Discussion forum: May-July 2006

This discussion forum on the paper Make it new? Some proposals for the future of theatre funding was open from May to July 2006.

This web forum enabled site visitors to view other people’s comments on the paper and give us their own views on the future of theatre funding in Australia.

Thursday 27 July

Matt Balmford, Australian Musicals' Development

Australian Musicals Development Inc. (AMD) congratulates the theatre board for entering into this consultative process to consider whether there are better ways to fund the Australian theatre sector.

The discussion paper is cogent, frank and plain-speaking. The theatre board should continue to acknowledge that hard decisions will need to be made to best support Australian theatre now and into the future.

We offer this discussion – and recommendations – as a contribution to the debate. We would be happy to elaborate further on any aspect of our views.

Current theatre board arrangements and funded activities are not contributing, in any significant way, to a sustainable practice in contemporary Australian musical theatre. This is highly concerning to AMD – and should be to the theatre board too (read full response).

Wednesday 26 July

John Kotzas, QPAC

As a general comment, a discussion paper regarding the future of theatre funding is both timely and important, and the paper itself raises a number of issues that are of key significance to this future.  In particularly the role of the major companies is a crucial issue to evaluate, particularly in terms of their role as part of the national theatre landscape, as is the question of whether to fund fewer companies, with greater levels of resourcing, or maintain the current number of companies, with depleting levels of funding in real terms.

However, the scope of the paper seems to be drawn essentially from an internal discussion, and as such, it appears that the fundamental questions regarding Australian theatre practice are not addressed.  As the discussion paper articulates, “there are few perches from which to see the whole landscape” (p.1); this is a salient point.  However, in order to be able to provide a fulsome analysis/problematisation of the future of theatre funding, an attempt to view that landscape in an holistic manner is crucial (read full response).

Monday 17 July

Chris Bendall

Obviously at the public forum much was made of the proposal contained in the report to delegate some responsibility to regional 'producers'. I think this is an interesting suggestion, but obviously needs much further fleshing out before I think any real comment can be made on the impact of this change. However, I think in principle the suggestion is useful. This suggestion could go some way to addressing a problem that I see in state by state and regional representation of artists. ie the office and staff of the theatre board are based in Sydney and are rarely able to travel to see performances interstate. So at present they rely on their one or two regional representatives to try to see as much as they can. I believe if there is more diversity in the opinion and weight of these regional 'reps' - we might see a more diverse range of work supported by OzCo in the future. Perhaps using region specific 'producers' who are on the ground so to speak, dealing with local artists in their own city / region, we might see some new artists supported by Ozco.

But on more pressing responses:

Regarding the question of 'innovation': I have observed over the years, a regular trend to not fund existing 'playscripts', in preference always of works that are perceived to be more 'innovative' or more 'cutting edge' by the board. By this I mean that cross-formal works, devised works, collective collaborations, physical performance and any other non-text based work does seem to always receive a priority. I am the last person to suggest that any work that has the potential to grow the art form should not be supported. All attempts to make theatre relevant and to prioritise innovation should be given as much support as possible. And, yes, I believe that the function of the theatre board should be to assist in the development of the artform on a national level. However, if in practice what this means is that any work that is perceived to come from a more 'traditional' background - ie a written fully developed playscript - then I believe the theatrical form is faced with a problem. If the national arts funding body supports theatre-makers but not theatre playwrights - then we are faced with a problem. There are many ways to make theatre, and all should be supported. However, purely because the 'text' of a work has been written and clarified in a script with traditional seeming dialogue, this does not mean that the company who is going to present this script cannot take innovative means and methods to present this text. It also certainly does not mean that this work should be prejudiced against. At present, based on the evidence of recent funding rounds in the 'new work' category - this certainly appears to be the case.

Regarding the question of 'small to medium companies': I think all your ideas in this section are very important and worth considering. I think it is false to continue to describe the issues facing the small to medium sector as if they are somehow separate to the issues faced by larger theatre organisations. The same issues and challenges apply. However the scale is vastly different. And your suggestion that the Australia Council could encourage our state theatre companies to pursue opportunities for mentoring smaller companies, or forming formal supportive relationships between each other could be a very positive step for the different tiers of theatre organisations to work together. The Malthouse Theatre already actively engages in striking up these sorts of relationships and co-productions. However the state companies (such as Melbourne Theatre Company) I believe need to be encouraged more strongly to consider these sorts of processes, to use their resources to develop and nurture younger companies and artists. I would suggest the model adopted in WA by Black Swan Theatre Company seems to be a good example that other companies should be encouraged to follow, ie a portion of their grant dedicated to supporting this sort of mentoring relationship.

New Work - I believe that it is vital that the Australia Council does continue to support as a top priority 'new Australian work'. But it does need to consider that remounts of existing work do need to be supported somewhere, and remounted productions of existing texts also, and at present these practices are not supported at local, state or federal level because of the emphasis always on the 'new'. This is why so many plays only ever see one public season, and then will never be seen again. The author has no incentive to further develop their work after a first season, as there is no chance that a company will receive support to produce a work a second-time around. A challenge when the money being spread is so thin – but I would like to see a new category opened up for these sorts of project.

Triennial Funding - As the Artistic Director of a small theatre company, presenting seasons of new work in Melbourne since 2001, I am very strongly in support of the Australia Council reconsidering its current models of triennial support. The present system cuts our organisation out of most opportunities for receiving financial support. If there is no entree available to us even for consideration for entry into the 'triennial funding' bracket, then we will surely die, along with most other small companies that start up in Melbourne and die after five or six years when they realise that no support will ever be forthcoming. At Arts Victoria the 'Organisational' funding bracket is closed to us, as that funding is locked up in cabinet apparently before it even makes it to Arts Victoria. We can't even discuss joining this exclusive club. The same appears to be true at present at Ozco. Why not open up an annual funding category, that supports innovative programs of activities? This would then be a gateway, from which then promotion to triennial funding could eventually be considered. More options needs to be considered to support companies such as Theatre @ Risk, which present year-long programs of new work. How can work be commissioned in advance, how can artists be brought on to projects in advance, and how can seasons be planned in advance, if we constantly relying on the vagaries of project by project funding?  

Once again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to this paper and I look forward to hearing more in the future about how these discussions develop.   

Friday 14 July

Polygot Puppet Theatre

The discussion paper stirred some deep emotions for the Board of Polyglot Puppet Theatre as a group of artists and individuals concerned with the viability and positioning of a company dedicated to children’s theatre.

As a triennially funded theatre board organisation we understand the critical importance of Australia Council funding for the sustainability and vibrancy of organisations such as ours.

We also see the dangerous demand placed on these funds given stunted funding levels and an ever growing number of organisations and artists keen to share in this modest pie.

We would like to see a companion discussion paper developed outlining the approach Australia Council is taking (with the support of artists, organisations and producers) to access further funding for theatre board clients – current and
prospective.

The issue of further funding has been mentioned in the introduction to your paper but without a similar discussion around a strategy to increase available funds, the  paper appears a slashing exercise, reducing funding and existing opportunities to facilitate regrowth (read full response).

Friday 14 July

Young People and the Arts Australia

The Young People and the Arts sector is vibrant and innovative by nature, being a primary producer of new theatre works for and by young people. Some of the most outstanding innovation in creativity and production is evident in this sector. And, importantly, artists and companies working in youth arts by and for young people have a sustainable audience base.

Typically, youth performing arts companies survive on the quality of their productions and their access to audiences. These two criteria of quality and audience numbers form the basis of the sustainability of the Young People and the Arts  sector.

The key issue underpinning the ‘Make it new?’ paper is that there are insufficient resources to fully support a vibrant, diverse theatre ecology in Australia. However, we believe that removing resources from the small-to-medium sector is not the solution to how to provide support for new, emerging and independent voices in theatre. Rather, this is an issue which needs to be addressed holistically by both the Theatre and Major Performing Arts Boards (read full response).

Friday 14 July

Teena Munn, Windmill Preforming Arts

If nothing else, this paper demonstrates the complexity of trying to get the best out of very finite and indeed shrinking financial resources!  

So from my present perspective as a General Manager of a small/medium sized theatre company that produces and presents new work, tours nationally and internationally, as well as drawing on my previous lives as an executive producer and program manager of venues and festivals, I offer a few comments….

I think it important that we have a national body that can both lobby at a federal level and to develop national and international strategies among other things.

It needs to perhaps work more closely with State funding bodies to develop complementary strategies and to keep “an ear to the ground” on what is happening at a local level, while continuing to have its own relationships with as many artists and companies as it can to keep a national view (read full response).

Thursday 13 July

Mark Wilkinson

The City of Darebin (the amalgamation of the former cities of Northcote and Preston) maintains and manages several performing arts venues ranging from a 60 seat black-box space to a 400 proscenium arch theatre. Council’s Arts & Cultural Development Branch has also initiated a number of theatre projects that involve creative development. For example Patricia Cornelius' Hogs Hair and Leeches, which went on to win the Gold AWGIE in 2000, was a work conceived and developed by Council for the International Year of Older Persons.

The first point I would like to make is the clear distinction between the skill set needed to develop new works and running a venue. While many people may have both skill sets the focus would always be split. Within Council we have one team that is focussed on cultural development and separate teams with expertise in venue management.

Venues are skilled in the presentation of work. Venues like ours rely on companies in the small to medium theatre to develop new work for presentation and to hone the skills of new artists. These companies are essential to the fabric of Australian culture and the artists involved need to be appropriately renumerated so they can dedicate their time to their art.

I recommend that the struggle should continue to be with the Commonwealth for further funding to ensure the viability and the expansion of the small to medium theatre sector.  This way venues will have a wealth of dynamic new material to present to the Australian public. We should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.   

Thursday 13 July

Arena Theatre Company

This year Arena Theatre Company celebrates forty years of creating performances for young audiences. Arena has, throughout its history, consistently examined a central question: What is the role of contemporary performance for young people in today’s world? The Company’s response to that question is defined by a constantly evolving vision that drives our artistic practice to refect the landscape of contemporary society. Our flexible models of operating, strong governance and financial stability support this. From the perspective of an organisational culture that embraces change, Arena submits the following responses to the make it new? discussion paper of the theatre board of the Australia Council.

Arena acknowledges that theatre making in this country is at a liminal point. Shrinking resources are driving evolutions in the way theatre is created. But while artists are generally working and living in difficult economic circumstances, this current climate has not, in our opinion, dulled the artistic landscape. Rather, true to the inventiveness and compulsiveness at the very core of artistic expression, these are amongst the factors that have fuelled strong and exciting responses in Australian (and international) contemporary performance making. This work speaks to and inspires modern audiences, breeding new models for its presentation, some of which allow its elevation from the fringe into the more traditionally mainstream forums (read full response).

Wednesday 12 July

An independent theatre artist

The role of the theatre board should be:

• Supporting high quality, innovative theatre
• Supporting entry points for a diverse range of theatre / practitioners
• New work
• On going support for established artists who have reached a plateau
• Supporting / validating the different levels that theatre emerges from
• The independent artist who works alone, with collectives of other professionals, and self producers are not left out of the loop
• About product, not about who the artist or work is attached to / produced by (read full response).
  

Thursday 29 June

Errol O'Neill

We still need a national funding agency for theatre. We still need the theatre board.

The theatre board is important, and must be maintained and supported. It should continue to play a role in developing the Australian theatre and allowing artists, particularly freelance artists, to develop their talents and continue their careers.

As a member of the Australia Council in the early to mid 80s I saw the extremely competent Council staff devote enormous energies every year to pre-budget submissions designed to make it clear to the Hawke Government exactly what it had to do to keep its promise to restore arts funding to the level of the Whitlam years in real terms. The promise was never kept. The current Government has shown that it has little interest in funding the arts to the level which the arts need (read full response).

Wednesday 28 June

Keith Gallasch

In the midst of astonishing wealth, the arts in Australia is a scarcity economy. Scarcity economies entail hard work, intermittent and sometimes zero incomes, severely limited resources and short lifespans.

In The Ballad of Narayama, twice made into classic films (Keisuke Kinoshita, 1958, Shohei Imamura, 1983), in a mediaeval Japanese village a man has to carry his aged mother to the valley where the aged living are dumped, to die so that the community can survive. But can he do it? Sentiment, affection or love could kill the next generation.

When faced with scarcity, we need to adapt, if we can, if we can find the right resources. It seems to me that the paper before us, Make it New?, is all about adaptation to very difficult circumstances for theatre in this country.

For some, such adaptation doubtless looks potentially worse than the current scarcity, with the prospect of being thrown off the edge of an already narrow funding precipice in favour of new players – like independent producers who may or may not take to your work. Better the funding devil you know…

However, funding remains static and the world is changing, and the failure to adapt could be fatal. It seems to me that the paper is not simply about the future, it is responsive to a future that is already arriving (read full response).

Wednesday 14 June

Vaike Neeme

With several past lives as stage manager, production manager, assistant producer and arts administrator behind me I am now one half of newly-formed theatre production company big M Productions and was very proud and excited to be one of only three independent producers present at the recent forum.

What was quickly apparent at said event was that there were many definitions and much confusion over what a producer, and specifically an independent producer, was, so let me preface my comment by saying I can only speak for myself.

When I read the Make it New discussion paper and also about the possible funding of independent producers I was so excited, not in a ‘great I can get some money’ way, but that my goals and one of my artform’s major funding bodies’ goals were falling in line. To my eyes, my job is to facilitate and/or commission the development and production of as many works of art as possible – and to bring these works in on time and on the money.

My immediate understanding of what ozco funding independent producers would mean is that potential works developed and produced would increase exponentially. And apart from hoping to be part of this myself, I feel great optimism and joy at this prospect as flourishing of the arts in Oz is what I most dearly hope and work for. Even the most business-like and industrious of art practicioners could surely only be working on one piece with any successful grant, perhaps with an eye on developing a second at the very most, whereas funding a producer could and should mean the groundwork being done on multiple projects with an ever-expanding vision and network-building for future work.

There is nothing I would like better than to have an artist come to me with a project they are passionate about and for me to take care of all but the artistic content so as to free them up to be brilliant, and for this to entail the hiring – at award or above – of other artists, technicians, designers – for new audiences to be secured and nurtured – and so on ad utopian infinitum.

The suspicion hinted at on the night around why a producer would be needed and what their motives may be I can understand as perhaps being bred of so many artists producing themselves, and consequent thoughts of ‘I’ve been doing this myself forever, why should I have to give someone else a cut for it’, and ‘they must only be in it for the money and therefore out to screw me’; my point is (again only speaking for myself) that I am not just a producer because that’s the only way I can get my work on, I am actually a career producer with zero desire to be the artist myself – I am good at it and seek to be better and the only money I would hope to make would be a reasonable fee – in line with the artist’s and any other collaborator’s fee.

People at the forum also seemed concerned about handing their budget over to a producer – my question would be what do they think a producer would do differently with a budget than they would themselves? I would have thought an artist would be glad to get rid of that headache and perhaps even hopeful that a career producer – not a producer by necessity – may bring that much lauded term ‘innovation’ to the budget!
I’m interested also in finding out why film funding puts such emphasis on the role of the producer – I’m told that funding doesn’t even go ahead without a producer being on board – what thinking arrived at that decision and why should theatre funding be different?

The point was also raised of concern over whether a producer’s desire for product would overlook the development phase; my idea would again be similar to that in film where part of my brief would be to commission new works and/or be brought potentials ideas where the writer/art-maker and myself could together apply for development funding...from the literature board/dance/theatre/what ever was appropriate and take it from there...   

Friday 26 May

Antonella Casella

ACAPTA is the national networking and advocacy body for the Australian Circus and Physical Theatre sector. Our committee includes representation from flagship companies (Debra Batton, Legs on the Wall, and myself, artistic associate, Circus Oz); key practitioners (Reg Bolton PhD, Circus in a Suitcase); small companies (Jeremy Gaden, manager, Candy Butchers); Community and Youth Circus (Kate Reid, Brewarrina Youth Circus); and Education (Helene Embling, NICA). We are the proud hosts of the bi-annual National Circus and Physical Theatre Conference.

I would like to say I am excited by this new initiative, and the following should be seen as a contribution to potential change, with some reservations. Many of my comments support suggestions in the initial proposal.

My mission, above all, is improved sustainability for small circus/physical theatre companies and artists - and as so many companies from this sector have a relationship with independent producers, I believe this proposal could have a significant impact on their work.

My specific concern here is that the Theatre Fund is very clear in regards to what it hopes to achieve by transferring funds from artists to producers, rather than, for example, continuing to lobby for a greater funding increase from the Arts Minister. I understand, of course, that these courses of action are not mutually exclusive (read full response).

Monday 22 May

Lyn Wallis, Downstairs Theatre Director, Company B

This is an expanded version of a presentation at the public forum in Sydney on 22 May 2006.

There are two issues that I responded particularly strongly to in this paper:

1. The way that developing artists engage (or don’t engage) with funding and funding bodies.
2. The incredible amount of funding that is tied up in rigid infrastructure (real estate, conservative staffing structures, photocopiers, equipment and maintenance etc.)

In light of this, I asked myself these questions:

"If creative producers (either as hubs or individuals) were more fully resourced, what would the benefits be to artists and artistic teams, particularly those currently isolated from funding by their developing status?"

"Would the conscious development of such producing networks ultimately provide a model or models that might help office/administration bound companies lighten their infrastructure, thus freeing up more funds for artists and work?"

Any shift in approaches to funding theatre clearly needs to acknowledge (and this paper does) that there is (and will always be) a developing generation of talented, motivated and hard working artists that, as they are sitting at the bottom of the food chain, have little or no access to funds or resources that will help them evolve into the artists we want and need them to be. One could say that state funding bodies are perhaps more responsible for their up and coming local talent, but my experience on the Arts NSW theatre committee has proved to me that the same issues exists at state level as at federal. The path to funding is vertical – it’s a ladder to be climbed. When starting out, you apply for creative or skills development money, then project, then annual, then triennial and in many years,  if you’re lucky enough to grow into the biggest tiger on the block, you enter the domain of the major organisations board. For the past couple of years I've been goading and prodding some of the developing companies I work with to start climbing that ladder. In my second year on the theatre committee, after seeing how hopeless it is for indie artists to reach even the bottom rung in their own state, I’ve stopped encouraging them. There had been such a huge amount of money lost from the theatre budget for 2006, that at one point it was actually suggested that a whole category might be cut entirely to rescue everything else, which would have taken an axe to that ladder in the most radical (and bloody) way.

The federal theatre funding ladder is in a similar state. Few developing artists can reach any rung at all. Those who have made it to the first stage feel confident, until they get to the middle of it and find they can't go any further. That’s because of the blockage around the mid-section, by companies who are taking up a lot of space. They'd like to go further, but find they have to wait until someone above has an accident and falls off. The bit above the middle is impassable. Those companies are almost part of the ladder, at one with the ladder. Their experience may give them the inalienable right to be there as they cling to the ladder for safety, but the rungs are sagging under their weight and there isn't any more timber to prop them up with. Above that can’t really be seen. But if you are above the clutter, you have a much better view … looking down. It’s better than looking up of course, because that part of the ladder is pretty dodgy too (even if those on the bottom think it must be paradise). In truth, there are many clouds ahead …

'The ladder' is rigid, linear and antiquated and is a fitting metaphor for the life journeys of many theatre artists, enterprise and companies in this country.

Newer structures must be found, and I suspect that 'vertical' is not the way. This doesn’t mean that notions of quality and experience are abandoned – any new structures would need to similarly embrace, promote and honour artistic growth and excellence, but who’s to say that a fantastic new work or company (let's say the 'X Team') in the first few years of its practice hasn’t got as equal a contribution to make to national identity or profile as a work by a triennial company or even major organisation? Why should we make X Team climb that bloody rickety ladder? Because they have to pay their dues? Because they have to wait for someone to trip and fall off? If it’s great work, why can’t they do it now?

Perhaps part of a new structure needs to lie on a horizontal plane, where the journey isn't up or down, but in any direction you want it to go. Where legitimacy isn't defined necessarily just by experience. Perhaps a better structure looks more like a web, or to give the idea a bit more bounce, a trampoline (read full response).   

Wednesday 17 May

Jude Anderson

The Make it new? document - along with Platform’s recent “Does Australia Need A Cultural Policy” - brings strategic cultural policy, models, and future visions for Australia very much to the fore.

Both papers pose complex questions that appear to respond more to building a healthy foundation for the future than any short term antidote to the political and budgetary realities of the day.

I write to you to provide you with a sense of how performing arts operated in France where I lived and worked, (and return to work), ever since 1990. France has a system of triennial government grants for companies, plus a
system of support for producers.

I have received strong central and regional ministry support, and had the good fortune of working with exceptional producers and artists in my 11 years of working there. I lived that system every day so perhaps can make some worthwhile comment on the positives and negatives.

The Australian equivalent of the French Government’s initiatives might be:

1. Receipt of a percentage of Australia Council funding to major performing arts institutions or festival producers is contingent upon supporting the production of new work projects funded through the theatre board of the Australia Council-New Work category.
2. Underwriting – Guarantee Against Loss for works programmed in Australia that have been funded through the Australia Council theatre board- New work category.
3. Receipt of triennial funding contingent upon the development of 2 new works every 3 years and a touring history. (In France, major festivals and/or institutions, often as part of the co-producer funding requirements mentioned above would programme triennially funded companies. The touring obligation of course gave the “majors” too much power in negotiation i.e. price cutting, two performances for one etc., but at the same time it ensured consistently high standards of work and often programmes full of vitality, enriched with exciting explorations in performance).
4. In France, and in Europe for that matter, there are many producers who operate outside of festival and ‘theatre as venue’ contexts because this is the direction of theatre that is developing and engaging audiences aged 18 years and upwards (and has been for the past 10 years).
5. Producers will work with other producers to share production and touring burdens. This can sometimes lead to complacency. In France there are GRACs (Groupement Regionale des Associations Culturelles). They are made up of representative producers from all the state and regional theatre centres who meet 2 to 3 times a year to discuss what they have seen and then determine the forthcoming seasons. To my knowledge, in 2002, there were three operating in France following a North South axis and made up in total of 22 State Theatre Centres and around 100 National Theatre Centres (Performing Arts Centres).  The Artistic Directors for these centres had 3 year renegotiable contracts that were negotiated through council or advisory committee to the ministerial director of the day– the equivalent of the Chair of the Australia Council  theatre board. Being co produced by a GRAC meant around 70 possible performance dates. Approximately 6 new works were programmed by each of the GRACs of which 2 to 3 would be created in coproduction (or residency) by one, or between, the GRAC members. This system would mean that out of the thousands of contemporary companies trying to survive in France only a small percentage had the good fortune of being programmed for a long run. However the Ministry of Culture’s insistence on tagged funding meant that a certain percentage of works being co produced had to emanate from within each co producer’s region, thus ensuring exposure and regional support for those works. If you had negotiated 15 presentations dates prior to opening night (very rare beyond the GRACs or Summer festival circuit but a great deal easier in contemporary puppetry and objects), you were eligble for extra government support through its guarantee against loss system. The production life of a work that was produced on a national or European level was, when I left France in 2001, approximately 3 to 4 years. This  however depended on the timing of opening night and how that corresponded with producers' juggling the programming of performances and coproduction offers over the forthcoming 2 to 3 years.

Producers, in their search for impact, can just as capably lack comprehension in their regard for works and their makers, as governments are capable of ignoring vital areas that no longer correspond to where votes of the day lie.

An exceptional and courageous producer will assist practitioners who explode and reinvent artistic forms and who are not guided by ‘sense’. On the contrary, great producers produce those works that invent sense for us.

That is the Australia Council’s capacity. You have recognised and support artists’ capacity to invent and reinvent sense, and are clear about that. It’s where the health and vitality of the future lies. 

Thursday 11 May

Cecelia Spence

It seems that the decline in funding is the most significant problem facing the Australia Council’s Major Performing Arts Board and theatre board. While arguments exist to move away from traditional funding patterns in order to free up funding for the Make it new? program I feel that this new initiative should aim to complement theatres funded by the Major Performing Arts Board.

To my mind it is important that the benefits of each theatres organisational history, memory and security in its existence be nurtured by a continuation of Triennial funding. Emerging artists need to have opportunities to develop their work and they also need to experience the expertise, depth and variety that established theatres can provide when producing a new work. Too much movement towards ‘one off’ theatre experimentation suggests that the emerging artist must re-invent the wheel in order to stage a new work.

In this area there seem to be two distinct problems:

1. The need to provide opportunities for emerging artists to get new work produced
2. The need to continue to adequately support existing theatres.

Suggestions.

The first problem might be addressed by partnerships between established producers and successful (i.e. selected) emerging artists. The expertise of producers would then be able to bring the work to an exisiting triennially funded theatre, or another venue.

The general decline in funding might be resolved if there was a National Arts Lottery developed similar to that presently operating in the UK. If this were successful the Lottery might reduce dependence on government funding in the longer term.   

Thursday 11 May

David George

As an award-winning playwright and director, internationally recognised expert on Asian theatre, Professor of Theatre and Dance in Australia and New York and founder of a viable, regional, professional theatre company, I am an informed member of the theatre community.

I have read your discussion paper and will say this:

1. Your whole paradigm is wrong - you think and talk in terms of either companies and organisations or "artists," but theatre is not companies or artists, theatre is events.  So fund events.

Instead of administration-heavy companies who put on less and less plays and are protected from catering to audiences by assured subsidies, instead of funding "artists" who you encourage in narcissism by prioritising how grants will improve their artistic genius rather than attract audiences; instead of this incestuous waste, fund events. Fund specific theatre productions, with proper budgets, production values and, above all, evidence that they are conceived with an audience in mind.  

You write that "artists are the foundation". No: theatre is an interaction between performers and audiences and you ignore the latter at your peril.

2. As for companies, since, politically, you have to support a limited number of them: fund them for a maximum of three years at a time with the proviso that, during those three years, they have to develop a plan for the following three years: i.e. three-years on/three-years off.  That way you can re-introduce responsibility.  And double your pool of companies!!

3. Theatre is threatened above all by two things - disregard for audiences and narcissism. You fund both!

I could go on, but internal revisions and reforms such as you are now proposing, be they on a national or - as we have had recently in WA - a State level, can never yield true results. You are as dependent on those you fund as they are on you.

I have received grants and commissions before.

I now run a professional company that is funded by wineries and the theatre-going public. We are selling out every season - including the current one, starring Andy King, who received an Equity Lifetime Achievement Award last year and is giving one of the great performances of his career as Arnolphe. But that is happening not up there under the auspices of a funded company but down here...   

Wednesday 10 May

Sophie Travers

My answers to the specific questions raised in the very thoughtful and provocative paper are:

1. No, leave the innovation to the artists in terms of content and form - encourage it in schemes etc, by all means, but don't define it yourselves. There should be a mix of funding models- some strategic, some ongoing- with a regular review of the portfolio of schemes to rejig those bits which can be rejigged.

I think there needs to be some consolidation done nationally and realistic devolution of control to the states for certain organizations and hand-over of others to a national overview

The international connections should be part of the portfolio of strategic schemes, with no greater emphasis upon this area than others, such as audience development, new writing etc- its an expensive business and if your house isn't in order before you start, has questionable outcomes

The role of the national body should be to provide leadership, vision and a real overview of provision. It should consolidate and develop the work of the states and delineate clear distinctions which are mutually agreed. Power and funds should be devolved where appropriate within this model.

2. Long term funding agreements should be for three years maximum and should be configured within the portfolio of other schemes - strategic, etc - so that the organisations' roles are clear cut and defined nationally with reference to the whole portfolio of national and state based orgs.

3. We need a greater range of structures and mechanisms with differing timescales for evaluation and support. We need to create these models in consultation with the sector - engaging specialists from each identified niche of the portfolio to create their own best models.

4. We do need to invest more in producers but not excessively - a few good people can make a big impact and change a culture of confusion/suspicion as hinted at in paper's questions about this area. A slow start would ease open this area where much growth can be achieved without alienating artists or larger organizations. Maximum transparency is required in this area, as it does come down to individuals, so conflicts of interest need to be rigorously guarded against.

5. The peer system seems to work well for creating a virtuous loop between the sector and funders - educating in both directions- and if well managed should be a dynamic system which has the faith of all.

6. I don't think new work requires any greater focus than other parts of the portfolio - such as touring, marketing, audience development, education, outreach, international etc- the key is in the creation of a dynamic ecology where each part of the chain feeds each other part and strategic interventions can be made when certain parts are flagging. As you say, new work is not currently flagging ...

7. Similarly, I do not think innovation needs to be over emphasized as a healthy fully functional organization that sticks to a working formula does wonders for audiences ... There is room for tradition in the portfolio too. Innovation just needs to be identified as belonging to certain parts of the portfolio and these need to be monitored to ensure it remains front of mind.

8. More partnership is crucial to avoid stasis and complacency. Partnerships outside of theatre too are life giving and the more lateral connections across parts of the portfolio the better, providing clear mutual benefits are articulated and maintained.   

Friday 5 May

Naomi Guss

I would suggest more funding opportunities for smaller companies to collectively collaborate on a production or a season of double bills. This would not only enhance the small companies networking and contacts, but provide another company to bolster support, members, publicity, money, and an exchange of creativity and ideas.

A national theatre body should be looking at changing the long-term job prospects for theatre workers, creating an environment that supports new work (such as perhaps a body to aid in the specifics of finding the correct insurance, since many performers go without because it is too expensive and too difficult to find. The Melb. Fringe Festival now offers their own policy to the performers registered to the festival, because there was no policy available a few years ago at all in Australia to those performers, and because so many don't know where to obtain insurance), and so forth.

There needs to be national and state support bodies for theatre workers. Okay, there is MEAA - one body in which practically most professional theatre workers rely heavily on to gain business and theatre-related information - but if you do not belong to the union, or do not know about it, then you do not have that support.

What I am saying is that instead of focusing on how to produce more sustainable theatre, focus on producing more sustainable networks and support systems. Focus on the information base. Focus on creating opportunities for smaller groups to at least break even. These are the people that need the help.

Friday 5 May

Zane Trow

The independent producer thing is always worth the effort. But it would be interesting to see a mode of production that works outside of the established (all be it important) "touring" or "festival" models. In this style in the UK are Artangel http://www.artangel.org.uk/, and the Live Art Development Agency http://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/ and we have nothing quite like them here.

A similar Australian agency might take devolved "new work" or "innovation" funds out of the hands of the theatre fund, based around an agreed five-year set of artistic and economic criteria:

• It might establish a flexible and constantly shifting network of artists and companies and build partnership investment around "ideas"; it might, say, focus on suburban Australia as a site for all the work (or deserts, or rain forests, or town squares)
• It might develop a kind of "performance innovation" task force that creates diverse performance events in these locations
• It might also allow an individual artist four or five years of development time around a single signature work
• It might build an international network around the artists and companies involved and seek to extend investment into contemporary arts networks in other continents
• It would never produce work in theatres or arts centres unless it had a very good reason
• It would have very limited overheads and certainly no building or rented office - a small mobile independent wireless structure, staffed nationally by only one or two core people at a time (model: http://www.maap.org.au/)
• It would only promote the work, not itself; artistic risks would be its core business.

Very affordable and the possible long-term benefit factor is high.

But the improbability factor (in current socio/political/cultural climate) is also high.   

Tuesday 2 May

Staff at Southern Edge Arts

Change is inevitable. The arts are constantly changing and so should the environment that supports it!

For 21 years, SEA has been funded largely by the Australia Council as a key organisation through the theatre board. Because of this, communities of the southern WA have benefited from participation and performances produced. It is interesting to read your analysis of what artistic directors may become in a future restructure. The role of producer is an interesting one. In some ways SEA already fills this capacity by employing artists from around Australia to produce new works on behalf of our company. We pride ourselves on Innovation - only last year our company slogan read "innovate…motivate…create".

What makes us different from the companies that you describe in your paper is the demographic that we work with. In many ways we are lucky, we tick all the political boxes - youth, disadvantaged, indigenous, rural and regional. On the other hand our disadvantage lies in the ability to connect with a community that often under values the role of the arts. We are often undervalued by working with young people, a reward that is often only recognised by those closely linked with the projects. It could be said that artistic merit is sometimes jeopardised by the young people involved in the project - working with young people is often an art in itself.

So where does that leave a company like ours?

• When creating new works, projects are guided by the ability of the young persons involved
• We rely on the energy of overworked, underpaid staff - obviously not a scenario unique to our company
• And when we have a work that has pushed the boundaries and is a success, it gets shoved away in a box. How do you tour 60 kids, 4 staff, 10 parents, sets, puppets, lighting etc.

Where in the proposal do you play with the thought of the role in companies in audience and arts development. Aren't we creating a culture that is sensitive to the arts and culture? That recognise the need of these within our community? Are we not developing future artists, arts workers and more importantly audiences? Is it as imperative that we "get bums on seats"? Does it matter that no one may see the end product? Isn’t the process just as important as the outcome? One of our major funders, relies on us to use our arts as a catalyst to producing healthy communities.

Perhaps we best fit into your description of the second approach to triennial funding. We are an infrastructure within our own community. We even now have our own purpose built venue, which is perhaps a first for any youth arts organisation in Australia? However, we do not fit into the triennial category.

If I look at the notion of "value for money", perhaps we are in a good position to offer this to our funding bodies. Often we see funding spread across communities in our region to art projects that are well under funded with little capacity or personnel to "pull it off". Perhaps that funding would be better to go to organisations like ours, where proper "arts practice" can be developed and performed within smaller, less well equipped communities. But the question remains, are we considered one of those "value for money" organisations.  For this reason, perhaps the fund fewer, but fund better mechanism would work for an organisation like ours, however, does that mean that we are in a position to be deciding on what artistic practice should be developed in southern WA? I guess that depends on the personnel at the time.

So the questions from Southern Edge Arts to this proposal is where does a small youth organisation sit in the greater scheme of things? WE are not in a position to compete with professional theatre companies, nor does our company aim to. What we have to offer is not always about an end product, but the innovation and creative vehicles we use to develop the arts in our region.

Although we think changes for the theatre board are necessary and well over due, it is always concerning to think that knee jerk reactions to the state of the arts by a bureaucratic organisation and miss the "on the ground" face value of the small, yet vibrant organisations. I guess for us, the fact that changes looming may distract the organisation from the momentum it has been building up over the past two years, where we have been working hard  to create an organistaion for young people to explore the arts in a safe environment. And the benefits that that provides to the community… well.. how can that be measured?

We watch with interest the progression of this proposal.   

Monday 1 May

John Baylis, Director of Theatre, Australia Council for the Arts

Welcome to this discussion forum on the future of theatre funding and the Make it new? paper. The whole point of this forum is for you to have a say about what you see as the best ways that we can support the Australian theatre sector. You might want to comment on specific ideas in the discussion paper or you might have ideas of your own that we haven’t thought of. So browse the thoughts and ideas of like-minded people committed to the future of our sector and have a say on what you think.