Discussion forum: May-July 2007

The Make it new? discussion paper was discussed through this web discussion forum between May and July 2007.

The Australia Council’s theatre board held extensive consultations across the country in mid-2006 on the ways that we can best support the sector.

A second paper has been produced, containing detail around potential changes to the theatre board’s funding programs for 2008. There are proposed changes to only three funding categories – new work, program and key organisations – triennial grants.

We welcome your comments on this paper and ways that you think the Australia Council can best support the theatre sector. 

16 July 2007

Jeff Khan, Next Wave

Next Wave thanks the theatre board for this opportunity to respond to the second stage of the Make it New discussion process. As a long-time supporter of the creation of new work by Australia’s most promising young and emerging theatre-makers, Next Wave sees this discussion as particularly important in securing a future funding environment in which relatively untested new practitioners can receive significant levels of support: to create ambitious and risky new works which contribute to the growth of performance culture in Australia; but also to provide professional development opportunities and clear pathways for their future creative and professional advancement, as well as opportunities for critical evaluation and feedback from both within and without the sector.

In this way Make it New’s proposed model of a more networked environment, in which pathways and connections between artists and organisations are more readily supported and accessible through a more considered selection of funding initiatives, would be particularly useful in fostering a healthier and more responsive culture of theatre in Australia. However, as suggested in Next Wave’s initial response to the first Make it New communiqué, it is also crucial in this process to consider the incredibly diverse array of formal and conceptual approaches to the medium, many of which are being championed by younger practitioners in non-traditional formats (both in terms of their development and their presentation), and the differing needs of these projects as well as their capacity to access presenting institutions.

MODES OF PRESENTATION

According to the proposed funding structures outlined in the second Make it New communiqué, we believe that Next Wave clearly fits the model of Presenter, and we appreciate the feedback that we have received from peers and stakeholders regarding our work to date in this role. We believe that the ongoing strength of our program is largely due to our privileging of artists’ voices and our investment in responding to the interests and needs of their work and working collaboratively towards their production. This is partly achieved by the curatorial processes undertaken by the festival, in our open-door policy to artists wanting to discuss a potential project or proposal; and our focus on peer-assessment and dialogue undertaken through our Curatorial Advisory Committees and engagement of Associate Producer staff.

In our experience, emerging practitioners flourish most when they are given the space to develop their own interests and approach to the medium, yet also have the opportunity to engage in a close critical and curatorial dialogue with a producing entity (whether this is an individual or an organisation), which can act as a sounding board and has the capacity to consider their conceptual and practical concerns as fundamentally interconnected phenomena in the development of their work. Therefore, the second option outlined for Presenter organisations in the most recent discussion paper, in which Presenters are given the opportunity to seed and work closely with new projects at the development stage, would present an important opportunity for younger and emerging practitioners, who may be unaware of the broader drives and directives of the sector at large or are unable to access the infrastructure of established presenters, to develop work in a supportive and critically rigorous environment, whilst also developing their professional knowledge and networks, which may lead to further opportunities.

FOSTERING EXPERIMENTATION & RISK

Whilst Next Wave has provided countless opportunities for young performers and start-up companies to present their work in a supportive environment, we are also committed to fostering work that is challenging, critically engaged and experimental in nature. Our experience of young theatre-makers is of increasingly ambitious performers and companies with an expanding investment in hybrid and interdisciplinary approaches to the medium. Whilst we believe that this mode of theatre is most reflective of our contemporary cultural moment, and therefore often the most effective forum from which to critically engage both audiences and fellow artists, this also means that the requirements of our performance projects are often more complex than conventional artist-venue relationships.

Furthermore, this kind of work also often makes significant conceptual and physical shifts from its development to its presentation phase. As an organisation working closely with artists from development through to presentation, Next Wave has retained the capacity to respond to such shifts and adapt to the changing needs of projects, where these needs are feasible and appropriate. For example, Spat&Loogie’s 2006 work New!Shop received developmental funding from the theatre board before moving into a more technological realm and gaining presentation funding from the New Media Board, whilst Keith Lim’s project Out of Body Experience, currently in development courtesy of the theatre board’s funding for our 2007 Kickstart program, has developed a more fluid movement vocabulary which has seen it shift towards the Dance Board, to whom we have applied for presentation funding for the work. To summarise, the development of new work must be supported as just that, with the capacity for failure, risk, and significant new directional shifts which may not be known at the outset of the developmental process. In order for the changes proposed in Make it New to effectively support the needs or artists’ development, presenting bodies must be responsive to such shifts – or artists must be supported in their capacity to seek alternative presenting partners, according to the evolving nature of their work.

RESOURCING DEVELOPMENT

Presenting hybrid and site-specific work in unconventional spaces is both logistically and financially challenging, yet often garners the most positive feedback from creators and audiences alike, and must be appropriately resourced. In order to fulfil our dual role of nurturing young and less experienced practitioners, whilst also encouraging them to successfully undertake risky and challenging projects, it is important that Next Wave retains a level of staff and resources to appropriately support the development and presentation of this work. Next Wave invests significant amounts of its time and resources into nurturing this development process through the provision of funding, workshops, office resources and staff time, and the overwhelming feedback from our artists is that this support has been crucial in their artistic growth.

Production and presentation are often closely linked in the process of making new work, and organisations supporting young and emerging artists need to be properly resourced to be flexible and responsive to artists’ needs, and to support these artists through both cycles of their work, according to their particular needs and artistic focus, rather than simply presenting a suite of practical resources for presentation which young artists may not know how to access or best utilise, or which may not even interest them.

CONCLUSION

In Next Wave’s previous submission to the theatre board, prepared by then Artistic Director Marcus Westbury in response to the first Make it New communiqué, Next Wave argues for a more diverse ecology of performance in Australia, in which exploratory and innovative new work is given a fair and supportive platform for development, and in which new practitioners have the opportunity to access resources alongside more established companies and more traditional approaches to the medium. This remains a central concern for Next Wave and should be an important consideration for the Australia Council in the further advancement of the Make it New process. The impulse to experiment with the medium and make ambitious and hybrid work must not be compromised by the drive to simply make “producible” work or to create work because it would potentially be attractive to producing organisations and the implied funding opportunities they represent. Notwithstanding, the wider opportunity to open more resources up to artists, and for practitioners to be able to better and more directly access (and work more closely with) organisations on an equal level, holds much potential  for the growth of a more diverse, innovative and sustainable culture of theatre in Australia.  

16 July 2007

Anita Favretto, Australian Script Centre

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Make it New proposal. There are just three points that I would like to make on behalf of the ASC.

The first is a general point regarding the importance of providing support for the development of new writing for performance and of recognising the need for writers to receive support for the process of writing new work. This process is more often than not undertaken independently and does not initially involve a creative team (this comes later). We would very much support an initiative that helps to nurture the development of new writing and explorations of writing for performance, purely for the sake of script development.  In this model, establishing a creative team and securing a production partner would not be an initial requirement.

The second point relates to regional work and the difficulty of sustaining the life of a work that has had its beginnings in a regional area. Much excellent new work is presented in regional areas and then disappears without a trace. It is unlikely that the work has been seen by a broad range of industry peers, potential producers or received a significant review (it’s like the tree falling in the forest without being seen). This work should not be excluded from the “new work” category if it is innovative and has the potential to challenge audiences and theatre practice outside of its own region.

The last point relates directly to the ASC and is to say that  the centre would very much welcome the opportunity to be recognised as a National Strategic Organisation. The ASC has an important function in developing the profile of playwrights across the country, and in distributing their work to markets nationally and globally. The opportunity to work more strategically and in an increasingly collaboratively way across the sector is something that we welcome.

Congratulations on developing a positive and forward thinking strategy.  We look forward to working with you into the future to help build and support the Australian performance sector.  

14 July 2007

Neil Hunt, Kim Carpenter's Theatre of Image

In general we support the essential themes of Communiqué 2.  Our responses are based on our experiences as a company based in Sydney NSW and how we have survived, responded and adapted to changing needs in the local performing arts landscape.

Artists are adaptable to change through the necessity to survive as there is never any guarantee of success on any level in the performing arts, a flexible artist and environment is a given.

NEW WORK AND PRESENTER GRANTS

Yes, theatre board funding is crucial to the funding of new work. We favour a less restrictive model that considers the variables in partnerships.  It will always be more difficult to attract a partner to the more risky and adventurous work, irrespective of the work’s development stage – e.g. Tales From The Arabian Nights.  We found it impossible to secure a partner in the children’s theatre genre – despite trying very hard - because of the political and social context of this piece.  We believed in it and The Australia Council provided a project grant.  We marketed it carefully and created an artistically and financially successful NSW/Victorian tour.  On the other hand, we had to shelve Silverwing as it was too dark for potential partners.

1. At the mercy of the thinking of potential presenter partners, a company producing new work may be forced to go it alone – something that The Australia Council needs to factor into their policy.
2. The long lead times employed by larger infrastructured companies and presenters can lead to delays in the presentation of new work and, again may force the producing company to mount the production independently.  A partner’s financial position also may lead to delays.
3. Australian festivals are unreliable presenter partners as their programs are determined according to the personal taste of the artistic director and the degree of their loyalty and commitment to Australian artists.  Generally speaking festivals offer far fewer financial and artistic partnerships than they did a decade ago.  They now mostly view new work as product and offer to cover only marketing and venue costs.  Where is the philosophy?

We advocate a more flexible model that enables artists, companies and presenters more power to choose their partners and the flexibility to go it alone when none can be found. 
Our proposed model combines Presenter Grants and New Work Grants into a Partnership Scheme.

1. For companies outside the Key Organisations Triennial stream, the Australia Council’s Presenter Grant model adds a level of complication. We have a long experience in working with venues for hire (such as regional theatres) and funded producer/presenters (such as Sydney Theatre Company).  
2. To its credit the Australia Council model would encourage venues such as The Seymour Theatre Centre to partner a company such as Theatre of Image given the right circumstances.
3. However, funded producer/presenters (such as Sydney Theatre Company) would be excluded from Presenter Grants in the Australia Council’s proposed model – yet they are the best placed to present new work because of their artistic and material resources and the vast experience in producing their own work. 
4. Our model would make Presenter Grants available to all presenters irrespective of their funding status with the proviso that such grants be Partnership Grants with the producing company and tied into the New Work Grants.
5. Rather than have presenters seed a number of new developments which they then cherrypick, they would choose a producer to partner a new work which they would then move onto present in its final form.
6. This is a very efficient use of resources and avoids investing in work that the presenter ultimately determines is unsuitable for presentation.

As a part of this model we recommend this type of Partnership Grant also be used to foster partnerships between organisations who together can produce work that they would find it impossible to do alone.  Theatre of Image has lead the way in this area with theatre for children through co-productions with Opera Australia, the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, Australian Youth Orchestra and internationally with Canada’s Manitoba Theatre For Young People and the Kageboushi Theatre Company. 

In this way The Australia Council can foster the creation of new work using resources that theatre companies such as Theatre of Image could never afford.  As we have done in the past, the two organisations can also partner with a presenter (as we did with Sydney Theatre Company for Stella & The Moon Man and Lulie The Iceberg) to produce an outcome that benefits all parties.

PRODUCING HUBS – KEY ORGANISATIONS

This is the category that most matches the profile of Theatre of Image.  The one-line definition of these organisations is that they are institutions of the small to medium sector (Theatre of Image would fall into the medium sub-category). It is an institution as it is regarded as the premier theatre company for children in NSW and is the only company producing large-scale mainstage theatre for children in NSW. Although the assessment criteria are useful we suggest that they need to be expanded and that checks and balances be instituted to ensure equity, transparency and accountability.  The implementation of a comprehensive and independent appeal process is an essential part of any public funding policies and current limitations should be reassessed as part of Make it new.

The current assessment process should be expanded to involve institutions and processes that are independent of the council and the theatre board - especially in regard to the area of artistic excellence and what constitutes a key organisation.  Existing independent benchmarks that are relevant to artistic excellence include:

1. Industry awards – such as the Helpmann Awards, The NSW Premier’s Literary Awards, the AWGIEs (Australian Writers’ Guild Awards), The Sydney Theatre Awards, AbaF Awards, The Mo Awards and Sidney Myer Performing Arts Awards
2. Theatre reviews in the printed and electronic media
3. The assessment of the artistic excellence of organisations by: a. State Funding bodies e.g. Arts NSW, The Department of Education & Training b. An organisation’s artistic partners – e.g Sydney Theatre Company, Australian Youth Orchestra, Opera Australia c. Industry peak organisations – e.g. YPAA and LPA d. Industry publications
4. Ensuring that like is compared to like.  Equity cannot be sustained if theatre for children is assessed alongside theatre for adults and vice versa.
   

It is impossible for every member of the theatre board to attend every season of every applicant’s work.  It is also very difficult for a board member to assess the artistic merit of a company’s work solely by reading the grant application.  Also, it would be impossible to expect that every member of the theatre board would be across every theatre artform and sector. By including external and independent assessments of applicants’ work, the board will be in a better position to reach informed conclusions on the quality of the organisations that they are being asked to assess.

There is a pressing need for a set of criteria to be established that will be used to determine whether or not an organisation is to be assessed as Key.  We recommend that the following key issues be considered in this determination:

1. Demographic. Clearly set out the demographic boundaries to ensure that the whole population is properly served.  The main groups would be based on:
a. Age - broken down into the four main age brackets: under 5, 5-12 (primary schools), 13-18 (high schools/youth) and 19-25 (young adult); adult.
b. Socio-economic status – i.e. groups advantaged and disadvantaged by factors that include income, education, general living standards and social factors related to their standing in society and location.

2. Geographic. 
a. Ensure that the different demographic groups are given equal access to the performing arts irrespective of their state of residence.  For example ensure equal funding for children’s theatre in each state.
b. Ensure that audiences outside the capital cities are provided equal access to the performing arts by supporting companies who regularly conduct intrastate and interstate tours.

3. Educational.  In line with the Australia Council’s Education Strategy include in the assessment process the value and reach of an organisation’s educational program.  In the past, governments have not accorded Theatre of Image financial and logistical support for the significant services the company provides to the school children of NSW through its Sydney metropolitan and regional schools touring program. The company has been a trailblazer in bringing children to experience live theatre at their local performing arts centre instead of work being presented in a school setting.  Our educational outreach has now been acknowledged by the NSW Department of Education & Training through a unique substantial triennial grant provided to ensure that our program can continue.

4. Audience development. A key organisation will be at the forefront of audience development in its state and in its sector. 
a. Organisations that are active in developing their own audiences and the audiences of the future through strategic planning and effective marketing will be leaders in their state and in their sector.  Theatre of Image invests heavily in audience development both in the education and general markets and leverages its investment through strategic partnerships which include (or have previously included) Sydney Theatre Company, Riverside Theatres Parramatta, The Seymour Theatre Centre and, now, the Department of Education & Training.

b. A key organisation will have a record of critically and financially successful seasons and tours that will have enabled it to forge a reputation in the industry and amongst its audience thus allowing it to produce new work knowing that its reputation will significantly reduce the associated financial risk. 

c. A key organisation will be able to draw on its investment in a repertoire of successful work.  This is of particular relevance to a children’s theatre company which is able to remount existing work because its audience grows up and is replaced regularly by a new one.  Children’s theatre by its nature is the essence of audience development at the grassroots level.

THEATRE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE REPORT

This report was produced in 2005 by The Australia Council and Arts NSW.  It recommended a number of priority actions:

DEVELOPING THE AUDIENCE AND THE MARKET

It is recommended that:

1. Through a partnership between theatre board and Audience Marketing & Development, challenge funding be piloted with a circuit of venues (at various scales, and both metropolitan and regional) which are willing to commit over several years to the programming of professional TYP and to a combined (venue-company) audience development program targeted at specific market segments.  Funding might be available for:
a. development of joint marketing plans
b. audience research
c. underwriting programming or marketing costs
d. ticket subsidy schemes
e. supplementary ‘scaffolding’ material which assists in interpretation of the work
f. transport or other access initiatives
g. remounting costs to exploit previous successful productions.
Some of these developments might occur in partnership with Playing Australia.

2. Council pilot support for one or more independent producers charged with increasing penetration of the education and theatre-venue market, with subsidised TYP companies as priority clients under the terms of the producers’ funding. It is envisaged that such a role would be interactive between the market-place and the producing companies (similar to the function fulfilled by Performing Lines), not merely an agent to on-sell the work.

3. The work of leading TYP companies (and work for children and young people of other major companies) be placed in the vanguard of a national branding campaign for the arts, both to enhance public awareness and to build political support.

4. An education-awareness campaign targeted at journalists should be considered, to increase their understanding of TYP, and lay the foundations for greater exposure and better informed coverage of the sector. As with the preceding recommendation, this is potentially a partnership initiative with AMD.

5. In coordination with MPAB incentives be offered to encourage multi-year partnerships between major theatre companies and funded TYP (and youth theatre) companies – the objective being to leverage existing investment in TYP and MPAB organisations, contribute to high production standards in TYP work, and encourage sympathetic policy development within the major theatre companies.

FORGING PARTNERSHIPS WITH EDUCATION

Continuing dialogue is needed between strategic arts and education agencies to clarify the ways in which the performing arts can meet changing educational and curriculum needs. Enhanced mutual understanding is a prerequisite for longer-term partnership arrangements, including funding partnerships.
Recommendations in this area are beyond the capacity of the theatre board or the Australia Council to implement independently, not least because education is predominantly a state responsibility. However, stimulus, leadership and (where appropriate) coordination are proper prerogatives of the theatre board and the Australia Council, and it is in this context that the following are presented.

It is recommended that:

1. The Council explore with state education and arts agencies ways of increasing:
a. the number of specialist education officers in major theatre companies, in performing arts venues, and in medium-scale theatre companies
b. the appointment of specialist arts teachers to primary schools
c. the number of high schools that have a particular specialisation in the performing arts.

2. The Council pursue with state education and arts agencies the development and adoption of agreed target-levels (benchmarks) for theatre provision for young people, building on the growing partnerships and policies emerging at state and territory level—the purpose being to establish an expectation of the frequency of exposure to TYP which children and young people should enjoy, and to position cultural engagement as a right not a privilege.

3. The development of benchmarks would require mapping of current levels of contact between TYP and young people on a state by state basis, both with TYP work generally and funded work in particular, leading to a gap analysis which highlights variations in access by location and possibly by age-range. From this, desirable levels of contact would be negotiated and adopted as targets which inform mutual working between arts and education agencies.

We support these recommendations and strongly suggest that they be incorporated into Make it new.  

14 July 2007

Chris Bendall, Theatre @ Risk

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Make it new Communique 2.

From my perspective, there is much heartening news here.

Especially I am pleased to note the new Emerging Key Organisations category. This is something we at Theatre @ Risk have long advocated for on both a state and federal level, so thank you for proposing this change. For too long, 'new' or 'emerging' companies have essentially been shut out of asking for support on anything other than a project by project basis.

This makes future planning next to impossible, and since such future planning for a theatre company consists of commissioning authors well in advance and allowing longer gestation periods for the development of ideas, scripts and projects the inevitable result of this is that the art suffers. This also finally recognises that there are plenty of innovative companies that create and program excellent and important work that have not been given a proper chance to survive.

Many have already burned out before this change, but perhaps this is a chance to save and support the companies that are still surviving. So good news. My question regarding this new category, is that there is very little description given as yet on what sort of selection criteria might apply? What thoughts do you have on the limitations that will exist to who can apply under this category - or will it be purely an open submission process?

Regarding the proposed changes to funding support under the New Work - Production category however, I am not so convinced that these changes will prove beneficial on a national scale. Firstly, I am not certain that these proposed changes are as relevant in other cities as they perhaps are in Sydney?

Firstly, regarding the suggestion that support from venues/presenters other than "negotiated discounted venue hire" be a form of pre-requsitie concerns me greatly. In my experience in Melbourne, there are very few presenters who will be willing to take risks by offering any substantial support other than a discounted venue rental. Occasionally venues might pitch in to a very small degree with marketing or publicity support, but this has also been invariably very limited support.

The offers are invariably small in-kind support. The few absolutely non-negotiable costs of presenting theatre seem to be the very costs that now will be unable to be funded by this category: Lighting / venue hire / marketing / publicity etc. I have produced work in both Sydney and in Melbourne, and have noticed that increasingly in Sydney there are far more structured approaches to this sort of support, but these structures although occasionally attempted here by venues such as Theatreworks and The Storeroom have not survived in Melbourne. The only venue/presenters in Melbourne I am aware of who currently give any structured substantial support are major organisations such as the Malthouse and Full Tilt at the Arts Centre.

I also believe by removing support for proper marketing and advertising, the problem of building audiences for theatre will increase. Will other categories for support perhaps be opened up specifically for marketing assistance to compensate for the lack of support that this vital area will now potentially receive in New Work funding? And by this I mean not just think-tank forums and useful tips provided by sites such as Fuel for Arts, but real concrete support to allow companies to market and advertise their own work so productions by the small to medium sector have some hope in competing with the big end of town. Marketing helps to build audiences for theatre generally, which will help productions to recoup costs, grow audiences for their work and ensure theatre continues to build a new audience.

In the proposal's favour is that the upshot of this change would be that the funding would be directed primarily to development of the work and to the artist which is of course good news as it is so often the artists' wages and the development time that is sacrificed in favour of the non-negotiable costs associated with venue and presentation. The onus seems to be then that it would be up to the venue increasingly to provide sufficient lighting/sound/AV/publicity and marketing support for each production. If this occurred then it would be a positive step. Unfortunately I am not convinced that venues will be sufficiently equipped (if even willing) to provide this. So then are the changes of benefit to the art if no one comes to see the work that is ultimately created?

Still on the question of 'venue/presenters'... There seems to be a desire here to give more support and assistance to presenters, who in turn can assist the artists to present their work. But who are these presenters? In Sydney I can easily think of half a dozen venue/presenters who will be very pleased with this development in funding from the theatre board. But in Melbourne I am not so sure where this support will be directed.

So if this is the case in a supposed major arts capital city such as Melbourne, what about other cities and regional centres? Are there risk-taking curator/presenter/venue managers out there in every city and every regional centre who will help create new artistic hubs with this support? Certainly, most venues are also underresourced and these grants will help, but at present the majority of the venues I know have shown no desire to do anything except be a venue for hire - not start applying artistic / curatorial policies. Opening up more funds for venues won't turn venue managers into creative producers who will be able to suddenly transform their venues into new creative hubs.

Would presenters even with this additional funding support really be in a position to not worry about box-office but be creative risk-takers? And is this the best option for encouraging a diversity of new work being created and developed? I worry that what this will in fact do is limit the work that is created, limit the strength of innovation and quality, at the behest of a handful of venue managers and their increased financial concerns for maintaining their equipment, venue and of course box office.

Nonetheless, I will look forward to seeing how this process of change in the theatre board progresses and the resulting changes in the theatre community. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.  

13 July 2007

YPAA board

The Board of Young People and the Arts Australia, ASSITEJ Australia (YPAA) supports the theatre board's stated aims for 'Make it new' - to encourage, sustain and empower Australia's theatre culture - and broadly accepts the principle of the communiqué as a viable way forward for theatre funding.

Coming shortly after the theatre board's Program Youth Communiqué, 'Make it New' signals significant change for most YPAA members, and YPAA hopes that the recently announced Australia Council increase in funding to the small to medium companies will allow for the creation and resourcing of mechanisms that increase support to this part of the YPAA Sector.

In its role as Australia's peak body for artists and companies working in the Arts with, by and for Young People, YPAA would seek to continue being involved in the process of developing the finer detail of this new plan so as to maximize positive outcomes for the YPAA Sector and the theatre sector as a whole.

YPAA is pleased to see the inclusion of National Strategic Organizations within 'Make it New', and is keen to continue developing a shared vision with the theatre board of a thriving Australian theatre culture that involves Young People as audiences, participants, collaborators, and future arts workers..

The organization is in the final stages of collating and analyzing the YPAA Sector Survey of organizations and artists, which is already producing a fascinating snapshot of the sector. We believe that the Survey report will be an important tool for both members and government to gain a deeper understanding of this vibrant area of arts practice - its successes, challenges, scope and potential.

The YPAA Director Charles Bracewell has also recently completed a tour of all states and territories, meeting with YPAA members, state Arts Ministries, and key stakeholders who work with the membership - to launch the Sector Survey, discuss emerging member issues and plan for the upcoming ASSITEJ World Congress and Performing Arts festival.

YPAA acknowledges the planning and consultation which has gone into the theatre board's second 'Make it New' communiqué, and appreciates the fact that the Board has met with currently funded companies to ensure that they have been briefed on the proposed funding changes.  

13 July 2007

Matt Balmford, Australian Musicals' Development

As we noted in our submission to the original Make it new? discussion paper, Australian Musicals Development fully supports the theatre board’s consultations on the best ways to move forward with funding theatre in Australia.

We agree with the general direction outlined by Make it new 2, including the need for refreshed structures to encourage ongoing vitality and diversity in the infrastructure making and presenting theatre for Australian audiences.

That vitality and diversity must include a stronger focus on music theatre than is currently the case.  This is especially so given the special challenges of Australian music theatre in the Australian environment including relatively high costs, a lack of development mechanisms and limited presentation opportunities.  The Make it new changes alone will not achieve a more equitable deal for music theatre, but they are one part of the journey.

Below are Australian Musicals Development’s suggestions to strengthen the general framework of the Make it new 2 proposals.

New Work - Production

We support encouraging greater interaction between artists and presentation opportunities: funded works need to have impact across a broader range of audiences.  However, we do no support mandating only certain production costs as eligible for theatre board funding. 

Prioritising presenting partnerships through the selection criteria is sufficient to meet the theatre board’s intention to encourage such relationships.  A more flexible approach also allows the theatre board to continuously evaluate how the industry is responding organically to these incentives.

Projects vary in the way they approach pre-production, rehearsal and production.  Hard rules will inevitably create unintended negative consequences – such as a project skimping on bump-in labour if the presenting partner is not able to cover that aspect, for example.

The real-world role of presentation partners is more complex that the scenarios presented in the paper.  Ideally, the presenter – a festival or a subscription-based venue, for example – takes on the full risk of presenting a given work.  However, including a self-produced work in a well-marketed, popular festival or as part of an ongoing subscription season allows that work to gain an audience that it would otherwise not be able to access, also reducing presentation risk.  In this situation, the partner intervenes on the revenue side – increasing revenue and therefore reducing net costs for the work – rather than directly intervening on the cost side.  They are two sides of the same coin: revenue-based support through access to audiences should not be underestimated, and to suggest it is not genuine support is erroneous.

Given the significant challenges and risks identified (including the important issue that not all regions have adventurous local presenters), we agree with a more flexible option.  That is, support from a presenting partner – on the cost and/or revenue side – should be a criteria in project assessment, rather than the theatre board rigidly funding only certain production costs.

Program funding

A dedicated bridge to (and back from) triennial funding with a clear process and timeline is excellent and much needed. 

Our main concern is with the proposed design of a separate Presenters stream and with a potential loss of focus on genre-based diversity.

Presenter grants

A separate Presenter stream seems unnecessary when, in terms of outcomes, most presenters who develop and present new work are no different from other Emerging Key Organisations.  Presenters should compete on their merits with producing hub and artistic explorer-style organisations for ongoing funding – generic assessment criteria could be determined.

However, a separate Presenters stream might have merit as a transitional tool to encourage presenters to engage with the theatre board on more than a project-by-project basis.  The goal should be to mainstream it with the Emerging Key Organisations in the medium-term.  In this situation, there should also be no barrier to Presenter organisations having the opportunity to bid for Triennial funding.

Genre-based diversity

It is very important when determining selection criteria that the theatre board continues to focus on locational and, especially, genre-based diversity.

It should be a primary theatre board goal to fund, as best as possible, an infrastructure to support excellence and innovation across the different genres of contemporary Australian theatre making – music theatre, text-based theatre, visual theatre, cabaret, physical theatre, etc.

Sadly and inappropriately, no organisation with current ongoing theatre board funding focuses on music theatre.  Ensuring that music theatre is properly represented is a critical theatre board task when determining the suite of funded organisations from 2009 onwards.

Key Organisations

The theatre board comprehensively considering all organisations seeking to begin or continue Key Organisations funding from 2009, and thereafter on a three-year basis, is also a real step forward.

However, it is unclear whether independent, venue-based or festival-based producers/presenters would be eligible as Key Organisations – Producing Hubs.  As we mentioned before, there is often little difference between these sort of presenters and traditional companies: the Adelaide Cabaret Festival commissions and presents new cabaret and music theatre works, for example.  Well-established, sustainable producers/presenters that focus on new work should be considered eligible for triennial funding.

The proposal notes that “producing hubs could be the presenting partners for applicants in that [New Work] category”.  We see significant risk that, over time, theatre board funding for Key Organisations – Producing Hubs will be directed towards maintaining core staff with productions themselves funded, to a large extent, by New Work grants.  This would be an inefficient administrative arrangement, and care will be needed over time to see if this cost-shifting occurs and to develop appropriate responses.

In the case where the primary artists in a Key Organisations – Artistic Explorers company moved on and the company wants to continue, the proposal notes that “it would be offered an Emerging Key Organisations grant…”. This should be might: it should be left to the discretion of the theatre board taking account of the particular circumstance.  

12 July 2007

Stephen Champion, Bathurst Memorial Entertainment Centre

Much of the thinking in the communiqué is positive, rational and may allow for a more flexible distribution of very limited financial resources for the development of new work.  However there is an implication in the communiqué that the encouragement of relationships between presenters and the creators of new work will entice the presenters to make a greater financial contribution to this product.  In the regions the presenters are generally part of a local council or heavily subsidised by them.

It is our firm belief that in regional areas Local Government already makes by far the greatest contribution to the performing arts of any level of government and that it may be unrealistic to expect the share to increase even further.  Precise statistics are difficult to gather as each region operates differently but venues are working towards the collation of meaningful figures.  The annual subsidy of the Bathurst Memorial Entertainment Centre (BMEC) by Bathurst Regional Council is $700,000 - $800,000, quite a considerable amount for a population of 37,000 people.

The BMEC is currently involved with the Local Stages project, an initiative supported by the Australia Council, Arts NSW and Bathurst Regional Council.  This project is built upon a new concept for regional theatre making and is very much in its infancy.  This project has been made possible by the backing of the three supporting arms; federal, state and local government and represents a unique cooperation.  The rhetoric surrounding this project also implies that local government will be encouraged to pick up the tab if the other tiers of government withdraw their support.  We do not believe that this is a realistic option.

Perhaps a key problem is the overall lack of funds at the disposal of the theatre board.  We accept that if adequate funds to support programs like Local Stages do not exist then the meagre pool must be made openly competitive.  However if a program like Local Stages proves successful the argument becomes more credible for an increased pool of funds for the theatre board.

Arguing for an increase in federal funds seems more logical to us than expecting an increased commitment from local government.  We would be happy to assist such an argument in any way we can. 

5 July 2007

David Whiteley, Red Stitch Actors Theatre

Red Stitch Actors Theatre welcomes the recent publication of the “Make it New” second communiqué. The communiqué confirms that public funding is not a closed shop, and that unfunded companies that meet the Council’s criteria will be seriously considered for future support. It also offers a strong incentive to unfunded companies to persist in their artistic endeavours despite the limited career opportunities currently available for theatre professionals, and to continue to seek innovative sources of funding, especially in the private sector.

If implemented, the proposals contained in the communiqué will inject fresh energy and vitality into the sector, especially if the establishment of Emerging Key Organisations is accompanied by the abolition of General Programs Grants. 

Small theatre companies (defined as companies with an annual turnover of below $1 million) that have established a sustained quality performance record backed by improved governance and diverse revenue streams, will benefit considerably if the structured development process for triennial funding is pursued.

Successful applicants would gain by having:

• Added confidence to continue programming works that engage a growing audience base and that stretch the company artistically and creatively
• Greater stability and predictability about future funding, and
• The capacity to develop sound long-term plans for the company’s growth and development.

In the case of Red Stitch such funding would enable the ensemble to further develop their individual and creative skills, to collaborate with guest writers, designers and directors to explore the creative potential of the ensemble structure, and at the same time attract and retain committed and talented individuals.

We hope that the theatre board is not too prescriptive in applying its categories of Producing Hub and Artistic Explorer, and that it does not regard the categories as being mutually exclusive. Red Stitch is not a company run by an Heroic Leader whose singular artistic vision drives everything. It is a collaborative, collegial company that is a producing hub by virtue of programming eight plays a year in its own intimate black box theatre space. It is also an artistic explorer in its collaborative approach between the ensemble members and guest artists, and in its willingness to stage challenging contemporary work from around the world that larger companies don’t tackle.
  
While Red Stitch is best known for its productions of contemporary plays from around the world, its artistic objectives and ambitions are wider than that. It is committed to developing new Australian work, either by direct commission, such as the Australia Council funded Michael Gurr script, or through its newly-appointed Writers-in-Residence Tom Holloway and Lachlan Philpott.

It is also committed to a development process that involves the writer, ensemble members and guest artists in undertaking workshops and rehearsals before a full scale stage production is mounted.

A third aspect of Red Stitch’s artistic policy is its desire to explore classical theatre texts through collaboration between ensemble members, writers, designers and other guest artists. An example of this is the 2006 production of Hellbent, a collaboration between Red Stitch and LuminoUS, created by Ailsa Piper, Hugh Coleman and Rachel Burke.

Red Stitch Actors Theatre welcomes the communiqué and supports the general thrust of the policy proposals it contains. We look forward to the Council’s decisions next month.  

18 June 2007

John Baylis, Australia Council

Yaron

We are in agreement on many things. The theatre board too wants more artistic explorers to emerge, and so are proposing a special status for such companies wherein they need do nothing other than focus on their art. The fact that we will not commit to them beyond their current artistic leadership does not mean they will be second-class triennial companies compared to ‘producing hubs’, but shows that it is precisely their artistic work that we value, not their corporate structure.  We want more of our funding to be free to follow the artists and not be locked up in historically-determined company structures. We too would like to see more Australian companies join the list of extraordinary international companies that you cited (all of whom, by the way, are run by their founding artistic leaders), and I can see nothing in what we propose that would inhibit their emergence. 

You state that an arts company should first and foremost exist to make great art. I would modify this to: an arts company should first and foremost exist to make great art happen.  Some will do this by making the art themselves (you mention Back to Back), others will do it by creating supportive spaces for a range of artists to develop their practice (you mention Performing Lines).

You see the producing hub/explorer strands as forcing choices on companies that do not match their operating reality, and ask: what happens to a company whose work straddles both categories? Yet they are not mutually exclusive. A company that straddled both can be a producing hub, because that in no way inhibits their capacity to be artistically adventurous, yet acknowledges the other roles they play. You imply that we do not expect ‘producing hubs’ to make great art: you might note that the first set of proposed criteria will assess their artistic plans and achievements.

Your vision of a funding system without frameworks or pre-ordained categories is beguiling. At the risk of over-simplifying your response, you seem to saying that if we just focus on funding the best, everything else will look after itself.  Recognising great art when it arrives is in fact one of the easier parts of the theatre board’s job.  Our challenges are:

• distinguishing work with the potential for greatness from work that will never be great
• deciding when to support a once-great company through a fallow period, and when to move the funding elsewhere
• getting support to a great new company early, rather than arriving (if at all) when burn-out has set in
• understanding how we can best interact with the complex web of relationships through which artists find their collaborators and champions.

Make it new 2 attempts to deal with these.

Finally, you refer to reporting and benchmarking. These are important issues, but outside of the focus of our discussion paper.  I must however make two points:

• You assume if reports are not essential parts of an assessment project then they are redundant. We use the data in company reports to analyse the sector in ways that feed into our strategy development and making our case to government. This is absolutely critical. The Australia Council’s recent successful bid for new money for the small-to-medium sector was based on evidence of the sector’s contribution and challenges, and that evidence came from those reports.
• We try to make sure the reports and plans we ask from companies are useful documents for them as well.  If there is a paper you prepare for us that is neither required by corporations legislation, nor a useful document for your company’s planning, let me know (offline) and I see if we can make our needs and yours match.  

1 June 2007

Yaron Lifschitz, Circa

John

To start with the minor points. The suggestion of increasing funding to companies in transition is sounder than your response suggests. With a significant increase in core funding, putting aside modest funds to assist companies transition (or indeed to step up to triennial level) may be worth investigating.

As for the triennial/recurrent debate: the key point here is the efficacy of the current reporting mechanisms. If they are effective, the triennial sing-for-ones-supper experience is largely redundant. If they are not effective, why have them? It seems to me we operate in an environment that purports to offer continuous assessment resulting in rigorous analysis of organisations’ vibrancy (both artistic and financial). If this is the case and the hefty wad of spreadsheets and reports we submit each year are actually digested and discussed, then it would appear that you already have the basis of an understanding as to whether companies are doing what they need to do to remain funded. If this isn’t the case, why do it? As for your assertion that a recurrent model would produce more conservative outcomes, it would be good to see some evidence of this. I suspect what determines outcomes is the vision and vigor of engagement of the funding agency, rather than the mechanism itself.

As to the core purpose of the changes – the need for opportunity – I wholeheartedly agree. As a company that went from unfunded to triennial in a single year I think that flexible and responsive funding mechanism are essential. But the triennial seems less flexible than the continuous. And the work required draws already stretched resources away from our core business. And this can’t be good for producing art.

Also, you yourself have noted the dire need for increased flexibility and you currently have a triennial model. Does not the evidence suggest (scream, even?) that this model does not offer any flexibility whatsoever? We all know the category has been in lockdown, there have been no new entrants, new funds have been expended on initiatives and current funded companies have to struggle for modest, if any increases in core funding. The model is plainly broken, so wherefore the romantic attachment to the format?

As for the ‘producing hub’/’artistic explorer’ categories. I think they are adequate in as far as they go. But regardless of whether they retain their current titles or get called something else, the core difficulty remains – they force companies into modes of operation which, while conceptually pleasing, do not necessarily reflect either reality or future directions. What happens to a company whose work straddles both categories? Is it impossible to see funding as being for either or both in a ratio that suits the company and the Australia Council’s agenda?

Furthermore, such distinctions very quickly become policy and are actually believed. To use an example: the ‘20% of turnover as retained earnings benchmark’ which manages to combine being thoroughly unsupported by any contemporary corporate evidence with making no business sense whatsoever has become a tool of disastrous efficacy.  As one measure among many, it offers some valuable insights into a company’s health, as a ‘benchmark’ (itself a discredited term – see HBR on Evidence-based Management, for instance) it is plain silly. But if you write it down, people will believe it.

In your response you stated :the key issue is “does our company exist mainly to realise the particular artistic vision of its current artistic leader, or does it have an important (equal?) role in supporting the artistic development/visions of others.”

It is good to hear the core philosophy of behind this change stated so boldly.  It is, however, an utterly false dichotomy: strong (I would argue, the strongest) artistic companies exist to realise an artistic vision, which is driven by their leaders but which far exceeds them. Others may be supported in their artistic development and visions but this is a welcome side effect of having an arts company that first and foremost exists to make great art (old fashioned as that may seem).

At the risk of replacing conjecture with evidence, let us look at Cunningham, Marie Chouinard, Ultima Vez, Needcompany, Les Ballet C. de la B., Cirkus Cirkor, Cirque De Soleil, Les Sept Doigts de la Main, the Wooster Group…no, let us ask if any of the sort of companies we would like to have around are primarily explorers or producers and the answer is self-evident: they make great art, they focus their energies there and they spin off multiple benefits in terms of employment, training, producing others’ work etc etc. But first and foremost, they make good work. If this can’t be argued for in and of itself as an outcome worthy of funding, then I suggest that the funding body in question changes its name from an ‘arts funding’ agency to an ‘economic activity’ agency. We will be remembered by the strength of our best work. Without support, this work will never get made. And there will be nothing to produce.

As a challenge, compare companies (local and international) who present at major Australian international arts festivals. What is the ratio of ‘Artistic Explorers’ to “Producing Hubs”? I looked at Sydney Festival (where we appeared) and at a glance would suggest it is 80:20. Minimum. Sure the Artistic Explorers have producing functions – many run classes, host workshops, help others. But almost without fail, strong arts companies are strong because of one reason: they focus their energies on making art.

Distract us at your own peril.

Can making artistic works become insular and self-absorbed? Sure. Might such work be a poor use of public funds? Absolutely. But equally it might not. False distinctions do not recognise the stages of a company’s development nor the need to develop and realise a compelling vision. The problem with our work in Australia is not that it lacks producers (though it does) but primarily it isn’t very good (and I count much our own work in this). It suffers from a lack of resources, a lack of great critical discourse, conservative presenters and audiences etc etc. If the aim is to produce more, to encourage more activity then you can certainly achieve that. But wider dissemination of the bland will only make the terrain blander. What happened to excellence?

I have great respect for the theatre board’s good sense and desire for better Australian theatre and a healthier sector and I applaud your efforts to rework the funding model. I too want a vibrant ecosystem for the arts, where companies rise and fall on merit, where there is flexibility and room for opportunity. But I fail to see how the structure you have proposed delivers this. It replaces one framework with another and it locks the theatre board into funding companies because they look like companies that should be funded, rather than funding companies with unique merits and strengths. Replacing one category with another would seem to inevitably lead to the same constraints you currently face, albeit with different names.

As an alternative I would suggest getting rid of all pre-ordained categories (producing hubs, artistic explorers) and all funding arrangements when they end their current terms. Get each company (funded or not) to pitch a vision of themselves to you. This vision would include

• What makes them unique
• Why they ought to exist
• What resources they need to make them great
• What you (and other funding agencies) can expect for their investment
• What is an appropriate cycle for their review.

These pitches would be taken away and assessed with a whole of sector vision emerging. Successful companies would have these pitches as the basis of their funding agreements. It could change, but if it did, the status of the company would be re-assessed.

I want to be rigorously assessed against this vision. If we don’t cut it, re-assess the vision or kick us out. I want funding agencies to become the producers (investing on behalf of the whole sector), rather than to devolve these functions to funded companies. I want you to fund (say) Performing Lines because they are great producers and Back to Back because they make great art. I don’t want to enter another conceptual category which will become a self-fulfilling prophecy – a world where arts organisations get funded according to their role in implementing policy, rather than having their innate artistic/sectoral strength(s) encouraged and receiving specific funds to support whatever the policy framework of the day might feel is essential.

Recently I was handed an article The Arts Council of England had commissioned from John Knell on personalistion in the arts (a Blair Government panacea). In it Knell argued that “the only instrumentalism we should be demanding of our public funded arts is that they genuinely connect with and engage the public”. This sounds great, but the subject of the sentence could easily be changed from ‘connect…and engage…’ to ‘support the great Soviet Revolution’, ‘promote the final solution’ or ‘support the artistic development/vision of others’. Just because something sounds like it is good policy doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

You state that to be funded as “Producing Hubs”  arts organisations do not have to  “give up artistic exploration – only that they accept a responsibility to a broader community of artists.” Is not, making significant/good/amazing work, providing employment for artists or enhancing the reputation of the arts part of our ‘responsibility to a broader community of artists? Yet not one of these is a focus of your Producing Hubs policy. Not one. Surely an important factor in contributing to the wider community of artists is making good art?

When arts agencies lose sight of the art, it is hard to see how anyone else might be expected to see it.

Yaron Lifschitz

5 June 2007

John Baylis, Australia Council

Yaron, thanks for your comments. 

The names 'producing hub' and 'artistic explorer' are not ideal and may be misleading, and I certainly welcome suggestions here. The intended essential difference is that producing hubs must commit to being a significant resource for independent artists and/or other groups. This may in fact be their core business (eg La Mama) or may be activities that complement their artistic director-driven program. Most current triennial companies can make a good case for being a producing hub in this sense. Many are also actively involved in artistic exploration. So the choice is not, do I explore or do I produce ? And it is certainly not: are we commercially driven or artistically driven? Rather, the question is: does our company exist mainly to realise the particular artistic vision of its current artistic leader, or does it have an important (equal?) role in supporting the artistic development/visions of others. 

While a current triennial company might indeed decide to nominate itself to be an artistic explorer (no doubt after a long board discussion), my guess is that few will. I imagine that it will be newer companies that do this.

The aim of all this is to create space for new organisations to emerge. This has not been happening for the past fifteen years. Individuals can find their career paths through leadership positions with existing companies, but there has been no pathway of new companies.

To make such space, we need a funding system that doesn't’t have the built-in assumption that a triennially-funded organisation will go on forever unless something goes wrong. We need other assumptions, such as that organisations may have finite vibrant life and then depart the scene (voluntarily would be nice) to allow for new ones. This ‘vulnerability’ (your term) of the small-to-medium sector should be seen as its strength: it is not a fixed collection of cultural institutions, but should be a field of dynamic and changing platforms responsive to continually emerging creative energies. Reinventing existing organisations is part of this, but something important is lost if artists cannot create their own structures.

I don’t believe the new artistic explorer strand will have the negative effect you foresee on the power relationship between artistic director and board. Existing organisations should not nominate to become artistic explorers if they believe it to be vitally important that their organisation outlast the current artistic leader. It is as simple as that. This does not mean they therefore give up artistic exploration - only that they accept a responsibility to a broader community of artists.

You suggest that an alternative policy would be for leadership change to trigger a probationary period.  This is exactly what we are proposing. The departure of the artistic leadership would not mean sudden death to an artistic explorer company.  It would receive an Emerging Key Organisations grant for up to three years and then be eligible to re-compete for triennial funding as either type of organisation. Surely this is enough time for the new leadership to prove itself.

As for your suggestion that we double a company's funding when in transition, I presume this was to make the point about companies needing to be supporting during transition. I accept the point but not the solution - it would be a bit hard on the companies we had to defund to free up the funds to provide this support (we don't keep any spare cash - it's all out there). 

You also make the point that funding should be awarded on performance alone, and not be related to staff movements. This is in fact the current status quo, and it has not enabled the emergence of new triennial organisations. Ongoing funding has inertia. Organisations are given second, third and even fourth chances. We need another process.

I also understand your doubts about the need for triennial assessment at all. There are a lot of reasons for moving to a rolling funding model with continual reporting and assessment. However, I am pretty certain it would have a conservative influence. It is very hard to stop funding an organisation when it is being considered alone, in the context of its own performance targets etc. It is the weighing of the various claims on our funds that pushes change, and having companies compete anew every three years currently provides the opportunity to do this. It is a bit crude, but it is the only driver for change we have at the moment. Part of the Make it new project is to provide more sites for such competition, not less.

From a company perspective, your concerns are understandable, and any change involves the risk of unintended damage (bureaucracies can be clumsy beasts).  But there does need to be more opportunity, and the current system has not delivered this. 

John Baylis  

1 June 2007

Yaron Lifschitz, artistic director, Circa

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Make it New Communiqué # 2. Overall the changes proposed seem to me to be well thought out and coherent.
 
My comments concern the category of Artistic Explorers. I commend the inclusion of this category as it provides funding for key drivers of theatrical innovation. There are a number of assertions underpinning the framework for this category which appear to be unsubstantiated and which, I suggest, lead to suboptimal conclusions.
 
Key among these are:

• Artistic Explorer organisations are ‘often under the leadership of their founders’
• That these sorts of organisations are less resilient to change in key personnel than producing or emerging organisations, thereby necessitating a downgrading of their funding status when key artistic staff change.
  

Companies with long and successful artistic outputs experience change when key staff members change over. Sometimes this change is disastrous, at other times it is welcome and necessary. The key to a successful organisation is the product of its staff, vision and structures. I see no evidence that artistically driven organisations are any more or less vulnerable to weaknesses and instability across these areas than commercial ones. For instance – is there any evidence that producing organisations survive changes of key personnel any better than artistic ones? Circa would face challenges if I left but would Performing Lines not experience similar ones if Wendy departed? Essentially the small to medium sector is made up of very small businesses subsidised by the unpaid overtime and love of their staff. This situation is unlikely to differ much between types of organisations within the sector.
 
Personally, I am neither the founder of nor the last Artistic Director Circa will have. Our board has a robust succession plan, we have a strong set of company-wide systems and great staff who carry the organisation’s vision. To imagine that this depends on me would be hubristic and wrong. It is a matter of grave concern therefore to find Making it New explicitly ties my organisation’s funding to my presence at the company. Surely the test is whether or not the company can deliver the goods, not who the delivery person is? This policy confuses the milkman with the cow.
 
One invests in a company because one believes in its vision and direction and trusts those who govern it to find suitable replacements. When ADT or Sydney Dance Company changed artistic directors, no one seriously considered de-funding them. Why? They are companies of artistic exploration. They have singular visions enacted by strong, driven artistic leadership. But the vision can be re-made, new talent engaged. When one achieves enough status, one is inured from this sort of discussion. But the vulnerability of the small to medium sector is once again demonstrated. Starting again on the funding wheel is hugely destabilising and will damage an organisation at precisely the point where it most needs stability and support. Furthermore, is it not the case that companies that appoint ‘artistic explorers’, that foster the creation of exploration and risk taking are likely to continue to do so when the incumbents change?
 
By all means de-fund or down-grade the funding of organisations that do not achieve artistic (and other) outcomes. But to predicate such change on internal processes is to guarantee failure when success is most likely immanent. Some obvious consequences of the proposed policy are:

• Artistic Directors who have passed their time will be supported by their boards to stay on
• The ability of a board to review, monitor and manage an AD is reduced
• Compensation for AD’s of these organisations will increase beyond CPI – after all they are assets directly responsible for providing key Federal funding
• Companies will be discouraged from contemplating structural change, even when it is necessary.
  

A simple alternative policy might be that when companies funded under this category change key artistic staff they go onto a probationary period which is determined in consultation with the Key Organisation Section and is based in that company’s planning and work production cycle. 12 – 24 months is probably an appropriate range though shorter or longer could also be considered. This should work both ways – triennial companies should have their funding rounds held over to the end of the probation period if they come up during it. A clear set of agreed upon outcomes and standards are established and the board assesses whether the company has met these.

Alternately you could double a company’s funding for 12 months when their key artistic staff changed. This would encourage movement, robust governance and keep executive wages under control. It would also support companies when they most need it.

However even these approaches threaten to de-legitimise the basic premise of funding in the first place, that is: funding is apportioned on the basis of merit across stated criteria. If this is the case, it seems both paradoxical and arbitrary to make funding contingent on the longevity of senior staff. Why not simply say that for as long as companies are artistically vibrant and meet other organisational criteria they get funded. When they stop meeting these requirements, they have their funding reviewed. This should be the case for all companies, regardless of their staff movement.

This brings up two related but slightly larger issues. Why have triennial funding? What does three years mean? Why should organisations be required to re-sing for their supper every three years when there are already extensive, onerous and energy-dissipating procedures in place for reporting several times each year which should either ensure the company is a suitable recipients for funding or these reporting measures need to be changed to achieve this end. Would not a funding mechanism for recurrent funding, continuous reporting, adequate fair notice provisions make more sense than the triennial re-packaging experience?

And secondly, I suggest that the dichotomy between producing and exploring organisations is likely to cause problems as no one organisation is entirely one or the other. Polarities tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies. As one example, MOB companies became more ‘major’ since the introduction of MOB, pulling exponentially clear of the (now) small to medium sector. It seems that a more porous membrane between Explorers and Producers might be warranted. Could modest but separate funds be available to encourage companies to provide dual-purposes? My fear is that having created these categories, it may be challenging to facilitate growth and diversification of an organisation’s business.

To finish, I believe that most of the paper’s suggestions are very good policy and the category of Artistic Explorers has clearly been created for the right reasons. But it seems to warrant a little more investigation of whether the policy as it currently is will not have serious side-effects that might be avoidable.

Yaron Lifschitz  

27 May 2007

The Grand Nabob

1. What should be the role of a national funding body?

It could be said that Australian theatre has generally since the heady days of the 70’s fallen into a slough of despondency as a result of ingesting too much postmodernism (POMO).

We now seem to have theatre which has its feet in one of two distinct camps:

Re-enactment theatre (RT) – the flagships rolling out William S. in semi-modern dress, Macbeth as Goebbels or Noel Coward’s Private Lives (again) gamely trying to keep their Grey Gonads who are terrified by shows such Shopping and Talking about Fxxxing. In truth it’s very expensive amateur theatre, amplified. Same aesthetic aims, just bigger sets. Modern design in the flagships has become so powerful that the sets have become very good at eating the actors and the director. Another measure of good RT is its ability to trundle out a few TV soapie celebs.

On the other side of the divide is Un-Theatre – after a sustained quest to break with ‘old’ shibboleths, there’s not a lot left:
a) no structure which the audience can follow,
b) no  landscape for transformation,
c) no legibility wherein the audience can find it self,
d) no content - just earnestly photo-copied hypotheses

In truth RT is retro-active and caters for the petit-bourgeois who like to see their culture as specimens safely suspended in formaldehyde – no messing with the formula, please! Its retro-active culture is dependant on keeping the fading demographic stumbling through the door. 
 
Un-Theatre is essentially reactive, not so much standing for anything, but defined as standing against as many things as possible. Its culture is dependant on political credibility that is it has to be au courant with whatever is the current ‘appropriate’ thinking position.

Re-enactment theatre is best left to the Majors (and the amateurs!) who have the dough to survive for a few more years until another Nugent report while Un-Theatre is very precariously balanced on the edge of the fashion-chasm.
 
Both of them are beholden to extrinsic cultural forces – they have no real intrinsic culture.

The point I’m making here is that the good stuff lies between these two – hard work and there’s not much out there either. But this is the theatre board’s (TB’s) true purview and I suggest that it concentrates its resources on those groups that have a strong internal culture. That is, a bunch of fellaheen who believe in something strong enough that they can survive a few years before they come to the Ozco. The TB’s first question could be: ‘What is their intrinsic culture which we can augment, rather than prop up?’

2. On what basis should the theatre board enter into long term funding agreements with organisations?

The only two questions to be asked are:

• What is the intrinsic culture? Was it self-sustaining BEFORE us? Is it self-sustaining WITHOUT us? and,
• Do these jokers really believe in something or are they just pumping out the right art-speak?

3. Do we need a greater variety of structures and mechanisms for the artists to realise their work, and if so what would they look like?

Not so much new structures as reframe the issues away from the defensive position of ‘what’s happened to the 70’s when everything seemed so positive, Gough was in charge and Nugget pulled the strings?’ Well, Gough’s gone mate won’t be back and Paul’s joined him. Bin Laden killed those post-modern paradigms and a lot of arty types just haven’t figured it out yet. This is a new world and like it or not you have to face it, oh, and by the way…. Kevin won’t return it either!

I’m not for a moment suggesting rationalising the arts – that would be succumbing to a simplistic view of the modern world. I am saying you have to run parallel to it and you certainly cannot run against it. That re-active, rancorous approach died with the Berlin Wall and Glasnost.  

This implies a de-politicising (actually a dis-Marxing) of the artistic process and a resumption of the classical position of art as a spirito/psychic arena - not easy given the residue of Post Modernism.

4. What would be the effect of the TB investing more of its resources in producers?

This would be breeding up a new class of middle managers. This is what accountants do when freaking out about the bottom line: “Get some bodies (who speak our lingo) between us and the shop floor, just in case!”  Another negative defensive position!

5. Should the TB devolve more decision making to those more directly connected to the work being made, and if so, who would they be?

Is this code for…..‘Should we create another level of management?’

6. What would be the effect of the TB focussing less of its funding on the creation of new work and more on creating opportunities for existing work to have a longer life?

This is an excellent idea as it would mean moving from a hospice approach propping up things up only to see them cark, to one of parallel investing i.e. The TB’s financial investment parallels the aesthetic investment of the artist/company.

7. Should nurturing these practices (such as innovation) become a particular or even exclusive role of the TB?

The true question is: should the TB  fund temporary mirages?  The idea that something new springs into existence parthenogenetically without reference to any forebears is absurd and actually is the POMO equivalent of Biblical Creationism.

It is only in retrospect that something is found to be innovative. The Beatles admitted that at the time of their greatest creativity they were ‘only making songs’. Of course what they were doing was filtering history and place, digesting and then expressing their re-configuration. Artistic progress has always been about re-configuration. Van Gogh was re-configuring Japanese wood blocks, Francis Bacon was re-configuring abattoirs and Muybridge.
 
Re-configuration also means that it is not about the girl or guy, but what they’ve done AND who they’ve done it with.

Maybe the way forward is to avoid the whole idea of chasing after situations that seem sexy because of their bauble-like ‘new-dity’ and instead look for integrated lineage where several experiences can be flowcharted into what might become progressive outcomes.

8. How can we support fruitful relationships between the majors and those artists and companies who rely on TB support?

The job of the Majors in this situation is to behave like clever multi-nationals and occasionally poach the up-and-comings from the s2m’s and suck ‘em into the big time.

Witness STC’s collaring of Benedict Andrews by Robin N. If this is done properly the s2m concerned falls to bits and you have the added advantage that the guy is no longer outside the tent pissing on it - he’s inside. Olivier did the same thing with Tynan. What this means is that the majors are the big bogeymen and an artist should only consider joining them when he wants to bail out of the frontline back into the arthritic endgame. I think it’s not the TB’s position to encourage this!

The Grand Nabob
twotadjerzysociety

25 May 2007

Angus Cerini

This is a great broad beautiful thing, I really appreciate the opportunity to contribute.
 
Like some of the other respondents: 

1. Time delays in making decisions and receiving the news (whether good or bad) is a disaster.  It is better to know how unviable your project is financially earlier rather than later.  Truth be told we will make our projects with the resources we can muster, it is simply a poor argument to harp on about lack of funding available to fund all the deserving artists - better to just let us know as soon as possible.
2. Regional Australian presenters are simply not going to program the riskier stuff.  They don't now; why would they in the future?  A similar thing happens in the big smoke; the big houses still need to make their box office - they program accordingly.
3. Triennially funded companies are by and large collossal dinosaurs that eat up so much cash simply in administration costs it is disgusting.  For the average they receive I think there is much better value for money to be had in supporting the presenters and the artistic explorers.  Really, so many performance makers/live artists are the artistic director and the general manager rolled into one. For every triennial you could fund 3 contemporary projects.
4. This report fills me with a great sense of possibility.  I see so many great artists working across genres, supported by producers, programmers, mucking in together when they can. Since getting back to Australia from a blast in Europe, it is so readily apparent that Australian artists are great and bold and beautiful.  We are usually so down on ourselves, yes there is no money, but folks (and if you have been there you know this too well) we are great and deserve a whole lot more.  So, to read quickly, the 'make it new' update fills me with hope and excitement.  

15 May 2007

Helen Herbertson

Thanks for the opportunity to input on the make it new idea

One concern I have is the downward pressure the new New Work Presentation approach may place on the showing component of a creative development. Already, with small amounts of funding, rehearsal periods have become shorter,
increasingly self-funded and part-time and with the final showing more and more of a focal point. There is a danger that with this new approach the final showing will become much more important as an opportunity to create performance, given that not every artist will have partnerships or the potential of them.  

15 May 2007

Morganics

Just a few responses:

1. I like it, sounds good, more like the real world, more focussed on partnership, which I think is healthier way to make work.
2. Good point that it is tricky to link the length of time that Ozco decisions take with the timeline of presenters - eg for "Survival Tactics" we just got the money and dates from the presenters and THEN went to Ozco, sort of backwards, but doing it any other way would take very long term planning. If you could make decisions quicker I'm sure that would make it easier for all concerned.
3. I like the Artistic Explorers idea, to be honest because I would like to apply for it; I think it's important to recognize and support people who have a vision.

Generally I like the way you guys are headed, hope that helps a bit.

15 May 2007

John Baylis, director of theatre, Australia Council

Welcome to Make it new? Part 2!

Thank you to all the people who took the time last year to comment on theatre funding at one of our meetings and through the online forum.

This new communique is one result of this.

We welcome any thoughts that you have on the specific proposals for our funding programs for next year, and on the more general issue of the ways that we can best support theatre.