Sunday, September 11, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Who 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.
Internationally acclaimed Theatre Company Pan Pan presented their production of Samuel Beckett's ALL THAT FALL at Project Arts Centre, 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.
Pan Pan's production of All That Fall begs a really interesting question: who has to be present for live theatre to be live?
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.
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.
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.
Internationally acclaimed Theatre Company Pan Pan presented their production of Samuel Beckett's ALL THAT FALL at Project Arts Centre, 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.
Pan Pan's production of All That Fall begs a really interesting question: who has to be present for live theatre to be live?
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.
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.
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.
A couple of months ago I attended a production of The Royal National Theatre's Frankenstein, directed by Danny Boyle. Except I wasn't in London - I was in Dublin, in a cinema. Frankenstein was part of the NT Live programme. The live theatre event was beautifully captured for the screen by multi camera director Tim Van Someren. Again, the absence of actors did not affect the quality of the experience. I saw an excellent piece of theatre - on a big screen.
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.
(Cinema folk refer to this screening of live theatre, opera, ballet etc as "Alternative Content". 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).
So what makes Live Theatre Live? It would seem that the audience does. But this in itself raises all manner of interesting questions.
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.
(Cinema folk refer to this screening of live theatre, opera, ballet etc as "Alternative Content". 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).
So what makes Live Theatre Live? It would seem that the audience does. But this in itself raises all manner of interesting questions.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Weight of Smoke
NEW THEATRE ASSESSMENT
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.
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.
Among the key criteria for evaluation we have
* Ambition (innovation, risk-taking, originality)
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?
* 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?
* 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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing comments about this new evaluation process is this phrase:
"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.
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.
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.
Among the key criteria for evaluation we have
* Ambition (innovation, risk-taking, originality)
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?
* 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?
* 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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing comments about this new evaluation process is this phrase:
"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.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Can 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, a lovely new Abbey, a Film Board, and .....that's about all we can look forward to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, a lovely new Abbey, a Film Board, and .....that's about all we can look forward to.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Point of all this Art
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are lacking commerical vision, the coherent long term business plan, the solid strategies and the quantifiable outcomes.
We also need to stop confusing the impact of the consumption of art with the very real impact of participation in it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are lacking commerical vision, the coherent long term business plan, the solid strategies and the quantifiable outcomes.
We also need to stop confusing the impact of the consumption of art with the very real impact of participation in it.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
SOME THOUGHTS ON PRODUCTION HUBS
From 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....
In other words in 2011 there will only be enough money to underfund those five clients.
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.
I don't see any money left for this hub, or rim or axle or whatever....
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.
In other words in 2011 there will only be enough money to underfund those five clients.
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.
I don't see any money left for this hub, or rim or axle or whatever....
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)