and defending those decisions in terms of, objective artistic criteria.<br />
<br />
Here's an idea to solve the problem of subjectivity. What if the arts council redefined its role so that its purpose was not to identify and support art (how are they uniquely qualified to perform this mandarin task?) but to support and develop the infrastructure in which a whole range of artists and expressions could thrive?<br />
<br />
The only criteria they then need to apply to an evaluation is what kind of support does this artist or organisation need and the only criteria they need to apply to a decision is in what way will this decision enhance the overall well-being of the industry (it's ability to grow and sustain itself).<br />
<br />
One of the problems with the current artist/funder relationship is that by focusing on the subjective notion of the artistic merits of individuals rather than on the development of an integrated sector they have created a dependency organisation rather than a development organisation. The arts sector is like Samson with a really sharp haircut. A huge, powerless, lumbering slave.<br />
<br />
Perhaps one of the most disturbing comments about this new evaluation process is this phrase:<br />
<br />
"The ambition is that everyone who asks the Arts Council to see their work will have their work seen." Mmmmm. I've been doing this for 25 years and they still haven't solved this problem.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-63072599684608961092009-10-17T14:56:00.000-07:002009-11-20T15:44:05.430-08:00Can a Facebook Campaign bring Traffic to a Standstill?The couple of paragraphs on the arts stuck into the new programme for government agreed by the Greens and FF are not in any way, shape or form inspiring or reassuring. I'm not looking at it now but if memory serves all it said was that a priority was to move the Abbey into the GPO, not ditch the Film Board and do what it could to encourage participation in the arts.<br /><br />In other words the only important aspect of professional theatre in the mind of our incumbant government is the cultural tourism aspect. Lets have a big, expensive National Theatre building on the capital's main street. They clearly don't understand that its what goes on inside that's important and that - if the truth be told - the state and location of the building doesn't actually matter. No matter, this government is committed to another expensive capital project which will ultimate pour money into the builing sector and take it out of the theatre sector. Its a very clear indication that the this government favours those insititutions that feed their agenda of cultural tourism - and that represents five clients of the arts council.<br /><br />They won't do away with the film board. That's a good thing, but why isn't there a similar assurance in the programme for government that they won't do away with the dept of arts etc or a reassurane that they wont reduce the arts council budget by 40% over the next two years? Because the decision has already been taken.<br /><br />I remember sitting at a board meeting for an arts organisation that was in financial trouble some years ago, when a senior member of the relevant county council put forward the following for serious consideration: "Could you not do some of those community arts projects that involve lots of people and don't cost any money" A bureaucrats perception of participation.<br /><br />The argument that will be used will be that we need to focus on building audiences for the theatre so that it doesn't have to be so dependent on subsidy so we'll focus available resources on participation to develop public appreciation for the arts, because we need to start having a dialogue with the audience again. Except there are no available resources.<br /><br />So, a lovely new Abbey, a Film Board, and .....that's about all we can look forward to.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-17103570816334861812009-09-28T14:27:00.000-07:002009-09-29T14:41:41.223-07:00The Point of all this Art<br /><br />A very disturbing thought hit me recently as I applauded the launch of the national campaign for the arts and read all the news from the face-book groups and read the letters to the times and the tweets from Farmleigh. I haven't heard a single compelling argument for maintaining funding to the arts at any level. Now, I work in the arts, I'm sympathetic to the principal of funding and I had to admit that if I was a civil servant I would not be swayed by anything I had heard.<br /><br />I have heard a lot of words like soul, and uplifting and cutural identity and distinctive and so on and some mad stuff about the arts and smart economies, and cultural tourism and employment numbers etc etc, but saying something is important don't make it so. And the claims I'm hearing seem to be at odds with the experience I live. I would suggest that the vast majority of us do not create a distinctive culture but consume an essentially American diet. (Spend an evening in the company of actors and see how quickly we move through discussions of Irish drama and on to the last series of the Wire). Most of us don't go to the theatre, or spend time in art galleries or read the novels of Colm Tobin. Some of us do but most of us watch telly, read the sports pages, go to the movies, and read Cecelia Ahern (or in my case the novels of Neal Stephenson). As most regional arts centres will report they have to programme tribute bands and stand up comics to keep their audience figures up because the audience for Art, for whatever has been decided is art is tiny. It is tiny and it is predominantly class specific. In short a lot of public money is being fed into an arts structure that is consumed by a small group of professional and wealthy people or the children thereof.<br /><br />Its oddly appropriate that the arguments for the preservation of the arts have fallen into the consumerist mode of thinking. Looking at a ballet, a play, a painting, reading a "good " book will not - in and off itself - make anyone smarter or better, nor will it make them want to repeat the expreience. This is a fundamental misunderstanding based on the exclusion of production from the equation. Our world in the last decade of insanity didn't want people to make things, we wanted them to buy things, lots of things, the economy was driven by consumption and we have a near religious belief in its power and necessity. And so we now have the argument that the arts must be consumed to make us feel good about ourselves.<br /><br />A lot of work has been done on the impact of the arts on personality development. If you want the arts to make a smarter population then make production and participation freely available to all from the first day in school to the last. A person does not learn leadership from watching Henry V, or team building skills from a Marina Carr play, but they can learn a whole range of skills from trying to put a production on; the same goes for the visual and the musical arts. Consumption, by itself is just that. Combined with production and participation then the arts begin to achieve some of the extraordinary things claimed for them. The research is there to support this claim. It does not make morally better people (remember that hitler was an accomplished painter and great patron of the arts) but it does seem to make us smarter, more flexible, more able to problem solve, to think independently and to conceptualise outside the box.<br /><br />The other argument is, essentially, whether the arts are a net benificiary or benefactor of the public purse. I have not seen any research that caluclates the gross return to the exechequer of artistic funding. I do know that in my own case the company I work for returns 84% of its grant to the government in direct and indirect taxation and in savings to the social welfare by taking people off the dole. The net cost to the state of funding us is therefore 16% of the face value of the grant.<br /><br />More disturbing than this it would seen that a line has been drawn - arbitrarily in my opinion - between artistic and commercial pursuits. Wouldn't it be nice if artists and production companies were encouraged and rewarded to develop and produce one fantastically commercial product a year. By commerical I mean profitable. Something with the potential to generate cash flow and profit for two years at least. The funding bodies now under threat of cuts have over the last twentyfive years encouraged the development of work that is of minority interest and endowed with no commerical value. There are of course a few notable exceptions. So notable in fact that we have to question the consistency of the criteria. But that's another matter.<br /><br />I personally believe may of the claims made by the various campaigners for the arts, but I also accept the comment made by an economist recently that there is no way to accurately corellate the level of foreign direct investment, export earnings or tourism to the level of government spending on the arts. There is speculation and there is passion but there is no formula. Therein lies one of the great weaknessess in the argument.<br /><br />We are lacking commerical vision, the coherent long term business plan, the solid strategies and the quantifiable outcomes.<br /><br />We also need to stop confusing the impact of the consumption of art with the very real impact of participation in it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-86264438021264068172009-08-02T13:49:00.000-07:002009-08-02T14:02:56.887-07:00SOME THOUGHTS ON PRODUCTION HUBSFrom 2008 to 2009 the Arts Council took a 15% cut (I think this is accurate but need to check it). At the Theatre Forum Conference in Wexford John O'Kane of the Arts Council suggested that we should brace ourselves for another 20% cut going into 2010 and a further 20% going into 2011. Ok, that brings us dangerously close to 50% of what was available in 2008. Now, in 2008 the Arts Council spent in excess of 50% on five clients....<br /><br />In other words in 2011 there will only be enough money to underfund those five clients.<br /><br />And we should bear in mind that the department (or whatever department the arts end up in ) will view those five clients as theatre's major contribution to cultural tourism and will ensure their continued survival.<br /><br />I don't see any money left for this hub, or rim or axle or whatever....<br /><br />While I'm on the topic of hubs didn't we used to call them theatres? You know a place where a writer or a director would take their script or idea and then that place would agree to produce the show, and they'd look after all the finance, production, staffing and marketing and they wouldn't have to hire a performance space because they were one. Oh and yes, they had set workshops (no transport costs) and wardrobe departments and stuff like that, real cost saving things. But that wouldn't work here because most of our theatres don't have enough cash resouces to invest in shows nor do they have the physical space for all those other cash saving ideas that used to be part of theatres.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-59183492226336817572009-08-02T13:11:00.000-07:002012-07-22T09:46:38.481-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As Mark Twain reputedly said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Over the last few months everybody working in theatre and the arts has been subjected to a storm of statistics, powerpoint charts of every shape and size, and admonitions that everything has to change, made in that unique tone of voice reserved for ungrateful children and beggars.<br />
<br />
Well I want to add to the great statistical conversation with some figures of my own. In 2009 the company I work for was given an Arts Council award for €120,000. By the end of 2009 we will have returned approximately €51,000 to revenue in direct taxation, approximately €10,000 in indirect taxation and we will have saved the social welfare about €40,000 by taking people off the live register. Which means that the net cost of our "grant" is €20,000 or 16.5% of the face value of the "grant".<br />
<br />
I'm italicising the word grant because to my mind if somebody gives me money and I give most or all of it back then what they've given me is either a loan or an investment. Very different from a grant.<br />
<br />
However, back to the point. What if this statistic mentioned above were true of every arts council and local authority supported organisation in the country. It's a very simple analysis to carry out I suggest we all do it and see if, in fact, the net cost to the exchequer of investing in theatre is 16% of the face value of the investment. Wouldn't that be interesting? If theatre really only cost the government 16% of what they say it costs.<br />
<br />
We should be realistic though, we are still costing the state money - albeit only 16% of what they think we're costing. Surely the best argument we can make for maintaining funding at existing levels is a plan to develop other revenue streams (sponsorship, Endowment funds, affinity schemes, reclaiming the booking fee) that we can invest primarily in increased production, which means more jobs and more VAT, which means we narrow that 16% gap between investment and return. The long term objective, of course, is to make the state a net beneficiary rather than a net benefactor.<br />
<br />
The only way we can do this is to disover the power of the industry we work in. All of us feel threatened by the rumours and by our own knowledge of the depth and extent of this recession. What we must not feel is isolated. If we think we are dependent on a handout from the Arts Council so we can do some art with some like minded people, then we are vulnerable. When we realise that we are a nationwide industry managing state investment in a - mostly - imaginative and cost effective fashion then we can see possibilities.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915673372610901339.post-71398517898166263892009-06-25T14:43:00.000-07:002009-06-25T15:05:04.218-07:00Practical Suggestions for Collaboration in the Theatre SectorIn the light of the presentations made at the Theatre Forum Conference and in the light of the Arts Council’s document “EXAMINING NEW WAYS TO FUND THE PRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF THEATRE” I would like to make the following observations and practical suggestions<br /><br />THE CONTEXT:<br /><br />The call from the conference was to collaborate or collapse. Find new ways of working or not work at all.<br /><br />I'm not very good at the grand concept so I want to outline a way of thinking, and a plan of action.<br /><br />First the problem is systemic and two fold.<br /><br />* Over the years we have become dependent on a single revenue stream;<br />* The supply of cash has dried up.<br /><br />If this is the problem then we have to find solutions to both our dependency and the cash supply problem. I'll return to this in a moment.<br /><br />Annette Clancy posed a very interesting question during the panel discussion: what have we done with all the money. Here's an answer: we have invested in the development of a human and capital infrastructure of considerable resilience and cash generating potential when viewed as a unified whole and not as a loose assembly of disparate organisations, each fighting its own corner for a share of an ever decreasing pie. If we damage that infrastructure now its ability to earn will be greatly diminished.<br /><br />OK lets go back to the solution:<br /><br />The theatre sector – according to the ITI is 85 venues of various size and 146 production companies (some of them I assume are no longer in operation, but it’s still a significant number) spread across the country.<br /><br />Extrapolating out from my experience as a venue manager and as a company manager I would estimate that together they have mailing lists of about 350,000. According to a DataBox representative this network of 85 venues and 146 production companies generates online ticket sales per month of in excess of €400K; according to Heather Maitland its becoming increasingly skilled at audience data capture, and audience segmentation, which means that those lists are growing and that they are being well managed.<br /><br />The theatre sector, our industry of 85 venues and 146 production companies, needs to realise the earning potential and sustainability of the sector as a whole. No single organisation can leverage the kind of investment and support the whole sector can when we act together. Here’s how we can do that.<br /><br />SPONSORSHIP<br /><br />We all know how difficult it is secure meaningful sponsorship for our venue or our company. But imagine this: we walk into a sponsor with a shiny powerpoint presentation that says do you want to be part of a year long event that happens throughout the country every week, with mailing lists of 350,00 and growing, with print and advertising opportunities continuous throughout the year, with thousands of unique web visitors per month and the added PR opportunity of saving an entire art form?<br /><br />We have a chance of securing the second largest sponsorship deal in the country.<br /><br />Tie this into the planned national campaign being developed by the Arts Council to promote the arts with Failte Ireland and this has very considerable earning potential.<br /><br />I've heard the argument that this wouldn't work because the big organisations would take the most – but that’s what's happening now! Precisely because they are large they are attracting the support. But how much could we raise if we stop seeing lots of small companies and organisations and see one very large, multi-faceted network?<br /><br />T he GAA were constantly referenced at the Conference. They have done this and the money HAS passed down to the clubs. Of course there are issues about how the money would be divided. But not to act on this NOW is like not getting into a lifeboat because we can’t agree on the style of rowing.<br /><br />PUTTING THE CASH FLOW TO WORK<br /><br />Nearly every venue in the country has outsourced its outline ticketing to DataBox or a similar CRM provider. Until recently it took two weeks for the money from an online sale to arrive in a venues account. Also Databox had a charge on every transaction.<br /><br />If the sector (that’s all of us acting together) controlled the online ticketing then the booking charges could accrue to the sector (that’s about €30,000 per month). Also if we agreed that all on-line sales that pass through our wholly owned online booking system be allowed to sit in an account for a month then we would be moving toward a situation where we would have an amount in excess of €400,000 permanantly on deposit, earning interest, throughout the year.<br /><br />THE VALUE OF THE MAILING LIST<br /><br />The GAA (again) as well as many other representative organisations use affinity schemes. Here’s how they work. There is a particular telecoms provider that runs a scheme whereby any individual or organisation affilliated to the GAA can switch to their telecoms service and have their monthly bill reduced by 10%. The telecoms provider will then pay 15% of that phone bill to the GAA EVERY MONTH.<br /><br />If we assume that we have mailing lists of 350,000; if we assume that we convince 30% of our collective mailing lists to switch to our telecom provider within the next 18 months; if we assume that the average domestic bill is €35per month...<br /><br />Then in 18 months time we would have a monthly income of €551,250, that’s €6,615,000 per year...<br /><br />So that’s income from Sponsorship, interest on deposits, and affinity schemes, which when taken together have serious earning potential. And we haven't sold a single extra ticket....<br /><br />THE MILLIONAIRE DONOR<br /><br />We are all of us running around looking for the secret millionaire angel, operating small friends and patrons schemes - but alone we are too small to attract the serious donation. Together we can put in place a National Endowment for the Art of Theatre Trust Fund and we can actively pursue those elusive millionaires to leave some money in their will until over time we have an a trust dedicated to the art of theatre. It's not that hard to convince a wealthy actor to assign their back end rights in one movie for the good of all actors in Ireland. (The Screen Actors Guild of America and British already operate such funds – usually for pension purposes).<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br />I’ve outlined four simple strategies (and by the way I’ve spoken to a number of Sponsorship Brand Managers, Financial Managers, and Affinity Scheme Operators and they have all agreed that there is no reason why this couldn’t work – but that it requires the sector, that’s all of us, to act together) that can use leverage the power of the sheer size of the theatre sector to generate multiple revenue streams over time.<br /><br />Of course there are problems with all of this and of course the devil is in the detail.<br /><br />But to answer the question what have we have built over the years is: we have put in place the elements of an infrastructure with enormous earning potential and the capacity to work with the funding agents as equals and not as dependents; an infrastructure that is flexible and resilient. All we have to do is join up the dots and realise that our venue, our company, and our talent is a part of a very powerful system. If we look out from our own anxious and nervous positions and realise what we can achieve collectively we can create work rather than shedding it and we can build a resilient industry in which there is room for all of us.<br /><br />All of this has to happen now before a substantial part of the existing infrastructure is dismantled.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07142757464159021244noreply@blogger.com0