NOTE TO USERS

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was scanned as received.

199,200

This reproduction is the best copy available.

® UMI

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Calgary Theatre and Its Community:

The Current State of the Relationship and Possible Renegotiations for the Future

by

Judy Lawrence

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF FINE ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA

CALGARY, ALBERTA

SEPTEMBER, 2008

© Judy Lawrence 2008 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-44236-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-44236-4

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada ABSTRACT

In examining Calgary's not-for-profit theatre sector in relation to its larger community, this thesis considers the sector's key support agencies: the private sector, government, and audiences. Questions concerning the sector's relationship to these agencies are framed within the context of recent national and international discourse over a city's creative capacity. Following available local statistics (1989 - current), it finds audience declines and other evidence indicating Calgary's theatre community is further marginalized from its broader community now than previously; it considers other observable trends - decreases in government support alongside increases in ticket prices, corporate sponsorship, and others - as possible impacting factors. It offers insights, observations and concerns from professional theatre practitioners in Calgary. Its final chapter explores options for renegotiating the theatre sector's relationship to community; with a focus on the general public and the education system, more integrated, less quantitatively defined approaches between artists, audiences and education are proposed.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe much thanks and gratitude to my supervisor Dr. James Dugan, who created a place of permission and expansion; he granted me the freedom to explore, the guidance to provide informed touchstones for my flights, and meaningful encouragement to keep flying. I also want to thank Dr. Penny Farfan and Dr. Barry Yzereef; I drew greatly from their support, confidence and interest in my work and from the general ambience of rigour and courage each of them inspires. Thanks, too, to my student colleagues and friends, and especially to my officemate Ian Prinsloo; the energy and friendship you brought to our office created both a wonderfully safe harbour and a marvelous maelstrom of unbridled possibilities, insight, and bravery. Thank you.

My pursuit of extant sources of statistical information was only possible because of the support and encouragement (and materials) I received from the staff at Calgary Arts Development Authority, from Michael Dickinson at the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, from the research department at Canada Council for the Arts, and from the staff at Council for Business and the Arts in Canada. Thanks, too, to Johanne Deleeuw and Alberta Playwrights Network.

I reserve special thanks to all the theatre artists and practitioners who took their valuable time and shared with me their invaluable experiences, and allowed their perceptions, insights and concerns to inform and deepen this study.

And finally, thank you, Richard, for providing the love and generosity to allow me this journey, and then to travel it with me, in the myriad of roles you played along the way: at times and often simultaneously my sounding board, masterful editor, sympathetic ear, devil's advocate, fellow arts practitioner, and, always, love of my life and lifelong companion.

iv DEDICATION To Richard. TABLE OF CONTENTS Approval Page ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements iv

Dedication v

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables viii

PROLOGUE: The Personal, The Professional, and the Universal 1

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 4

CHAPTER TWO: Government Relations: Calgary Theatre Companies' Relationship with Their Key Public Sector Supporters

CHAPTER THREE: Corporate Affairs: Calgary Theatre Companies' Relationship with Their Key Private Sector Supporter 35

CHAPTER FOUR: Audiences: What We Know and What We Don't Know 51

CHAPTER FIVE: Perspectives from the Source: Theatre Artists and Practitioners 72

CHAPTER SIX: What Now?: Conclusions, Considerations, Possibilities 90

ENDNOTES 103

BIBLIOGRAPHY 142

APPENDIX I: Calgary Theatre Companies: Government Support per Company as Percentage of Total Budgets, 1990-2005 158 APPENDIX II: Calgary Theatre Companies: Distribution of All Revenues (Earned, Government, Private) 162

APPENDIX III: Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies: Canada Council 166

vi APPENDIX IV: Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies: Alberta Foundation for the Arts 1'"°

APPENDIX V: Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies: Calgary Region Arts Foundation 172

APPENDIX VI: CRAF Funding History From Inception (1969-2006).. 176

APPENDIX VII: Canada Council Funding History From Inception (1957-2006) 177 APPENDIX VIII: Grant Applications Analysis: Calgary Arts Development, AFA, Canada Council 179

APPENDIX IX: Calgary Theatre Companies Sorted by Age (including amateur and professional) 184

APPENDIX X: Calgary Theatre Companies: Status of Participation and Budget Size 186

APPENDIX XI: Four Calgary Theatre Companies: Accumulated Debt and Audience Trends 190

APPENDIX XII: Corporate Website Source Listing 192

APPENDIX XIII: Theatre Practitioners Interviewed and Biographies... 194

APPENDIX XIV: Ethics Approval and Interviewee Consent Form 199

APPENDIX XV: Interview Guideline of Questions. 205

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Calgary Theatre Companies: 1989-90 Revenue Streams 26

Table II: Calgary Theatre Companies: current (2004-05 to 2005-06) Revenue Streams 26

Table III: Calgary Theatre Companies: Private Sector Support, 2004-05 109

Table IV: Theatre Companies: Current Private Revenues, Percentage of Support Ill

Table V: Segment Proportions: 2006 vs. 2001 55

Table VI: Past Twelve Months Arts Attendance 56

Table VII: Tracking Types of Performances Attended 57

Table VIII: Tracking Enjoyment of the Performing Arts 58

Table IX: Changes in Performing Arts Attendance by Income 63

Table X: Changes in Performing Arts Attendance by Education 63

Table XI: Changes in Performing Arts Attendance by Age 126

viii 1

Prologue: the Personal, the Professional, and the Universal When I began this quest to understand better my theatre community here in Calgary and the conditions of our ability to create and to relate to a larger community to which we looked for support, it was very personal. It came from a place of anger, betrayal and vulnerability. I have been a producing practitioner with various leadership roles in the field for the last twenty-five years, most of those years in Alberta, the last ten of which have been in Calgary. I felt very strongly that my ability to articulate with any degree of authenticity why I or anyone else should want art in their life had been so badly compromised that I no longer knew the answer myself. I had been forced/allowed myself to spend so much time and energy being answerable to other people about our admirable capacity to run a business, to brand ourselves accurately, to attract corporate support and paying audiences - to execute successfully a myriad of best business practices in order to sell our product efficiently and effectively in a competitive marketplace - that, ironically, I felt totally incapacitated. I had lost my own language, my own ability to articulate my sense of values and of my belief system; I doubted I could even identify what that belief system was. As I stumbled through the last few eye opening years of freelancing, I realized that as my capacity to access my own voice as a touchstone eroded, so had my capacity to serve the art form, the greater community, or myself.

I suspected I was not alone in this crisis of identity and exhaustion, and wondered if it was indicative of the state of the art in my community. So I framed these concerns into a thesis proposal on the state of new play development in Calgary and its relationship to community, and returned to school to re-acquaint myself with my values and my voice, in the context of who I am as a forty-eight year old veteran (not a word I use loosely) arts practitioner. The research study which follows is not a personal manifesto of my renewed and revisited values system, although my journey through this academic program has allowed 2 me that renewal. It is my honest attempt to apply the personal to a more universal setting, albeit for the scope of this thesis, still a small microcosm of the issues. This undertaking has always been directed toward a goal of helping the arts community move forward meaningfully in a more mutually fulfilling, authentic and respectful relationship with our larger community of audiences, supporters, and citizens. With this underpinning, my plan was to use the tools available - the statistics we had been reporting to various agencies over at least the last fifteen to twenty years - augmented by interviews with practitioners: I would embrace the quantifiable measurements that had invaded and eroded my relationship with theatre arts, and in so doing, let them prove my suspicion that we as an arts community are more disconnected from our art and our audiences than we were twenty years ago - before we were being held accountable to all these quantifiable measurements. These measurement findings would be peppered with heart wrenching stories from the embittered artists I had interviewed. I would affirm my assumptions that our artists were less capable of operating professionally in this community than they had been in the past, and accomplish this neatly not only through quantifiable analysis, but through qualitative fieldwork with the (would be) practitioners.

My strong-fisted assumptions regarding what I would achieve both through quantifiable analysis and through qualitative discussion met with answers far more complicated, nuanced, and incomplete than my angry postulations desired. Ultimately, I was right and I was wrong, and that is an undeniably humbling but profoundly hopeful relief. We're not dead yet. And as much as revealing an un-nuanced black hole of darkness would have fed my bleakest moments of sinister epiphany over the last several years, I am truly grateful that this personal journey has instead fed my sense of possibility. And for that I owe the rage and betrayal a debt of thanks for this raw and uncomfortable journey, as I would never have explored this fascinating community to the depth I have, had I not been driven by my angry sense of impotence and loss. 3

The lack of availability of measurable data either to feed or to assuage my anger confounded and surprised me, and has meant that some of my questions remain unanswered. And my interviews with practitioners have reconnected me with my theatre community and with the art form, and left me thirsty for more, left me looking forward. They strongly imply that, although the Calgary theatre community has indeed struggled and suffered through the nineties and is not without its issues and challenges, it is also resilient, active, and creative. In spite of and because of the raw and uncomfortable journey this community has taken over the last fifteen to twenty years, it has arguably staunched many of its wounds, and is healing, creating, and looking for re-invention and for meaningful re-connection with community. Like me. 4

Chapter One: Introduction Renowned Canadian playwright John Murrell recently observed that as an artist he is always "in negotiation" in "an uneasy relationship" with his community; he does not anticipate his relationship to community to be static or without frustrations, but rather appreciates that negotiating his role with community is part of what it means to be an artist in this, or any, "particular time and particular place."1 This study undertakes an investigation into the current state of "negotiations" in the relationship between Calgary based theatre artists, such as Murrell, and their larger community. It does so by examining the Calgary professional not-for-profit theatre community in relation to its key agencies for support: public funding bodies, private supporters, and audiences. How does the broader community, as represented by these three key agencies, value its relationship to the arts sector, as represented by the Calgary professional not-for-profit theatre community; and how well do these valuations allow for the development of creative art? Or in Murrell's language, how go the negotiations at this particular time and in this particular place? Furthermore, as this study suggests, aspects of the relationship are lacking in certain understandings and capacities. What are the tools the arts sector and our broader community need to renegotiate stronger understandings between art and community, to build toward stronger relationships and stronger creative

communities? Creative Communities and Dysfunctional Conversations: an International Backdrop

The use of the phrase "creative communities" draws from the current national and international interest in building "creative cities," as explored in the works of American economist Dr. Richard Florida, as well as Britain's Dr. Peter Hall and Charles Landry, among others. The works of these authors provide evidence of a new international momentum to embrace arts and culture as an integral foundation for what Landry cites as the need for "embedding creativity into [a] city's 'genetic code'" (Creative City 132), and 5

for using art and culture as "the soil from within which creativity emerges and grows" (173). Florida posits that the successful economy of the twenty-first century centers on "build[ing] a truly creative society" that harnesses creativity in an unprecedented manner (Rise 326). Hall uses examples from the history of western civilization - from such artistically vital eras as Ancient Athens, the Italian Renaissance, Elizabethan London, Berlin in the 1920s and more - to offer threads of commonalities that define "immensely creative" cities in their "golden ages" (Cities iri Civilization 4). Several Canadian communities are participating in this momentum to define and to build creative communities through a recent initiative entitled "Creative City Network of Canada: Transforming Communities through Culture," which has generated a nationwide network of over one hundred civic agencies in Canadian cities to "be more effective in cultural development in our communities." In May of 2008 Vancouver's Simon Fraser University's Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities in collaboration with the City of Ottawa presented an international symposium entitled "Creative Construct: Building for Culture and Creativity." Nationally and internationally, initiatives are calling for a renegotiation of the relationship between art and its greater community that more fully acknowledges the vital role arts and culture2 have in building creative communities.

Concurrent to this momentum towards a more integrated relationship between art and community are concerns about the current relationship. Art History scholar Chin-Tao Wu argues for renegotiations between the arts sector and its public and private support systems in her 2002 book Privatising Culture. Her exhaustive investigation examines the decreased role of governments in the arts through the Thatcher (in Britain) and Reagan (in the United States) governments and speaks to a need for revitalized guardianship from the public sector to ensure art does not become the undemocratic, powerfully centralized and homogenous domain of "a small clan of influential businessmen and ... multinational 6

giants" (296). Wu points to the imbalance of power and accountability between the public and private sectors, noting that

[t]he public sector ... has come to assume a relatively greater degree of public accountability within contemporary democracies. By contrast, the private sector, as represented by business in a capitalist system, has the power and the 'right' to make hundreds of 'private' vital decisions, without even a pretence at democracy (20-1). Wu's discussion of accountability and the relationship between culture and its larger community is taken up by John Holden, Professor at City University and Head of Culture at a British think tank institution entitled Demos. Holden's emphasis is less focussed on the private sector and more focussed on the public and political sectors; in his 2006 publication Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy3 he calls for a "new alignment between culture, politics and the public" to address the "dysfunctional" relationship that currently exists between arts practitioners, public funding agencies, and the public. He argues that the cultural system in Britain has become a "closed" conversation between the arts sector and its funding agencies (10), and that

over the last two decades [arts] professionals have ... prioritized establishing legitimacy with their funders over making their case with the public. Advocacy has meant producing ... 'convincing numbers' to make the case for next year's grant, rather than building a broad basis of popular support (40). Further to Holden's concerns about the focus of closed conversations around "convincing numbers," authors of the recent (2004) American study The Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts posit that "intrinsic benefits of the arts are intangible and difficult to define. They lie beyond the traditional quantitative tools of the social sciences," and as policy analysis currently "focuses on measurable outcomes" the 7 study notes with regret that intrinsic benefits have been "marginalized in both public discourse and research on the arts" (Kevin McCarthy et. al. 38).4 These national and international discourses on the capacity of a community to cultivate creativity coupled with those concerned with the current parameters of the larger community's relationship to the arts sector - the larger community being defined as the public, public funding agencies, and private/corporate funding agencies - frame my research enquiry into Calgary's theatre community. In accepting Landry's challenge for localities to address the need for "embedding creativity" into their community's "genetic code," my exploration looks for evidence of the Calgary community's capacity to answer this imperative through an examination of its current relationship with its local not-for- profit theatre sector. Scope of Research In analyzing the capacity of the Calgary community to contribute toward building a "creative community" my research examines the local theatre sector's capacity to create, and as part of that capacity, analyzes the manner in which the community supports the work of its local theatre practitioners and playwrights. Any vigorous analysis of the role of the arts in relation to western society arguably includes a philosophical discourse that covers at least the last 2500 years or so, when Aristotle argued for tragedy's cathartic effects in his Poetics, in the fourth century BCE. As intriguing and vital as this discourse is in a discussion of the relationship between arts and society, the entirety of the philosophical debate is too huge to explore within the scope of this thesis.5 This research enquiry therefore limits itself to a more pragmatic exploration: it looks to key indicators in the relationship between Calgary theatre organizations and their sources of support from their larger community; it urges the development of a fuller breadth and range of tools to apply to the relationship, and suggests what those could include; and it encourages further research and discussion of both intrinsic and instrumental values, both measurable and immeasurable, to facilitate a more meaningful, robust, and renegotiated relationship between art and community. Methodologies To examine key indicators in the relationship between Calgary theatre organizations and their sources of support - chiefly: audiences, public/government funding agencies, and private/corporate sources -1 undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses of this city's arts support systems, as available data allowed, and augmented these analyses with interviews from practitioners and artists within Calgary's theatre community. Specifically, in addition to examining related extant publications locally, nationally and internationally, primary research was undertaken in the following areas, with the following rationale: • To track quantitative indicators of support for theatre from its various communities, patterns of revenue sources and audience sizes for theatre companies over the professional not-for-profit theatre community's thirty year history in Calgary were compiled and charted, as/if available. Due to the thinness of data available through much of the earlier years of this history the numbers and analysis focus primarily on the years from 1989-90 to the present. Sources include the statistics recorded by various funding agencies, by the national surveys of performing arts organizations compiled by The Council for Business and the Arts in Canada, and by individual

theatre companies' annual reports or financial statements.

• Funding application requirements from various public and private agencies were examined with a view to understanding what information they required from their applicants and, by extension, what these agencies valued with respect to their relationship with the arts companies they considered supporting.

• As my enquiry concerns the capacity for creation, I looked to examine the status of Calgary's theatre creators from their point(s) of view; I obtained perspectives from a selection of Calgary based playwrights and representatives from the Calgary theatre 9

companies who produce new work. This research was conducted primarily through a series of one- to two-hour long interviews with practicing Calgary based theatre professionals. • Of note is my unsuccessful attempt to track new play development through an examination of the number of new plays produced annually in the city over a period of two decades; too little data was available to merit consideration beyond the observation that further research into this area would be beneficial. Indeed, this observation of the need for further research and/or increased rigour regarding the keeping of archival information came up often enough that it appears as a key finding of this study, below. Limitations

Research for this study was limited to exploring key support capacities for Calgary's not-for-profit professional theatre community. Limitations and parameters of specific areas of research are identified in detail in the respective chapters of this thesis. General parameters of the enquiry are noted above, and limitations within the enquiry are as follows:

• This study does not address other segments of the theatre community such as commercial or community theatre (the list of theatre companies considered is identified in Appendix IX).

• Further to this study's assessment of government funding sources, the focus of its exploration was limited to this theatre community's three key sources for operational support:

1. Municipally, Calgary Arts Development Authority (CADA) 2. Provincially, Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA) 3. Federally, The Canada Council for the Arts (Canada Council). Other public funding sources do exist for the theatre community but tend to be project based - all three levels of government offer project-based grants in 10

varying capacities - but tend to be one time only grants (that is, applicants may apply once only for funds for a specific project considered to be outside of their normal operations, and not on an ongoing, recurring manner as they do for operational support) and therefore arguably would not be considered key support sources.6 • From audience engagement information to corporate relationships to play production statistics, more primary research was required before I could make reasonable assessments on aggregate findings, and it became beyond the scope of this study to answer them all satisfactorily. This study offers an analysis through the use of: the revenue and attendance tracking data available; publicly accessible information on granting applications, procedures and criteria of the government agencies listed above; a review of a selection of corporate websites regarding their community investment practices; existing audience/public surveys, both locally and nationally; other related published findings; and interviews with practitioners.

• As previously noted, this study does not attempt to explore the entirety of the philosophical debate on the value of art, although due to the nature of its key findings, it does encourage the arts community to enter into this philosophical discussion of values more fully with its community of supporters than it currently

does.

• Although discussion of various plays, play content and form is brought forward through aspects of this study's research, this study does not include an in depth or empirical exploration of specific play content or form. Key Findings With these limitations and parameters acknowledged, key findings from my research include observations not only on what the available evidence illuminates but also what it does not illuminate. This study finds that: 11

1. As noted previously, the quantity of available research material is lacking: current data does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of the sector, and what has been compiled is often very difficult to access. Even mainstream tools of measurement - such as attendance or finances - either are available at a cost through an agency which does not represent the sector comprehensively, or are not accessible at all; publicly accessible data from public funding agencies is limited to granting amounts only, and even those figures are not easily accessible prior to 1996-97. 2. The focus of what material does exist is primarily quantitative in nature, reflecting larger trends, such as observed in The Gifts of the Muse study, toward "an increasingly output-oriented, quantitative approach to public sector management" (McCarthy et. al. xi). Qualitative research regarding the relationships between arts and government, private supporters or audiences has largely not been undertaken; those forays that have been attempted, such as the Culture Steps Forward report issued by Alberta Cultural Human Resources Steering Committee in 2000 or the Ipsos Reid studies commissioned by the Calgary Arts Partners in 2001 and 2006, are arguably introductory only, or, as in the case of some aspects of inquiry of Culture Steps Forward, "not completed" (Evans 16).

3. What research and published accounts do exist suggest the Calgary theatre

community may be further marginalized now in relation to its broader community than it has been, in spite of and arguably because of increased earned/box office revenues and other signs of financial stability such as the erasure of its accumulated debt. According to the latest published research undertaken by CAD A, the Calgary not-for-profit arts community has experienced a decrease in its actual audience base, from 2.2 million in 2000, to 1.9 million in 2005; in per capita terms, the decline is more startling, revealing a 22 % decline in attendance from 2000 to 2005 (From Policy to Action: A New Era of Investment in a Growing Cultural Capital 13). My 12

research indicates this decline followed an era of increased focus on accountability from arts clients to their funding agencies, coupled with increased revenues from box office and from the private sector (chiefly corporate sponsorships), and an overall decline in percentage of government support. 4. Experiences from professional arts practitioners in the Calgary theatre community indicate that Calgary has both a strong creative community and a threatened one: Calgary has positive indicators of a supportive theatre community, with fifteen professional or emerging professional companies, and where the work of emerging and independent artists is welcomed by both seasoned and young companies. Theatre artists and practitioners also believe that the theatre community in general is artistically risk averse due to influences of corporate interests and of increased focus on fiscal accountability; their observations are that the artistic health of the community is deteriorating not only due to that risk aversion factor but as well to the high cost of housing and other 'boom town' issues relating to lack of personal and professional space availability and/or affordability. With regards to the third point of implied increased marginality, I must clarify my research cannot confirm a direct causal relationship between factors such as decreasing audience figures on one hand and decreased percentage of government support combined with an increased focus on accountability on the other. It can only point to the co-existence of these factors and note that following a period of declining government support, of increased financial support from the corporate sector, and of increased levels of accountability to these stakeholders, a decline in audience numbers occurred. The correlations remain speculative as to how or if the presence of the first trend influenced or caused the presence of the latter.7 However, regardless of the cause(s), the observation of decreased attendance and increased box office revenues strongly points toward an arts 13 community that is less accessible now than it has been, offering their productions to a declining segment of citizenry who are willing or able to pay the higher ticket price. The Chapters Ahead

The exploration of how these findings were determined has been subdivided into four primary areas of focus as found in the following four chapters of this thesis: Chapter Two: government sector support; Chapter Three: private/corporate sector support; Chapter Four: audience sector support; and Chapter Five: theatre practitioners' perspectives. Each chapter outlines the research involved and the findings discovered. The sixth and final chapter of this thesis offers suggestions as to how the arts sector and its larger community could develop new tools to consider in a re-negotiated relationship. The suggestions are synthesized not only from the primary research undertaken, but also from related extant local, national and international research, and from the national and international discussions on the role of arts in the "new paradigm" of building the "creative city" of the future (Landry 258). Underlying this enquiry, to borrow from the eloquent Canadian arts critic, author and practitioner Max Wyman, is

a belief in the paramount importance of creative activity in the fulfilled human life, a conviction that access to creative expression and the shared creative heritage should be universal, and a commitment to creative excellence. Central to the entire exercise is the unyielding idea that, in a world where profit and the bottom line assume a dangerous primacy, society has the responsibility to provide long-term support for culture in all its multiplicity {Defiant Imagination 181). As such, the possibilities offered in the final chapter speak to a value system that looks to a more holistic, less marginalized relationship between artists and audiences, artists and 14 funding agencies (private and public), and artists and education. The suggestions are not meant to be comprehensive or definitive; indeed, the thin state of the relationship between the arts and its communities of supporters precludes those possibilities. They explore the need to give greater consideration to "[klnowing what to measure and how to measure it," as authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner posit (Freakonomics 12);8 at the same time, they urge communication to move beyond what British arts practitioner and author Julie Rowntree identifies as "the culture of measurement [that] permeat[es] many areas of life," as it "inhibit[s] success in other ways" (Changing the Performance 200), and towards what Calgary theatre practitioner Stephen Schroeder calls a "re-invention" of the arts community's relationship to its larger community. 15

Chapter Two: Government Relations: Calgary Theatre Companies' Relationship with Their Key Public Sector Supporters This chapter primarily follows and makes observations regarding the statistical evidence of distribution patterns of government funds to professional not-for-profit theatre companies in Calgary. The purpose of gathering these statistics was to see what observations could be made from an understanding of how the three main government sources of operational support for theatres - federal, provincial and municipal - have evolved since professional not-for-profit theatre companies have existed in the city. As such this study contains an historical and structural overview of each of the three government sources as well as observations from the data available. In a further effort to understand the relationship between government agencies and their not-for-profit theatre clients, this chapter also offers analysis of and observations relating to the three government agencies' application forms, these forms being the agencies' key tool in assessing and valuing how/if/how much support is given to whom. The focus of this chapter keeps primarily to the extant primary sources available for local analysis; it does however link findings through to national and international trends as/if appropriate or available.

Detailed findings are offered in the section "The Stories Told By the Data," following an overview of government funding agencies and a discussion of the data's limitations and lacunae. Some findings impact other stakeholder relationships this thesis considers, those being private supporters and audiences; these findings are noted in this chapter but more rigorous discussions of them are found in their respective chapters, as endnotes indicate. 16

An overview of the key findings includes the observations that: • As a percentage of Calgary theatre companies' overall budgets, government support declined from 37 % in 1989-90 to 24 % currently. • Alongside this trend of declining government support as a percentage of budgets is an increase in private support (defined as corporate and individual sponsorships and donations) from 20 % to 30 % as a percentage of budgets during the same time period. Percentage of earned revenues (primarily box office revenues) increased from 43 % to 46 % of budgets.10 • Accumulated debt loads carried by the theatre community in the early to mid- nineties have been erased.

• While box office revenues have increased both in absolute dollars and in percentage of budget, audience figures seem not to have followed this pattern of growth. CADA research indicates that from 2000 to 2005 its client base saw a per capita decline of 22.2 % in its audience base. Following the data available from four theatre companies from 1992-93 to 1999-2000 reveals a similar pattern of declining audiences.

• The majority of information required from clients on government funding application forms focuses on measurable data such as finances, as well as the organization's governance and accountability practices. AFA (Alberta Foundation for the Arts) and CADA (Calgary Arts Development Authority) forms do not ask for artistic mandate or execution of the organizations' artistic programming in relation to that mandate. The Canada Council for the Arts' form is the only one of the three that concerns itself with significant valuation of the artistic mandates of the clients it supports.

• The forms are lengthy, and available primary evidence points to the amount of information required having increased since 1990. Further evidence of this trend 17

toward increased reporting from arts organizations to their funding agencies is found in a recent (2007) report commissioned by the AFA which acknowledges that "[hjigher standards of accountability around the use of public money [has] translate [d] into more involved reporting requirements for grant recipients" {Trends in the Arts and Arts Funding: Secondary Research i). Further to these findings, the "Questions, Speculations and Conclusions" section which ends this chapter introduces possible correlations between these data findings. The observed increase in financial stability (debt free theatres) is considered against the finding of a declining audience paying higher ticket prices (increased box office revenues). Suggested linkages connect through to national and international concerns around the impact of "heavy and demoralizing ... government cuts to arts funding," as editors Sally McKay and Andre J. Paterson note in their introduction to a Canadian anthology of commentary on Money Value Art: State Funding, Free Markets, Big Pictures (9). John Holden's concern that "[arts] professionals have ... prioritized establishing legitimacy with their funders over making their case with the public" (CVCL 40) suggests the Calgary theatre community and its public funding agencies may want to consider a renegotiated relationship that, while appreciating the firmer financial situation of the theatre community, is more inclusive of the public sector than both public funders and the publicly funded ostensibly serve. Scope of Research and Source Materials

The oldest professional not-for-profit theatre company in Calgary is Theatre Calgary, born in 1968; as such, my research initially focussed on gathering statistics from this date onwards. However, due to the small number of theatre companies in existence in these early years (see Appendix IX for a listing of companies and their ages), combined with a lack of available data, the focus of discussion in this analysis and of statistics in the 18 accompanying charts and appendices is on the years from 1989 to the present. Information has been gathered from the following key sources: 1. Calgary Arts Development Authority (CADA) files and archives: files were available from its inception in 1969 to current. 2. Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA) files and archives: statistical reports were available from AFA's research department from 1998-current, as well as from AFA annual reports from 1992-93 and 1993-94. 3. Canada Council for the Arts files and documentation: individual client statistics were available from 1996-current. 4. Council for Business and the Arts in Canada (CBAC) Annual Surveys of Performing Arts Organizations: from 1989-90 to 2004-05. 5. Annual reports or financial statements from individual theatre companies, as available (please see Appendix X for detail).

Further detail identifying limitations of these sources is described in this chapter under the section entitled "Following the Money: Discrepancies and Gaps."11 Overview of Municipal Funding:

Calgary Arts Development Authority (was Calgary Region Arts Foundation) The current mechanism for municipal funding for Calgary artists and arts organizations is the Calgary Arts Development Authority. Funding to CADA is provided by the City of Calgary (see Appendix V for an historical overview of CADA's annual budget allocations from the City). CADA is a young organization, three years old as of March 2008. The evolution of this authority involved a two year consultation process with the city's arts community which resulted in a 2004 civic arts policy; among the policy's directives was the formation of an arts development authority (Calgary Arts Development Authority, "Backgrounder"). Prior to CADA's existence the City funded its not-for-profit arts sector through CRAF (Calgary Region Arts Foundation). CRAF was created by the 19

City of Calgary in 1969 and was "unique in Canada," according to its historical overview Calgary Region Arts Foundation: 1969-2006 authored by CRAF's long-time (1984-2006) Executive Director Kathryn Hartley (1). Following a year of working in transition with CADA this volunteer-driven foundation dissolved in 2006, and many of its former volunteers now function as part of CADA's funding committee. CRAF allocated its civic funding dollars by way of a juried system involving upwards of fifty volunteers each year. "Most major North American cities have an arts council or similar funding arm but few, if any, are structured to take advantage of an almost 100% volunteer workforce" (4). Volunteers were representative of "the citizens of Calgary, ... informed consumers of art, the audience, peers and the tax payers" (8). CRAF's mission was "to promote, support and encourage the development of the arts in the City of Calgary as the body responsible for the distribution of municipal funds to local non-profit arts organizations" (5). CRAF executed its mission by funding "public presentations of an art form, basic operating funding, [and] special projects" (8). The mission of the newly created CADA is to foster "a civic culture that supports and encourages creative and artistic expression for the benefit of all Calgarians" {Calgary Arts Development Authority 2005 Annual Report 2). To date, the execution of this mission follows the basic structure of

1 0 CRAF, with a volunteer board and jury system to determine grant allocations.

CRAF's annual funding history in Appendix VI reflects a general stagnation of its City funding allocations through the nineties, particularly from 1992 to 1995 where the fund was frozen for four years at $1.8 million. Since 1995 the fund has grown by small increments annually (generally by 4% or less). In 2006 CRAF distributed $2.5 million to 119 city arts organizations (amateur and professional). In the fall of that year CADA successfully approached City Council with a proposal to increase its arts funding allocation by 20% ($502,500) to address "critical shortfalls ... in Calgary's system of investing in the arts, and [to] provide a much-needed increase in funding for the city's artists and creative organizations" (Calgary Arts Development, "New investments fuel Calgary's growing arts and culture scene"). Prior to this increase, City funding had not seen significant increases since the fund's substantive growth period in the 1980s, with the exception of a 14.5 % increase in 1991 when the City shifted its support of arts festivals out of its Parks and Recreation Department and into CRAF's purview (Hartley 15), and a 12 % increase in 2001.

Overview of Provincial Funding: The Alberta Foundation for the Arts and its Predecessors The Alberta Foundation for the Arts is the provincial funding body for arts in Alberta. Its granting funds are allocated from provincial lottery revenues. The Foundation is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors appointed by the Province. The AFA is currently part of the portfolio managed by the newly created (as of March 2008) Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit (Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, "New Cabinet Appointed").

Although the province has been supporting the arts in varying capacities since 1946 with the passing of the Cultural Development Act - indeed, according to Denise Roy it was "very boastful in the past about being ... the first province in the country to pass a Cultural Development Act" ("Arts Funding: the Alberta Horizon," 14) - the structure of its support has varied, and perhaps easiest to summarise in a brief timeline (except where otherwise noted, this timeline is taken from the Alberta Foundation for the Arts historical overview "Historical Timeline, 1946-1996: Celebrate '96, 50 Years of Arts and Culture"):

1946 Cultural Development Act passed; Department of Economic Affairs Provincial

Cultural Boards formed.

1972 Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation formed. Alberta Art Foundation

is created.

1975 Operating grants program introduced for performing arts companies. 21

1978 Alberta Foundation for the Performing Arts established for project funding, over and above on-going operational support, funded out of provincial lottery dollars.

1980 Province creates distinct ministry for culture called: Alberta Culture.13 1984 Alberta Foundation for the Literary Arts established. 1987 Addition of multiculturalism to the ministry's purview; department now called: Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism. 1991 The Alberta Art Foundation, the Alberta Foundation for the Performing Arts, and the Alberta Foundation for the Literary Arts are dissolved. The Alberta Foundation for the Arts is established: it is a compacted amalgamation of the three foundations. The AFA is now responsible for all operational and project funding for the arts, and is funded entirely by lottery dollars, with a budget of $15.7 million (George Melnyk, "Culture and State in Alberta" 258). 1992 Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism ministry is dissolved; its responsibilities, including oversight of AFA, folded into new Ministry of Community Development.

1994 AFA budget of $16.1 million; it remains frozen until 2003 (Alberta Arts Heritage. "Alberta's Arts Heritage"). Following a program re-evaluation in the mid- nineties, the AFA developed a pro-rated formula-based funding model which they

use currently. The calculation is based on community derived revenue: earned and other contributed revenues from sources other than government ("Grant Application"). After a near decade of frozen funding from 1994 to 2003, the AFA received budget increases in 2003,2005,2006 and 2007 to $22.6 million (Gill, "Alberta artists told to vote Tory," Globe and Mail Rl 1). Alberta's current premier Ed Stelmach replaced Klein in 2006. In December 2007 a new Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Recreation, Sports and Culture replaced Community Development ("Arts at bottom of priority list," Jan. 5 2007, A3). On April 20,2007 the Calgary Herald reported that the province's newly released 2008 budget includes a $4.7 million increase to AFA, bringing the total AFA budget to $27.3 million for 2007-08. The arts community had been lobbying for a doubling of the fund; as such, "[a]rtists and administrators praised [the] 20 per cent increase ... but say it's not enough to make up for years of little or no increase" (Burroughs, "Arts groups say budget boost not enough" CI 1). As noted above, in March of this year the Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Recreation, Sports and Culture was dissolved; the current ministry is entitled The Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit. Overview of Federal Funding: Canada Council for the Arts Canada Council for the Arts was borne out of recommendations from a 1949-51 Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, popularly known as 'the Massey Report' after its Chair Vincent Massey. The Council's first year of operations was 1957-58. Council's mandate, fundamentally unchanged since its inception, is to "foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production of works in, the arts" (Canada Council for the Arts, "Brief History"). It is governed by an arms-length Board of Directors, with grants juried by a committee of peers from Canada's professional arts community. It awards grants based on: artistic criteria (70 %); dissemination criteria (15 %); and administrative criteria (15 %) ("Multi-Year and Annual Operating Grants to Professional Theatre Organizations"). The Council is funded by a Parliamentary appropriation from the Government of Canada.14

The basic structure of the Canada Council for the Arts has remained stable throughout its history, although as noted in its published "Brief History" document, it undertook major administrative restructuring/downsizing in the mid-nineties and reduced its administrative expenses by almost 50 %. Accompanying these reductions in overhead costs is a lack of growth in the fund (see Appendix VII for history of Council's annual budget allocations), as well as the "end of the Art Bank ... and cuts to funding for 23 professional training schools and national service organizations" (Clive Robertson, Policy Matters 106). Indeed, between 1990 and 1997 Canada Council arts funding dollars declined from $94.7 million to $84.9 million. Following this downturn Canada Council's "Brief History" document notes that beginning in 1997-98 the Council received an additional $25 million annually for five years (through to 2002-03) for a total increase of $125 million in new funds provided by the government. In 2001-02 the federal government announced its continuation of these increases for the next three-year period (2004-06 inclusive), bringing the arts funding budget to $129.5 million in 2006. In April of 2007 the Council announced the distribution of an additional $33 million in supplementary operational dollars to its client base over two years, due to the federal government's recent decision to increase Canada Council's budget by a total of $50 million over the next two years (2006-2008). An April 2007 Canada Council news release indicated that the supplementary Operational Funds Initiative was "aimed at strengthening [its clients'] current operations by enhancing their artistic, administrative or audience development activities" ("561 arts organizations to receive $33 million ... "). Following the Money: Discrepancies and Gaps

As noted previously, five key sources were used to compile statistics for this analysis, and among and between these sources there are some gaps and discrepancies. Of the five sources, CBAC surveys (1976-2005) offer the greatest potential for meaningful analysis as these statistics include a breakdown of all revenue streams into various government, earned revenue, and private contributions.15 CBAC research also provides the total operating budgets of its participants, which allows for a percentage based comparison of revenue sources. CBAC is, however, a voluntary survey, so many participating theatre companies have not been consistent in filling them out each year. As one example, OYR (One Yellow Rabbit performance theatre company) stopped providing data to CBAC in 2000.16 During the years 1998-2000, when statistics from both CBAC surveys and AFA were available, there are discrepancies between the provincial amounts received by OYR. The CBAC surveys show significantly larger provincial support. For the purpose of this study, CBAC survey results were used whenever possible. When CBAC statistics were not available and granting agency statistics were, the individual granting agency statistics were used. City funding statistics on individual clients are the most complete; they were available from CRAF's inception in 1969 through to 2006. Few statistics were available from AFA before 1998. Two days in the Provincial Archives in Edmonton looking for pre- 1998 material revealed a paucity of useful information, beyond three annual reports from the AFA (1991-92,1992-93 and 1993-94). Canada Council was unable to provide individual client statistics earlier than 1996 and encouraged me to access the CBAC surveys. Statistics from CBAC surveys in this analysis include those from 1989-90 to 2004- 05. The only location I found in Alberta to carry a collection of these surveys was the library in Edmonton's Grant MacEwan College, which has all surveys since and including 1989-90. The University of Lethbridge records initially indicated its library held all surveys back to 1976; however, upon further inspection the library could not find the surveys, and currently lists them as missing. The University of Calgary library eventually sourced 7 more years of surveys, from 1982-88, from the National Archives in Ottawa. Surveys from their inception in 1976 are available from the CBAC at a cost of $75 per year requested. As the number of professional not-for-profit theatre companies tracked in Calgary pre-1990s is very small - Theatre Calgary, ATP (Alberta Theatre Projects) and Lunchbox are the only regular Calgary theatre participants, as evidenced in the surveys from 1982-88 -1 did not pursue the purchasing of these early surveys and have focussed my analysis on the available data provided for the fifteen years since 1989-90.17 I augmented the sparse current participation of Calgary theatre companies in the CBAC survey (four not-for-profit theatre companies participated in the 2004-05 survey) by 25 requesting financial statements from eleven other theatre companies (as per Appendix X). I obtained six sets of financials, most from 2005 but some from 2006. For the purposes of this study I have considered the data from either of these years as relatively comparable in constructing an overview of current levels of various sectors of support, although obtaining data from the same year would have been ideal.18 The Stories Told By the Data With these acknowledged shortfalls in the source data, an examination of government support for Calgary based not-for-profit professional theatres indicated by the statistics gathered include the following observations: -v- Government Support Declined as a Percentage of Budgets and in Relation to Other Sources of Support: As Tables I and II below illustrate, as a percentage of total budgets (where data is available), government funding decreased substantially, from 37 % in 1990 to 24 % in 2005. During the same time period, other revenue streams increased as a percentage of budgets: private sector contributions (sponsorships, individual donations) increased from 20 % in 1989-90 to 30 % of overall budgets in 2004-05, and earned revenues increased from 43 % of budget to 46 %. The government's decrease in percentage of budget based support translates into a slight increase in absolute dollars, from $2.6 million in 1989-90 to $3.3 million by 2004-05. During the same time period the combined budgets of theatres tracked in these statistics increased from $7.1 million to $14.5 million (See Appendix II for greater detail on percentage based trends and related notes).

Within this overall trend of decline in government support as a percentage of budget, individual exceptions exist (see Appendices III, IV, and V). Without an understanding the motive behind the exceptions, which is not easily determined by an analysis of only the numbers, these exceptions remain unexplained. Table I: Calgary Theatre Companies: 1989-90 Revenue Streams

PRIVATE $1,463,547 20% EARNED $3,062,077 43% GOVT $2,607,880 37%

Table II:

Calgary Theatre Companies: current (2004-05 to 2005-06) revenue streams

PRIVATE, $4,274,839, 30% EARNED, $6,568,086, 46%

GOVT, $3,332,947, 24%

*$- While box office revenues increased both in absolute dollars and in percentage of budget, audience figures did not. CAD A research indicates that from 2000 to 2005 its entire client base saw a per capita decline of 22.2 % in its audience base. On a per capita basis paid attendance declined by 9.7 % and unpaid attendance declined by 33.7 %. In absolute numbers, total attendance declined from 2.2 million to 2 million; paid attendance grew from 1 million to 1.1 million; unpaid attendance decreased from 1.2 million to 27

886,000 ("From Policy to Action ... "). This trend occurs in juxtaposition with growth in other sectors, including overall numbers of theatre companies in Calgary, and of increased overall budgets/size of operations.

-•• All three government funding agencies generally experienced a lack of growth in their annual budgets during the 1990s. Incremental increases have begun to be implemented in the last five to six years (see Appendices VI - VIII for detail). This lack of growth in all three agencies (municipal, provincial and federal) is reflected not only in the decrease in government support as a percentage of budgets but arguably in the following observations: • A decrease of CRAF funded Calgary theatre companies within this time period. As Appendix V indicates, the number of companies CRAF defines as 'smaller' clients (receiving grants of less than $30,000) decreased from 7 active theatre clients in the mid 1980s to 5 active clients in the mid-nineties. In contrast, Calgary's population in the 1990s grew from 692,000 in 1990 to 819,000 in 1998, according to City of Calgary census data. Even now, with a seemingly robust roster of 18 clients in this category, all but 3 clients receive grants of $8,000 or less. In most instances, statistical data is not available to determine what percentage of budget these contributions represent.

• No growth through the 1990s in the number of Calgary professional theatre clients receiving Canada Council funding. Growth in this capacity began in 1999 when Theatre Junction became a client, followed by Old Trout Puppet Workshop in 2004. • Due to lack of data available from AFA regarding the number of clientele it supported between 1993 and 1998, coupled with the small number of theatres who participated in the CBAC surveys, it is difficult to observe patterns regarding volume of AFA clientele through the mid-nineties, although it appears there was no loss of clients. It can be noted from the data available that AFA support declined significantly over this time period as a percentage of budgets, nearly halving its impact: from 19 % in 1990 to 10 % in 2005. -$• Following four of the older Calgary professional not-for-profit theatres (ATP, Lunchbox, OYR, and Theatre Calgary) whose financial data was available from 1990 to current reveals that the two companies who experienced the most growth in size of operations have been Theatre Calgary and OYR, whose budgets grew 110 % and an astounding 1064 % respectively during this time period (see Appendix I for detail). This arguably correlates to the observation that these two companies also incurred the most significant decreases of government support as a percentage of their budgets. This suggests that constraints on government budgets could not keep up with or reflect significant growth in their clients' operations. This suggested correlation finds parallels in national observations, such as those found by a recent Hill Strategies Research study on all three levels of government support of the arts commissioned by the Canadian Conference of the Arts; the study observes that "government spending has not supported growth in the cultural community over the past decade in Canada," and further, that [fjhe cumulative impact of the 1990s government spending cutbacks to the arts is almost $600 million. This represents more than one full year of additional funding during the 10-year timeframe. That is, if government support for the arts had grown by the rate of inflation in each year... almost $600 million more would have been invested in the arts between 1992-93 and 2002-03 {Government Spending on Culture, 1992-93 to 2002-03 17,24). The impact of this loss of investment is difficult to measure, but is perhaps indicated at a local level by the lack of growth in client numbers during the nineties, and/or by the lack of growth in audiences. 29

<$- Following accumulated debt loads and audience statistics from these same four companies reveals an impressive gain in financial stability, from combined accumulated debts in excess of $1.1 million in 1992-93 to a combined accumulated surplus in 1999-2000 of $1.2 million.19 Audience figures for these same companies decreased over this same time period by 24 %, from 211,503 to 161,198 (see Appendix XI). Application Form Findings In pondering the variances in funding patterns between companies and in an effort to understand better how each funding agency values and measures its client base, I undertook an analysis of each funder's application form, as it is the chief mechanism upon which funders evaluate the amount applicants can or should be awarded. I have attached this analysis as Appendix VIII. Key observations include:

••• Grant application forms are lengthy, and reporting requirements have increased in their complexity since 1990. Each of the three forms and accompanying appendices are over 10 pages long; Canada Council is the shortest, at 11 pages, but notes to its clients that they are to attach their maximum 20-page description of their artistic mission and context; AFA is the longest, at 23 pages; and CADA's application is 17 pages in length. Evidence of increased reporting requirements is most apparent at the provincial level. In addition to the

form, AFA requires its clients to provide statistical data; in 2004 this allowed AFA to publish a study entitled "Economic Impact of the Arts in Alberta." The newly revised AFA application form for professional theatres has an additional section on governance as well as an increased level of accountancy practices ("Professional Performing Arts Companies Operating Grant: Guidelines"). Although access to various incarnations of granting forms and/or other reporting requirements over the last fifteen years was not possible, further evidence of this trend toward increased accountability was noted in a recent (2007) report commissioned by the AFA, which observed that "[hjigher standards of accountability 30

around the use of public money translate into more involved reporting requirements for grant recipients" (Trends in the Arts and Arts Funding: Secondary Research i).

-•• The focus of the information gathered on grant application forms is quantitative in nature; a secondary emphasis is on governance. Each application is unique, but all ask for various breakdowns of financial data, attendance and other community-impact oriented questions, as well as governance/accountability questions. In both the City and Provincial applications, only two questions deal with artistic content; CAD A asks for the number of and description of a company's artistic activities; AFA asks for the number of presentations and an accounting of artistic related expenses. Neither the City nor the Provincial application asks for the organization's artistic mandate or for an assessment of how each company believes it is able to answer to this mandate. As indicated above, AFA has a particular and recently increased focus on documented governance and accountability procedures. The focus of Canada Council's application is greatly different from the other two in this respect, in that it asks for details about the company's artistic mandate, how the company sees its artistic voice in relation to a national context, and a 'maximum twenty page' brief on the artistic activities the money would be supporting. Of the 30 theatre companies identified as part of Calgary's not-for-profit theatre community (Appendix IX), only 7 receive Canada Council operational funding. Council's guidelines cite artistic

criteria as 70 % of its rationale in determining funding. Does this somehow factor into why so few companies are funded operationally, or into Theatre Calgary's plummeting Canada Council support (see Appendix III)? The numbers do not tell that story; without further exploration and an understanding of how/if the jury determined that Theatre Calgary and other companies (those that have applied) did somehow not meet this criteria, any explanation remains speculative.

Questions, Speculations and Conclusions 31

This exploration of the data gathered and charted shows only the beginnings of a story of the impact of decreased support from government funding agencies throughout the nineties; the good news is there are indications of resurgence of overall government support to the arts in the last five to six years. Good news is also found in the erasure of debt loads in theatre companies.21 Interesting, too, is that client budgets have grown over the last 15 years in spite of a more conservative funding environment, and because of this growth in other revenue streams, coupled with the lack of growth in government sources of support, government support on a percentage of budget basis currently resides at 13 % less than the 37 % of clients' budgets it held in 1989-90. It is important to note that percentage of budget is only one means of valuing support and certainly does not mean to imply that the larger the percentage of government support, the healthier the art, or that there is a magical percentage-based measurement that 'fits all' as an appropriate level of government support across all companies. Is 37 % indicative of a healthy government contribution? Is 24 %? In discussions of valuing arts in terms of statistics, it is perhaps wise to consider the cautionary note which British researcher Timothy Mason observed as he looked at "useful performance indicators" for the UK's Department for Culture, Media and Sport: that "the things that are the easiest to measure are also usually the least important" (180), or Holden's assertion that "the value of culture cannot be expressed only with statistics" (CCV title page).

Measurable percentages can be considered as one indicator of how governments value the arts; however, they cannot be the only one. Fil Fraser, a TV and radio broadcaster, film producer, and author of Alberta's Camelot: Culture and the Arts in the Lougheed Years (2003), argues that it was at least as much the attitude the provincial government took towards the arts as it was declining financial investment that "was a disaster for the province's artistic and cultural communities" (218). He comments on the Provincial government's de-valuation of the arts community in context with the difficult economy of 32 the 1990s: "[economies rise and fall and people adjust. The real culture shock [in the nineties] was in the change in attitude toward the arts. The [provincial government's] winding down ... of arts funding programs was almost gleeful in its bloody mindedness" (218). George Melnyk, former executive director of the now defunct Alberta Foundation for the Literary Arts, author, and professor in the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary, describes the Klein government's attitude toward the arts as one not seen during the "ground-breaking" policies of Lougheed's era or even during the quiet consolidation efforts of Lougheed's successor Don Getty (256-8); the attitude of the Klein government generated an "atmosphere of repression," "censorship," and "fear" (262-3), and caused a "rift" between the provincial government and the arts community not found previously (254-5). Statistics alone cannot provide a full understanding of the state of health of an arts community reeling from the culture shock of perceived "bloody mindedness."

That said, perhaps the most interesting and alarming statistic is the one that reflects a per capita decline in Calgary audience numbers juxtaposed with a flourishing local economy, an increase in accountability from arts clients to their government stakeholders, and greater returns from box office revenues, as well as from corporate and individual sources. The combination of these factors would suggest that art in Calgary has become less accessible, and more expensive to experience. Has the increased fiscal stability come at the cost of public accessibility? Correlating the decline in audience with declining government support, increased commercialized/corporate support, and more "stringent reporting requirements ... [with] an emphasis on measurable outcomes" {Trends in the Arts and Arts Funding: Primary Research i) provides for an interesting set of suppositions that invites further research. Holden argues that artists' "ability to 'play the game' and write highly articulate funding proposals [has become] more important than the work that they make or facilitate" {Capturing Cultural Value 14). Barbara Godard, author, Associate 33

Professor at York University and contributor to Money_Value Art, adds to Holden's concerns, positing that

[a]s grants have declined, more paperwork is required to justify them ... turning artists into grant writing machines. Implicitly, too, it transfers direction of the arts' creative agenda to the public sector funding bodies and now, more frequently, to the private sector bodies who provide sponsorships. ... What counts as art is being determined by fewer and fewer individuals. A top-down model of bureaucratic control is displacing the diversity of grassroots creative initiatives enabled by stable operational funding" ("Resignifying Culture" 79).23 Further concerns are brought forward by Clive Robertson in his book Policy Matters, as he reflects on possible ramifications of Canada Council's downsizing in the 1990s, noting that artists are "producers of a community-shaped and scaled culture that cannot easily be accommodated within economies-of-scale distribution systems" (108). Melnyk's observations on the effectiveness of "economies of scale" delivery systems add to this argument from a provincial perspective; he notes that the downsizing of the Alberta Performing Arts Foundation, the Alberta Literary Foundation, and the Alberta Art Foundation into one consolidated Alberta Foundation for the Arts resulted in a "small board" at AFA that was responsible for dealing with a great "breadth of cultural activity from writers to dancers to painters to theatre groups." As Melnyk puts forward, the loss of the discipline specific foundations in the early nineties resulted in a decline in the "innate responsiveness to various artistic constituencies offered by the former foundations" (261). Fraser concurs, noting as well that the further amalgamation of ministries in 1993, which saw the dissolution of Alberta's Ministry of Culture, punctuated a "sharp turn toward the negative" attitude towards the arts from the Alberta government: "what began [under Don Getty's premiership, 1985-1992] as a slow fade governed by economic realities became an 34 over-the-waterfall drop in support for the arts" under Klein's leadership; all of these consolidations diminished delivery system capacities, and the downsized version "lost prestige, dollars and clout" (216-7). These expressions of concern regarding the increasingly numerous and "closed conversations" happening between arts organizations and funding agencies (Holden 10) and of the ramifications of granting agencies downsized into providing "economies of scale" distribution mechanisms which arguably do not serve the art form(s) may directly connect with the declining audiences. The complexity of this equation can only be introduced within the scope of this analysis; it offers an intriguing array of suppositions to consider in parallel with the story the available local data indicates: that through the fiscally driven government priorities of the 1990s where "conflicting objectives of profit... [and] of access" (Godard 80) arguably lessened both debt load and audience figures, the Calgary theatre community is, for better or worse, currently more fiscally stable than it was; less fiscally dependent and more accountable to government agencies; more fiscally dependent on private supporters; and more dependent on audiences who can pay a higher ticket price. 35 Chapter Three: Corporate Affairs: Calgary Theatre Companies' Relationship with Their Key Private Sector Supporter As Chapter Two research indicates, private sector relationships have assumed a greater degree of importance as a revenue source for theatre companies over the last fifteen years in Calgary. This chapter examines this relationship more extensively, using available financial data and observed parameters of relationships associated with this important sector of support. As identified in CBAC statistics, private sector revenue is one of three major categories of revenues for theatre companies, as distinct from earned/box office revenues, and from government sources. It is important to note that private sector support as defined by CBAC statistics is not defined exclusively as corporate sector support; however the statistics indicate that corporate sector support is the major contributor to the private sector revenue stream at 62 % of private sector support, and as such is of primary concern and focus in this discussion and analysis.24 That being noted, exploring the impact and effect of the corporate sector on Calgary theatre companies - looking to and beyond what available statistics indicate - is extremely limited due to the thinness of extant research in this field, especially in local and regional arenas. This analysis of the local not-for-profit professional theatre community in Calgary offers some sense of the corporate sector's impact chiefly through an examination of existing materials plus anecdotal input from my own professional experience as Director of Development for Calgary's Alberta Theatre Projects (ATP) from 1998 to 2003,25 Source Materials and Limitations

Extant materials were gathered from three primary sources: 1. CBAC statistics from 1989-90 to 2004-05,26 2. Individual annual reports or financial statements from various Calgary theatre companies, as available (see Appendix X for detail). 3. An examination of community investment guidelines and application forms from a selection of Calgary-based corporations who have some history in supporting the local not-for-profit theatre community (see Appendix XII for detail). Further to the limitations and parameters of the financial data already discussed in Chapter Two, it should be noted that the financial statements of the smaller companies tend not to distinguish between corporate and individual support, and therefore analysis of the exact financial contribution of the corporate sector to smaller companies is not discernable. With regards to the limitations of using various corporations' guidelines for support as a means of understanding its relationship to the not-for-profit arts sector, this is an admittedly thin tool; it is limited to whatever information a private corporation chooses to share publicly. Of the websites searched, however, all provided some scope of what was often described as their "corporate responsibility," as EnCana's website titles its "community investment" guidelines. As such, this portal provides at least some measure of understanding of the stated parameters of various community investment strategies within the corporate sector. For the scope of this study companies identified by local theatre companies as supportive were targeted (as acknowledged on theatre company websites and/or in annual reports). This sampling therefore admittedly looks at a tiny fraction of this large and diverse sector, and is by no means intended to be comprehensive or necessarily representative of the entire corporate sector (as per Appendix XII).27 It serves to offer examples and observations from some corporations who currently invest in the Calgary theatre community and to point to the need for further study in this under researched area of influence.

With these source data parameters and limitations noted, what follows is a discussion of observations and speculations based primarily on extant sources as noted above, as well as on various published sources which discuss the private/corporate relationship in broader terms - that is, more broadly applied observations and arguments involving the relationship between arts in general and the private sector at a national and/or international scope - and, as noted earlier, from my own professional experience in this area. Key Findings: empirical and anecdotal A summary of the key findings of this study points to the following: 1. The theatre community has experienced a significant increase in the private and corporate sector's financial support over the last 15 years. Within this increase, support is weighted toward the larger theatre companies (budgets of $500,000 and larger) over the smaller (budgets under $500,000). 2. The parameters of corporate sector support are primarily market-driven, and tend to carry expectations of measurable return on investment as well as of positive community and business affiliations resulting from the relationship. 3. The parameters of this relationship suggest that larger theatre companies have greater capacity to meet the corporate sector's goals, having not only greater human and financial resources to apply to these goals, but also greater access to positive affiliations, and arguably a less controversial product. To what extent a market-driven agenda of the corporate sector impacts artistic programming is an important question raised from these findings, but in the context of the scope of this study it can only be introduced and serve to urge further research into this intriguing, supportive, significant and debatably problematic relationship. 1. Private sector support has increased for Calgary theatre companies, particularly in the larger theatre companies The statistics indicate the private sector's financial support for Calgary's theatre companies nearly trebled over fifteen years: in absolute terms, it increased by 192 %, growing from $1.5 million in 1989-90 to $4.28 million currently. Over this period private sector support for Calgary theatre companies also grew as a percentage of theatre company 38 budgets: from 20 % of budgets in 1989-90 to 30 % of current theatre budgets; during the same time period government support shrank as a percentage of budgets by 13 % and box office income rose from 43 % to 46 % (see Chapter Two, Tables I and II). At close to one-third of company budgets, the strong budgetary presence of the private sector, as noted earlier, is primarily due to a strong corporate presence, at 62 % of private sector revenues. Statistics also indicate that smaller companies (budgets under $500,000)28 do not show such strong support from the private sector. Financial information gathered from small companies suggests that private sector support is limited to approximately 14 % of budgets, whereas support for larger companies sits at 34 % (see Table IV endnote 28). In considering the corporate component of private sector revenues, this finding follows a nationally observed trend in the performing arts sector, as CBAC's statistical analysis reports that "[i]n 2004-05, corporations continued to provide greater amounts to the largest performing arts organizations" ("Funding by Size of Organization.pdf).

2. Corporate sector support is primarily market-driven, and relies on theatre companies' market reach and affiliations Guidelines defining corporations' terms for community investment can be accessed on various corporate websites; these guidelines often emphasize terms of marketing reach and accountability. For example, the RBC Financial Group's website, found in its "Corporate Responsibility" pages, indicates RBC requires its community partners to be creative entities that present us with a landscape filled with marketing potential, banking opportunities, media extensions, image fit, community relations activities and client development opportunities, ... [and] clear windows of opportunity to promote RBC Financial Group as well as the products and services of its member companies to your targeted audience(s). Asking for proposals from the community which "identify opportunities that target both internal and external audiences" and suggesting proposals should look "[o]utside your four walls" to discover "marketing terrain that we could mutually explore," RBC's sponsorship guidelines illustrate that a very market-driven set of priorities steers its decision-making process. In RBC's description the partnership should "broaden the promotional playing field" and "involve co-sponsors, suppliers and affiliates in active and inventive cross-promotions.... The more marketing opportunities you identify, the more attractive your proposal becomes." RBC's application guidelines were among the most open expressions of market- driven terms encountered in my search through corporate websites, although all guidelines and applications suggested similar priorities. Many corporations provide on their website an application form to receive community sponsorship proposals. Others provide a mailing address. Of the 15 websites scanned, 6 used e-application forms. All applications asked in some form about the project's anticipated and tangible benefits both for the community and for the sponsor, such as directives from Petro-Canada's guidelines to "be measurable. How can you measure your achievement? Number of people served? Exposure rates? Survey results? ... Be result-oriented. ... How will Petro-Canada be recognized? To whom will it be promoted?" As per TD Bank's "Community Involvement" application form, corporations asked variously phrased questions concerning recognition opportunities, measurable outcomes, and market reach: "[w]hat kind of recognition opportunities are available ... as a potential supporter of this project and organization?," "What measures are in place to guage [sic] your results?," "How will you quantify its success?," and "describe your public relations and media plan." In this market-driven relationship, meeting the expectations of corporations arguably requires sophisticated accountability measures from the theatre company in terms of identifying and quantifying a marketable return on a corporation's investment. 40

These market driven parameters are noted by professional American arts fundraisers Karen Brooks Hopkins and Carolyn Stopler Friedman, in their 1997 edition of Successful Fundraisingfor Arts and Cultural Organizations. The authors observe that

[sjponsorships are becoming increasingly popular in the corporate sector and are viewed by businesses not only as philanthropy but as a way to enhance their image or income. As the sponsor of a special project, the business or its product can acquire public relations benefits because its name is directly attached to the project and publicized through brochures, television and print advertising. The essence of the sponsorship concept is to give the corporation or product maximum visibility and identification (55). This desire that sponsorships achieve "maximum visibility and identification" implies the need for the theatre organization to quantify and deliver on a set of marketing and affiliation opportunities. British arts practitioner Julia Rowntree supports this observation in her book Changing the Performance, which explores the relationship between corporations and the arts sector in Britain. She notes that a business-arts affiliation with marketing dollars driving the relationship is "[njever without strings" (69). As Director of Development for London's International Festival of Theatre (LIFT) in the early 1990's, Rowntree describes the failure of LIFT to compel a one-year sponsor to return for a second year because the festival "did not succeed in securing reams of press coverage for the sponsorship in the national [British] papers.... The sponsors were disappointed and even accused us of not giving them value for their money" (104-5). Canadian arts critic Max Wyman posits that in Canada, too, regarding the dynamics of the business-arts relationship, "[w]hat is being offered [by the business sector] is quid pro quo marketing, far removed from pure philanthropy, and if this makes the purists shudder, it also demonstrates the degree of gritty realism necessary for any arts organization to survive" (171). 41

What I experienced in the Calgary corporate environment from 1998 to 2003 echoes Wyman's and Rowntree's comments that the increased involvement of this sector in the not-for-profit theatre community has been focussed on corporations achieving "value for their money," and therefore the relationship is almost exclusively shaped in the form of a market-driven sponsorship. My experience at ATP found some corporations and businesses strategically targeting charitable organizations who could give them a three-to-one return on their investment; that is to say, sponsors wanted an agreement that detailed how their business would achieve three times the dollar value they invested, returned to them by way of advertising, complimentary tickets, and other marketing and promotional exposure mechanisms ATP could offer. This element of "gritty realism" meant my development team and I calculated a monetary value for everything from lobby signs and logos in

O A programs to verbal mentions in the pre-show chats in order to achieve or surpass that ratio. If the prospective sponsor chose not to accept the dollar value we applied to various exposure opportunities, we could either agree to devalue the sponsorship and offer it for less, or end the negotiations. In the matrix of measured marketing considerations that permeated ATP's sponsorship agreements, it was also important to identify ATP's board membership and members' professional affiliations, our roster of other sponsors and of individual donors, and our audience size and demographics, so that corporations knew more specifically the quality and quantity of the affiliations they were building. As Hopkins and Friedman point out, corporations have high expectations of leveraging positive affiliations for their companies from their investment in an arts organization or event, as "[s]upport given to cultural organizations can provide a business far greater visibility and prestige than other charitable causes" (52). As a business' giving policy "is a reflection of its markets, products, [and] image" (53), unanticipated affiliations at cross-purposes to the corporation's image could terminate a sponsorship. One example of unanticipated 42 affiliations occurring at ATP which ended a major sponsorship involved our hard won "Enmax Stage" partnership. This three year agreement (to be reviewed annually) - that was months in the negotiating, offering naming rights for sponsorship of ATP's performance stage - was doomed not to be renewed after its first year, as soon as the not-for-profit facility in which ATP resided announced a ten-year facility-naming sponsorship with EPCOR, a rival energy company to Enmax. As a landlord, the Calgary Performing Arts Centre (as it was then called) insisted that each of its resident arts company tenants, including ATP, acknowledge the Centre's naming sponsor in all promotional materials (for example: ATP's season happens on the Enmax Stage in the EPCOR CENTRE for the Performing Arts). This unwanted affiliation with EPCOR meant that our first annual review of our sponsorship agreement with Enmax was to be our last. The affiliation ATP (inadvertently) provided was not one Enmax could or wanted to leverage; ATP's perceived affiliation with EPCOR was at cross purposes to Enmax's image, desired affiliations, and marketing priorities.

A further dynamic of market- and affiliation-driven values of the corporate-arts sector relationship is one observed by Wyman, who notes that corporations "can be notoriously conservative when their names and reputations are attached to controversial work. Sponsors for musicals, comedies, the classics and the big-ticket specials are far easier to find" (171). At ATP my development team found this to be true for the majority of our sponsors. Most sponsors were much more comfortable with a celebratory and/or family- oriented production than with the relatively more provocative, adult-oriented shows. ATP is a contemporary theatre company whose shows have dealt variously with issues such as homosexuality, incest, AIDS, cancer and other topics deemed to be not a good corporate match due to material considered to be adult and/or controversial. My development team was always forthright with ATP's corporate sponsors in describing the theatre company's mandate to present "the best in contemporary theatre" and to "develop and produce original 43 material" for its playRites Festival (Alberta Theatre Projects, "Fact Sheet"), and how that mandate was reflected in our choice of shows, but (mis)communication assumptions still occurred. One sponsor, for example, pulled its support of ATP's playRites Festival of New Canadian Plays when ATP staged the premiere of The Coronation Voyage, by award- winning playwright Michel Marc Bouchard, as part of its February 2000 festival. This drama used the threat of pedophilia to drive its dramatic course of action. Although the pedophile was clearly a villain of the piece (and was ultimately killed for his behavior by the play's protagonists), we received a letter from one of the festival sponsors the morning after the company had sent clients to the performance. My memory of the letter recalls the writer stating that his company did not condone pedophilia in any way and did not in any way support any organization that would support pedophilia. In spite of our efforts to assure this sponsor that neither ATP nor the playwright in any way supported pedophilia either, we never saw that company's support again. The relationship with ATP ended due to an undesired affiliation that was "attach[ed] to controversial work" and therefore inappropriate to the company's image and desired affiliations. Following this incident (as this was not the first incident of this type), two shifts occurred in ATP's approach to sponsorships. We no longer attached sponsors to specific festival productions; rather we distanced sponsors from any particular show and attached their support to the entire festival. Additionally, when approaching new sponsors we shifted our approach away from ATP's on stage product and on to its outreach and education activities. Both shifts were attempts to distance corporate support from new, possibly riskier work, and thereby achieve more stable relationships with our corporate supporters. The modifications were part of our efforts to meet both ATP's budgetary requirements and the arguably "notoriously conservative" expectations of our sponsors, by providing them a less direct affiliation with new work which might be too controversial for their comfort level. 44

3. The parameters of this relationship suggest that larger theatre companies have greater capacity to meet the corporate sector's goals: greater resources to achieve market-driven objectives, larger audiences, greater access to positive affiliations, and less controversial product.

The examples above illustrate the kinds of market-driven factors that can influence a business' decision to support a theatre company: access to large markets not only through audience base but through media advertising; ability to provide sophisticated accountability measures; and having positive affiliations by way of those large markets as well as through other supporters such as board members, donors and other sponsors, and through providing an arguably "conservative" sector with product that is deemed as uncontroversial, mainstream programming.32 Arguably all or any of a combination of these factors suggests reasons why the corporate sector's financial support weighs more heavily on the larger theatre companies. Smaller theatre companies by definition have smaller budgets; they therefore tend to have smaller marketing and fundraising resources (both financial and human), and smaller numbers of other supporters and of audiences. Some small theatres can also be considered to be doing more provocative, riskier work.

Indeed, this linkage between smaller companies, smaller numbers of private supporters, and riskier work was voiced by Calgary's Sage Theatre Artistic Director Kelly Reay recently in an audience talk back session following Sage Theatre's November 2007 production of My Name is Rachel Corrie. This is a show that Calgary theatre critic Martin Morrow described as "provocative work" in a CBC On Line article that discussed this "[h]ot-button drama" that was pulled from the 2007 season of Canada's largest not-for- profit theatre, Canadian Stage; the article's headline declares that "[s]mall theatres bring controversial Rachel Corrie play to Canada." In response to a question about the controversy associated with producing this work, Reay posited that Sage is a small enough company not to attract much in the way of private sector support; it is therefore able to "fly 45 under the radar" of political concerns that larger companies such as ATP or Theatre Calgary would face from their large and influential base of corporate supporters and donors.33 In Morrow's article the director of Sage's production Ian Prinsloo is interviewed, and is quoted as agreeing with this perspective. Morrow identifies Prinsloo as a "former artistic director of Theatre Calgary," and notes that Prinsloo confirmed that had "he [Prinsloo] tried to program the play there [at Theatre Calgary], he'd have met with resistance from his board of directors, too. 'Trying to get it done would have been nothing but a fight,' [Prinsloo] says." The Rachel Corrie production and other examples notwithstanding, evaluating corporate sector response to the relative level of risk a play might be seen to represent is extremely problematic and complex - especially in a city where such strong corporate sponsorship exists for ATP's festival of new Canadian plays - and cannot be tackled comprehensively in this study with what little research beyond informed opinion is available. The theatre community in Calgary may well feel constrained by the kinds of market-driven affiliations which drive corporate sector support, but it also recognizes this sector's positive financial influence on the city's theatre sector. A recent article in The Calgary Herald by arts critic Bob Clark acknowledges the corporate sector's strong presence in the local arts scene, but does so without reflecting Reay's or Prinsloo's concerns or Wyman's observations of shuddering "purists" and "gritty realism." Clark comments that

[a]nyone who has experienced any form of the arts in Calgary knows the

critical role played by the corporate community. The names of corporate sponsors and donors are announced almost nightly from city stages, whether for Enbridge playRites, Petro-Canada Stage One, BD&P Stage 2, the Big Rock Eddies or Calgary Opera productions underwritten by EnCana - the list goes on and on.... 46

It's no accident that ATP lists its corporate donors on banners flanking the Martha Cohen Theatre before the start of every ATP show - or that almost every performing arts organization displays the corporate names attached to the bottom line of everything from concerts to ballets, to visual arts and opera. Clark's article notably offers very positive encouragement from the on-staff fundraisers of Calgary's two largest professional not-for-profit theatre companies, Theatre Calgary and ATP. He writes:

Corporate support, says Theatre Calgary's director of development Dale Turri, is 'immensely' important. 'If we didn't have it, ticket prices would skyrocket,' she says.... In the case of Theatre Calgary, she says, 'we would probably start laying off staff, and it would eventually show up on the stage. The quality of work would suffer significantly.'

Says Alberta Theatre Projects resource development director Greg Epton, 'The support we receive from the corporate community is absolutely essential to our survival.' If it started to dry up, Epton says, 'the repercussions would be enormous. We would have to rethink absolutely every single aspect of our operation - and quite frankly, there would be sweeping cuts. You could not replace the money through other sources' ("Sponsors Keep Arts Singing"). As an ex-ATP development director, I cannot disagree with the above practitioners' comments regarding the importance of this revenue source to a large company's capacity to produce, and were I still in the role, my public opinion would sound much like Epton's. Nearly one quarter of ATP's budget comes from the corporate sector. CBAC statistics indicate each of the above noted companies raised nearly $1 million in corporate support in 2004-05; that amount represents 15 % of Theatre Calgary's budget and 23 % of ATP's. Large, professional not-for-profit local theatre companies rely quite profoundly on highly visible corporate support. However, in addition to acknowledging the positive quantitative aspects of this sector's investment, I would also agree with Wyman's observation of the layers of "gritty realism" connected with the market-driven values of a powerful and influential corporate sector. Further exploration of the potential implications of the private sector's increased decision-making powers in relation to its arts sector support are taken up by art historian and scholar Chin-Tao Wu in her book Privatising Culture, an extensive study which examines the British and American visual arts sector in its relationship with the private/corporate sector. She argues that the public policy thrust during the reigns of Britain's Thatcher and of America's Reagan governments to "substitute the market for government" in various economic and social roles (4) has meant that currently, "the private sector, as represented by business in a capitalist system, has the power and the 'right' to make hundreds of 'private' vital decisions, without even a pretence at democracy" (21). Wu points to how the already dominant "commercial sector... is able to set artistic trends" in this manner, and can use the arts sector, which she defines as "one of the few sectors of society supposedly above the profit and loss principle," as an "unwitting accomplice of a new cultural hegemony" (270). As Wu posits, the increasing influence of corporations on arts suggests that the not-for-profit arts sector may be coming part of the undemocratic domain of "a small clan of influential businessmen and... multinational giants" (296). Mark Rectanus concurs, arguing in his book Culture Incorporated that it is "crucial that we re-examine our cultural institutions and their increasing convergence with corporate cultural politics ... [as] [tjhis convergence accelerates the blurring of boundaries between public and commercial interests or public and commercial space while deflecting attention away from a critical interrogation of corporations themselves" (21). American arts critic Robert Hughes shares this concern, noting in his Time article entitled "Whose art is it, 48

anyway?," that "[t]he idea of an American public culture wholly dependent on the corporate promotion budgets of white CEOs, reflecting the concerted interests of one class, one race, one mentality, is unthinkable - if you think about it" (46).

These warnings are profound and apt, but this analysis of the Calgary theatre community can neither prove nor refute their arguments; it can but introduce the questions they raise in context with the observations and findings in our local community. Clark's description of the displays of corporate affiliations "on banners flanking the Martha Cohen Theatre before the start of every ATP show" is an accurate example of my experience and observations of how Calgary's theatre organizations have responded to this market driven relationship. Many theatre companies - by choice and/or necessity, with enthusiasm and/or reluctance - offer sponsorship agreements that quantify the arts organizations' relationships with its audiences and with other community and corporate affiliations, and offer a myriad of marketing-exposure opportunities such as banners on the stage. Without further research, what artistic impact this "gritty realism" has had regarding what is programmed on the stages of some or any of Calgary's theatres falls into the realm of speculation. Indeed Wu's exhaustive study could not provide complete analysis of this problematic enquiry. Wu comments on her incapacity to provide a comprehensive analysis "of the extent to which [involvement of the corporate sector] has affected the art market and the livelihood of the artists concerned"; she identifies a general lack of scholarly study in this area from the perspective of arts research, notes that she herself found a "reticence" in the corporate sector to discuss the terms of its involvement, and describes the study of its impact on the arts sector as "extremely problematic" (14).

With what statistically-derived data does exist locally, augmented by my own professional experience and by the research and observations from scholars such as Wu and Rectanus as well as from arts critics and practitioners such as Rowntree, Wyman, Reay, Morrow and others, what can be noted is that: • As the key component of private sector revenue, the corporate sector is an important and valuable revenue stream to theatre organizations in Calgary. Its increased injection of financial support to Calgary theatres through the 1990s saw private sector revenues increase as a percentage of theatre companies' budgets while government revenues shrank as a percentage of theatre companies' budgets. • Private sector support is more significant for larger theatre companies (34 % of budgets) than for smaller ones (14 % of budgets). • Corporate sector support tends to be market-driven in its approach and outlook, which may correlate to why its support is weighted toward the larger theatre organizations. Larger organizations tend to have access to greater audience numbers, as well as to greater numbers of desired affiliations with supporters, greater resources to affect marketing reach and impact, and greater numbers of occasions for marketing exposure through advertising campaigns and through other measurable marketing opportunities. The most attractive projects for market driven support seem to need to line up with corporate objectives of broad market appeal, and can therefore tend toward projects deemed to be non-controversial. Beyond recognizing its positive financial contribution, there are arguably questions and concerns over the parameters and limitations of the relationship between the corporate and the not-for-profit theatre sector, as noted in the latter two points. To what extent these parameters and limitations affect how and what artistic directors program is an important and problematic question; within the limitations of the research available to date and beyond the limitations of anecdotal evidence, the possible answers remain speculative. Interestingly, a province wide study of human resource issues in the Alberta arts sector was undertaken in 2000, but the report notes that it was unable to undertake a study of the relationships between the arts and the corporate sector. The report Culture Steps 50

Forward, commissioned by Alberta Cultural Human Resources Steering Committee, calls for further research into this area. The report acknowledges that original objectives for this study included an exploration and analysis of relationships between Alberta's cultural sector and private sector partners, but admits that [o]ne area of inquiry initially identified for this study that was not completed was to collect data from private sector partners, capturing their opinions on the culture sector. That research would have included but was not limited to:

• private sector receptivity to requests for financial support for the culture sector;

• corporate policy concerning funding cultural activities; • impressions of the importance of the culture sector to business investment; and

• possible incentives that government could provide to encourage private sector support (Evans 16). The Culture Steps Forward report does not identify why this component was not undertaken. My own study can only echo the above report's call for further and deeper research into this complex arena. 51

Chapter Four: Audiences: What We Know and What We Don't Know Exploring into the relationship between audiences and the theatre community in Calgary reveals complexities and troubling trends that show a public that is generally supportive of the arts and yet has not attended in numbers that reflect this support, let alone the growth in the city's population or economy. Attendance has declined over the last five to ten years, while box office and corporate revenues, numbers of theatre companies, and Calgary population figures have all grown. This chapter looks to local evidence of the qualities and conditions of the relationship between audiences (and potential audiences - that is, the general public) and the theatre community insofar as published data allows;34 it also notes national and international observations that inform this relationship and pulls from the commentary from local theatre practitioners interviewed. Regarding the information gathered to determine what is known currently about Calgary audiences and public, the highlights can be summarized follows:

• Two thirds of Calgarians generally enjoy/are interested in the performing arts; only 5 % do not enjoy them; • 70 % of Calgarians agree that arts and culture deserves public/government support;

• New Calgarians are less supportive of public funding for the arts than are long-residing or born and raised Calgarians; • Local and national studies show audiences for the performing arts and for live theatre over the last five to ten years have declined;

• Published research at a national level shows a decline in attendance from the most traditionally supportive demographics: those with higher education and with higher income; • National research also reveals a significant lack of attendance from new Canadians; 52

• Local research indicates increased numbers of Calgarians who are not knowledgeable about the performing arts; • Local research also observes an increased percentage of Calgarians who are not knowledgeable of the performing arts; another increase is reported in the number who aware of the performing arts but do not identify it as a top entertainment choice;

• Those Calgarians that do place performing arts as their top entertainment choice (2 in 10) overwhelmingly respond (86 %) that they do so for no other reason than because they like it. In light of these observations, an exploration into what the theatre community does not know about its public(s) is at least as important as an exploration into what it does know; indeed, this lack of knowledge might well be a key factor in the declining numbers. Theatre practitioners admit the Calgary theatre community suffers from serious disengagement issues regarding a younger and more culturally diverse audience base. Along with other indicators discussed in this chapter, the trends of declining audiences and disengaged new, young, and/or ethnoculturally diverse - and, as noted above, even the most traditionally supportive - Canadians point to audience accessibility and engagement concerns for performing arts.

These concerns are arguably what Britain's John Holden identifies as a "crisis of legitimacy" regarding culture's relationship with its public (CVCL 9). Holden argues that arts professionals have been focused on "closed" conversations with policy makers as opposed to open ones with their public (10); that arts professionals have prioritized working to establish "legitimacy with their funders over making their case with the public" (40). In different terms but arguably affirming this observation, national studies, CADA client- related research, interviews with Calgary theatre practitioners and local Ipsos Reid surveys 53 all iterate the need for an increase in public awareness, in education initiatives, and in audience development. National studies also specifically point to the need to address a lack of ethnocultural diversity in performing arts audiences. Calgary theatre practitioners interviewed echo this concern; however CADA client-related research indicates that ethnocultural outreach is not a top priority for its client base, although audience development and education outreach initiatives are. Research to date is unable to identify conclusively the possible cause(s) for these conflicting perspectives between interview responses and CADA client responses. It may be a matter of conflicting or unclear attitudes towards the issue that exist within the arts community, which are discussed in more detail in the body of this chapter. Timing may also be a factor, as the CADA research was conducted two years ago in 2006, and my interviews took place in late 2007-early 2008; it may also be a matter of who filled out the CADA survey versus who I interviewed (CADA's client base includes all sectors of the not-for-profit arts community, whereas my interview subjects were professional theatre practitioners whose careers focus primarily on the development of new work); or it may be differences in how the questions were phrased, and/or other research methodology related variables.35

In the context of these parameters, this chapter discusses what we in the Calgary theatre/performing arts community know about our audiences and public and, as importantly, what we do not know. Ultimately, this study of the relationship issues and knowledge gaps that exist between the Calgary theatre community and its audiences can conclude only that these issues and gaps negatively impact the relationship, and can suggest, along with Holden, that until/unless we in the theatre community find ways of having more and productive open conversations about the art form with our public that these issues will presumably continue to erode our public base of support and connection. Sources 54

As noted, the key tools available to examine directly the relationship between the arts and audiences in Calgary include CADA's research (primarily a report entitled The Current Status of Granting, research conducted in 2006, published in 2007), CBAC attendance figures, and data from two Ipsos-Reid arts marketing surveys (2001,2006) undertaken by Calgary Arts Partners (CAP).36 Some published observations from a survey undertaken by The Calgary Herald and from a city "report card" issued by The Calgary Foundation are also referenced. CADA's research, although extremely helpful, is primarily focused not on public perspectives but rather on the perspectives of its client base of not-for-profit arts organizations. Similarly, my interview material offers further arts producer related commentary. The Ipsos Reid surveys supply the most comprehensive data on Calgary audiences and public, especially as two studies have been undertaken and it is therefore possible to compare patterns of responses between 2001 and 2006; beyond the Ipsos Reid studies very little data is available that speaks directly to the Calgary audience's point of view. Recent Canada-wide arts-related studies are also referenced, especially to note recurring patterns of behaviour locally and nationally, and/or observations not available from local research studies.37 What We Know

Performing Arts are Considered Enjoyable and Worthy of Support, But Audiences are Declining '

As noted in Chapter Two of this thesis, existing local statistics indicate that the Calgary theatre community is less accessible to the general public than it has been. While box office revenues have increased both in absolute dollars and in percentage of budget, audience figures have not followed this pattern of growth, indicating higher ticket prices and less economically accessible art. CADA research indicates that from 2000 to 2005 its client base of not-for-profit arts organizations saw a per capita decline of 22.2 % in its audience base, from approximately 2.2 million in 2000 to 2 million in 2005. The greatest decline occurred in free attendance, which fell from 1.2 million to 886,000. Paid attendance 55 over the same time period grew minimally in absolute figures, from 1 million to 1.1 million. Although CAD A data is unavailable for either theatre-specific statistics or for audience statistics prior to 2000, following the CBAC data available from four theatre companies from 1992-93 to 1999-2000 finds echoes of this pattern of declining audiences, as attendance decreased from 211,503 to 161,198, a decline of 24 % (as previously noted in Chapter Two and in Appendix XI).

Further evidence and greater detail concerning this pattern of declining attendance at performing arts events is found in the Ipsos Reid studies. The 2006 Summary Report observes that "[m]ost notably," the number of Calgarians who are identified as "disinterested and unreachable ... increased to 25%, up 10 percentage points from 2001" (slide 8), while the most arts-supportive Calgarians, identified in the 2001 report as "Corporate Calgary" and "Social Enthusiasts," declined by 4 % and 2 % respectively in 2006, as illustrated in Table V, taken from the 2006 summary report, below.39 Table V (slide 9): m

Corporate Calgary

^30% Social Enthusiasts

132% • June 2006 (1=600) April 2001 (n=1 00 0) 25% Disinterested and Unreachable

Under-aware and Untapped

The number of survey respondents who were identified in 2001 as "underaware and untapped" were re-titled as "potentially engaged" for the 2006 survey, as "[u]nlike 2001, this segment does not lack awareness of the Performing Arts; rather, they are aware of the Arts as an entertainment choice, but by and large do not consider the Arts when choosing entertainment" (Summary Report 2006, slide 13). As observed in Table V above, this segment has decreased by 4 %since 2001. Indeed, three of the four segmentations decreased, including the most arts' supportive, engaged segmentations and the "potentially engaged"; alarmingly, the only segment to have increased is that which is identified as "disinterested and unreachable." The 2006 Summary Report also notes a decline in the number of people who attended a performing arts event over the most recent 12 month period: from 66 % in 2001 to 60 % in 2006. Theatre-specific data is even less encouraging, noting a significant decline in the number of people who attended live theatre, decreasing from 46 % in 2001 to 29 % in 2006, as Tables VI and VII illustrate, below.40 Table VI (Summary Report slide 22):

q3. Which of the following best describes your attendance at arts performances in the past twelve months?

I have attended performing arts events on at least one occasion during the past 12 months

129% I have not attended a performing arts event in the last 12 months but I might • June 2006 (n=600) consider going if i had the time or the • April 2001 (n=1000) opportunity

I have no interest in attending a performing arts event 57

Table VII {Summary Report slide 23, lack of identity for one set of comparisons in original):

q4. What type of arts performances have you seen in the past 12 months? q4a. Arts Performances include music concerts, dinner theatre, dance performances and theatre productions. Based on this description, what types of arts performances have you seen in the past 12 months ? Total

Live Theatre or a 'Play' 146%

Music Concert - Popular music

Musical theatre

Dinner theatre • June 2006 (n=360) B April 2001 (n=665) Symphony

Music Concert • Classical music

Opera

This disturbing news of decreased attendance and increased number of Calgarians who are uninterested, unreachable, or unengaged is somewhat mitigated by the general positive attitude of the survey respondents towards the performing arts and the small percentage of people who are not, as per Table VIII below. Although again there is a decline in positive responses in 2006 and an increase in negative responses, both in 2001 and in 2006 at least two thirds indicate they enjoy the performing arts: 72 % in 2001 and 67 % in 2006 (adding together the top two positive segmentations, "really enjoy" and "enjoy"). Only 5 % responded that they did not enjoy them (adding up the two negative segmentations: "don't enjoy" and "really don't enjoy"). 58

Table VIII (Summary Report slide 26):

q1. Which of the following statements best describes your own attitude towards the Performing Arts.

26% I really enjoy the Performing Arts 26%

41% I enjoy the Performing Arts 46%

112% I neither enjoy nor dislike the Performing Arts 113% B • June 2006 (n=600) _|4% I don't enjoy the Performing Arts m April 2001(n=1000) 11%

|1% I really don't enjoy the Performing Arts 11%

|16% n12%

As Ipsos Reid points out, with two thirds of respondents indicating their enjoyment of the performing arts, "[t]he research points to some real potential to increase attendance." The report is also careful to acknowledge, however, that "Calgarians' attitudes towards the arts are favourable in an abstract sense, but less so in a personal sense" (2006 Draft Report, slide 26); and that Calgarians' abstract "expressed interest is not reflected in current attendance levels," nor do current attendance levels "reflect the economic or population growth of the City" (Summary Report, slide 30).41

These local arts attendance and interest related trends find parallels in national and regional studies. A 2002 Decima Research study prepared for the department of Canadian Heritage entitled The Arts in Canada: Access and Availability reports that 65 % of its cross- Canada interviewees had attended a live performance event in the last year (2), compared to Calgary's 2001 rate of 66 %. In 2003, Hill Strategies Research issued a report on Performing Arts Attendance in Canada and the Provinces, "drawn from Statistics Canada's 1992 and 1998 General Social Surveys" (1); it revealed percentage declines in attendance 59 both nationally and in Alberta between 1992 and 1998 (5,12). As the report indicates, "[t]he provincial performing arts attendance rate [in Alberta] decreased from 43.6 % in 1992 to 38.2 % in 1998" (12). Nationally, the rate decreased from 42.4 % in 1992 to 37.6 % in 1998 (5). Attendees and Non-Attendees: Why and Why Not The 2006 CAP Summary Report notes that, in terms of what respondents indicate are barriers to attending, "the most pressing issue at this time ... is increasing the visibility of the performing arts. Attendance figures will not improve unless the performing arts becomes a top-of-mind entertainment choice" (slide 33), as only "two in ten" of the respondents ranked performing arts as a top entertainment choice (slide 30). National findings parallel this key finding of the local study's, noting that "[respondents were most likely to believe making them more aware about what they could see would increase the appeal of arts exhibits and performances - 69 percent believe that increased awareness of what was available would make ... performances more appealing (Decima 3).

Decima's findings also report that "Canadians are most responsive to changes that would lower the cost of performances ... whether through lower ticket prices or free entry" (3). Locally, price point factors were not offered as a possible response in the 2006 CAP study. The detailed Calgary Arts Partners: Draft Report of its 2006 findings indicates Ipsos Reid phrased its question around barriers to attending thusly: "I am going to read you a list of suggestions that may or may not encourage people to attend Arts performances. I would like you to please tell me how likely each suggestion would be to encourage you to attend an Arts performance." The five suggestions that were read to respondents, listed below in the order respondents indicated - from most likely to least likely to encourage them - include: 1. being invited by someone else, 2. better parking, 3. better education and opportunities for kids in the arts, 4. better transportation to and from performances, and 5. shorter performances {Draft Report slide 86). No explanation is given in the study as to why these particular five suggestions were the ones chosen to present to the survey participants. In the 2001 study, price was ranked fourth amongst the "most frequently mentioned reasons for not attending," behind three time-related issues.42 It is not clear from the 2001 report whether its survey question around attendance barriers was phrased open- endedly or offered as a predetermined list of specific options. The 2001 report also asked questions around content, and found that in asking respondents identified as people who "had not attended an arts event in the last 12 months but could be interested," that quality of content or of arts experience were not barriers; the report noted that "64 % disagree with the statement,' local theatre and performing arts groups are not very good or have poor quality performances'; [and] 81 % disagree with the statement, 'the whole experience of attending an arts performance makes me uncomfortable'" (4). It is unfortunate, in light of the city's growth, changing ethnographies of its population,43 and declining attendance, that similar questions were not part of the 2006 study. As ATP dramaturg Vicki Stroich comments, "[tjhis huge population [is] much different than the population the studies have been done on, the population in the studies from four years ago."44 Several of the theatre practitioners I interviewed expressed concerns around content. As young playwright Ethan Cole comments, "there should be plays and stories written about and for people who are not white."

More generally, producers like One Yellow Rabbit's Managing Director Stephen Schroeder voice a concern that "the performing arts in general [do not] have the broad societal place that they did a number of decades ago or even recently." The 2006 Draft Report also expresses this concern, reporting that "the arts are not an integral part of the majority of Calgarians' personal lives ... [as] only one-quarter agree that the performing arts are an important part of their lives" (slide 26). For the "two in ten" surveyed in the 2006 CAP study that rank performing arts as a top entertainment choice, the draft report identifies their overwhelming reason for this: 86 61

% responded that it was their top choice "because they like it" (slide 130). In terms of articulating intrinsic value for the arts, perhaps nothing speaks more simply than this response. As The Gifts of the Muse study offers, "[w]hat draws people to the arts is not the hope that the experience will make them smarter or more self-disciplined. Instead, it is the expectation that encountering a work of art can be a rewarding experience, one that offers them pleasure and emotional stimulation and meaning" (37).45 It would seem the challenge for the local arts community lies in determining how to activate and develop that intrinsic positive response in a greater percentage of its broader community. Where Have the Declines Occurred?: Demographics and Psychographics

In the Ipsos Reid 2006 Draft Report, its findings note that the decline has occurred chiefly in the segment identified as those who attend arts events on rare occasions, and suggests, again, that activating this segment to greater levels of interest and support has potential:

[t]he proportion of Calgarians who attend 'regularly' and 'from time to time' is consistent from the results in 2001. However, the proportion of respondents who say they attend 'on rare occasions' has dropped from 38 % in 2001 to 30 % this year [2006]. Only two-in-ten Calgarians (22 %) have never attended an Arts performance. This represents an increase from 14 % in 2001. Notably,

many of these respondents can be reached out to, as 12 % say that they have never attended an Arts performance, but would like to" (slide 46). Unfortunately the Ipsos Reid studies do not categorize responses as to whether interviewees were new Calgarians or long-standing ones; as Calgary's growth has occurred in parallel with declining audiences, it would be interesting to see how many newly arrived Calgarians attend arts events. A local poll commissioned by the Calgary Herald in 2007, however, found that new Calgarians are not as supportive of public funding for the arts as longer-term residents. The Herald reported that 70 % of Calgarians interviewed 62

agree the arts -- including theatre, music, film, publishing, dance and visual arts ~ should be at least partially publicly funded. ... Born- and-raised Calgarians (78 per cent) were also more likely to have this sentiment compared with 68 per cent of those who moved to Calgary. Newer Calgarians, having lived here for less than two years, were the least likely to say the arts should be partially publicly funded, at 49 per cent (Burroughs, "Calgarians want more arts funding"). This finding arguably could indicate a lack of interest, of engagement, and/or of attendance. Unlike the local Ipsos Reid study or the Herald poll, Hill Strategies' 2003 Performing Arts Attendance research explores the issue of "Canada's changing linguistic and ethnic composition," identifying it as "an important factor," and notes that

Canada's performing arts organizations do not appear to be reaching new Canadians to the same extent as previous immigrants. The data for linguistic and income groups appears to show that Canadians - especially those who speak languages other than English and French at home - are not necessarily acquiring the 'attendance bug' as their income and education increase.

Attendance rates decreased for every linguistic group between 1992 and 1998, with a significant decrease in the attendance of Canadians who speak a language other than English or French at home. Clearly, reaching audiences who don't speak English or French at home - largely recent immigrants - is an important challenge for performing arts organizations (6). As the comment above indicates, the Performing Arts Attendance study found that attendance rates for performing arts events generally increase with income and education (2, 3).46 As Tables IX and X below indicate, the highest income bracket ($80,000 and over) and the highest education bracket (bachelors degree or higher) represent the most supportive demographics for the arts, at 69.7 % and 67.5 % attending respectively in 1992. 63

This finding concurs with the traditionally held view of where support is most readily found for the arts, particularly for the fine or "high" arts which have "long been associated with the cultural consumption of the wealthy and privileged classes in society," as arts economist David Throsby notes in his book Economics and Culture (117).47 Notably, the Hill Strategies study shows that the largest percentage decreases in attendance are found in these two traditionally highly supportive classes of society: attendance support from the highest income bracket has decreased by 14.7 % and from the highest education bracket it has decreased by 11.8 %.

Table IX: Changes in performing arts attendance by income (Performing Arts Attendance 6):

1992 attendance 1999 attendance Change {in Income group rate rate percentage points) Less than $20,000 25.3% 23.7% -1.6% 520.000:0 539,999 37.9%. 312% -6.7% S40.COO to 559,999 45.5% 37.9% -7.8% S6O.C0O :o S79.999 58-3* 47.1% -112% S8O.Q0G and over 89.8% 55.0% -14.7%

Table X: Changes in performing arts attendance by education (Performing Arts Attendance

7): 1992 attendance 1998 attendance Change (in Education group rate rate percentage pants) Less than hiqh school 25.3% 23.3% -2.0% High school 40.3% •JO. J. "M -7.1% Post-secondary ,n progress 513% 44.2% -7.1%' or not completed College or trades diploma 46.1% 38.1% -8.0% Bachelors degree or higher 67.5% 55,7% -11.8%

Encapsulating and condensing what we know from the local and national findings underscore concerning patterns in the arts' community's relationship with its public, including the observations that:

• Although the majority of Calgarians are supportive of the arts, this number is declining; 64

• Calgarians new to the city are less supportive of publicly funded arts than long-residing Calgarians; • The percentage of Calgarians who feel they have little knowledge about the performing arts has increased, as has the percentage of those who are disengaged/uninterested; • Performing arts are not reaching new and/or ethnoculturally diverse Canadians; • Accessibility has declined by way of higher ticket prices and the decline in free attendance;48

• Attendance from the traditionally supportive segments of higher income and higher educated supporters has also decreased. Knowing these disconcerting patterns about our audiences (and those no longer or not interested in being our audiences) through the statistics gathered, arguably suggests that what we in the theatre community don't know about our public(s) is at least equally important as what we do know; our lack of knowledge both confounds the Calgary theatre community's capacity to build deeper relationships and offers insight into developing fuller, more expansive connections between Calgary's performing arts sector and its greater community.

What We Don't Know The "enormous struggle" to understand our audiences, and "a gesture of impossibility" The local and national studies reiterate what Calgary theatre practitioners indicate in interviews, and what CAD A client base research reports: the arts community needs to do something more and/or differently to engage in a more meaningful, inclusive and expansive relationship with its public. CADA's research found its clients were well aware of their own incapacity to address increasing their accessibility, understanding their audiences better, or developing educational outreach programming, all of which were identified as top priorities 65

(The Current State of Granting in Calgary 41, 48). As noted in a 2007 Hill Strategies report, "better understanding of meaning, benefits and values of participation for YOUR audience" is a key area of concern for the performing arts community (Spreading the Arts Bug 17, emphasis in original).49 ATP Artistic Director Bob White offers some characteristically forthright and thoughtful ruminations in his consideration of Calgary audiences and his/ATP's limitations - and the Calgary arts community's limitations - in trying to connect with them as he enters his final year of directorship after serving 21 years with the company. He wrestles with his understanding of the "new world" of increased ethnocultural diversity as well as of "the nature of the interaction between the consumer of arts and the art itself and how that is changing ... [due to interaction with] digital media - the You-Tube generation, face book, all of that"; and he maintains that no one in Calgary's arts community, including the younger companies, is effectively addressing these issues. White argues that "the way younger people perceive the world and perceive the artistic experience is profoundly different from our [older] generation, and we don't understand it at all." White maintains that "[fjhere is not an arts company in Calgary, I would challenge, that is making any kind of breakthrough in terms of diversifying its audience." He questions his own and the theatre community's capacity to answer fundamental questions about how well this newer generation of cultural consumers and participants is being served and reflected in the theatre, noting that

[w]e're into a new world and what that new world is still hard to define, but I think if you're being smart, or at least trying to be responsive to how the culture is changing, you've got to question everything: What are we doing? What do audiences want? What's going on in our community and how do the arts adequately reflect that? That's an enormous struggle for a lot of organizations, especially institutions that, quite frankly, were defined by white 66

people. ... That goes back to the question of new development, to our ability to access writers of color, to access how they want to create work, which I think is different [from the model currently being used]; and due to cultural reasons, and generational reasons, we don't seem to have a real handle on that yet.... [There are] old white guys like me who want to talk about it [connecting with diverse ethnocultural perspectives and/or with the younger generation of writers and audience goers] but who literally don't have the skills or the knowledge of how to create that kind of relationship. ... I'm kind of at sea in terms of how I do this. And the new generation [of theatre artists], for better or worse, is mentored by people like me. So they subconsciously have my biases and prejudices. I don't want to say 'prejudice' but that's what it is... ."50 When White's frank admission of not knowing the way forward through to engaging new, younger, and more diverse cultural communities is considered in context with less accessible ticket prices, alongside Calgary's increasingly diverse population,51 it speaks profoundly to the complex and "enormous struggle" confronting theatre companies to engage a new, young, and diverse audiences.

However, White's and other interviewees' urgent call for help in activating solutions to address a lack of diversity in the theatres is not found in CADA's granting research - at least not insofar as regards to ethnocultural diversity. As noted earlier, those initiatives which did rank as top priorities include education initiatives as well as audience development and stronger marketing efforts. Yet in response to CADA's request to list their top priorities "ethno-cultural diversity initiatives" did NOT rise to the surface on any clients' long or short term priority list. This option was listed for ranking amongst a list of several other options - that is, CADA's survey questions around top priorities were not positioned as open-ended 67 questions but rather as ones offering respondents several suggested options from which they were to rank only their urgent and fairly urgent priorities. Within this context, ethnocultural diversity initiatives were not identified as either an urgent or a fairly urgent priority in the listed mix of options (Current Status of Granting 40-2).53 These conflicting responses to the importance of addressing ethnocultural diversity may be somewhat explained in further comments from the theatre practitioners I interviewed. Various interviewees suggested that to meet box office, targets, theatres program shows that they perceive will attract the traditionally identified arts supporters: the well heeled crowd that is willing and able to pay the ticket price. It would seem that the issue of including diverse ethnocultural communities is somehow not seen in context with increased attendance, and/or box office revenues. As Alberta Playwrights Network Executive Director Joanne Deleeuw suggests,

there is such huge pressure to increase your audience numbers ... [and to] make enough money at the box office .... And the feeling and the belief is that the audience in Calgary is upper middle class white corporate people. If we continue to think that's where the money comes from, then that's who we're going to continue to program for. Arguably and ironically, with the evidence from the local and national surveys showing declining attendance from the higher income and education brackets, this strategy may be short term at best.54 Yet in a classic double-bind, research also shows that visible minorities do not start coming to performing arts events when their income and education increase - arguably because, as Deleeuw notes, that's not who theatre companies program for.55 In the light of these admissions, perhaps an increasingly disengaged public - whether driven all or in part by increased ethnocultural diversity, increased ticket prices and/or increased digital participation/entertainment options - is an inevitable outcome. Feeding into this increased public disengagement is Holden's consideration of the "closed," 68 and "dysfunctional" conversations between arts organizations and policy makers he maintains have been dominating arts related terms of discourse (CVCL 10). Barbara Godard's observations echo Holden's, as she argues that the increasing amount of accountability measures required from various private and government funding sources "transfers direction of the arts' creative agenda to the public sector funding bodies and ... to the private sector bodies who provide sponsorships" and away from a democratic public (79). Locally, if audiences and potential audiences of live performance in Calgary have largely been excluded from meaningful conversation with cultural producers such as Bob White and others, the question of how little the public understands about its arts community becomes inverted: it becomes a question of what the arts community can possibly understand of its public? In considering this question and its inverse, Holden offers further complexities in the "multiple identities and many voices" that comprise the local community in the 21st century (21), noting that

people have fluid identities. ... In a globalized world with access to multiple, diverse and interwoven cultures, answers to the questions 'who am I?' and 'who are we?' are found in people's cultural consumption (and increasingly in their cultural participation). In turn that raises the stakes: the risk of

participating in culture is not only financial; nowadays people also jeopardize their sense of self-esteem and self-definition (23). The stakes are indeed higher, and more complex; and local theatre leaders admit they do not have the knowledge to address the increasingly complex identities and considerations of their public(s).

It is important to note that in the context of Calgary's rapid growth and increased ethnocultural diversity, the numbers cannot speak adequately to all the possible variables contributing to the complex ecology of a community, particularly a community with a large number of new Canadians in its midst. With an influx of new immigrants to a community, its potentially shifting ideologies, economic stressors, and underdeveloped sense of "community connectedness," as Florida describes it (Rise, 270), can negatively impact its capacity and/or desire for civic or cultural participation in any number of ways (voting, volunteerism, etc). As Florida points out, "many ethnically diverse communities are full of people working hard to gain a foothold in a new country, which leaves them little free time for civic affairs. Language or cultural barriers may further limit their ability to participate" (Rise, 271). It may be argued that over time as these new communities become more established, an increased sense of community connectedness may well evolve into increased participation/attendance at performing arts events. None of these new community observations, however, argue against the arts practitioners' concerns over their sector's homogenous offerings or over their desire to find ways to connect with these new communities and new Canadians. The various intricacies of the changing ecologies of communities are offered only to contextualize the theatre community's concerns within a larger urban ecosystem that, too, is dealing with a complexity of issues pertaining to the ramifications of growth, and in particular, of growing ethnocultural diversity. Stroich postulates further about the huge changes and rapid growth in Calgary's population and how those factors confound the capacity of the local theatre company's attempts to relate to or even to identify its potential audience(s):

the changes in this city are forcing us all [in the theatre community] to have conversations about what that means for us in this city. ... There are [new] neighbourhoods I've never heard of. When we're talking about who we're talking to - [Stroich flails her arms expressively and then explains into the microphone for the audio recording:] I just made a gesture of impossibility. 70

As Schroeder confesses, "I'm almost ashamed to say, if I look back and say what could we have done better [over the last ten to twelve years], it's to know our audience better. ... We talk about building a relationship in terms of fundraising - what about building a relationship in terms of your audiences? I think we have a lot to learn there." Perhaps the "increasingly output-oriented, quantitative" and instrumental arguments that have dominated the discourse between the arts community and its funders (McCarthy et. al. xi) have been the only filtered down messages our publics have heard, and as reasons to attend they just do not resonate. As The Gifts of the Muse study reports and as that one simple statement from keen attendees offers, people do not attend because by doing so they help the economy or benefit the community, or even feel smarter; they go because they like it. Perhaps "reframing the debate" about the value of the arts (McCarthy et. al. 9) so that the primary conversants are artists and the public, the relationship between art and community might have the opportunity "to grow in a meaningful, lasting way" (Stroich). As White admits,

when I do take the time to talk about my values as an artist translated into being an artistic director of this theatre company and what that means in terms of what I believe to be our responsibility as reflected in the work - community building, dialogue, what is the nature of being a citizen, how do you shape the values that we believe in collectively as a society, what's important to us, why it is important to reflect upon the human condition and experience even sad things - people go, 'oh, I get it.' So it has taken me a while to realize that although you may get pushed either by yourself or by other forces into thinking 'I have to talk about other things,' when I actually talk about why, why I think the work is important and about the value in Syringa Tree, the value in Rabbit Hole, the value in The Goat, then I do think people do respond to that.56 So what I'm trying to do is not to be pigeonholed, not allow people 71

to push me into a place where I have to talk about the economic benefits, or to let the box office be our only measure of success, or the numbers be the only thing that drives us. The combined evidence of what we know and don't know about our audiences and potential audiences suggests that until and unless we in the theatre community find ways to have more and more of those conversations, we will continue to erode our relationship with our audiences and with our broader, increasingly complex publics; and when asked to describe who we are programming for, will continue to have no other response than to flail our arms in a "gesture of impossibility." 72

Chapter Five: Perspectives from the Source: Theatre Artists and Practitioners In my endeavours to understand the impact of support systems on Calgary's capacity to develop and support new work in theatre, I launched into primary research in the fall-winter of 2007-08 by talking to the source: the artistic practitioners in Calgary who make a living, or try to make a living, in the field of new play development.571 interviewed and transcribed the words of eleven Calgary theatre artists and practitioners whose careers illustrate an abiding interest in developing new work.58 Although eleven interviews in no way capture the entirety of perspectives of Calgary's theatre community, included in my list of interviewees are those artists who are (self-defined) emerging professionals as well as those in mid-career and those considered to be at a senior level of their professional lives. For a complete listing of interviewees, including a brief biography of each, please refer to Appendix XIII.

The findings give voice to an artistic community that sometimes embraces, sometimes challenges the systems that allow and/or limit the theatre community's capacity to develop new work. They also reveal a current of self-reflection that challenges the role we theatre practitioners59 play in reifying the current parameters and assumptions of our relationship to our larger community, as to who that community is and could be. I have attempted to retain the complexity and sometimes conflicting qualities of these voices, while compiling their informed observations and opinions under three major thrusts of enquiry.60 Grouped under these headings key findings include:

1. How Calgary rates as a place to allow theatre artists involved with new work to live: Participants note that Calgary is an exciting, fast-growing city blessed with a supportive, mentoring artistic community and with a tremendous number of newer, risk-taking theatre companies that have developed over the last decade. They also see it as a frustrating, difficult place to work: the number of new plays being produced is observed to be declining; no artist can make a living solely as a playwright; our new 73

voices are arguably old (white, male) voices; it is an expensive city in which to live and the monetary return from the theatre sector is low, therefore the burn out rate is high and there is concern that artists will leave/are leaving because of this set of factors. 2. Relations with Government Funding and Private Sponsorship as Support Mechanisms: Interviewees observe that in the absence of government leadership and support, corporate leadership and support have increased. This has both positive attributes and worrisome limitations: corporate support is greatly appreciated, especially with regard to the well supported Alberta Theatre Projects new play festival; questions are raised, however, concerning the corporate sector's limitations in supporting risky and/or controversial work, and on government's needed role in understanding these limitations and moving beyond them.

3. Relations with Audiences: As some elements of theatre practitioners' perspectives of their audiences were discussed in the previous chapter (IV), this chapter offers a concise restating of those observations, plus further exploration into the relationship. Practitioners question the current parameters of theatre's relationship to its audiences; there are expressions of deep enquiry regarding who our audiences are and could be, how we need to talk to them, where we as a theatre community have failed, and how

we might move forward.

Imbedded in these observations and concerns is an exhausted but committed community of theatre artists and practitioners who work in the "collaborative, mucky world" of developing new work, as Glenda Stirling describes it, researching and developing "uncharted territory" that is "complicated and messy and imperfect and untried and unproven."61 It is a world "where other people get in the way and in the mix and illuminate ' and distil and fuck up your vision - and then you talk in live time to the people you want to talk to. It's a dialogue." And "when it works," that dialogue "is not just about a new production; with the very best, it's about a new way of thinking about the world" (Stirling). It is a world where the burn out rate is high, and the lifestyle is unstable enough to warrant the advice to choose another career path; as Ethan Cole wryly comments, the best advice he ever got was, "if you can do anything else, do that." Yet in spite of all the barriers, the experience of working with performers on a new play is, in writer Cheryl Foggo's words, "euphoric." This chapter attempts to capture the thoughts and concerns of the people who have chosen (or have no choice but to) live in this "mucky," "imperfect," and "euphoric" world; it looks to have a dialogue with the theatre community practitioners about what this city is like as a place to work professionally in and around the field of developing new work. It is important to note that most of the interviewees work in several capacities within and beyond the performing and literary arts fields in their exhaustive efforts to make a living as a professional artist and practitioner. They work in any combination of media and of roles such as playwrights, dramaturgs, directors, performers, choreographers, curators, programmers, musicians, novelists, lyricists, teachers and academics, and/or screenwriters. As such, the discussions below do not focus exclusively on new work, but rather on the larger creative artistic environment that arguably allows for new work to occur. For example, the presence of a host of young theatre companies does not presume all those companies focus exclusively on producing new work. As some of the interviewees posit, however, the presence of these companies does assist in nurturing a creative, risk-taking environment conducive to attracting and keeping creative artists working in the city, which in turn positively impacts the community's capacity to develop new work. 1. Calgary as a place to allow artists to live and work: Based on comments from the majority of interviewees, the Calgary theatre community is seen by its practitioners as an exciting, growing community that embraces a large number of younger voices along with its older, larger companies (see Appendix IX 75 for listing of Calgary theatre companies and their respective ages). Cole notes the quality and scope of the work available in Calgary in this manner: I see smaller companies really taking up the mantle and doing work that the larger companies wouldn't think about doing. The larger companies in this city are great, and they're doing great work, but they have a bottom line and some of these newer companies in a sense almost have nothing to lose, so they're going out on some limbs and doing some things that are very daring and very exciting - which isn't to say the larger companies don't do things that are exciting as well. They do. But I think that there is some very exciting work going on within companies who have grown up over the last ten years or so. Stirling agrees. Part playwright, part director, part choreographer, part teacher, Stirling has been a freelancing artist for eight years, and credits Calgary with having provided her tremendous opportunities, even when she was a newcomer. She notes that when she arrived in 2000, there were "lots of new young companies who were hiring directors, even tiny companies, and yes the fees may have been small, but it was a paycheque. I could cover the rent for the month I was working on the show, and I needed that." She admits her first year in Calgary was "challenging," but that she was able to survive and find career-related work because "there were small and new companies, driven by young artists who were far more likely to take a chance on another young artist [than an older company run by older artists would be]. That's a huge part of the ecology."

This inclusive way of working with new artists is observed by long time Calgary artist Vanessa Porteous, who also posits that in the theatre community "people in Calgary want to start companies." These small, new companies "understand the responsibility to showcase" others' work as well as to produce their own material, and have "transformed themselves so that they welcome projects locally." She used the eleven year old Ghost 76

River Theatre Company as an example of a company that was created to support the work of its founding Artistic Director and playwright Doug Curtis, but recently (2006) produced Stirling's play Dig, directed by Porteous.

In addition to opportunities from the number of new companies in Calgary, Vicki Stroich notes the recent (2006) expansion of ATP's 25-year old playRites Festival of New Canadian Plays to include the BD&P Second Stage, where creation-based work is developed and showcased. Stroich, ATP's dramaturg and head of play development, explains that the festival's goal "is to provide the best possible first production of a play. We offer development, production, and a chance for that product to be seen in front of an audience for the very first time." She notes that with the new Second Stage ATP is "still doing that, just with a more diverse process."63

In spite of the general sense from practitioners that Calgary is an exciting place to be artistically for theatre and for new work,64 there is also a conflicting set of observations that: a) it is harder for local playwrights to get their work produced than it was; b) the theatre community's inclusiveness is discriminatory, specifically as regards to women and to artists of colour; c) the stress level prompted by the unstable working conditions - conditions such as low remuneration, and the limited availability/affordability of real estate in the city, both as theatrical venues and as living space65 - negatively impacts the community's capacity to support its creative artists and their capacity to create. As interdisciplinary artist Eric Moschopedis bluntly notes, Calgary's problems are that it is "too rich, too white, [and] too expensive."

Alberta Playwrights Network (APN) Executive Director Joanne Deleeuw notes that although she knows of no agency in the country that keeps statistics on the number of new plays produced annually,66 her organization has the sense that the number of new plays produced in Alberta that are written by local playwrights "seems to have dropped off." Cole agrees: "I'm surprised at how relatively few Alberta playwrights are regularly produced. I 77 think there are a lot of workshops, a lot of staged readings, but not productions." Stroich offered a theory regarding the lack of kept statistics: "I think people don't because it would be really depressing. It wouldn't look good." Coupled with this observation of how difficult it is to get produced is the fact that none of the playwrights with whom I have spoken are able to live on their earnings as a playwright. Hence, Cole is a self described theatre artist who performs, directs, writes music, and works in the library in addition to writing plays. Veteran and award-winning playwright Clem Martini notes that he can live on his earnings as a writer, but not on his playwright earnings. As a past president of the Playwrights Guild of Canada, he warns that "[i]f the majority of the members of a professional organization [of Canada's playwrights guild] can't make a living at it, and therefore can't devote time to it, it must [negatively] influence the art. There must be some accommodation, or we'll lose something." Indeed, we may be losing something. The toll of not making a decent living at playwriting, or even in professional theatre in general, is a topic that came up many times

en in various interviews. Both Stirling and Porteous note that although they appreciate the number of new theatre companies in the city, neither would start their own, because they could not afford the investment. As Stirling posits, to start up and run a theatre company you've got to be really young, because you're going to live poor and you'll

pour your life into it for years. You've got to give yourself eight years before you're going to get anywhere. There's a reason why I don't run my own company, why I only do indie [independently produced] projects every couple of years: because once every couple of years nearly kills me and certainly comes close to bankrupting me. So -1 can't. I don't want to live in that state of constant cost. Much as I may be fed [by it artistically], it costs me, it costs my time and my energy." 78

Additionally, Stirling comments that if she were to start a new theatre company, she would do it on the east coast, because she "could afford to live there." She considers that in her current freelancing state she wonders whether she will "be able to continue to afford to live ... [or] afford to buy a house" in this city of high priced real estate. Porteous builds on this concern in noting that not only affordable living space but affordable/available theatre venues are also scarce in Calgary, and that the city is "about to be priced out of coolness before we even quite achieved coolness. I know so many artists and arts companies that are

/TO homeless or moving or going to move or about to move. The [theatre] community is so small every little chip destroys a giant part of the thing." Cole reflects on these costs of time, energy, and remuneration in the city. He admits that the toll of not being able to make a living from his theatre work caused him to take a self-prescribed stress leave: I was just so stressed out and sick of everything that I had to take a year off. I was twenty-seven. It wasn't that long ago. I needed a break. I needed a year. ... I was doing a lot of work for very little measurable, concrete gain, so it's very difficult: when you have your day job and you go and rehearse at night and you do this for weeks and weeks on end because you've got a show to put up but a) you're not making any money for what you're doing in the evening

and b) you're exhausted. ... Then you get to the end of that process and you hope that there will be some kind of light at the end of the tunnel - beyond the creative satisfaction of having worked with this excellent group of people, because that was never in doubt - but you can only do that for so long. I basically did two years' of full non-stop projects, for most of which I was getting paid very little or not at all. The only reason I keep bringing that up [that he did not get paid] is because it means you're also working during the day. ... [I]t means you have no free time, you don't get a lot of rest, and you get burnt out, especially after a couple of years of doing that. This burn-out lifestyle with little monetary return can be compounded if you are female and/or an artist of colour. Stroich comments about the "glass ceiling" in theatre for women, noting that of all the theatre companies in Calgary, only three are creatively driven by women, those being Urban Curvz, Broad Minds, and the International Children's Festival (see Appendix IX for a list of Calgary's 30 theatre companies). As Stroich states, "it is like that: white men in Artistic Director positions. I mean, Broad Minds and Urban Curvz were created in response to the way things are." As Stirling admits, "I have the evidence of my life: men get the jobs, and they get paid more. It's just true."69 All agree that Calgary theatre seems to offer no place for visible minorities (see Chapter IV for further discussion of this concern). As the one example of a professional writer of colour I interviewed, veteran and award-winning writer Cheryl Foggo has had one play produced in Calgary, at Lunchbox Theatre, and only because then-Artistic Director Johanne Deleeuw tracked her down and, in Foggo's words, "dragged [her] kicking and screaming" into the theatre. As Foggo explains, "I avoided theatre for a long time because it's a tremendous struggle for playwrights to get produced in this country; that struggle is very apparent to me having watched my husband's career as a playwright" (Foggo's husband is writer and playwright Clem Martini). In her explanation of why she came to playwriting so "late in [her] career," she admits that she did not "see the reward that people got back for that struggle" to get their work produced. She finds getting novels published offers less of a struggle and greater return, and stayed away from theatre until Deleeuw brought her to Lunchbox Theatre to develop and produce Foggo's one act play Heaven. Foggo said working on that production allowed her to understand better why people tolerated the frustrating working conditions, because working on it "was really exhilarating. I loved working with the actors.... I experienced euphoria in that process which was 80 something I had never seen from the outside, so then I understood." Ironically, since that experience in 1999 Foggo has re-worked Heaven into a six-character full length script and although it has been successfully workshopped and read publicly, it has never been produced. Foggo is the one artist with whom I spoke who observed no difference in what theatres are programming now versus how they programmed a decade ago. "Same old, same old," as she stated. When asked about new work that was being produced in the city, and what new voices Calgary theatre was supporting, she suggested my language needed to distinguish new work from new voices. As she explained: "because you know, John Murrell is not a new voice. Stephen Massicotte is not a new voice. Do I see a lot of new voices, people from communities who haven't been represented before? No. New work, yes; new voices, not."71

These negative and positive dualities that exist in the Calgary theatre community speak to an energizing, supportive creative environment that nonetheless suffers from discrimination, affordability issues, and a high rate of stressed out, burned out creative artists.

2. Relations with Government Funding and Private Sponsorship Support Mechanisms Observations regarding the roles that government and private sector support play in sustaining a healthy play development community reflect upon the relationship between those two sectors, and how the relationship has shifted over the past ten to fifteen years. Regarding the rise of corporate support in the vacuum of government support, Stirling comments that

the choice that the Alberta government... [and] even the Canadian government... made to absent themselves as much as possible from the funding equation, has resulted in us being very dependent on private funding. While that is not bad, it is reflected in our inability to take risks in the work. 81

Corporations and individuals fixnd work they feel reflects their own values and public image. I think sometimes when we curtail the kinds of stories we tell, because of our dependency on private funds, we silence ourselves, we muzzle ourselves. Deleeuw concurs, and notes additionally that in this environment theatres are now "hugely driven by a corporate board model"; she argues that "the lack of risk being taken due to pressure to produce product that you can sell [is] one hundred percent driven by a corporate mindset... how many widgets you can sell at the highest profit." As John Murrell muses, "our politics [in capitalist societies] is tied to business profit because that's been the way we have chosen or ended up leaking democracy to capitalism, which is an uneasy marriage at best."

In a discussion of ATP's playRites Festival, Stroich offers a more congenial view, in the context of understanding that "whenever you're moving forward and risking a bit more, doing more or something else, there's a whole other sense of stretching and flexibility that you're asking of your support systems." When asked specifically whether she felt the work at ATP was compromised by being part of and depending upon those support systems, she states emphatically: "not with playRites. Everyone gets it. Everyone's on board." White agrees, describing the level of corporate support as "much more sophisticated and more secure" than when he arrived in Calgary over twenty years ago. Stroich admits that "finding the people who want to support the ideas is not easy," but that here in Calgary it seems there is a connection the corporate sector appreciates in a discussion "about innovation, promoting Canadian voices, newness, creation - there's a way to articulate that to companies" that is understood. She couches her comments by stating that, with few exceptions where "there is hugely deep appreciation of the work," the same corporations who support the idea of innovation and new voices "will want to go to the softest comedy. 82

There's an appreciation for the activity - but is there always a deep appreciation for the work?" Stephen Schroeder admits that acquiring corporate support and high end individual donors has been a long time coming for OYR, and that until recently this 2 5-year old creation based company was very reliant on audiences and government for their support base: It has taken 25 years, but I think we're just finally starting to break through [into the private sector as a means of support].... Basically, until very recently our resources were audience and government pretty much.... Finally, through a huge cumulative body of things, enough people who are arts minded wealthy individuals in the community or have sway in their corporations, are going, 'okay, these guys are the real deal.' I almost gave up on fundraising. Schroeder also notes that "fundraising is all about relationships. That sounds so simple, but it's easier said than done, quite frankly, especially if you want to have a long term relationship with these people. ... It astounded me the amount of thought and time that went into this [corporate and donor development]." Cole posits that these factors of time and resources are key reasons why smaller companies are not successful, generally speaking, in achieving private sector support. He acknowledges the higher risk factor often associated with the work the smaller companies are doing, but puts forward as well that "the larger companies have more resources to approach corporations, and more to offer. Often times what smaller companies lack is just the time and the people power to seek out these large companies."

In addition to issues of time and resources, trust issues seem to permeate both private and government relations. Corporately, trust issues focus on the aversion to risk already noted. In terms of government agencies, Porteous admits she has rarely applied for government funding because the requirements are daunting, the chances of success seem 83 small in relation to the effort required to apply,73 and the system of applying "is all about formula, it creates a cardboard box around your head." Porteous also related her experience of being a juror on an Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA) project grant, acknowledging it was "one of the most depressing weeks I've ever had in my career." The ratio of applications received to the amount of money the jury was given to distribute, she explains, was the cause of her depression. Porteous describes the jury's relationship with AFA grant administrators, regarding its task of awarding monies to projects: We [the jurors] said, when you [AFA] send the rejection letters to those in the 'yes' pile who didn't make it to the top, you should include how much there was to distribute, the proportion of the provincial budget that represents, how many people applied, and what the total amount applied for was, because it was like a factor of 100 to one. They all nodded and smiled and I'm sure it never happened. Porteus' comment that she was "sure it never happened," and that the theatre community needs to be more "activist" in this regard, reflects a lack of trust in government agencies such as the AFA that was echoed by many of those interviewed. Martini's comments about AFA's recent overhauling of its granting systems,74 for example, were that, "it feels like a circus." Deleeuw concurs, noting that, with regard to public funding agencies,

"Canada Council [for the Arts] is the only organization that we answer to as artists that actually asks about the art. Every other one is all bottom-line driven, all money money money." Bob White echoes this observation that "the whole bottom-line conversation is a very 'AFA way' of speaking ... this check mark system ... pushing you to a corporate model."75 Moschopedis also notes the "check list" quality of accountability to funders, calling the whole system of applying for funding "a road of disaster." As he explains, it "perverted" the artistic focus of his company "because we started talking about numbers.... Audience development became about numbers instead of actually engaging community." 84

Of the theatre practitioners interviewed, Ethan Cole seemed the least distrustful, expressing gratitude to the AFA for doing as much as it could with too small a distribution fund. The participants' points of view reflect a mixture of gratitude for the role government and private support provides theatre, coupled with an urgent concern over a lack of informed leadership in the arena of support for new and risky work, especially the work of smaller companies. Stirling posits that as government sponsorship becomes more like corporate sponsorship, it loses its capacity to support the riskier, untried, emergent artists. She posits that "if AFA hadn't given me $1,000 so many years ago to do a crazy little weird show in the basement of a hair shop, I may not have ever worked at Shaw or ATP or have done what I did." The absence of government leadership in this area negatively impacts "the ecology of what we as artists do," in taking a risk on the young artist who "speaks in his own strange voice which will eventually impact all of our voices" (Stirling). 3. Relations with Audiences:

Every practitioner interviewed identified the need to shift theatre's relationship with its audiences (as per Chapter IV's discussion), that either the current approach was wrong or was at least insufficient. Issues of lack of diversity, shrinking numbers, aging subscribers, competition from mass produced culture and electronic media, and a lack of connection between audience and performers recurred.

In contemplating the relationship between audience and performers, Stroich observes a shift of perspective regarding "the impulse of artists in [her] generation" that is more inclusive of the audience, more focussed on "exchanging information with the audience, honestly talking to the audience and needing something from them. The audience is another character in the piece." She suggests that this impulse "comes from a desire to acknowledge ... [and] to really embrace ... a connection and an exchange of something in that room in that time and space. ... We have to stop ignoring the fact that the audience is there." She spoke at length 85 and in depth about how in presenting an experience for its audiences, theatre should perhaps reconsider its marketing based assumption that it is another entertainment option in a field dominated by mass produced cinematic and electronic entertainment choices. She elaborates by offering that [fjheater has always been a 'boutique' experience; even in Shakespeare's time, not every person in London went, and there was no such thing as mass production then. There's a way to embrace that [boutique experience] that doesn't exclude people but embraces what that means, which is something that's unique and adventuresome. The essential nature of new work is that it is not an entertainment option in the way a lot of the other entertainment options we're talking about competing with is - either we try to make it what it's not, or we embrace more fully what it is and go with that. As to what the "essential nature" of new work is, Stroich suggests that

the biggest challenge with new work is that they [audiences] really don't know if they'll be entertained or not. They really have to get on board for the experience of seeing something new, and that's what we have to say, and that's not going to appeal to everybody and we just have to accept that. Is new work an entertainment option, or is new work an exciting opportunity for

community and to see something that is extremely rare and unusual and unique? Do we homogenize it? Or do we embrace it like ... homemade wine and wooden candlesticks, like design culture? ... There are people out there who are interested in something that isn't mass produced. Those people would be interested in the performance experience, people who appreciate creating." In his discussion of OYR audience expectations and his company's decision not to offer subscriptions, Schroeder largely agrees with Stroich in her observation that new, experimental work needs heterogeneous approaches. He notes that "especially in Calgary, 86 there's really only the idea that you have a season, with a subscription, and the formulas don't change that much" with regard to how theatre companies ought to operate. The experimental nature of OYR's work precludes operating within this kind of formula, Schroeder asserts, because the definition of experimenting is you don't know what's coming out the other end. We realized we were setting ourselves up for failure or disappointment at least half the time [regarding formulaic box office expectations]. For some of the shows that we create, the measure of success would be sixty people a night or that kind of thing, another show might be a huge world- wide tour, running for weeks and weeks on end. So, some were highly successful on commercial terms, others, like Somalia Yellow and Thunderstruck and Hay Ride and a bunch of others, they just never could have been that. That's not to say they're bad. We're not a hit machine, we're not that. ... When it comes to our creation work, each work is created differently, the gestation period might vary from work to work, the expectations of what kind of an audience it would play to might vary, the length of run should vary, the size of venue it should play in should vary - so throw 'the season model' out. How do you make a season out of this? Our answer, is after 25 years, maybe you can't."

Or, as Schroeder concludes in a statement that seems to echo various voices regarding homogenizing box office formulae, audience expectations, and the experience of theatre, "[m]aybe that's not actually the point."

Challenging the status quo Amidst the questions and musings of these professional artists regarding the state of relationships between the art form, its audiences, and its other resources for support are deep challenges to the status quo. 87

For Deleeuw, whose tenure as Artistic Director at Lunchbox Theatre was abruptly cut short in 2005 when she was given an empty box and twenty minutes to clear her office,77 her mistrust of "the corporate model," of "running arts organizations more like businesses," and of a disproportionate focus at a board of directors' level on "bottom line" issues that both governments and corporations have been "pushing" on to theatres is heartfelt and profound. She believes:

there is a great feeling across the board in arts organizations that the corporate model we're working with is very sick. ... In the way it pertains to playwriting, we [artists in the community] talk enormously about the lack of risk being taken due to pressure to produce product that you can sell. ...

More and more, artistic directors fear programming anything that they can't go to the board and say we can expect sixty percent [capacity], or whatever their number is, off of box office. Then later, to justify that play to the board that they term a failure because you didn't make enough money at the box office - it is so demoralizing, it's so awful,... and who eventually suffers?: the playwrights."78 Like Deleeuw, Schroeder notes that business models do not necessarily work for arts organizations. As he states, one could "look at the business model of One Yellow Rabbit and say it is actually unsustainable. If it wasn't for the sheer will, for the sheer pig-headed stupidity of the people who are trying to make all this a go, it actually wouldn't work." In the context of Schroeder's belief that performing arts are less integrated with society than they have been even in their recent past, he voices a challenge that "the performing arts have to

70 re-invent themselves." Like Deleeuw and Schroeder, Cole challenges the theatre to reconsider the assumption that theatre seasons must be answerable only to one set of box office expectations and parameters; he expressed a desire for theatres to reinvent their box office 88 options and audience expectations to allow for some shows to serve smaller audiences and to be allowed smaller runs, and conversely to allow other shows to keep on running should audience response warrant it. White concurs, noting ATP's subscription campaign does not allow for audiences be involved "in shaping what they want their ATP experience to really be. So that's why I think the season thing - it's wrong."80 From this host of musings that theatres need to break out of their homogeneous parameters of structure, form and relationships, to Porteous' call for a "more activist" theatre community, to Foggo's gentle insistence that stories be charged with "bringing people in, telling stories of people who have never had their stories told, giving voice to silent people," these artistic practitioners in Calgary's theatre community issue important challenges to themselves and to their support systems. Their responses reveal a complex, dualistic mixture of gratitude and concern: gratitude for the support from the private and the government sectors, and concern over the lack of risk the current balance of support seems to engender, and over a lack of leadership from government agencies; and gratitude for the energized, supportive artistic community, and concern over its patriarchal hegemony and its lack of diversity as well as its demands of time, its overly frugal and multi-tasking lifestyle, and its homogeneity regarding content, organizational structure and form.

John Murrell notes that he considers his "relationship with [his] time and place in the world is often an uneasy one; it's something that's always being worked on, like a lot of personal relationships in our life." Framed in this context he notes that he often has felt that "my work is not what my community wants at a given time, and I have sometimes thought I was wrong in that relationship, and I had to get some counselling; and I've often thought the community is wrong: they should get some counselling."81 In my dialogue with Calgary's theatre practitioners, the dualistic mix of both appreciating and challenging current relationships with theatre's support systems suggests a version of joint counselling might indeed be effective. In the "mucky" but "euphoric" world of new play development 89 practitioners are calling not only on their community to change, but also sending a self- reflective call for "more care, more passion, more rigour in our theatre community; no apology for caring as much as we care" (Stirling), and for informed "re-invention" (Schroeder) of the place of not-for-profit theatre in the Calgary community. Chapter Six: What Now?: Conclusions, Considerations, Possibilities As John Murrell notes, the relationship between art and community is not a "tranquil" or easy one. Indeed, it is often marked by its "uneasy" quality and, "like a deep, ongoing personal relationship," is "always being worked out" and "renegotiated." Using the Calgary theatre community and its relationship to community as its base, it is this study's intent to help identify those areas which research shows are currently in need of renegotiations and to offer some tools to assist in the "working out" of those needed changes in the relationship. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to provide a comprehensive set of solutions to the complex issues facing the arts community in its relationship to its broader community. From its findings, however, it can articulate key concerns regarding the current state of this relationship, and in synthesizing commentary from various local, national and international observations it can suggest some preliminary parameters for moving the relationship forward to address those concerns. Summary of Key Findings and Concerns In assessing the state of the relationship between the Calgary theatre community and its three key support agencies - the government sector, the private/corporate sector, and the public/ audiences - research indicates the relationship suffers from two overlapping issues: shortcomings in significant areas of research, and decreased accessibility/increased

marginality with its public. 1. Quality and quantity of research - or in some cases, access to it - is often lacking:

, The relationship between Calgary's theatre community and its broader community suffers from gaps and short-comings in research: of rigorous and meaningful quantitative data; of the compilation/archiving of consistently recorded, readily available, long term, comprehensive statistical information; and of sophisticated qualitative research. The available research currently does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of the sector's relationships, and what has been compiled is often very difficult to access. Even 91 mainstream tools of measurement (such as finances, or audience figures) are available only by accessing survey data (beginning in 1976) which does not comprehensively or consistently represent the sector. Government information is extremely inaccessible further back than circa 1996-97. Government funding agencies have the capacity to compile statistical information from their client base as a requirement for receiving funds, and all three levels (municipal, provincial, and federal) do so. However, even at their most transparent and accessible, on a per client basis these agencies only release their own granting information; due to considerations of client privacy issues, further client-based information such as budget size, audience size, other revenue sources and expenses are not released, except in aggregate form, and only if that analysis and publication of data has been undertaken by the agency, as in CADA's Current Status of Granting report. CBAC is the only organization which has successfully convinced many arts organizations across Canada to fill out its survey annually (since 1976) and to allow this information to be shared publicly. Unfortunately, as it is a voluntary survey, its data is not comprehensive, as many arts organizations do not return the survey, or do so inconsistently. Beyond this source, acquiring financial data and/or audience figures is extremely difficult, requiring access to individual theatre organizations' annual reports; this endeavour is prohibitively time-consuming to accomplish, and is limited to the quality and quantity of each theatre organization's archival information as well as to the organization's willingness

83 or capacity to access it. Further, to the best of my knowledge, indicators of creative contributions of the theatre community - a seemingly fundamental and easily measurable example being the numbers of new plays produced annually - are not tracked by any agency. Any kind of examination of the critical mass of creation/development-based activity seems not to be valued enough by any agency to gather information about it84 (with the exception of 92

individual theatre companies such as ATP or Lunchbox, who do track their own production histories of new play development). As Bob White points out, there is not enough "deep analysis of the work we do," and the indicators currently tracked by various agencies are insufficient in gaining a robust understanding of the creative dynamics of the sector.

With regards to the corporate sector relationship, analysis is hindered by the large size and scope of the sector as well as by limited public access to corporate agendas or motivations for supporting the arts sector. Acknowledging gratitude and appreciation for this sector's increased support of the arts sector does not mitigate the concern that questions raised about the degree of agenda-setting influence that the corporate sector has on the arts sector remain largely unanswered. The focus of what data and other material that does exist is primarily quantitative in nature, reflecting larger trends, as observed in The Gifts of the Muse study, toward "an increasingly output-oriented, quantitative approach to public sector management" (xi). The current funding system - whether from government or corporate support - is primarily focused on measurable, output-oriented indicators, arguably because, as Holden suggests, it operates in a funding paradigm "based on a technocratic world view, which: sees linear patterns; excludes unforeseen outcomes; discounts things that are difficult to measure; [and] concentrates on product and outcomes not process" {CCV 59).

Qualitative research regarding the relationships between arts and government, private supporters or audiences has largely not been undertaken, with the noteworthy local exceptions of the pockets of qualitative research which form parts of CAD A's client-based research and parts of CAP's Ipsos-Reid surveys. These forays are arguably introductory only, or, as in the case of the corporate sector inquiry intended as part of Culture Steps Forward, "not completed" (Evans 16).

2. What research does exist points to a theatre community that is more marginalized and less accessible to the broader public than in its past', it also points to a theatre 93

community that expresses a need and desire for change but is uncertain what that change looks like. Both quantitative audience statistics and qualitative concerns voiced by theatre practitioners speak to an arts community which, in Schroeder's words, does not enjoy "the broad societal place that [it] did a number of decades ago or even recently." Declining audiences reported in both CADA's and CAP's research indicate fewer people in Calgary are attending performing arts than five to seven years ago. Research shows these decreases occur following a period of decreased government funding, of increased revenues from box office and from the corporate sector, as well as of increased levels of accountability attached to receiving funds. As Barb Godard considers, the increase in "paperwork" required for declining grants has resulted in a transference of the "direction of the arts' creative agenda to the public sector funding bodies and ... to the private sector bodies who provide sponsorships," which contributes to the arts' marginalization in that "[w]hat counts as art is being determined by fewer and fewer individuals. A top-down model of bureaucratic control is displacing the diversity of grassroots creative initiatives ... [and is] positioning the artist as isolated outsider" (79). As Deleeuw observes, arts organizations have been "pushed further and further along the corporate model," focusing on "bottom-line" driven issues and measurable returns over "making art that we love and care about, doing it to the best of our ability." The result, as Holden argues, is an arts community focused on "dysfunctional," "closed" conversations with its funders at the expense of its relationship with its public (CVCL 10); that "the identifiable measures and 'ancillary benefits' that flow from culture have become more important than the cultural activity itself: the tail is wagging the dog" (15); and that arts professionals concentrate on "establishing legitimacy with their funders,... producing 'good stories' and 'convincing numbers' to make the case for next year's grant, rather than building 94 a broad basis of popular support" (40). As Rowntree understatedly observes, this "culture of measurement" often "inhibit[s] success in other ways" (200). These factors, coupled with the rapidly changing demographics of the city and other global shifts in the public's relationship to arts and culture have all arguably contributed to this decline in audiences and increased marginality of the sector. As McCarthy et. al. suggest, in the last few decades arts organizations have "faced difficult times," having to

navigate a new landscape in which demand for the arts has shifted in response to leisure time becoming more fragmented, the population growing more diverse, and competition from a burgeoning leisure industry intensifying. They have also had to deal with many changes ... in public and private funding patterns; and, most recently, a prevailing attitude toward government that emphasizes accountability and empirical justification for public support. ... For arts organizations, these trends have increased the difficulty of identifying and attracting audiences (67). Local theatre practitioners acknowledge they have allowed their relationship with their public to be less than it should or could be, and that the current parameters need "re­ invention" (Schroeder). Many express uncertainty as to "what the answer is" beyond "more generosity and compassion" (Moschopedis); "more conversations [that do] not retreat into corporate speak, or arts speak, either," but are "honest" about the work and "why we do it" (White); and "more care, more passion, more rigour - no apology for caring as much as we care, and a push for everything to be the best thing it can possibly be, moment by moment" (Stirling). What Now? Addressing the Needs

These key findings indicate the need for the arts community to address the shortcomings in the current state of arts research, and to renegotiate a less marginalized position than it holds in relationship to its public, with a view to increasing access and 95 audiences. What follows is a brief discussion of possible means and parameters within which to address these needs, synthesizing local findings with observations from recently published national and international research. Undertake Learner-Centred and Independent Research

These findings suggest that further research is required to address effectively the various shortcomings in current available materials. The direction for this further study needs to be undertaken in consultation with the theatre community, with its focus not set by externally-driven imperatives. As Holden argues, independent, learner-centred research is key to prevent data-gathering from "becom[ing] an end in itself as currently "professionals [in the arts] often do not know why they are asked to produce evidence," and "very little feedback is given to them about how the information ... is used"; he observes that "[i]n the cultural world many organisations have research tasks, methodologies and agendas set for them by funders," whereas "[Research findings are of most use when the questions being asked are formulated by the people who will use the answers.... Moving to learner-centred research will involve cultural organisations seeking help with setting the terms of research" (CVCL 48-50).85

Shifting the terms of research away from funding agency agendas and toward the theatre community's may at least in part address the concerns voiced by local artists and international research that discussions around the value of arts "have been hampered by limitations in available data and the absence of a developed body of rigorous and independent research on the arts" (McCarthy et. al. iii), as well as by their focus on instrumental arguments that respond to "the policy demands of [arts] funders" (Holden, CVCL, 9). As White observes, "we don't really do a deep enough analysis ... about what the work is about, what the values are.... [We] don't have those opportunities." Focus on the Increasing Appreciation and Demand That being said, the Calgary arts community has voiced its concern over accessibility issues in various ways and has arguably already set direction for learner- centred research toward addressing its marginalized relationship with its public. In CADA's Current State of Granting report, for example, its not-for-profit client base identifies increasing the valuation of "audience research and development initiatives" as one of its top priorities for CADA to consider (43). CADA's report offers (anonymous) comments pulled from its various interviews and surveys of members of the arts community that articulate that they "need help with awareness," and "want to increase accessibility," but have "no resources to identify, track [audiences], do focus groups," or undertake any kind of admittedly needed audience development research or initiatives (47). These iterations, coupled with further audience-related issues brought forward by local theatre practitioners during my interviews with them, suggest that initial learner-centred research would focus on addressing access issues firstly by strengthening the relationship between the arts community and its public. As Schroeder admits, he is aware of and looking for ways to address his organization's need "to know [its] audiences better," acknowledging it has "a lot to learn" in its journey to build stronger, more meaningful relationships with them.

This call from the arts community for assistance in deepening, broadening and de- marginalizing its current relationship with its public suggests expanding research and enquiry to focus on increasing arts demand, as opposed to supply. As Holden argues, [p]art of the problem in the public-professional relationship is that professionals tend to focus on supply-side solutions, because that is the area where they exercise the greatest influence. For example, within the cultural sector, some organizations worry about the demographics of their audience base, and they do what they can to change it with programming, [or] ticket prices. ... But the fundamental issue lies on the demand side. 97

The Gifts of the Muse study concurs, observing that providing a supply of arts does not address "the importance of building demand for the arts" (68), and that focusing resources on "developing the capacity of individuals" to appreciate and participate in the arts will strengthen its public support base as well as distribute the benefits to a broader citizenry by "introducing greater numbers" of the community "to engaging arts experiences" (xvii). Addressing accessibility issues by shifting focus toward increasing appreciation, participation and demand for the arts and away from "supply-side arguments" that focus on creating more art and more funding for "institutional growth" in the arts sector (Ivey 289) is not intended to encourage further shifting towards a consumer/market-driven relationship with our public where "[m]arket value replaces artistic value" (287), nor is it intended to negate local arts practitioners' real concerns over the admittedly homogeneous qualities of their current supply of product. Its intent is rather to reorient research, data gathering, and discussion away from instrumental values (such as economic, social and/or health benefits of the arts) which tend to dominate the arts community's discourse with funding agencies (Holden, CVCL 10; McCarthy et. al. 38), and toward opening up a deeper discourse and enquiry into the arts community's relationship with its public. This reorientation will shift the terms of the discussion and research toward articulating the intrinsic values of arts experiences, which, as Holden points out, builds on "a natural alliance between the public and the [arts] professionals when it comes to cultural value because both are mainly concerned with intrinsic value" [CVCL 39].86 Indeed, as McCarthy et. al. argue,

[w] hether it is the immediate delight and wonder that the arts experience can trigger or the cognitive benefits that come from more sustained arts involvement, the intrinsic benefits derived from the experience are what motivate individuals to become involved in the arts. Indeed, only by focusing on individual experience can one understand how individuals become drawn 98

to the arts in the first place, [and] how they develop sustained interest. ... Participation in the arts is motivated by intrinsic benefits derived from arts experiences, and it is only through such experiences that a variety of instrumental benefits can be realized (70). As Deleeuw observes, "I feel we are really desperate for these conversations - about the art. Can we stop talking about stabilization? Can we stop talking about box office figures? ... I think they [members of the general public] are far more interested in those conversations [about the art] than we give them the opportunity to be." By giving the general public these opportunities and building a "more broadly based and better articulated democratic consensus" of support and understanding for the arts, as Holden argues, the research "would serve the aims of all concerned - politicians, the [arts] professionals themselves, and above all the public" (CVCL 9, 10). Include the Education Community in Our Renegotiated Relationships

Implicated in various audience development-related responses from CADA's granting research is the need to address the need for fuller appreciation of the importance of arts education in schools and the recognition that "students are not participating in the arts, causing fewer adults [to participate in the arts]" (48). This acknowledgment of the crucial role arts education has in developing a supportive, arts interested and informed public is taken up in considerable depth in The Gifts study, which also references a host of other studies that explore this valuable area of research (xv, 23-26, 53-66). From their findings the authors suggest that "early exposure [to the arts] is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts," and that "[t]he most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation's schools" (73).

The need for this more cooperative, integrated, robust, generative and admittedly more complex approach to the arts in our educational systems is reflected in Florida's 99 argument for a massive overhaul of the entire educational system to address the need for developing creativity in our citizenry; as he posits, [w]e can no longer succeed - or even tread water - with an education system handed down to us from the industrial age, since what we no longer need is assembly-line workers. We need one that instead reflects and reinforces the values, priorities, and requirements of the creative age. Education reform must, at its core, make schools into places where human creativity is cultivated and can flourish (Flight 254). This call for education reform and re-invention with a view to increasing creative capacity is echoed by various other urban development theorists and well serves the arts community's need for a more integrated, less marginalized relationship with society. In his argument for developing creative cities, Hall states a need to turn education from a tool for "social division," which he maintains is the position the current systems occupy, to a tool for "social inclusion," thereby "counteract[ing] the catastrophic failures of the conventional school systems" (986). Wyman argues for "the restoration of liberal arts into the mainstream of education" (67) to develop "individual creativity, self-expression and all manner of skills that are important to the way we work and live together in the twenty-first century" (48). As complex as it may be, re-forming the relationship between arts and education is arguably integral in renegotiating a more informed, engaged, and integrated relationship between arts and community. As Holden notes, "increasing audiences for the future will depend as much and probably more on what happens in the education system ... than on the pricing policies of museums, galleries and theatres" (CVCL 41). Develop a Democratic Mandate Propelled by Leadership from Arts Professionals

Charles Landry argues that in order for a community to address the need for "embedding creativity into [its] 'genetic code'" (132), it needs to move beyond patterns of siloed behavior and assumptions of binary opposites to a more lateral, holistic, open, risk- 100 taking approach to problem solving (5). He posits that "[b]ringing together disparate disciplines or people can widen horizons and generate new forms of creativity" (147).

Applying this set of parameters as a problem solving tool for renegotiating the arts community's relationship to its greater community builds on Murrell's "counselling" suggestion and invites the arts community to bring together its "disparate" communities - business and government representatives together with arts practitioners, educators, students, members of the public at large, including marginalized voices such as the ones identified in this study (ethnocultural and female). In Hall's words, these kinds of "creative urban milieux ... are places of great social and intellectual turbulence, not comfortable places at all," and it is this state of discomfort - or in Murrell's words, this state of "unease" with his community - that allows for "some kind of basic collective self-examination ... [and a] kicking over [of] the traces" (Hall 286).

What this renegotiated relationship would ultimately look like is not only difficult but inappropriate to predict, as predetermining the shape of it implies a focus on the outcome(s), not on the process, and it is important that the intent of these renegotiations be "more open- ended ... rather than being engaged in tracking outcomes against predetermined expectations" (Holden, CCV 59). Moreover, as Moschopedis argues, projecting outcomes would be antithetical to the inclusive democratic process needed. In his words, predetermining outcomes would be

fucking it all up - the people, the community will decide ... what is missing and what needs to happen. And right now the way it operates is that you have a few people who are ... making the decisions for the rest of the city. We are catering to, well, to rich people's money. We're predicting what the people ... will want.88 This democratic process nonetheless needs confident and determined leadership from within the arts community. As Holden notes, "it is up to the [arts] professionals to 101 harness the power of the public will in pursuit of the public good," as it applies to arts and culture (CVCL 39).89

Although the above suggestions ultimately require major resources as well as political and public will, efforts to address Landry's call for "embedding creativity" into a community's "genetic code" by reshaping and renegotiating the relationship between the arts and community are already in evidence. An interesting example of this occurring in arts policy practice is Canada Council's Artist in Community Collaboration Fund (ACCF), a pilot program which recently released an independent report, entitled Imagine, which offers an overview of the program and its activities.90 The ACCF's purpose is to support "the diverse artistic activities that bring together professional artists and the broader community. Through this, it gives the arts a stronger presence in everyday life," and provides opportunities "to deepen links between artists and communities" (McGauley 4).91 The program is serving to develop "infrastructures that support many forms of public engagement and facilitate audience development. When art becomes relevant again to the everyday lives of Canadians, when they [Canadians] are included in the conversation, these connections are more likely" (10).

By whatever form, in a renegotiated relationship between arts and community I would argue that the need for more inclusive, open and simply more conversation with our various publics is a non-negotiable component, even though and perhaps especially since we as an arts community are uncertain of our way through that conversation. As Bob White observes,

it's not just the artists who create the work, it's the audiences, who we count upon to support the work. ... I'm not sure if we know how to negotiate that relationship, how you talk to them; how you introduce the work to them; how you say why we think it's important that you see this. ... I don't think the audience is homogeneous in any way. ... The challenge is how do you make it relevant and interesting in a way that is going to engage them as long participants in the work? As much as White and others admit this challenge is a "huge issue," and that "something's got to change," there is also a belief that "the last bastion of the live performing arts is that it is live people in that moment sharing this experience, and that's what I will always fall back on because that's true and honest, and always will be what it is" (White). If we in the theatre community can find ways of taking those qualities of truth, of honesty and of sharing that exist in that "dialogue across the stage" - where artists and audiences "talk to each other,... [are] present in the moment and allowing that interchange" (Stirling) - if we can apply those qualities to all our conversations with our various publics and supporters, then our relationship with our greater community has tremendous possibilities of "reinvention" (Schroeder), with "deepen[ed] links between artists and communities" in our renegotiated future. 103

Endnotes Chapter One: Introduction 1 This conversation with Murrell was one of a series of interviews with Calgary playwrights and related theatre practitioners I undertook. Unless otherwise noted, references to and quotations from Calgary theatre practitioners are from these interviews and are found within the bibliography accordingly. The list of theatre practitioners interviewed, including a brief biography of each, is found in Appendix XIII. As the definition of culture can vary broadly, for the purposes of this paper unless otherwise indicated I intend its definition to parallel Holden's, that being "a narrow characterization of culture to mean the arts, museums, libraries and heritage that receive public funding, although many of my arguments apply more broadly into the commercial arts and into other parts of the publicly funded sector" (CVCL 11).

3 For brevity's sake, Holden's work Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy is abbreviated to CVCL.

4 Definitions of intrinsic and instrumental values of the arts are introduced and explored in The Gifts of the Muse study. The study identifies instrumental and intrinsic values as follows: Instrumental benefits are indirect outcomes of arts experiences. They are called instrumental because the arts experience is only a means to achieving benefits in non-arts areas.... Intrinsic benefits, in contrast, are inherent in the arts experience itself and are valued for themselves rather than as a means to something else.... Intrinsic benefits are the fundamental layer of effects leading to many of the instrumental benefits that have dominated the public debate and the recent research agenda (4, italics in original). 104

Further explorations of intrinsic and instrumental values of the arts are found in the study, as well as in works such as John Holden's various writings Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy and Capturing Cultural Value, John Carey's What Good Are the Arts?, and Max Wyman's The Defiant Imagination. Holden actually folds in a third kind of value, that of institutional value, which he defines as that which

relates to the processes and techniques that organisations adopt in how they work to create value for the public.... [I]t flows from their working practices and attitudes, and is rooted in the ethos of public service. ... The responsible institutions themselves should be considered not just as repositories of objects, or sites of experience, or instruments for generating cultural meaning, but as creators of value in their own right (CVCL17-18).

5 More robust philosophical discussions around current and various perceptions regarding the value of the arts in relation to society are found in The Gifts of the Muse study, John Holden's various writings, John Carey's What Good Are the Arts?, Max Wyman's The Defiant Imagination and continue throughout various "creative city" discourses including Landry's and Florida's works, as a beginning.

6 CAD A research indicates the number of project grant sources accessed by its client base of Calgary not-for-profit arts organizations is 6 (The Current State of Granting in Calgary: Research Report 37).

7 Other trends to consider as/if data is available could include an examination of marketing focus and expenditure patterns in arts organizations, of the state of the overall Calgary economy during these years, and/or of specifically identified ticket price strategies/increases against attendance figures. 8 Levitt is an award winning Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, and the quotation is from the recent book he wrote with journalist Dubner. The authors' comment regarding knowing what to measure and how to measure it was admittedly not 105 offered specifically in relation to the world of not-for-profit arts organizations, but rather in the larger, more inclusive context of "making a complicated world less so ... [b]ecause there is nothing like the sheer power of numbers to scrub away layers of confusion and contradiction" (12). I suggest neither author would take issue with my borrowing of their observation for this specific use. Indeed, it is intriguing to speculate on what their "rogue economist" (from the book's title page) minds could uncover in the world of not-for-profit arts statistics that my less economically sophisticated mind could not. Chapter Two: Government Relations 9 As the primary sources used for this government-focussed chapter also factor into findings in private and audience sector support (Chapters Three and Four of this thesis respectively), this chapter's discussion of the quality and quantity of extant local primary sources lays foundation for the statistical analyses in the chapters following, as well.

10 Further explorations of private sector support and box office/audience support are found in their respective chapters of this thesis.

11 Source data is available upon request. I thank all the kind individuals at various Calgary theatre organizations, as well as the Council for Business in the Arts in Canada, Calgary Arts Development Authority, the Alberta Foundation for the Arts and Canada Council for the Arts for their generosity in responding to my questions and providing me access to what documentation they could.

12 As of the fall of 2007 CAD A is "embarking on a 19 month granting program renewal process," re-evaluating its granting processes, criteria, and eligibility with completion scheduled for 2009 (Calgary Arts Development, "Overview: Granting Renewal"). 13 During its existence, the Ministry of Culture "dealt with historic sites, the operation of museums and auditoriums, the literary arts, visual and performing arts, etc. It had a budget in 1973 of $7.8 million. In 1979-80 with the 75th anniversary celebrations of 106 the province the budget had gone up to $25.8 million" (Melnyk, "Culture and the State in Alberta" 256). The AFA budgets noted in the body of this report reflect support for "individual artists and arts organizations in the visual, performing and literary arts, and cultural industries" (Alberta Foundation for the Arts, "About Us").

14 Documentation from Canada Council indicates that the first eight years of funding for the Council came from interest and dividends of an endowment fund. Parliamentary appropriations began in 1965-66. See notes in Appendix VII, "Canada Council Funding History From Inception," for detail. 15 Because CBAC surveys are voluntary and participants understand the information they submit to be published, information provided by the participating companies is publicly available (in 2007 CBAC offered them at $75/survey). The only publicly accessible information available from public funding agencies such as Canada Council, AFA and CAD A is the amount of the grant that the recipient received from the specific funding agency. Other budgetary information pertaining to their individual clients - such as other revenue sources, attendance, or total size of budget - is not available through public funding agencies.

16 When I questioned OYR Managing Director Stephen Schroeder as to why OYR no longer submitted survey information to CBAC, he explained it was a matter of the time it took to fill out CBAC's form. As the survey apparently asks for its statistical data in different categories from what Canada Council or other granting agencies use, it was not a simple task to complete and Schroeder noted it took more than a day of his time to fill out the survey. My intention in pointing out the discrepancies in data from the two sources is not to suggest OYR or any granting agency has flawed reporting or recording mechanisms; it may be, for example, that OYR accessed other provincial monies beyond AFA operating funds, and therefore its CBAC survey entry would be larger than its AFA entry. I note the discrepancy to acknowledge the limitations of the data. 107

Additionally, when I calculated the percentages of revenue sources for those three companies from the 1981-82 survey, the relationship of funding ratios between the funders remained relatively constant, with 1981-82 private support at 19 % (20 % in 1989-90), earned at 44 % (43 % in 1989-90) and government unchanged at 37 %. 18 When I contacted various theatre companies, I requested annual reports or financial statements - whatever documentation they had which they considered to be public information - from 2004-05 to match data from the most current CB AC survey statistics. Some companies were unable to access this information, and instead provided me with their more recent financial statements. (No companies could provide financials from five to fifteen years ago; indeed, many of them are under ten years of age, and archival rigour in early years seems to be sporadic, at best.) For the purposes of this study I determined to use the material they sent me, in that either or both 2004-05 and 2005-06 statistics could be considered relevant to current conditions of support; therefore my definition of 'current' for this study includes 2004-05 or 2005-06 statistics, depending on the availability of data. Notes included in Appendix X indicate which year's financial statements were used for each participating company. 19 CADA research did not analyse audience trends by artistic discipline and therefore did not publish statistics specifically on theatre attendance patterns; as such, I followed these four older theatre companies to see if their audience patterns echoed CADA's more broadly applied observation of declining audience numbers. As audience statistics were not available for OYR past 2000, my analysis ends in the final year OYR filled in the CBAC survey: 1999-2000. Further detail of the analysis is found in Appendix XI. 20 Interestingly, a 2007 report referenced by the Canadian chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) found that this pattern of increased accountability has 108 been identified as a concern across Canada's entire charitable sector; the AFP article notes the report found that [t]he entire grant/funding process in Canada is becoming increasingly burdensome, time-consuming and complicated ... The study [conducted by the Toronto-based Wellesley Institute] found that the funding process is directly at odds with the reasons why governments and other funders partner with nonprofit organizations to provide programs and services. While people consider charities better in touch with the public, less bureaucratic, more flexible and more efficient, most grant processes work against these strengths and prevent nonprofits from serving their communities most effectively (Association of Fundraising Professionals, "Canadian Funders Placing Huge Burdens on Charities"). My experience and personal observations suggest that debt loads and their erasure tend to affect larger theatre companies only; in general, smaller theatre companies tend not to be in a position to consider a line of credit or other method of managing any significant accumulation of debt. This is my observation as a practicing professional; the available statistics cannot confirm this, as little information of this type is available from the CBAC surveys (due to small numbers of Calgary theatres who participated in the early nineties).

22 For brevity's sake Holden's research entitled Capturing Cultural Value is abbreviated to CCV for the remainder of this thesis.

23 Godard's expressions of concern are in this instance directed towards Ontario Arts Council policy through the 1990s; however her arguments are based on increased levels of accountability from funding agencies, which has been a national and international trend and certainly includes Calgary theatre companies, as this analysis details. Chapter Three: Corporate Affairs 24 Private sector support as identified in the CBAC statistics includes support in the form of three sub-categories: 1. corporate and private foundation revenues, 2. individual donations and 3. revenues from special events. Sixty-two percent of companies' private sector revenues in 2004-05 came from corporations and private foundations, while 28 % of private sector revenues were achieved through special events, and 10 % of the private sector revenue stream was achieved through individual donations. Table III: Calgary Theatre Companies: Private Sector Support, 2004-05

Spec Events $1,137,179, corp and private 28% fndns, N $2,546,835, m 62%

Individ, $429,736, 10%

(See Appendix X for list of companies who provided source data for this chart.) Further analysis of the nature of special events as a revenue stream is particularly difficult to attempt without access to specific event data from each company - of those companies who choose to run fundraising events; many may not, in which case the primary event revenue tends to be in the form of casino revenues - such as what the event expenses are (the revenue figures noted above are gross revenues, not net), as well as volunteer labour, longevity of event, and other event-specific factors. The collection and analysis of this data was beyond the scope of this study. Revenues from individual supporters translate to 3 % of overall revenues. As individual support comprises such a small percentage of overall budgets, further analysis of 110 individual donations was not undertaken. Interestingly, the small percentage found in local theatre company budgets is reflected in national research by the Canadian branch of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. This organization's research indicates that the combined category of'arts, culture and recreation' receives 5 % of Canadians' annual philanthropic donations, ranking it as one of the smallest recipients in a field dominated by health (41 percent), social services (20 percent), religion (14 percent), and education and research (8 percent) (Warnett, "Canadian Fundraising," 40). My own experience in fundraising for a contemporary theatre company in Calgary reflects the trend captured by the local and national statistics, in that ATP's largest and fastest growing source of private sector support by far came from corporate sector sources. 251 was Director of Development for Calgary's Alberta Theatre Projects from October 1998 to March 2003, at which time I was also a member of the Calgary chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. My other professional experiences that required a general knowledge of fundraising in the not-for-profit arts sector include seven years as producer of Edmonton Alberta's Fringe Theatre Event (1991-98), three years as program director for Calgary's GlobalFest (2003-05), and other various arts management related contracts.

26 See Chapter Two of this thesis for further detail on the scope and parameters of

the data from this source.

27 Major corporations in Calgary number in the hundreds {Report ofBusiness.com, "Top 1000 Publicly Traded Companies"; Fortune Magazine "Fortune Gold 500, 2007") and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce reports its membership as greater than 3,500 ("About the Chamber"). As such, a comprehensive study of this sector is beyond the scope of this study. 28 The determination to distinguish smaller from larger companies at the cut off figure of $500,000 correlates to CADA's definition of its major clients. CADA defines its 11 major clients as those who receive grants of $30,000 or more {Current State of Granting in Calgary 10, 25). As the table below indicates, this designation correlates to an overall budget size: all major clients of CAD A have budgets over $500,000.

Table IV: Theatre Companies: Current Private Revenues, Percentage of Support

Current Budgets Private Revenues as %

Private TOTAL major CADA

Revenues Revenues CADA client other

ATP $1,436,482 $3,741,203 38% n.a.

Lunchbox $302,021 $698,679 43% n.a.

OYR $240,904 $1,373,628 18% n.a.

Pleides/Vertigo $317,807 $1,343,357 24% n.a.

Theatre Calgary $1,516,335 $5,646,900 27% n.a.

Theatre Junction $297,242 $584,707 51% n.a.

Broad Minds $2,959 $18,148 n.a. 16%

Green Fools $42,286 $349,536 n.a. 12%

Ghost River $21,557 $119,986 n.a. 18%

Old Trout* $25,294 $227,776 n.a. 11%

TOTALS (Averaged) 34% 14%

*Private revenues exclude casino funds 112

To be fair to Rowntree's book, her exploration of the relationship between the arts sector and the business sector in Britain is not limited to her sense of "cross purposes" (105) between corporations and the arts in a traditional market-driven sponsorship. Rowntree's admitted frustrations with traditional sponsorship arrangements (like those in the story described) caused her to re-evaluate the relationships, and to search out more meaningful partnerships with the business sector through different means. These re-formed relationships were not driven by market measures, because, as she explains, "[i]t became obvious that marketing measures of success were at odds not only with society's needs but also with the long-term interests of the adaptability of business itself (106).

in Before each performance a member of staff at Alberta Theatre Projects addresses the audience from the stage to welcome them to the show, to convey other show-related information as required, and to thank affiliated sponsors. 31 Perceptions of what is controversial are by no means homogenous and I do not want to suggest that ATP's entire roster of sponsors all considered the company's work to be problematic. There were enough instances similar to The Coronation Voyage experience, however, to cause the shift in sponsorship approach away from specific new work. If we - that is, my resource development team and I - were to meet the ongoing, exacting demands of our budgeted revenue targets, we needed more stability than many sponsors found in supporting the content of specific shows. Sponsoring a popular festival of new work had a far more 'festive' feel than being attached to a specific show within the festival. To add to the complexity and uncertainty around matching sponsors with specific shows, sponsor agreements needed to be solidified months before the festival, usually well before anyone could confirm what the content of the new shows was going to be. It was a more financially stable choice to shift sponsors slightly away from direct show content to ongoing concepts like the festival itself or our educational programming. 113

32 As noted in endnote 31, perceptions of what material is "controversial" vary greatly from individual to individual. I use the term only in a relative sense and also acknowledge that theatre companies' shows can vary in this regard not just from company to company but within companies, as well, regardless of size. For example, in its 2006-07 season Theatre Calgary programmed the well-know family fare Disney's Beauty and the Beast as well as the premiere of The Wars, Denis Garnum's new adaptation of Timothy Findley's novel, the latter being arguably relatively controversial/risky in that it is an untried, new play tackling the dark subject of the horrors of World War I (Theatre Calgary, "07/08 Season: The Wars"). Conversely, Broad Minds Theatre company, the smallest theatre company in the group of companies considered in this study, is producing the relatively uncontroversial/safe Memories of a Christmas Ornament this December, Maureen Rooney's "romantic musical retelling of a man's life as seen through the eyes of a Christmas ornament who loves him" ("Broad Minds Productions: Memories of a Christmas Ornament"). I include the point about controversial material in this study because as Wyman observes, there is a tendency for corporate supporters to attach themselves to more mainstream material such as "musicals, comedies, the classics and the big-ticket specials"; these "big ticket specials" tend to be - although by no means exclusively - produced by larger theatre companies. As I note further in the body of this essay (46-49), the complexity of this issue can be introduced and discussed in this analysis, but is not within the scope of this analysis to tackle comprehensively.

33 In a recent talkback session (21 November 2007) following the Canadian premiere by Calgary's Sage Theatre Company of the 2005 play My Name is Rachel Corrie, Sage Theatre Artistic Director Kelly Reay responded to an audience member's question about whether Sage had encountered friction from the local Jewish community regarding its production. The play is based on the writings of American activist Rachel Corrie (edited by Alan Rickman and Katherine Viner), who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer on the Gaza Strip in 2003. In his two-part response Kelly Reay identified Sage's lack of significant 114 protest from the community was due in part because of Sage's pre-emptive and respectful consultation with the various Jewish community leaders in Calgary, and in part because Sage was a small enough theatre company with little enough support from corporate supporters and individual donors to be able to "fly under the radar" of concerns that larger companies such as ATP or Theatre Calgary would face from their large and influential base of corporate supporters and donors. Both the question and answer were framed in the knowledge that this play had caused great controversy in its New York run where, as critic Richard Ouzounian notes in his 2006 article in Daily Variety, entitled "'Corrie' canceled in Canada," it had been originally scheduled to play at New York Theater Workshop, "but that production was canceled after resistance from board members and subscribers. [The] show was eventually produced Off Broadway, where it ran for two months." The play was also scheduled to play at Canadian Stage - which, as Ouzounian points out, is Canada's largest not-for-profit theatre company - until Canadian Stage "reversed its earlier decision and opted not to present the show as part of its 2007-08 season." Ouzounian posits that although artistic producer Marty Bragg maintains publicly that he cancelled it because of artistic reasons, he notes that

it appears that Bragg faced pressure from some of his board members not to

alienate Toronto's Jewish community. While admitting he has neither read nor seen the script, CanStage board member Jack Rose said, 'My view was it would provoke a negative

reaction in the Jewish community.'

Philanthropist Bluma Appel, after whom CanStage's flagship theater is

named, concurred. T told them I would react very badly to a play that was

offensive to Jews,' she said. 115

Bragg denied he was lobbied by the board in any way and insisted, 'I pick the plays. No one on our board has ever told me what we can and can't do.' In his preview article for the Sage production here in Calgary, Martin Morrow explores the controversy further in his CBC on line story entitled, "Hot-button drama." Chapter Four: Audiences 34 Much of the data available through various studies does not segregate theatre from other arts or performing arts activity. Therefore beyond specifically identified references to theatre related data, this chapter uses information gathered about the performing arts (as in the Ipsos Reid and Hills Strategies studies, for example) or the not-for-profit arts sector (as per CADA's client-related research), as available, and identifies it accordingly. 35 Considerations and limitations exist for both quantitative and qualitative research, and both need to be acknowledged as possible factors in the conflicting responses from

CADA's survey and the interviews I conducted. As Guiseppe Iarossi points out in his book The Power of Survey Design, survey design is a qualifying factor in its usage as a research tool, as "[t]he way a question is worded can often lead the respondent toward one answer or another. And this effect can be significant, in the order of up to 30 % change in attitude. Hence, the cause of survey inconsistencies does not rest... on the respondents, but rather on the question designer" (1). Further informed research would need to be undertaken to assess CADA's survey design in this regard to explore this limitation. For further detail regarding the structure and positioning of CADA's survey questions around priorities, see endnote 39. Additionally, I acknowledge the potential limitations of qualitative research that arise in interviews in that "inevitably the researcher's consciousness will play a major role" in employing this research tool (I.E. Seidman, Interviewing as Qualitative Research, 87). I can only offer that in both my interview consent form that each participant signed and in my verbal introduction to each interview I stressed that the interview was intended to be 116 a vehicle for them to express their priorities, not mine. I did however come to each interview with a guideline of questions, one of which asked about ethnocultural issues, but specifically in the case with my interview with ATP's Artistic Director Bob White, whose extensive comments on the issue form much of this chapter's discussion, the issue was introduced by White before I asked any questions specifically about diversity; I merely kept the tape machine recording. 36 In 2001 a group of 11 arts groups collaborated on having this arts marketing survey undertaken. Members of the CAP (Calgary Arts Partners) group include: Alberta Ballet, Alberta Theatre Projects, Calgary Opera, Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, Calgary International Organ Foundation, EPCOR CENTRE for the Performing Arts, Decidedly Jazz Danceworks, Lunchbox Theatre, Pleiades Theatre, Theatre Calgary, and Theatre Junction (Calgary Arts Partners: Summary Report 2001). The same membership was responsible for undertaking the 2006 survey.

All the studies used as sources for this chapter's discussion of audiences contain far more observations and analysis than can be recorded in this chapter. This chapter attempts to note highlights that flag concerns about the state of the relationship between theatre and its audiences but cannot be construed as comprehensive. For fuller evidence of public attitudes and trends toward the arts in Canada, in addition to related Statistics

Canada information, please see the following reports and studies: Ipsos Reid's studies Calgary Arts Partners Summary Report: A Calgary Area Market Segmentation Study (2001), Calgary Arts Partners: Summary Report, and Calgary Arts Partners: Draft Report 2006; Calgary Arts Development Authority's report The Current Status of Granting in Calgary: Research Report (2007); Hill Strategies Research's Performing Arts Attendance in Canada and the Provinces (2003) and various other related Hill Strategies publications; and Decima Research's The Arts in Canada: Access and Availability - 2002 Research Study. 117

Arts marketing professionals and authors Elizabeth Hill, Catherin O'Sullivan and Terry O'Sullivan explain economic accessibility and its arguable counterpoint, economic sustainability (or "income optimization"), as an "ideological backdrop" for not-for-profit arts organizations ticketing policies thusly: in the subsidized sector, one of the purposes of public funding is to offer cultural opportunities as widely as possible in the community. For this reason, prices are set to permit audiences, regardless of their financial status, to participate in the arts. There is, therefore, a latent conflict between access objectives and income optimization which form a constant ideological backdrop to ticket pricing (147). This ideological and economic tension between access and revenue optimization is also articulated in discussions involving the balance between what art economists such as Michael Hutter and David Throsby consider in terms of "cultural" versus "economic" value. As noted earlier, pursuing the philosophical debate about the value of art is beyond the scope of this thesis, let alone this chapter. It is worth noting in context with this chapter's observations about accessibility, however, that Hutter and Throsby offer a remarkably concise "historical evolution of ideas in [the] field," including philosophical, literary, economical, sociological and anthropological perspectives, in the introduction to a

2008 compilation of essays entitled Beyond Price: Value in Culture, Economics, and the Arts (1-19). Bill Ivey, The ex-chair of America's National Endowment for the Arts and Director of the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University, suggests in his contribution to the publication that the contemporary debate, "from [his] perspective of an arts-management insider," is that "valuation today resides in either the popular or the precious" with one view "overstating] the significance of art as... commodity, and the other overstating] the importance of the supply-side desires of refined arts elites" (283). Ivey posits that the limitation of the popularity based market-driven 118 approach is that to value "art as commodity is to elevate the notion of demand ... as the only factor determining which art and artists make it through the gates of production " and marginalizes artistry to the detriment of the arts sector and society (288); and the limitation of the "precious" perspective is its assumptions of the inability "of the general public to make discerning arts investments" (292), that "abstract assumptions about the intrinsic value of the nonprofit fine arts have generated a model that justifies the continual expansion of the supply" (289), and that "demand never invade(s) discussions of funding priorities" of arts leaders and/or policy- and decision-makers (292-3). I note this discussion in the context of Calgary audiences' decreased economic access to arts experiences alongside their increased access to choice/supply, as the supply-side of Calgary's theatregoing options has grown significantly in the last decade: the number of Calgary theatre companies in CADA's granting client base has grown from 13 in 1995 to 23 in 2005 (see Appendix V). The ongoing tension in the "ideological backdrop" of economic accessibility, market demand and cultural values percolates through any discussion of Calgary audiences' relationship to Calgary's theatre community; and ultimately the extent to which increased pricing/lack of access has negatively impacted audience attendance even while quantity of opportunities/increased access has grown cannot be ascertained. I can only suggest, along with Ivey, that "serious investigation of the effect of... business practice [or market driven paradigms] on the vibrancy of the cultural scene is virtually nonexistent," and that the current debate between "popular" and "precious," is arguably "not aligned with the public interest" or with the improved vibrancy of the "cultural landscape" (296).

39 Both the 2001 and 2006 studies separate its survey participants into one of four segments. As discussed in the 2001 report, characteristics of these segmentations are as follows: 119

Using Ipsos-Reid's Latent Class Segmentation Technique, four segments emerged from the data. We entitled these segments: Corporate Calgary; Social Enthusiasts; Disinterested Unreachables and Underaware & Untapped.

Segment % of Caigarv Market Corporate Calgary 25% Social Enthusiasts 32% Disinterested Unreachables 15% Underaware & Untapped 28%

Corporate Calgary - Segment # 1 Are typically: • middle aged (34 - 54 yrs) • highly educated • more affluent • more inclined to say they enjoy the arts, but attend only occasionally or from time-to-time • most likely to 'participate in outdoor activities' or 'rent a movie and watch it at home' in their leisure time • more inclined to enjoy the finer things in life and go out frequently • not performing arts information seekers Social Enthusiasts - Segment # 2 Are typically: • young (18-34 yrs) to middle aged (35-54 yrs) • well educated • polarized in their income levels • very positive toward the arts • express the greatest enjoyment of the arts • are the segment most likely to attend different types of arts performances 120

• attend performing arts events either regularly or from time-to- time were highly involved with the arts and encourage their children to be involved • more likely to use the word 'experimental' rather than the word 'traditional' to describe their attitudes and beliefs • most often likely to 'participate in outdoor activities' or 'read books' in their leisure time • active seekers of performing arts information through all communication mediums Disinterested Unreachables - Segment # 3 Are typically: • older (55+ yrs) • less educated • polarized in their income levels • the group least likely to enjoy the arts don't know a lot about the arts « have no interest or intention of going to a performing arts event • low levels of involvement with the arts during childhood • most likely to 'rent a movie and watch it at home' as their main form of leisure time entertainment • not inclined to go out of their way to gather information about performing arts events Underaware & Untapped - Segment #4 Are typically: • younger Calgarians (18-34 yrs) • more likely to have some post secondary education • least affluent • likely to have a positive view of the performing arts « indicate they don't know a lot about the arts would like to attend performing arts events but attend on rare occasions • had limited involvement with the arts as children • would consider attending an arts event if they had the opportunity • most often inclined to 'read books' or 'participate in outdoor activities' in their leisure time • actively seek performing arts information (Calgary Arts Partners Research Report 2001, 6-7).

For the 2006 study, Ipsos Reid re-titled the segmentations, as described in the 2006 Summary Report:

The factors defining segment composition are related even more strongly to respondents' degree of involvement and interest in the Performing Arts. Accordingly, the segments have been re-named to more accurately reflect their defining elements:

-'Calgary's Extreme Enthusiasts' are the former 'Social Enthusiasts'; - 'Active and Engaged' is the former 'Corporate Calgary' segment;

- 'Potentially Engaged' is the former 'Under-aware and Untapped' segment; and,

- 'Indifferent and Unreachable' is the former 'Disinterested and Unreachable'segment (slide 10). 40 It is interesting to note as well that the entertainment categories in Table VII that increased largely involve the more "popular" arts, including popular music concerts (+4 percent), musical theatre (+2 percent) and dinner theatre (+4 percent). The notable exception to this is the increase in opera (+7 percent). In the "high" arts of theatre, 122 symphony, classical music concerts, ballet and opera, the most highly attended of them, theatre, suffers by far the largest decline. Ballet and classical music have plateaued while symphonies have declined by 2 % (see endnote 47 for further discussion of the definition of "high art"). 41 Calgary's recent "torrid economy," as described by the Calgary Herald in 2006, has been "a magnet for new workers," and "helped the city reach the million mark [in its population figures] two years earlier than expected" (Guttormson, "Calgary hits population milestone 1,000,000"). Although by the end of 2007 the city's economic pace was reported to be "decelerating," it was seen to be "shifting into a still-generous pace that is sustainable" with many of "Calgary's economic indicators continuing] to be very strong," with some moving "deeply into record territory" (Scotton, "2007 year of the soft landing," Calgary Herald).

42 Interestingly, as I was a member of the senior management team at ATP in 20011 recall the study and CAP's response to it, particularly with regards to questions around barriers to attending. The response from the marketing staff connected with CAP organizations was one of excitement that price point was not a critical factor in decision­ making for the public; the critical factor was identified as a matter of finding the time. I recall at ATP this was a key justification in the decision to increase ticket prices the following year; my understanding is that other arts organizations responded similarly.

43 Statistic Canada's observation from the 2006 census ranks Calgary as the third most diverse major city in Canada; with over 22 % of its population visible minorities, only Toronto (42.9 percent), Vancouver (41.7 percent) and the small municipality of Abbotsford (22.7 percent) rank higher. (Montreal's population figures are reported at 16.5 % visible minorities.) Calgary's visible minorities accounted for 15.6 % of its population in 1996 and for 17.5 % in 2001 ("Canada's Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census"). Stroich did not elaborate on what specific studies, if any, she was referring to, although it could be the 2001 Ipsos Reid study (using cavalier arithmetic), as ATP was a sponsoring arts partner of that initiative, and Stroich was with ATP at that time. 45 Instrumental benefits, as McCarthy et. al. describe them, include "broad social and economic goals that have nothing to do with art per se," including

important, measurable benefits, such as economic growth and student learning, and thus are of value to all Americans, not just those involved in the arts.... Policy advocates acknowledge that these are not the sole benefits stemming from the arts, that the arts also 'enrich people's lives.' But the main argument downplays these other, intrinsic benefits in aligning itself with an increasingly output-oriented, quantitative approach to public sector management (xi, emphasis in original).

Further discussions and definitions of intrinsic and instrumental benefits/values of the arts are also found on page 6 and in endnote 4 of this thesis. 46 The Performing Arts Attendance report also indicates national parallels with locally defined psychographics (described in segmentation identifiers in the local Ipsos Reid study; see endnote 6 for detail) in observing that people who attend arts activities tend to be socially active in other aspects of their public life; as the Hill Strategies report offers,

Canadians who attend performances often participate in other arts activities. They also volunteer in their communities and participate in sports. ... In terms of community involvement, there is a striking difference between the volunteer rates of performing arts attendees and non-attendees: 45.6 % of performing arts attendees volunteered in their communities, compared to 27.0 % of non-attendees (4). Unfortunately, the report does not offer information on whether or not volunteerism rates in Canada have declined, to coincide with the declining rates of performing arts 124 attendance. To the best of ray knowledge comparative volunteerism rates are not available nationally. A 2004 report on volunteerism published by Statistics Canada notes that comparisons with earlier research are not possible, as CSGVP [Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating] employs a different survey platform and a somewhat different questionnaire than did the previous NSGVP [National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating] surveys. Because of these changes it is not appropriate to compare results from the 2004 CSGVP with the previous NSGVP surveys (Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians 6). However a Calgary based 2005 Ipsos Reid report commissioned by Volunteer Calgary suggests that locally, this disengagement has occurred: "A good number of volunteers (over l-in-5) have withdrawn from the volunteer sector. And, it's been some time since they last took part in volunteer activities (on average, 4.8 years)" (Volunteer Calgary slide 7). These increased signs of lack of engagement in arts and in volunteerism, in light of local population growth and changing cultural demographics locally and nationally, suggest that more research into how to reach new members of the community would be of great benefit not only to the performing arts community but to Calgary's general not-for-profit/volunteer sector, as well.

47 Although Throsby admits that "lines between different forms of cultural expression have become blurred over time such that sharp divisions between the high arts and popular culture are increasingly difficult to draw," (Economics and Culture 117), he does suggest that the "more esoteric art forms such as classical music, jazz, 'serious' drama, poetry, opera, classical and modern dance, the fine arts, contemporary visual art and so on," would be included in the category of higher arts (116). Bill Ivey suggests another definition of what are traditionally considered "high" arts to be "the museums, orchestras, theatres, opera companies, and dance ensembles that enshrine the refined arts of Western Europe" (289). 48 This analysis assumes that the decreased numbers in free events/tickets is the result of a decline in the number of free events/tickets offered by the Calgary arts community. Although this leap seems logical and parallels my personal observations and experience, I need to state that further primary investigation and research would be required to confirm empirically that fewer free events/tickets are offered by the community. To the best of my knowledge, no published findings tracking the numbers of free events/tickets offered by the arts community exist.

49 This Hill Strategies report focussed on the Ontario performing arts community, but drew from national findings, and arguably serves as well for Calgary's performing arts community as for Ontario's.

501 need to note that Bob White's description of himself as prejudiced and "at sea" comes from someone I worked with for five years, and for whom I have the utmost respect regarding his intelligence, compassion, experience and wisdom. His capacity to be honest about the limitations of his own perspective contribute to this wisdom and compassion. I would also note that in context with his statement about his "white" biases, White has also been responsible for programming Canadian premieres from writers of colour such as

Mieko Ouchi, Mitch Miyagawa and Lorena Gale.

51 Regarding White's discussion of further diversifying the audience base by attracting a larger percentage of younger audience members, unfortunately little local evidence is available to consider by way of youth attendance trends, as the Ipsos Reid studies did not segregate its findings into age-distinctive groupings. Nationally, however, The Hill Strategies Performing Arts Attendance study notes that

Canadians under 30 have the highest attendance rate (45.3 %). The attendance rate falls to 36.3 % for those between 30 and 44 and 37.6 % for the 45 to 59 126

age group. The rate decreases significantly for Canadians 60 and over (28.7%).

If pop music attendance is excluded from these statistics, the attendance rates for the two youngest age groups decrease significantly. This leaves a fairly even spread between the four age groups for theatre, classical music and dance events. In contrast, popular music attendance (including rock, jazz, blues, folk and country) is very heavily skewed toward the younger age groups (3). The report also notes that the younger age grouping declined by 6.4 % between 1992 and 1998; significantly and unfortunately it does not show the decline rate exclusive of pop music attendance. Table XI below is taken from the national Performing Arts Attendance study:

Table XI: Changes in performing arts attendance by age 7 992 attendance 1995 aiteoiance Change (in Aos Qrrvw -ate percentage potots} 15-2& 51.e*» 4Z.3% -£AeA 30 AA '2.4% 3€.3°A €.1°.i 45-E9 £4.4% 37.6DA -zm 60 and over 2TA% 2£.7% 1.6%

Other theatre practitioners who called for activating solutions to address the lack of diversity on Calgary's stages include artists such as award winning writer of colour Cheryl Foggo, who noted in her consideration of programming new voices from marginalized communities on the stage that

it seems to be just very hard for people to understand that different cultural groups will have a way of approaching their stories that might not fit neatly into the paradigm of the kinds of stories that a middle aged white male might put on the stage. ... I don't think people are necessarily aware that they've had three seasons in a row where there hasn't been a single playwright of colour 127

produced or even a single actor of colour on stage. ... They don't realize, they don't have a clue that theatre is mostly white and mostly male. ... I have yet to see anyone I would even remotely say represents me and my life, on a Canadian stage. Additionally, Eric Moschopedis also spoke of his dissatisfaction with the homogeneity of Calgary's theatres in his self-described "rant about the cultural district: homogenized space, white, middle-class culture. Anything outside it is not considered culture." Clem Martini echoed these sentiments in his observations that he does not "see a generosity in trying to cultivate diversity," that he believes "theatre has calcified," and that if it is to have a future it needs to "reach in and connect [with] different communities."

53 The mix of suggested priorities offered by Calgary Arts Development's survey is divided into three categories: Organizational Wellbeing; Audience and Patron Development; and Programming. Each category asked respondents to identify their urgent or fairly urgent rankings, and each category allowed separate ranking for long term and short term priorities. The three lists include: Organizational Wellbeing:

• ongoing financial stability (operational) • career/artist development and training • ethno-cultural diversity training • attracting and retaining qualified employees (full and/or part time) • multi-year funding • affordable/accessible space • board development • volunteer development • other 128

Audience and Patron Development: • marketing, promotions, and awareness • fund development (sponsorship and/or donations) • partnerships with tourism • cross-sectorial partnerships, ie, with business • other Programming initiatives • ethno-cultural diversity initiatives • access for aboriginal communities • educational initiatives • access for children/youth for the arts • access for low income families • discipline/programming related research & development • other (Current Status of Granting, 40-42).

54 Certainly none of the Calgary arts practitioners with whom I spoke consider Calgary audiences to be homogeneous, but as White also admits, concurring with Deleeuw, "we're all after the same kind of affluent [audience member]. You know prices are part of it. I don't know what to do." Interestingly, these local admissions find echoes in similar musings from Bill Ivey, as he notes how the search for higher box office revenues has impacted America's not-for-profit cultural organizations. As he comments: "[cjaught up in the competitive scramble to attract and retain paying audiences, many cultural nonprofits have resorted to conservative programming - Mozart festivals, blockbuster Impressionist exhibitions, and ritualized holiday performances of the Nutcracker dot the U.S. arts scene" (295).

55 At a recent Stirring Culture speaker series in Calgary, Peter Sellars, renowned theatre, opera and festival director, and Professor of UCLA's World Arts and Cultures, offered his take on disengaged audiences when prompted by a question from the audience 129 about lack of attendance at arts events. He drew on Shakespeare's famous observation, noting that "art is a mirror, and if they look in the mirror and they don't see themselves, it's not their art." White offered similar remarks in his interview, commenting on the sea of different cultural identities that comprise ATP's student matinees: I go into those student matinees, and I swear, 80 % of the audiences are brown or yellow and here we are doing this English story [Oliver Twist]; we have one middle eastern actor on stage: I'm going, what are we doing? And I'm not a bad person. I'm aware of what's going on in the world. And every year I go, what the hell are we doing? Why aren't these kids seeing themselves on stage?

In contrast, White noted that the regular evening/adult ATP audience

is still as white as we are. So you see that dichotomy, right? Do you really think these kids are going to keep coming? Those are the big issues around content. Those are the issues that the next generation of theatre makers is going to have to address, and especially in Calgary, where we're really good at burying our heads. Downtown remains remarkably white.

56 The Syringa Tree, Rabbit Hole, and The Goat are three plays from ATP's recent seasons. During the interview White talked about the difficulties he encountered in programming a story about a family working through its grief over the death of their small child (in David Lindsey-Abaire's Pulitzer Prize winning play Rabbit Hole) and in convincing people to go to a story about a man who has sex with a goat (the driving action in Edward Albee's Tony award winning play The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?).

Chapter Five: Perspective from the Source 57 In addition to these interviews, as part of my efforts to gather information on the support systems for Calgary's playwrights I also undertook to assist Alberta Playwrights 130

Network (APN), a province-wide service organization for Alberta's playwrights, in creating a survey for its 200-some members. Despite two encouraging reminders to its membership who received the survey, APN only received ten responses, two of which were from Calgary. Due to the sparse response to this voluntary survey, APN did not publish any findings from its research. 581 conducted each interview at a location of the interviewee's choice. As such the people at Calgary's downtown hard core coffee shops such as Cafe Beano's, Central Blends, and the Purple Perk now know me by my first name - but hopefully, too, the artists I interviewed felt comfortable and relaxed in an environment familiar to them and of their choosing. Each interview has provided me with approximately ninety minutes to two hours of recorded material. I compiled a guideline of questions (Appendix XV) which traveled with me but did not always serve the discussion. I made it clear at the beginning of each interview that the questions were there if we needed them, but the direction of the meeting was theirs; it was about their experiences in working in Calgary as a professional in the theatre community (see Appendix XIV for a copy of the consent form), especially with regard to the support available for developing new work.

591 have been an active arts practitioner in the Calgary theatre community since 1998, and as such include myself as a member of this community in the context of this report.

60 As noted in endnote 35,1 acknowledge both the strengths and the limitations of interviewing as a research enquiry method. As discussed by Seidman in his book Interviewing as Qualitative Research, the limitations of qualitative research include a recognition of the biases the interviewer brings to the interview as well as of "the limits of our understanding of others" (3). I acknowledge that "[although inevitably the researcher's consciousness will play a major role in the interpretation of interview data" (87), I also concur with Seidman that interviewing is "a powerful way to gain insight" (7), 131 and as Seidman notes, "has led me to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the amazing intricacies and, yet, coherence of people's experiences ... [and] to respect the participants, to relish the understanding that I gain from them, and to take pleasure in sharing their stories" (103). 61 Unless otherwise identified, my sources for the information in this chapter are from my interviews with the artists, as indicated within the body of the essay, and as documented in Appendix XIII and in my bibliography. 62 Additionally, many of the observations of the local theatre practitioners may not be exclusive to Calgary but rather may be reflective of broader, national (or international) trends. This chapter primarily limits its observations to those described through my interviews with Calgary practitioners in their discussion of the particulars of working in this city, and as such does not engage in a comparative analysis between conditions in various other cities and/or countries; however, occasionally an interviewee offers comparative observations in the context of his/her observations of the Calgary working environment, and as such I have allowed these observations to inform and to be included in this study.

63 In addition to the productions on ATP's Second Stage, ATP develops and produces three text-based Canadian premieres on its main stage each festival. As Stroich explains ATP's rationale for offering development support of creation-based work, she asks rhetorically: "[i]t's new Canadian theatre, why shouldn't it be supported in the same sort of way [as new Canadian text-based plays]?"

64 It is also worthy to note that in addition to ATP's playRites festival and various ad hoc opportunities that occur within Calgary's ecology of a supportive network of young and old theatre companies, Theatre Calgary's FUSE Festival, Sage Theatre's Ignite Festival, and Lunchbox Theatre's one-act play festival are also key local, annual forums dedicated to showcasing new work. 132

CADA released a report in March of 2007 entitled The Current State of Cultural Spaces for the Arts in Calgary confirming the space-related observations of theatre practitioners interviewed. The report states that "Calgary's cultural space inventory is behind," and is "constraining the growth of the sector," noting that "[s]ince 1987, the number of performing arts seats per capita in Calgary has declined by 25 %, compared to Vancouver, which has seen an increase of 15 % in seats per capita" (8). The report also notes that the demand for real estate is creating fewer affordable buildings and/or neighbourhoods ... for artists to occupy, and rents are rising quickly. Housing costs are making it very difficult for artists, especially emerging artists, to put down roots in Calgary, increasing the likelihood that artists will take their artistic human capital to other cities (12).

66 My attempts to find the existence of any comprehensive tracking of new plays at a local, regional or national level have not revealed any published figures. In my efforts to discover research in this area I have enquired with CADA, Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Canada Council for the Arts, Council for Business in the Arts in Canada, Alberta Playwrights Network, Theatre Alberta, Playwrights Guild of Canada, and the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, with no success. Indeed, it was in conversation about this matter with APN Executive Director Johanne Deleeuw that the idea of surveying the province's playwrights came about (see endnote 57).

67 Recent (2006) Hill Strategies research notes that the average annual earnings of Calgary artists is $21,500, which is "42 % lower than average earnings in the overall local labour force"; it also notes that Prairie cities, especially Calgary, "lag behind the Canadian averages, [as nationally] artists' average earnings ($23,500) are 26 % less than other workers" ("Artists in Large Canadian Cities" 19). The research also notes that this low average income occurs despite the higher than average level of education of artists in 133

Canada, as "the percentage of artists with a university degree, certificate or diploma (41 %) is double the rate in the overall labour force (22 %)" ("Executive Summary" 1). A 2007 report from The Calgary Foundation backs up this observation, citing Statistics Canada data that shows "the number of cultural workers in Calgary has decreased by 40 % since 2003" (Ipsos Reid, Calgary's Vital Signs: Full Report, 18). Stirling elaborated on her comment regarding "the evidence of her life," by noting that she left Edmonton because it was a "guy town" with theatre companies run by "men, men, men." She had applied for various artistic directorship positions in the city, and although was often short listed, was unsuccessful in her efforts to become artistic director. She also noted that not only were all the theatre companies in Edmonton run by men, there was "not a female body" on Edmonton stages in 1999 or in 2000.

70 Foggo posits there might be "a lot of different reasons" for not having had a production of the full length version of Heaven, all of which she admits are her "just guessing, speculating." She suggests these reasons might include the size of the cast, the fact that all six characters are black and are therefore arguably difficult to cast - that is, she has been told that six black actors cannot be found in the local professional acting community, and it is too expensive to find them elsewhere and bring them in - and the fact that her work is not "edgy." She explains that she believes people read her work "with the expectation that it's going to be a hard-hitting look at racism," and her work does not meet that expectation. "They have a preconceived notion as to what a black play should be about and they are not open to it being approached from a different way." 71 John Murrell is a veteran and award winning (white, male) Canadian playwright based out of Calgary, and "one of the most produced of all Canadian playwrights" (Banff

Centre, "People at the Banff Centre - John Murrell"). For further bibliographic information on Murrell, see Appendix XIII. Massicotte is a (white, male) playwright from Calgary

(currently residing in New York) whose award winning plays include Mary's Wedding, 134 which premiered at ATP's playRites festival in 2002; Mary's Wedding won the 2002 Betty Mitchell Award for Best New Play and the 2003 Alberta Book Award for Drama, and "continues to be produced in English and French throughout Canada, the US and the UK" {Stephen Massicotte, "Home Page"). 72 White also noted that "compared to other cities," he believes ATP's corporate relationships to be quite enlightened, actually.... When I talk about the kind of experiences with Enbridge [a Calgary based company and title sponsor of the playRites' festival] that we have, Toronto is gobsmacked. They could never get on to Bay St. to talk to people the way that we can. Never. Even Canadian Stage and Soul Pepper [two high profile, large theatre companies based in Toronto] have difficulty accessing the key players the way we can. 73 White concurs, observing that when "you talk to independent artists about applying for grants, no one has the sense they're going to get it. They just go, 'what's the point because I'm never going to get it.' They are so marginalized and feel so out of it."

74 The Alberta Foundation of the Arts (AFA) is undergoing a "complete evaluation of all AFA grants," according to its June 4,2007 newswire. The evaluation process includes a combination of "focus groups, interviews and on-line surveys to collect feedback and comments from stakeholders" (AFA Newswire).

75 Indeed, White noted that in doing a business plan for the AFA,

they [the AFA requirements] don't ask what plays we're going to do. They don't ask what our mission is. I went to Gie [Roberts, ATP's then General Manager] and said, 'Are we missing a page here?' Together, we went, 'nope.' ... CADA doesn't ask for our mission. There has to be an artistic evaluation of the company's work, of what the company wants to achieve artistically and what the perceived results are.... Canada Council: I know it's flawed, but I'll 135

go against that peer assessment system any day of the week [versus the AFA or CAD A models that do not use peer assessment processes]. 76 Moschopedis and the board of directors at his company Bubonic Tourist shut the company down in 2006. Moschopedis explains that Bubonic Tourist was meant to be radical. That's why we shut down. The most radical thing we could have done was to shut down. We got to a point where it was: if we continued we would become what we never wanted to be, which was institutionalized, commodified and so we said forget it, we're shutting down.... Here's where we failed, where we turned the corner and fucked up. What we determined as creating community eventually became audience development....

We shut down because we realised we had gone down a road of disaster: applying for funding; having a season of work; doing what we knew we needed to do to get funding: 'oh, what's the check list for Canadian Heritage?' - aboriginal artists, non-white artists - whatever it might be. We just went down the check list: check, check, check. That's really fucked up. We wanted to do those things anyway. We were engaging a community, we were working for a community and facilitating a community ... but it was perverted ... like we were doing these things to satisfy our funding agents ... where you only care about the numbers, only care about the press. As Moschopedis considered his options for the future, with regards to his artistic research in having "communities engage themselves," and having the resources to accomplish this research, he posits that it's a sick game between genuinely wanting to engage community and actually telling funders that we got an extra fifty people or an extra thousand, 136

or we're typically a white, middle class festival,with white artists but we sent one artist into the Indian community or the Latino community or whatever - but that's who I want to work with, and I need resources to do that.... So there are problems with the [funding] system. I don't know how to resolve it - other than to bite the hand that fed you. 77 Deleeuw was fired at Lunchbox Theatre by the company's board of directors in 2005, and describes the experience as my great lesson in corporate boards [governing arts organizations]; how easy it is for the corporate board scenario in an artistic organization to spin out of control. ... What happened to me was the corporate model. You know, they walk into the office, you get handed a box and given twenty minutes to clear your office, and a severance package. [Deleeuw had been with the company for seventeen years and received a three-month severance package.] People were appalled because people in arts organizations don't get treated that way. Well they do now. ...

I remember in the last four years at Lunchbox increasingly having conversations over and over with the board [regarding the board asking] 'why can't you program more hits?' ... Plays were viewed as failures if they had a

low box office. The only measure the board would accept for success and failure was financial.... In a world where we are so end-product driven, failure has no value. ...

Some of them are really good people, but they [the members of Lunchbox's board of directors] don't get it. And I deeply, deeply believe they shouldn't be running arts organizations. 137

78 Deleeuw elaborates further regarding her frustrations with the "bottom line" focus of theatre companies by noting an irony in being so concerned about getting "bums in seats" that we "deprive ourselves and deprive our audiences" as we opt to produce "safer and safer" work. Theatres "feel huge pressure to increase audience numbers" and therefore feel hampered in doing the stuff that really excites us because we don't believe we have audiences for those plays. Well, it goes hand in hand: we don't have them because we don't expect them. ... When we keep thinking from the end result first, from the box office first, and the audience numbers first,a s opposed to thinking about making art that we love and care about, and doing it to the best of our ability - we need to do that, and trust that we will find an audience for it.

70 Schroeder cautions that this re-invention should not be entered into lightly, as "you could rush into a mistake by thinking you have to invent a whole new paradigm. It's a really risky thing to do, to say we have to reinvent ourselves in order to survive - be careful what you reinvent yourselves into, especially if those things are imposed from the top down." 80 White explains that in his opinion ATP's subscription campaign is the worst way to approach an audience ever. You present them with this grid, and although you say, pick what you want, in fact, it doesn't say that: it says you have to pick into this grid somehow. Most people don't want to or lead lives like that. We haven't found a way to involve them in shaping what they want their ATP experience to really be. So that's why I think the season thing - it's wrong. It's really wrong but I don't know how to change it.... I know we need the half million in revenue we get off of it [in subscription revenues] - but I don't think it's going to last long. I just can't see it ten years from now. Something's got to change there. I'm an older person, but I can't for the life of me think of subscribing to anything. I mean, I used to subscribe to magazines; I don't even do that anymore.

01 MurrelPs understanding of his relationship with community is complex and nuanced. He offers that it's like a deep, ongoing, personal relationship with another individual. I'm troubled by it, I try to work it out, I think about why I want to write a complicated and strange piece, and then also think about why the society, which seems to me to be a complicated and strange place, doesn't identify with that, wants to see plays sometimes that seem to be either gross simplifications of the society or lies about the society, rather than what I think is truthful; but I know that I also get way too self-absorbed at times, and therefore am not really reflecting or communicating to my community. I am pontificating or kind of being intentionally obscure - as opposed to creatively ambiguous.... That's an ongoing kind of conversation between me and my time and my place.... It's not: 'they're wrong and I'm right' or 'they're right and I'm wrong' because that either turns to you into a victim or into something or someone on a pedestal and either of those things is so tedious. Chapter Six: What Now? 82 As valuable as CADA's research has been to my analysis, year over year data analysis in CADA's report was limited to six years, from 2000-2005 inclusive. For the purposes of my research, it would have been even more valuable had CAD A chosen to work with data for over a longer period of time within its near 40-year history. 83 Changes in staff, in office location, and/or in computer systems, for example, can all negatively impact a theatre company's capacity to access its archival history. 139

84 Agencies such as APN may desire to track them, but without its membership's will or the capacity to make the submitting of these statistics mandatory (as a funding agency can - and not that I am advocating for the arts community having to fill out more mandatory statistics reports), it does not have the capacity to do so. It is also important to note that tracking new play productions is only one example of ways in which the creative health of the arts community could be considered. Additional research and consultation with arts professionals would yield further examples and approaches. Importantly, in addition to recognizing the need for research not to be driven by funding agency directives, Holden also notes the need to acknowledge potential cross- purposes between "objective information and advocacy." Objective information and advocacy "are in large part congruent, but they may also conflict, not in the sense that advocacy requires or uses inaccurate information, but in the sense that advocacy suppresses the negative and accentuates the positive, and is therefore selective in its use of information" (CVCL 46-47).

I also acknowledge this recommendation for further community-driven and independent research carries a series of further complicating factors around access to information. As noted earlier in this thesis, public flinders only release their own granting information; further client-based information such as budget size, audience size, other revenue sources and expenses is not released. The CBAC survey has limitations because it does not contain any expense-related data beyond surplus or deficit position - that is, it does not look at how much money companies spend on production-related expenses versus fundraising versus administration, etc.; additionally, it is voluntary and therefore is not able to offer comprehensive data of the sector. Additionally, as a self-described agency for the encouragement of "business in the arts" its research findings arguably focus on building positive stories pertaining to this relationship. 140

Interestingly, during my discussion with Stephen Schroeder about access to information and CBAC surveys (which he no longer fills out), he asked why it wasn't possible for granting agencies to include an additional tick-box on each application to ask clients whether they would allow clearly identified information to be shared with CBAC. Schroeder has no issue with sharing OYR information publicly through CBAC, only with the time it takes to provide it. At the next opportunity I had with some CADA staff, I asked if this could happen. I did not get a direct answer, but rather a sympathetic smile and an abrupt change in subject. My sense is this that access to information is a delicate topic for public funders, but perhaps with further research and consultation a solution without placing direct responsibility on public agencies may be found. 86 Holden's comment about the "natural alliance" in the relationship between arts professionals and the public is in the context of his acknowledgement that although both professionals and the public are concerned with intrinsic values of the arts,

the relationship is not straightforward: a tension exists, but is sometimes constructive and sometimes destructive. This should not cause surprise. In every sphere the expert by definition will be operating at a level of greater sophistication and depth than the laity, but in every sphere that relationship is being renegotiated (CVCL 39).

87 The authors also acknowledge this is a complex undertaking which "would require more funding, greater cooperation between educators and arts professionals, and the implementation of effective arts education programs that incorporate appreciation, discussion, and analysis of art works as well as creative production" (xviii). 88 At the time Moschopedis said this, he was applying these observations to his frustrations with the development of Calgary's cultural district, but his democratic approach to issues is an ideology that is observable in his performance aesthetic and creative practices, and as such I believe is appropriate to apply in this instance as well. 141

89 Holden's research provides much guidance in this regard. He provides a thoughtful set of parameters that define "a new language capable of reflecting, recognising and capturing the full range of values expressed through culture," appreciating that "[s]ome of those values may be covert and naturalised, they may coexist or conflict, but only with clarity about what they are can we hope to build wide public support" (CCV9). In Holden's conceptual and pragmatic approach to his explorations of cultural value, he provides both a foundational language as well as a workable framework for valuing and evaluating intrinsic, instrumental and public values. For further detail see Holden's Capturing Cultural Value, especially his chapter entitled "Creating Cultural Value in Practice" (50-58). 90 The Artists and Community Collaboration Fund was established in 2002. The Imagine report was an external review of the program conducted and authored by Laurie McGauley, which Canada Council published in 2007 (4). 91 Ironically, when I spoke of this program to Moschopedis - as it sounded so much like his own artistic aesthetic - he knew of the program and agreed, and then went on to explain how Bubonic Tourist tried unsuccessfully to apply to the fund. Due to the lack of existence of this program when his company first started applying for funding, Moschopedis spoke of how Bubonic Tourist took funders' advice and applied under the arts discipline category of 'theatre,' filling out the appropriate form "using a language for funders" that, as noted previously, Moschopedis found to be "the wrong form, the wrong context," which reoriented and "perverted" his organization's aesthetics. When the ACCF program was created, Moschopedis was thrilled with its stated objectives and tried to apply, but Canada Council advised him against it, as his company's work - as described in Bubonic Tourist's theatre applications - did not fit the program's parameters. As Moschopedis explains, after having successfully applied for theatre funding, 142 that program [ACCF] started to be created. And we said, that's exactly what we're rucking doing! - but we had already used the old language. So when we wanted to start applying to that fund, they said 'no, you don't do that.' And we said 'yes, we do.' We were doing it, but the form [for obtaining theatre based funding] was wrong. It became very, very strange for us. Finally something [from funders] made sense to us, but [according to the funding agency] we were not doing that, because we had already claimed to be doing this - and we used a form that presupposed we were doing this. 142

Bibliography Alberta Arts Heritage. "Alberta's Arts Heritage." 2003. Alberta Heritage Community Foundation. 9 Feb. 2007 . Alberta Foundation for the Arts. "About Us." Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Dec. 2006. Department of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, Government of Alberta. 22 Jan. 2007 . —. AFA Newswire. "Three More Grants to be Examined as Part of AFA Program Evaluation." 4 June 2007. Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Emailed to author, 4 June 2007. —. Alberta Foundation for the Arts Annual Report 1991-92. Edmonton: Government of Alberta, 1992. —. Alberta Foundation for the Arts Annual Report 1992-93. Edmonton: Government of Alberta, 1993. —. Alberta Foundation for the Arts Annual Report 1993-94. Edmonton: Government of Alberta, 1994. —. Alberta Foundation for the Arts archives. Provincial Archives of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. —. Alberta Foundation for the Arts client statistics 1998-2005. Provided to the author by

AFA research department. Edmonton, Alberta, April 2007. —. "Economic Impact of the Arts in Alberta." Alberta Foundation for the Arts. 3 Feb. 2005. Department of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, Government of Alberta. 22 Mar. 2008 . —. "Grant Application." Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Dec. 2006. Department of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, Government of Alberta. 22 Jan. 2007 . 143

—. "Historical Timeline, 1946-1996: Celebrate '96, Fifty Years of Arts and Culture." Papers provided to the author by AFA research department. Edmonton, Alberta. —. "Professional Performing Arts Companies Operating Grant: Guidelines." Mar. 2008. Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Department of Culture and Community Spirit, Government of Alberta. 24 Mar. 2008 —. Trends in the Arts and Arts Funding: Primary Research.pdf. Spring 2007. Prepared by R.A. Malatest and Assoc. Alberta: Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Department of Culture and Community Spirit, Government of Alberta. 18 Mar. 2008 . —. Trends in the Arts and Arts Funding: Secondary Research.pdf. Spring 2007. Prepared by R.A. Malatest and Assoc. Alberta: Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Department of Culture and Community Spirit, Government of Alberta. 18 Mar. 2008 . Alberta Playwrights' Network. "Staff: Executive Director." 2007. Alberta Playwrights' Network. 12 Dec. 2007 . Alberta Theatre Projects. "Archived Production List." 2007. Alberta Theatre Projects

Society. 22 Nov. 2007 < http://www.atplive.com/archived_playlist.html >. —. "Fact Sheet." 2007. Alberta Theatre Projects Society 22 Nov. 2007 . —. "Home Page." 2007. Alberta Theatre Projects Society. 22 Nov. 2007 . Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. "New Cabinet Appointed." Mar. 2008. Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. Government of Alberta. 4 Apr. 2008. . 144

All Nations Theatre. "Who Are We?" Oct. 2005. All Nations Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Aristotle. Aristotle's Poetics. Trans. George Whalley. Ontario: McGill-Queen's U, 1997. Association of Fundraising Professionals: Canada Chapter. 8 Oct. 2007. "Canadian Funders Placing Huge Burdens on Charities." Association of Fundraising Professionals. 6 Nov. 2007 < http://www.arpnet.org/ka/ka- 3.cfm?content_itemJd=24239&folder_id=1325>. Banff Centre. "People at the Banff Centre - John Murrell." 2007. The Banff Centre. 8 Dec. 2007. Banff Centre Press. "Cheryl Foggo." 2007. The Banff Centre. 12 Dec. 2007

. BD&P LLP. "Our Community." 2007. Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer, LLP Law Firm. 5

Oct. 2007 . Bouchard, Michel Marc. The Coronation Voyage. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1999. BP. "BP and Development." BP p.l.c. 5 Oct. 2007

categoryld=6906&contentld=7030799>. Braid, Don. "Arts at bottom of priority list." Calgary Herald. 5 Jan. 2007: A3. Broad Minds Theatre. "Broad Minds Productions Foundation Financial Statements: June

30,2007 (Unaudited)." Delivered to author, Dec. 4,2007. —. "Broad Minds Productions: Memories of a Christmas Ornament." 2007. Broad Minds

Theatre. 6 Dec. 2007 . —. "Mission, Values, History." Emailed to author, 4 Dec. 2007. Brooks, Arthur, Kevin F. McCarthy, Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, Laura Zakaras. 77ze Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts. California: RAND, 145

2004. 12 Oct. 2007 . Burroughs, Alexandra. "Arts groups say budget boost not enough." Calgary Herald. 20 Apr. 2007: CI, 11. —. "Calgarians want more arts funding: Poll finds 55% want to boost cash for culture." Calgary Herald. 16 Mar. 2007: A 1. Calgary Arts Development. "34 Year Grants to Calgary Theatres." Emailed to author, 25 Apr. 2007. —. "Allocated Grants." 2007. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 14 Nov. 2007

. —. "Backgrounder." Mar. 2006. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 22 Jan. 2007

. —. Calgary Arts Development Authority 2005 Annual Report. Calgary: Calgary Arts

Development Authority, 2005. —. The Current State of Cultural Spaces for the Arts in Calgary: Research Report. PDF. 28 Mar. 2007. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 2 May 2008

. —. The Current State of Granting in Calgary: Research Report. PDF. 24 July 2007.

Calgary Arts Development Authority. 15 Apr. 2008

. —. "From Policy to Action: A New Era of Investment in a Growing Cultural Capital " Oct. 2006. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 22 Jan. 2007 . —. "Grant Application." 2007. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 7 Mar. 2007 . 146

—. "New Investments Fuel Calgary's growing arts and culture scene." 2007. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 17 Apr. 2007 . —. "Overview: Granting Renewal." 2007. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 17 Apr. 2007 . —. "Update on Granting Research and Reform." Sep. 2006. Calgary Arts Development Authority. 16 Apr. 2007 . Calgary Chamber of Commerce. "About the Chamber." 2007. Calgary Chamber of Commerce. 2 Dec. 2007 . Calgary Region Arts Foundation client statistics 1998-2005. Provided to the author by CADA. Calgary, Alberta. Calgary Region Arts Foundation files, 1968-1995. City of Calgary Archives, Calgary Municipal Building, Calgary, Alberta. —. Statistics from office files, 1996-2005 inclusive. Accessed in person at Calgary Arts Development office. Calgary Arts Development Authority, Calgary, Alberta. 15 Feb. 2007. Calgary Young People's Theatre. "Home." 2007. Calgary Young People's Theatre. 12 Dec.

2007 . Canada Council for the Arts. "561 arts organizations to receive $33 million in largest-ever Canada Council grant competition." 16 Apr. 2007. Canada Council for the Arts. 20 Apr. 2007 . —. "Brief History." 4 Apr. 2006. Canada Council for the Arts. 22 Feb. 2007 .

—. Canada Council for the Arts funding statistics and overviews 1957-2007. Emailed to the

author from Canada Council for Arts. Jan. 2007. 147

—. "Find out who got a grant." 4 Apr. 2006. Canada Council for the Arts. 22 Feb. 2007 . —. "Multi-Year and Annual Operating Grants to Professional Theatre Organizations." Jan. 2007. Canada Council for the Arts. 17 Jan. 2007 . Canada Safeway Foundation. 2007. Canada Safeway. 5 Oct. 2007 . Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia. "Murrell, John." 23 Oct. 2006. Athabasca University. 6 Apr. 2008 . Cerealized. "Crew: Writers, Ethan Cole." 3 Dec. 2007. Rocket Ace Moving Pictures. 12

Dec. 2007 . Carey, John. What Good Are the Arts? London: Faber and Faber, 2005. CIBC. "How to Apply for Funding." 2007. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. 5 Oct.

2007 . City of Calgary. City of Calgary census data. 2006. The City of Calgary. 18 Apr. 2007

cts+and+Figures/Civic+Cenus.htm>. Clark, Bob. "Sponsors Keep Arts Singing." The Calgary Herald. 17 Mar. 2007: D2. —. "Theatre icon White receives doctorate." Calgary Herald. 22 May 2008: E 1. —. "White's tenure fading to black." Calgary Herald. 18 Mar. 2008: C 5. Cole, Ethan. Personal interview. 27 Nov. 2007. ConocoPhillips. "Annual Contributions." 2007. ConocoPhillips Company. 5 Oct. 2007

. 148

Council for the Business in the Arts in Canada. The Annual Surveys of Performing Arts Organizations, Public Museums and Art Galleries, 1989-90 to 2004-2005. Council for the Business in the Arts in Canada: Toronto, 1991 to 2006. —. "Funding by Size ofOrganization.pdf." The Annual Survey of Performing Arts Organizations, Public Museums and Art Galleries, 2004-2005. CD- Rom. Council for the Business in the Arts in Canada: Toronto, 2007. Creative City Network of Canada: Transforming Communities through Culture. 2007. Creative Cities Network of Canada. 4 Apr. 2008 .

Creative Construct: Building for Culture and Creativity: International Symposium 2008. Apr. 2008. Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities. 4 Apr. 2008 .

Decima Research. The Arts in Canada: Access and Availability - 2002 Research Study. PDF. Prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage, 2002. 21 Apr. 2008.

Deleeuw, Johanne. Personal interview. 14 Nov. 2007.

Downstage. "Past Work." 2007. Downstage Performance Society. 12 Dec. 2007 .

Enbridge. "Community Investment." 2007. Enbridge Corporation. 5 Oct. 2007 .

EnCana "How to Submit an Application." 2007. EnCana Corporation. 5 Oct. 2007 . Esso: Imperial Oil. "Donations, sponsorships and awards." 2006. Imperial Oil Foundation. 5 Oct. 2007 . 149

Evans, Michael. Culture Steps Forward: Setting the Stage for Human Resource Development in Alberta's Culture Sector. Published by Alberta Cultural Human Resources Steering Committee. Banff Centre Press: Alberta, 2000. Evergreen Theatre. "About Us." 2007. Evergreen Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Fire Exit Theatre. "Artistic Director's Message." 2007. Fire Exit Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Florida, Richard. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent.

New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

—. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Perseus, 2002. Foggo, Cheryl. Personal interview. 28 Nov. 2007. Fortune Magazine. "Fortune Global 500,2007." 23 Jul. 2007. Fortune Magazine. 15 Oct. 2007 . Fraser, Fil. Alberta's Camelot: Culture & the Arts in the Lougheed Years. Alberta: Lone

Pine, 2003. Ghost River Theatre. "Archives." 2007. Ghost River Theatre Society. 10 Dec. 07 . —. "Ghost River Theatre Society: Financial Statements 2006." Emailed to author 31 Nov.

2007. Gill, Alexandra. "Alberta artists told to vote Tory," Globe and Mail [Toronto, National Ed.] 2Dec.2006:Rll. Godard, Barbara. "Resignifying Culture: Notes From the Ontario Culture Wars." Money Value Art: State Funding, Free Markets, Big Pictures. Eds. Sally McKay and Andrew J. Paterson. Toronto: YYZ, 2001. 75-98. Green Fools Theatre. "Green Fools Theatre Society: Financial Statements, year ended August 31, 2006. (Unaudited)." Garrett Gray Chartered Accountants: Calgary. Mailed to author 6 Dec. 2007. —. "History." Dec. 2007. Green Fools Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Ground Zero Theatre. "Ground Zero Theatre: Season Eleven." 2007. Ground Zero Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 < http://www.groundzerotheatre.ca/home.html>. Guttormson, "Calgary hits population milestone 1,000,000: City becomes third in Canada to reach a million." Calgary Herald. 25 Jul. 2006: A 1. Hartley, Kathryn. Calgary Region Arts Foundation 1969-2006: The Unique Story of 37 Years of Citizen Driven Arts Support in Calgary. Calgary Region Arts Foundation: Calgary, 2006. Hall, Peter. Cities in Civilization: Culture, Innovation and Urban Order. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998. Hill, Elizabeth, Catherin O'Sullivan and Terry O'Sullivan. Creative Arts Marketing. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1997. Hill Strategies Research. "Artists in Large Canadian Cities." PDF. Mar. 2006. Hill

Strategies Research Inc. 2 May 2008

. —. "Executive Summary." PDF. Mar. 2006. Hill Strategies Research Inc. 2 May 2008

. —. Performing Arts Attendance in Canada and the Provinces. PDF. Translation and free public distribution of this report supported by the Canada Council for the Arts, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Ontario Arts Council, the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, 2003. 20 Apr. 2008 . 151

—. "Spreading the Arts Bug: Ontario performing arts evidence." PDF. Hill Strategies: Toronto, 2007. 21 Apr. 2008 . Holden, John. Capturing Cultural Value: How culture has become a tool of government policy. London: Demos, 2004. —. Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Why culture needs a democratic mandate. London: Demos, 2006. Hopkins, Karen Brooks and Carolyn Stolper Friedman. Successful Fundraisingfor Arts and Cultural Organizations: Second Edition. Arizona: Oryx, 1997. Hughes, Robert. "Whose art is it, anyway? desperate for an enemy, the radical right accuses Washington of subsidizing obscene, elitist art. The facts paint a different picture." Time 135 (1990): 46-9. Hunt, Stephen. "Local writer Foggo wins national prize: African-Canadian group honours multi-faceted artist." Calgary Herald 24 April 2008: D3. Hutter, Michael, and David Throsby. "Value and Valuation in Art and Culture: Introduction and Overview." Beyond Price: Value in Culture, Economics, and the Arts. Eds. Hutter and Throsby. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 1-22. Iarossi, Giuseppe. The Power of Survey Design: A User's Guide for Managing Surveys, Interpreting Results, and Influencing Respondents: Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2006. Ipsos Reid. Calgary Arts Partners: Draft Report. PDF. Calgary: Calgary Arts Partners, 2006. —. Calgary Arts Partners: Summary Report. PDF. Calgary: Calgary Arts Partners, 2006. —. Calgary Arts Partners Summary Report: A Calgary Area Market Segmentation Study. PDF. Calgary: Calgary Arts Partners, 2001. 152

—. "Calgary's Vital Signs: Full Report." PDF. 2007. The Calgary Foundation. 25 Mar. 2008 . —. Volunteer Calgary: Research on Volunteering (2005). PDF. Calgary: Volunteer Calgary, 2006. 18 Apr. 2008 . Ivey, Bill. "Going to Extremes." Beyond Price: Value in Culture, Economics, and the Arts, Eds. Michael Hutter and David Throsby. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 283-98. Landry, Charles. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2000. Loose Moose Theatre Company. "About Us." 2007. Loose Moose Theatre Company. 12 Dec. 2007 . Lunchbox Theatre. "About Lunchbox Theatre." 2008. Lunchbox Theatre Society. 15 May 2008 . —. "Lunchbox Theatre Society Financial Statements: May 31, 2007." Lunchbox Theatre Society: Calgary. Picked up by author at Lunchbox Theatre, 5 Dec. 2007. Martini, Clem. Personal interview. 6 Nov. 2007. Mason, Timothy. "Quantifying Quality and Other Problems." Economics of Arts and

Culture: Invited Papers at the 12' International Conference of the Association of

Cultural Economics International. Ed. Victor A. Ginsburgh. Amsterdam: Elsevier,

2004.179-86. McGauley, Laurie. Feb. 2006. IMAGINE: An External Review of The Canada Council for the Arts' Artists and Community Collaboration Fund. Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts. 18 Mar. 2007 . McKay, Sally and Andre J. Paterson, eds. "Introduction." Money_Value Art: State Funding, Free Markets, Big Pictures. Toronto: YYZ, 2001. Melnyk, George. "Culture and the State in Alberta." The Trojan Horse: Alberta and the Future of Canada. Eds. Trevor Harrison and Gordon Laxer. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1995. Morpheus Theatre. "Past Productions." 6 Oct. 2006. Morpheus Theatre. 12 Dec. 2007 . Morrow, Martin. "ATP rings alarm bell over $500,000 debt." Calgary Herald. 14 Oct. 1999: CI. —. "Hot button drama: small theatres bring controversial Rachel Corrie to Canada." 14 Nov. 2007. CBCNews.ca. 23 Nov. 2007 . —. "TC enjoys first surplus in decade." Calgary Herald. 28 Aug. 1998: C 2. Moscopedis, Eric. Personal interview. 21 Dec. 2007. Murrell, John. Personal interview. 6 Feb. 2007. My Name is Rachel Corrie. Taken from the writings of Rachel Corrie. Eds. Alan Rickman and Katherine Viner. Dir. Ian Prinsloo. Perf. Adrienne Smook. Sage Theatre production at Pumphouse Theatres, Calgary. 21 Nov. 2007. Nexen. "Donation Guidelines." 2007. 19 Nov. 2007. Nexen Inc. 7 Dec. 2007 . Nichols, Liz. "A Stage Stampede." Calgary Herald 09 Oct. 2007. 18 Dec. 2007 . The Old Trout Puppet Workshop. "Company History." 2007. The Old Trout Puppet Workshop . 154

—. "Old Trout Puppet Workshop Society: Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, Year Ended August 31, 2006." Emailed to author 31 Nov. 2007. One Yellow Rabbit Performance Theatre. "One Yellow Rabbit Theatre Association Interim Income Statement: July 31, 2006." Emailed to author 24 Nov, 2007. —. "One Yellow Rabbit Performance History." 2007. One Yellow Rabbit Performance Theatre. 12 Dec. 2007 . Ouzounian, Richard. "'Corrie' cancelled in Canada." 22 Dec. 2006. Daily Variety. 29 Nov. 2007 . Petro-Canada. "Applying for Funding," 2007. Petro-Canada. 5 Oct. 2007 . Porteous, Vanessa. Personal interview. 14 Nov. 2007. Quest Theatre. "History." 2007. Quest Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007

. RBC. "Corporate Responsibility: Community." 10 Apr. 2007. Royal Bank of Canada. 5

Oct. 2007 . Reay, Kelly. Talkback Session with Audience at Sage Theatre's production of My Name is

Rachel Corrie. Pumphouse Theatres, Calgary. 21 Nov. 2007. Rectanus, Mark W. Culture Incorporated: Museums, Artists, and Corporate Sponsorships.

U of Minnesota Press: Minnesota, 2002. Report of Business.com. "Toy 1000 Publicly Traded Companies." 23 Jul. 2007. Report of

Business.com. 15 Oct. 2007

2007.html>. Robertson, Clive. Policy Matters: Administrations of Art and Culture. Toronto: YYZ, 2006. 155

Rogers. "Community Support." 2007. Rogers Communications. 5 Oct. 2007 . Rowntree, Julia. Changing the Performance: a Companion Guide to Arts, Business and Civic Engagement. Oxon: Routledge, 2006. Roy, Denise. "Arts funding: the Alberta horizon." Canadian Theatre Review (Spring 1995): 14. 16 Mar. 2008 . Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences 1949-1951. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1951. By permission of the Privy Council Office. 27 Jan. 2001. Library and Archives Canada. 9 Feb. 2007 . Sage Theatre. "Season 10: Sage Theatre." 2007. Sage Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Schroeder, Stephen. Personal interview. 26 Nov. 2007. Scotton, Geoffrey. "2007 year of the soft landing; Calgary's economy has cooled from the torrid pace of 2006, but remains 'the envy of any city around the world'" Calgary

Herald. 16 Dec. 2007:D1. Seidman, I. E. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Teachers College Press, Columbia U: New York, 1991. Sellars, Peter. Address. Stirring Culture: 2.0 A Time to Act. Alberta College of Art and Design series. EPCOR CENTRE for the Performing Arts, Calgary. 10 Mar. 2008. The Shakespeare Company. "Season 12: True Love Never Did Run Smooth." 2007. The Shakespeare Company. 12 Dec. 2007 . 156

Stage-Left. "Stage Left Archives." Oct. 2007. Stage Left Productions. 12 Dec. 2007 . Statistics Canada. "Canada's Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census: Canada's major census metropolitan areas." 10 Apr. 2008. Statistics Canada. 15 Apr. 2008 . —. Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry. 20 Apr. 2008 . Stephen Massicotte. "Home Page." 12 Dec. 2007 . Stirling, Glenda. Personal interview. 17 Nov. 2007. StoryBook Theatre. "About Us." 2007. StoryBook Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Stroich, Vicki. Personal interview. 25 Nov. 2007. TD Bank Financial Group. "Community Involvement." 2007. TD Group Financial Services

Site. 5 Oct. 2007 . Telus. 2007. "Community Investment: funding application." Telus. 5 Oct. 2007 . THEATREboom. "Gallery." 2007. THEATREboom. . Theatre Calgary. "07/08 Season: The Wars." 2007. Theatre Calgary Theatre Society. 6

Dec. 2007 < http://www.theatrecalgary.com/plays/the_wars/>. 157

—. "FUSE 08." 2008. Theatre Calgary Theatre Society. 15 May 2008 . —."Home Page." 2007. Theatre Calgary Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Theatre Junction. "History of Theatre Junction." 2007. Theatre Junction Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Throsby, David. Economics and Culture. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2001. TransAlta. "Funding Guidelines." 2006. TransAlta Corporation 5 Oct. 2007 . Urban Curvz. "Production History." 2008. Urban Curvz Theatre Society. 5 May 2008 . Warnett, Rebecca. "Canadian Fundraising." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 46 (2004): 37-52. White, Bob. Personal interview. 12 Dec. 2007. Workshop Theatre. "Home." 29 May 2007. Workshop Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 .

W. P. Puppet Theatre. "Home Page." 2007. W.P. Puppet Theatre Society. 12 Dec. 2007 . Wu, Chin-tao. Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s. London: Verso, 2002. Wyman, Max. The Defiant Imagination: Why Culture Matters. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre, 2004. Appendix I

Calgary Theatre Companies: Government Support per Company as a Percentage of Budget, 1990-2005

GOVT 1990 1990 1990 SUPPORT Canada Council Province City ATP $ 230,000 7% $551,000 18% $ 260,000 8% Green Fools n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Loose Moose $ 10,000 3% $ 39,562 13% $ 27,250 9% Lunchbox $ 39,000 7% $ 93,892 18% $ 56,000 10% OYR $ 44,000 25% $ 28,678 16% $ 9,943 6% Pleiades/Vertigo n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Quest $ 26,404 8% $ 65,084 21% $ 9,136 3% Theatre Calgary $ 220,000 8% $551,469 21% $268,000 10% Theatre Junction n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $ 569,404 8% $1,329,685 19% $ 630,329 9% TOTAL YRLY BUDGET $2,607,880 37%

GOVT 1995 1995 1995 SUPPORT Canada Council Province City ATP $ 237,500 9% $ 590,000 22% $341,300 13% Green Fools n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Loose Moose $ - 0% $ 37,857 12% $ 10,000 3% Lunchbox $ 42,500 6% $ 101,138 14% $ 60,000 8% OYR $ 65,593 20% $ 70,523 21% $ 15,000 5% PleiadesA/ertigo n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Quest $ 38,000 12% $ 66,932 22% $ 4,000 1% Theatre Calgary $ 166,000 6% $ 550,000 20% $300,000 11% Theatre Junction n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $ 549,593 8% $1,416,450 20% $730,300 10% TOTAL YRLY BUDGET $2,849,566 40%

GOVT 2000 2000 2000 SUPPORT Canada Council Province City ATP $ 253,000 7% $442,514 13% $337,917 10% Green Fools $ 80,000 33% $ 30,338 12% $ 4,000 2% Loose Moose $ -* 0% $ 46,870* n/a $ 14,000* n/a Lunchbox $ 50,000 6% $ 92,679 12% $ 55,000 7% OYR $ 189,100 23% $125,915 15% $ 20,500 2% PleiadesA/ertigo $ - 0% $ 106,712 9% $ 36,400 3% Quest $ 50,000 9% $ 65,027 12% $ 10,550 2% Theatre Calgary $ 103,500 3% $473,000 12% $ 285,200 7% Theatre Junction $ 26,250 5% $ 62,360 13% $ 18,000 4%

SUBTOTALS $ 751,850 6% $1,482,524 13% $ 794,167 4% TOTAL YRLY BUDGET $3,213,638 27% Appendix I 159

Calgary Theatre Companies: Government Support per Company as a Percentage of Budget, 1990-2005, continued

GOVT 2005 2005 2005 SUPPORT Canada Council Province City ATP $282,000 8% $346,219 9% $342,099 9% Broad Minds" $ - 0% n.a. n.a. $1,500 8% Green Fools** $ - 0% $20,782 6% $5,000 1% Ghost River** $ - 0% $8,913 7% $4,500 4% Loose Moose $ -* 0% $42,690* n.a. $15,000* n.a. Lunchbox $55,000 8% $99,367 14% $57,125 8% Old Trout** $30,000 10% $16,918 6% $3,500 1% OYR $174,000 13% $96,179 7% $46,000 3% Pleiades/Vertigo $ - 0% $100,000 7% $90,000 7% Quest $65,000* n.a. $58,850* n.a. $5,500* n.a. Sage** 0 0% 0 0% $5,000 4% Theatre Calgary $72,000 1% $578,093 10% $307,000 5% Theatre Junction $38,000 6% 127,000 22% $48,000 8%

SUBTOTALS $716,000 5% $1,495,011 10% $930,224 6% TOTAL YRLY $3,528,987 BUDGET 24%

Sources: CBAC surveys were the main source for the above figures. * Single asterisked figures are exceptions to this; they were provided by their respective granting agencies: Canada Council, AFA or CADA. 'Total Yrly Budget' Row includes 'govt other' column fromCBA C surveys. Therefore adding government Subtotals column will equal less than Total Yrly Budget totals. **Double asterisks refer to companies who provided data from their individual company annual reports and/or financialstatements . Data from Loose Moose and Quest Theatre companies include government revenues only for the year 2005. Calculations of percentage of govt support are therefore not possible in these instances. Other companies who form a part of Calgary's theatre community as professional, emerging professional or community/amateur companies but whose data was not accessible/complete enough for this analysis include: All Nations; Calgary Young People's; Fire Exit; Maple Salsa; Mob Hit; Morpheus; Sage; Stage Left; Storybook; WP Puppeteers; and Workshop Theatres.

Notes: Observations from this chart are limited to percentage base of support. Observations regarding absolute dollars are found in Appendices III to V following. As a percentage of budgets, government support declined from 37% in 1990 to 24% in 2005. Further breakdown reveals: • Canada Council support declines from 8% to 5% from 1990 to 2005. • AFA support declines from 19% to 10%. • City support declines from 9% to 6%. Appendix I 160

Calgary Theatre Companies: Government Support per Company as a Percentage of Budget, 1990-2005, continued

Tracking four companies whose data is available from 1990 to current, reveal the following variables: ATP: • little change in percentage of Canada Council support, from 7% in 1990 to 8% in 2005. • significant decrease in percentage of AFA support, from 18% in 1990 to 9% in 2005. • little change in percentage of City support, from 8% in 1990 to 9% in 2005. Lunchbox: • little change in percentage of Canada Council support, from 7% in 1990 to 8% in 2005. • decrease in percentage of AFA support, from 18% in 1990 to 14 % in 2005. • slight decrease in percentage of City support, from 10% in 1990 to 8% in 2005. OYR: • significant decrease in percentage of Canada Council support, from 25% in 1990 to 13% in 2005. • significant decrease in percentage of AFA support, from 16% in 1990 to 7% in 2005. • decrease in its percentage of City support, from 6% in 1990 to 3% in 2005. Theatre Calgary: • significant decrease in percentage of Canada Council support, from 8% in 1990 to 1% in 2005. • significant decrease in percentage of AFA support, from 21% in 1990 to 10 % in 2005. • Significant decrease in percentage of City support, from 10% in 1989-90 to 5% in 2005.

Correlating the varying trends in support of the government agencies of these four companies to the growth of the companies' overall budget sizes over this same time period reveals that the two companies whose budget sizes increased the most from 1990 to current - those companies being OYR and Theatre Calgary - are the two companies who experienced the largest number of significant decreases in percentages of support from the government sources. This observation suggests that with government agencies' source of funds experiencing a period of Appendix I 161 stagnation over the 1990s, companies who experienced growth in their operations did so without the capacity of government support to keep up.

Total Budget, 1990 Total Budget, 2005 % increase ATP $ 3,119,372 $ 3,741,203 20% Lunchbox $ 535,883 $ 698,679 30% OYR $ 117,968 $ 1,373,628 1064% Theatre Calgary $ 2,689,363 $ 5,646,900 110% Appendix II 162

Calgary Theatre Companies: Distribution of All Revenues (Earned, Government, Private)

1989-90 Earned as Pr vate ss 1983-3C EARNED % GOVT Gcvtas% PRIVATE % Totals ATP S1.3SS.331 45% $t,08S,S32 35%: $697,405 22% $3,149,372 vnrefin Fnrls S13 na n a i a na n a na Loose Moose $163,970 55% 179,812 27% $52,587 18% 1296,355 Lunchbox $136,660 26% $192,392 36% 1206,831 39% 1535,833 OYR 146,515 26% 194,654 53% $36,529 21% 1177,956 Pleides/Vertigo aa. aa. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. aa Quest $162,360 52% $108,870 35% 543,370 14% S314,545 Theat'fi Calgary Si.317.331 45% S1.(MS,3?0 .•59% S4?R.ai? 16% S2B8R353 Theatrs Junction n.a. aa. rt.a. n.a n.a. n.a. aa I SUBTOTALS 53,062,077 $2,607,880 37% $1,463,647 21% 57133,534

1994-95 Esmec as Private as 1994-95 EARNED % GOVT Govt m % PRIVATE % Totals AT= 5325.219 34% 51.271,649 47% 553i,46t 19% 52,7^8,523 Green Fools n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.s. Loose Moose $224,039 73% $56,507 16% S2S.225 9% $356,831 Lunch&cx 5123.330 14% 5203,633 ;s% W2S.555 5S% $736,523 OHR 532.232 25% 5187.856 57% S6C8SS 18% $3 31.039 PleidesA/erticp n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.s. Qucal 3110.130 36% 3108,932 35% $6e,996 29% S3CS,083 Theaire Calgary $1,223,171 44% 51,020,782 37% $511,104 19% $2,755,057 Theatre Junction na. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.s. f 3LBTCTAL3 52.OCC.231 37% 52,049,500 40% 31,64E,240 23% S7,1C0,0O7

1999-3000 Earned as Private as 1999-2030 EARNED % GOVT Govt as % PRIVATE % Totals ATP $765,732 22% 31 082,0:7 32% $1,559,846 46% $3,407,555 Green Fools 565.3^7 35% S125.77S 52% 532.823 13% 5243,953 Loose Mcose n.a. n.s. $60,870 aa. n.a. n.a. aa. Lunchbox S151.0B1 20% $227,013 29% $395,118 51% $773,216 OYR 5298,017 36% $335,515 46% $195,321 24% $828,853 Ple«esA'ertiqo $824,836 69% $148,360 12% $216,771 18% $1,189,967 Quest J>^3&,61 ( 43% $14»,BB/ iif% $1b/.1/3 2S% S541,i&/ Theatre Calgary 51,769,634 44% $888,202 22% $1,340,279 34% $3,998,085 Theatre Junction 5129,533 2S% 1147,311 3« $220,590 44% $497,534

SUBTOTALS $4,259,737 37% $3,163,923 27% $4,117,924 36%; $11,541,590 Appendix II 163

Calgary Theatre Companies: Distribution of All Revenues (Earned, Government, Private), cont.

2004-06 earned Private EARNED as% GOVT Govt as % PRIVATE a»% Total Budget ATP SI.^3Q,C67 W& 51,044,65^ 26% S'.AiSfiez 3S% 53,741,22? Broad Minds (03-06: £11,536 84% $3,553 20% 32,9=9 16% 518,148 Greer Focls (05-06: $237,750 88% 569,520 20% 5^2,286 12% 5349,536 Ghost Rives S70.531 59% sa'.sse 23% $21,5=7 18% 5119,936 Loose Moose n.a. n.a S5\6S0 n.s n.a. n.s n.a. Lunchbox ^5-06, $•65,166 J7% 52 i i ,4&; 20% $302,52! 42% S€S8,67S Old Troul S142.291 47% 160,191 20% $97,246 32% 5298,721 OYR SE74,ii5 49% 1458,279 33% S2*O,§04 18% 11,373,628 PSB-.odeeWartigc S605,£ED #0% $220,000 1:6% $317,807 24% *1,343,357 Quesl n.a. n.a. 5129,350 n;.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Sa§e (05-06, J;9,&ifj -i6% $t,eoc 7% $94,902 77% •123,712 Theatre Calgary 53.134,972 56% $995,593 18% $t.5"6,335 27% 35,646,900 Theatre Jurctior 545,676 8% $241,787 41% 5297,242 51% $584,70? I SUBTO-ALS S6.S63,S&6 | 46% 1 $3,528,887 24% I I1,369,S41 | 30% I $14,486,62-8

Sources: Statistics for this appendix were compiled from CBAC annual surveys (1989-90 to 2004- 05), AFA statistics, and individual annual reports, as noted in Appendix I.

• NB: In 1995 ATP earned revenues are down 31% from 1990, or $410,000, a significant factor in the decrease of earned revenue above, as ATP has the largest budget — larger than Theatre Calgary's at this point; its earned revenue represents over l/3rd of the total combined earned rev budgets in 1990.Quest and Lunchbox also experience decreases in earned revenue, but the 3 other clients (Loose Moose, OYR, Theatre Calgary) experience increases. Appendix II, cont.

Distribution of All Revenues (Earned, Government, Private) continued

1989-90

PRIVATE, $1,463,547, 21% EARNED, $3,062,077, 42%

GOVT, $2,607,880, 37%

1994-95

PRIVATE, $1,648,240, EARNED, 23% $2,668,261, 37%

GOVT, $2,849,566, 40%

1999-2000

PRIVATE EARNED $4,173,732 $4,442,999 35% 38%

GOVT $3,213,638 27% Appendix II, cont. 165

Current (2004-05 to 2005-06) revenue streams

PRIVATE $4,369,641 30% EARNED $6,587,996 46% GOVT $3,528,987 24%

Notes: Percentage of government funding has decreased from 37% to 24% in this time period (1989-90 - current). In addition, Loose Moose and Quest theatre companies have provided government revenues only for the current (2004-06) standings. Their government revenues are included in the "current" chart but not their earned or private revenues, as they are not known; therefore, the current percentage distributions could see a further decrease in percentage of government funding if earned and private revenues from these companies were known. Appendix III 166

Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies, 1990-Current

Canada Council Funding: Notes: Data compiled above used CBAC surveys as its base, augmented with Canada Council statistics as/if available. Observations: • All clients experience increases with the exception of Theatre Calgary. General patterns of growth appear after the nineties; general pattern of plateauing occurs 1993-97 and again in 2001-05 (exception in this latter period is OYR). • Theatre Calgary decreases by over 65%, from $220,000 in 1989-90 to $72,000 in 2005. • ATP increases by 23%, from $230,000 in 1990 to $282,000 in 2005. • One Yellow Rabbit (OYR) increases by over 280%, near tripling its $44,000 grant in 1990 to $125,000 in 2005. Appendix IV 167

Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies: Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA), all clients:

AFA, all clients: Notes: • Blank areas between 1994-1998 occur due to unavailable data. AFA data compiled used CBAC surveys as its base, augmented with AFA statistics where available. Observations: • From the mid nineties to 2005, ATP experiences a sharp decline, resulting in an overall decrease of 37%, from $551,000 in 1990 to $346,219 in 2005. • Theatre Calgary experiences a less sharp decline through the mid to late nineties, but recovers and surpasses previous funding levels by 2005, from its 1990 grant of $551,496 to its current grant of $605,493. Appendix IV 168

Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies: Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA) continued, smaller professional theatre companies:

EVERGREEN AFA funding to Smaller Prof. Theatres, 1990-current GHOST RIVER THEATRE GREEN FOOLS GROUND OYR -. ZERO THEATRE LOOSE Lunchbox i \ Vertigo MOOSE THEATRE LUNCHBOX / V THEATRE OLD TROUT PUPPET / WORKSHOP ONE YELLOW RABBIT Quest QUEST THEATRE SUN.ERGOS ''•• /- \^^«4^ose Mop*e s? \^. ^ THEATRE JUNCTION i. _ .. _. Jrickgjar**'^ ^-*^^S^ - ^ TRICKSTER ! Green iFools f -—""^ PLEIADESA/E """"' Ghost R- ***** RTIGO # THEATRE •— w.p. £ & & & & & & £ & & / / # # # / PUPPETEERS

AFA smaller professional theatre companies (ie, excluding ATP and Theatre Calgary): Notes: • Blank areas between 1994-1998 occur due to unavailable data. • Data compiled above used CBAC surveys as its base, augmented with AFA statistics where available/applicable.

• Regarding the spike in OYR in 2000 and in Pleiades/Vertigo in 2001:1 need to confirm this with organizations' annual reports. Observations: • Quest, Sun.Ergos, Loose Moose (excepting the dip in 2005) and Lunchbox (after the spike in 1991) remain relatively steady. Appendix IV 169

AFA smaller professional theatre companies (ie, excluding ATP and Theatre Calgary): Observations, cont: • OYR experiences an increase of more than three times its 1990 grant of $28,678, with a grant of $100,000 in 2005, plunging down to just over $60,000 in 2001. • Theatre Junction experiences an increase of almost 25 times its first grant, from $4,179 in 1990 to $100,000 in 2005. • Client growth in numbers:8 clients in 1992; 11 clients by 1999; 14 clients in 2005. When the 8 grew to 11 (addition of Evergreen, Trickster, Pleiades) is not possible to discern due to the lacunae in data • Ghost River, Old Trout Puppet Workshop, and Ground Zero have all entered the program within the last three years. Appendix V 170

Government Funding: Absolute Dollars, Calgary Theatre Companies Calgary Region Arts Foundation (Calgary Arts Development Authority as of 2006)

CRAF funding since inception: Theatres Granted $30,Q$0 and over «L6$' I ALBERTA THEATRE PROJECTS

CALGARY OPERA ASSOC.

CALGARY PHILHARMONI CSOC.

CALGARY INTERNATION AL CHILDRENS E&ScW&X THEATRE

ONE YELLOW RABBIT

THEATRE CALGARY

&* ^^ &* ^ ^ *&^ && ^ ^ ^ ^ &*> ^TjfP ^^ $&>

CRAF/CADA Major Theatre Clients - defined by CRAF as receiving grants over $30,000 (Calgary Arts Development Authority, Current State of Granting in Calgary 10,25). (NB: Calgary Opera and Calgary Philharmonic are for reference and comparison only)

Notes: Data for CRAF data in chart above and those following are from statistical documents given to me by CRAF (1998-current) and from files in City of Calgary CRAF archives (1969-1998). Appendix V 171

CRAF/CADA Major Theatre Clients - defined by CRAF as receiving grants over $30,000, continued: Observations: • Overall pattern of growth for all clients, with plateauing through nineties. Sharp growth pattern for ATP and Theatre Calgary in 1984- 85. • Decreases to both ATP and Theatre Calgary during the mid to late nineties; Theatre Junction and Vertigo show increases from 2000 to 2002, then plateau Appendix V 172

Govt Funding: Calgary Region Arts Foundation (Calgary Arts Development Authority as of 2006) continued:

7 i I 1 •i. m «1 '' in,-, £ ll j i a S . i •- « o ifst--sU in K li­ in i .r -» „ o 1 J563g!5 » it ir if ., i IM 11fe § ! i i rn ia "j "_• :- ym

%, %, %. I %, S * UK

\

O o I ©

s Appendix V 173

CRAF/CADA clients less than $30,000 cont: Note: although CRAF data is available as far back as 1969, the chart above begins in 1988, as no client existed in this category prior to 1988. As there are now 18 clients currently in this category, the chart is admittedly crowded, but it does allow for some observations. CRAF/CADA clients less than $30,000 , continued:

Observations:

• All show decreases in 1993-95 years, except Liffey, which plateaus. Loose Moose receives increase in 1995. • Two clients, Sun Ergos and Theatre 80, had stop receiving funding (reason unconfirmed) by 1996. • Decrease in clients in mid-nineties: in 1988: 7 active clients; from 1992-6: 5-6 active clients; in 2006: 18 active clients. • Currently 15 of 18 clients under $8,000.10 clients under $5,000. Appendix VI 174

NB: Document provided by CAD A. The addition of highlights noting years of <10% growth in the fund are my own, as is the comment to the far right of the years 1990 and 1991 re. arts festival funding (Hartley, Calgary Region Arts Foundation: J969-2006, 15). Otherwise, the document is unchanged from its original content.

CRAF GRANTING HISTORY FROM INCEPTION

CITY GRANT Increase in TOTAL GRANTS #of funded to CRAF City grant AWARDED (all) Notes groups 1969 $23,100 6 1970 No direct $66,700 17 1971 grant- $84,330 19 1972 funding $108,200 23 1973 through $136,950 28 1974 Parks $155,000 33 1975 Dept. budget $210,485 44 1976 $218,925 40 1977 $259,000 N/A $245,650 46 1978 $313,000 20.8% $313,130 * 43 1979 $422,000 34.8% $423,035 * 53 1980 $565,000 33.9% $535,142 58 1981 $657,000 16.3% $705,507 * 63 1982 $790,000 20.2% $821,583 * 61 1983 $790,000 0.0% $817,016 * 64 1984 $849,000 7.5% $877,091 * 65 1985 $1,183,000 39.3% $1,190,170 * 59 1986 $1,242,000 5.0% $1,254,775 * 57 1987 $1,292,000 4.0% $1,301,020 * 62 1988 $1,331,000 3.0% $1,317,718 62 1989 $1,371,000 3.0% $1,394,700 * 63 * 1990 $1,494,000 9.0% $1,524,900 75 CRAF absorbs 1991 $1,711,000 14.5% $1,740,525 * 75 arts Festivals 1992 $1,802,000 5.3% $1,795,500 81 1993 $1,802,000 0.0% $1,792,850 82 1994 $1,802,000 0.0% $1,814,900 * 82 1995 $1,802,000 0.0% $1,811,660 * 86 1996 $1,837,000 1.9% $1,807,424 86 1997 $1,855,000 1.0% $1,804,650 84 1998 $1,902,000 2.5% $1,854,350 90 1999 $1,984,000 4.3% $1,917,600 96 2000 $2,054,000 3.5% $1,973,700 99 2001 $2,309,000 12.4% $2,183,430 100 2002 $2,390,500 3.5% $2,296,200 103 2003 $2,354,000 -1.5% $2,323,650 ** 104 2004 $2,498,000 4.0% $2,410,000 104 2005 $2,548,000 2.0% $2,447,000 112 2006 $2,624,000 3.0% $2,542,000 119 TOTAL $45,832,500 $46,240,566 2544 * In the years noted, grants disbursed exceeded total amount received from the City; additional grant funds came from investment incomemaking CRAF completely self-sustaining in those years. ** Amount "awarded" to CRAF by the City in 2003 was $2,402,000 but the amount received was actually $2,354,000. Grant was reduced by the amount not released by CRAF to the CPO through due diligence. Appendix VII

Canada Council Funding History From Inception (1957-2006)

NB: This document was emailed to the author by Canada Council research department (January 29, 2007), and remains intact, except for the highlights which I added. The highlights indicate each year that saw a reduction in Parliamentary appropriation. PARLIAMENTARY ARTS FUNDING" APPROPRIATION' FISCAL Current Dollars 2006-2007 Dollars'" Current Dollars 2006-2007 Dollars YEAR 1957-1958* 749,000 5,470,000 1958-1959 1,435,000 10,250,000 1959-1960 1,263,000 8,875,000 1960-1961 1,397,000 9,712,000 1961-1962 1,406,000 9,774,000 1962-1963 1,478,000 10,113,000 1963-1964 1,424,000 9,542,000 1964-1965 1,475,000 9,734,000 1965-1966" 1,933,000 12,440,000 3,374,000 21,714,000 1966-1967 3,108,000 19,240,000 4,297,000 26,600,000 1967-1968 6,637,000 39,578,000 7,039,000 41,976,000 1968-1969 7,479,000 42,643,000 8,689,000 49,543,000 1969-1970 8,492,000 46,581,000 9,412,000 51,627,000 1970-1971 8,831,000 47,244,000 10,269,000 54,937,000 1971-1972 10,513,000 54,234,000 12,069,000 62,261,000 1972-1973 14,326,000 70,278,000 15,239,000 74,757,000 1973-1974 17,323,000 77,655,000 18,986,000 85,109,000 1974-1975 20,447,000 81,788,000 22,411,000 89,644,000 1975-1976 30,181,000 109,596,000 31,062,000 112,795,000 1976-1977 32,620,000 112,795,000 33,205,000 113,896,000 1977-1978 37,537,000 118,155,000 37,815,000 119,030,000 1978-1979 39,152,000 113,106,000 41,074,000 118,658,000 1979-1980 41,116,000 108,419,000 41,795,000 110,210,000 1980-1981 44,647,000 105,914,000 43,693,000 103,651,000 1981-1982 52,941,000 112,090,000 51,557,000 109,160,000 1982-1983 59,883,000 115,501,000 60,754,000 117,181,000 1983-1984 65,581,000 121,274,000 65,502,000 121,127,000 1984-1985 72,614,000 129,136,000 70,108,000 124,679,000 1985-1986 74,244,000 126,996,000 69,257,000 118,466,000 1986-1987 85,311,000 139,678,000 84,088,000 137,676,000 1987-1988 96,895,000 152,313,000 82,545,000 129,756,000 1988-1989 93,251,000 140,797,000 93,337,000 140,927,000 1989-1990 103,503,000 148,514,000 94,681,000 135,856,000 1990-1991 104,054,000 142,091,000 95,604,000 130,552,000 1991-1992 105,493,000 138,386,000 96,322,000 126,356,000 1992-1993 108,215,000 139,563,000 98,076,000 126,487,000 1993-1994 99,335,1)00 125,741,000 89.-02,01)0 113,547,000 1994-1995 98,362,000 124,630,000 86,4"9,00O 104,574,000 1995-1996

Canada Council Funding History From Inception (1957-2006), continued:

PARLIAMENTARY ARTS FUNDING™ APPROPRIATION" FISCAL Current Dollars 2006-2007 Dollars™ Current Dollars 2006-2007 Dollars YEAR 1996-19971* 91,093,000 110,881,000 84,694,000 103,092,000 1997-1998" 113,968,000 137,566,000 101,655,000 122,703,000 1998-1999* 116,169,000 138,550,000 111,757,000 133,288,000 1999-2000 116,584,000 136,050,000 111,044,000 129,585,000 2000-2001™ 127,431,000 144,052,000 113,795,000 128,638,000 2001-2002™ 151,776,000 170,388,000 133,347,000 149,699,000 2002-2003"* 153,707,000 165,413,000 139,065,000 149,656,000 2003-2004" 155,604,000 164,862,000 134,815,000 142,836,000 2004-2005"' 152,111,000 157,314,000 130,051,000 134,500,000 2005-2006"" 151,683,000 153,813,000 129,491,000 131,309,000 2006-2007*™ 171,460,000 171,460,000 TOTAL 3,143,556,000 4,788,339,000 2,763,082,000 4,481,198,000

... not applicable., not available Sources Parliamentary Appropriation: Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Reports - Finances section, 1957-1958 to 2005-2006. Arts Funding: from 1957-1958 until 1981-1982: L. Mailhot, B. Melancon, Le Consul des arts du Canada, 1957-1982, Lemeac, 1982, p.67; for 1982-1983 and 1983-1984: Canada Council for the Arts, 1983-1984 Annual Report; from 1984-1985 until 1993-1994: Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Reports - Finances section; from 1994-1995 until 2005-2006: Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Reports. [Canada Council Funding History: Endnotes:]

1 The Parliamentary Appropriation is the main source of revenue of the Canada Council for the Arts. It provides for the funding of different arts programs and prizes, the National Commission for UNESCO, art purchases for the Art Bank (created in 1972) and payments to authors through the Public Lending Right Commission (created in 1987). The Parliamentary Appropriation is not used for Special Funds like the Killam or Molson Prizes.

The Arts Funding includes grants to artists and art organizations through different programs, art purchases for the Art Bank and payments to authors by the Public Lending Right Commission. It also includes Canada Council for the Arts' Prizes, Eke the Jules Leger Prize for New Chamber Music and the Governor General's Awards and Prizes in Literature, Performing Arts, Architecture, Visual and Media Arts. Arts Funding does not include Special Funds like the Killam or Molson Prizes.

'" The Inflation Calculator of the Bank of Canada was used for the conversion of Current Dollars into 2006-2007 Dollars. On January 8, 2007, November 2006 is the most recent month for which the Consumer Price Index data are available (130.0; June 1992=100). (www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation calc.html) lv In 1957, the Government of Canada received 100 million dollars from the death duties of Sir James Hamet Dunn (Bathurst, New Brunswick, 1874 - St. Andrews, New Brunswick, 1956) and Izaak Walton Killam (Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, 1885 - Grand-Cascapedia, Quebec, 1955), and invested 50 million dollars (365 million - 2006-2007 dollars) in an Endowment Fund and 50 million dollars in a University Capital Grants Fund. Those investments made possible the creation of the Canada Council for the Arts. As stated in the Canada Council Act, the objects of the Canada Council for the Arts are to foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production or works in, the arts, humanities and social sciences. From 1957-1958 until 1964-1965, there was no Appendix VII

parliamentary appropriation. The interest and dividends earned from the Endowment Fund were the main source of revenue that made possible Arts Funding.

v From 1965-1966 until 1977-1978, the amount of the Parliamentary Appropriation shown in the table reflects the portion for the Arts programs and the National Commission for UNESCO. That portion is established on the percentage of the expenses for both and the expenses for the Social Sciences and Humanities programs as reported in the Annual Reports of those fiscal years. Below, for each fiscal year, are the percentages of the expenses for the Arts programs and die National Commission for UNESCO.

1965-1966: 55.60% 1968-1969 :36.34% 1971-1972:39.96% 1974-1975 : 50.04% 1966-1967 :44.74% 1969-1970 :35.83% 1972-1973 :44.57% 1975-1976: 55.16% 1967-1968: 39.27% 1970-1971 :36.49% 1973-1974:47.43% 1976-1977 : 54.68% 1977-1978: 56.84%

"• The Parliamentary Appropriation is the main source of revenue of the Canada Council for the Arts. It provides for the funding of different arts programs and prizes, the National Commission for UNESCO, art purchases for the Art Bank (created in 1972) and payments to authors through the Public Lending Right Commission (created in 1987). The Parliamentary Appropriation is not used for Special Funds like the Killam or Molson Prizes.

™ The Arts Funding includes grants to artists and art organizations through different programs, art purchases for die Art Bank and payments to authors by the Public Lending Right Commission. It also includes Canada Council for die Arts' Prizes, like die Jules Leger Prize for New Chamber Music and the Governor General's Awards and Prizes in Literature, Performing Arts, Architecture, Visual and Media Arts. Arts Funding does not include Special Funds Eke the Killam or Molson Prizes.

"" The Inflation Calculator of the Bank of Canada was used for the conversion of Current Dollars into 2006-2007 Dollars. On January 8, 2007, November 2006 is the most recent month for which the Consumer Price Index data are available (130.0; June 1992=100). (www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation calc.html) lx The 1996-1997 Parliamentary Appropriation drop reflects a $3.1 million transfer from die Canada Council for die Arts for funding of the National Theatre School and the National Ballet School. x 1997-1998 Parliamentary Appropriation includes a $25 million annual addition that begins this year. xi For die Parliamentary Appropriation, a total of $10 million in one-time funding was received ($4 million in 1998-99, $4 million in 1999-2000 and $2 million in 2000-2001) to fund special Millennium projects through the Millennium Arts Fund. The Millennium Arts Fund provided $10 million in grants over two years (1998-1999 and 1999-2000). A small portion (about $602,000) was disbursed as additional grants in 2000-2001.

*" 2000-2001 Parliamentary Appropriation includes a $10 million annual addition that begins this year and $600,000 for PICLO (Partenariat mterministeriel avec les communautes de langue officielle). xul 2001-2002 Parliamentary Appropriation includes $25 million supplementary appropriation announced in May 2001, $900,000 for PICLO and $295,000 for IPOLC (Interdepartmental Partnership with Official Language Communities). xlv 2002-2003 Parliamentary Appropriation includes $25 million supplementary appropriation, $900,000 for PICLO and $500,000 for IPOLC. xv 2003-2004 Parliamentary Appropriation includes $25 million supplementary appropriation, $1,119,000 for Terminus 1525, $580,000 for Dance Presenters, $500,000 for IPOLC, $450,000 for PICLO, $1 million for Equipment Acquisition Assistance for Media Arts Production Organizations, and $50,000 for the Creator Rights Alliance. Appendix VII 178

xvl 2004-2005 Parliamentary Appropriation includes $25 million supplementary appropriation, $600,000 for Terminus 1525, $300,000 for the Sound Recording Development program, $500,000 for IPOLC, $450,000 for PICLO, $230,000 for CITF (Commission internationale du theatre francophone), and $200,000 for the SPARK initiative, (also contribution of $1.5M to the reallocation initiative) x™ 2005-2006 Parliamentary Appropriation includes $25 million supplementary appropriation and a portion of $2,500,000 for Capacity Building Initiative, (also contribution of $1.5M to the reallocation initiative)

win »jpjie Parliamentary Appropriation for 2006-2007 includes a supplement of $20 million; it is preliminary and subject to revision. The figure for the Arts Funding will not be available before the end of the fiscal year, March 31,2007. Appendix VIII 179

Grant Applications Analysis Calgary Arts Development Authority (was Calgary Region Arts Foundation) Application available at Calgary Arts Development Authority website ().

NB: CAD A is currently "embarking on a 19 month granting program renewal process" of its granting processes, criteria, and eligibility with completion scheduled for 2009 ("Overview: Granting Renewal"). CADA Guidelines Not specifically stated; however in the application form itself, stress is placed on: • Financial stability; • Number of public performances; • And under 'Finance' section, a 'justification for request' • a jury of community volunteers Application 17 pgs including 12 attachments (9 attachments for smaller length organizations) Questions related to: Governance 1. registration of charitable and/or not for profit status 2. list of board of directors and staff Finance 1. Budget for current year 2. Financial summary 3. Audited financials 4. Current financial position 5. Budget for upcoming fiscal year 6. Funding: list of all grants received 7. Donations: list of all private contributions 8. Justification for request (max 1 pg): • Has your financial situation changed significantly since last year? Please explain. • If vou are requesting an increase in funding specifically address how the increase, if awarded, will affect your planned programming. • Specifically address how the increase, if awarded, will affect your organizational stability. Appendix VIII 180

Calgary Arts Development Authority Application, cont.

Community 1. audience: paid and unpaid; cost per patron Impact 2. volunteers 3. vol hours 4. staff Artistic 1. Annual Report/summary of activities Programming 2. summary of planned activities • Is your performance/presentation season changing from last year in terms of activities / number of presentations? • Did you complete the programming as proposed in the application submitted last year? If not why not? Other 1. Contact info 2. Publicity

Alberta Foundation for the Arts

Application available at AFA website ("Organization Grant Forms, Operating Grants: afa new app for orgs.pdf').

AFA Guidelines Formula based: a pro-rated percentage is applied to Community Derived Revenue (see below under 'Finance' for calculation). Percentage applied depends on amount of money in the fund and number of applicants to the fund. Application 23 pages including 3 attachments length Appendix VIII 181

AFA Application, cont. Questions related to: Governance Diligence questionnaire: • six page questionnaire re: financial management; planning , marketing; org effectiveness; stewardship (Board attendance at meetings, etc); accounting practices New for 2008: Governance Principles Document (4 pgs), to be signed by all board members

Finance Revised for 2008: A 12-page breakdown of various revenues and expenses for three years of operations: last year, current year and next year (computerized, available on website): • 34 questions on revenues (times three years); • 26 on expenses (times three years) • 10 questions related to capital assess, accumulated surplus or deficit, cash reserve, etc • Calculation for grant: Revenues minus grant revenues : also called "Community Derived Revenue" Community For last year, current and next year: Impact • staff • volunteers • volunteer hours • attendance, paid and unpaid • total capacity (# of seats avail.) • activity report: # of public perfs; date; venue; audience size; box office Artistic 1. artistic related expenses Programming 2, number of events Other 1. Contact info Appendix VIII 182

Canada Council for the Arts

Application found at Canada Council for the Arts website ("Grant Programs: Multi-Year and Annual Operating Grants to Professional Theatre Organizations")

Guidelines • a juried by committee of professional (theatre) peers • assessment based on the following: • artistic criteria: 70% • dissemination criteria: 15% • Admin Criteria: 15%

NB: Canada Council offers a multi-year application (3 years) to applicable clients Application 11 pgs including 6 appendices length Questions related to: Governance • Structure: one column for permanent artistic staff; one column for permanent admin staff Finance 1. Personnel remuneration 2. Funds/reserves, working capital and amortization 3. Audited statements 4. Other related financial statements (holding co's etc) 5. Budget (computerized, available from Canada Council website)

Community • dissemination activities Impact Appendix VIII 183

Canada Council Application, cont.

Artistic 1. Legal mandate Programming 2. Artistic mission 3. History 4. context: "particular place and role your org occupies in your art form, eg: how do you see yourself within the ecology of your discipline in a regional, national and international context (as/if applicable) 5. Basis of Assessment: "Past perf and future plans: Decision will be based on 'relative merit o your proposal in a national competitive context and the fund available. .. .Max. of 20 pgs" 6. Summary of major activities 7. Production and/or co-pro expenses and revenues 8. Facilities and equipment Other • Contact info Appendix IX 184

Calgary Theatres, Including Professional and amateur/community and Their Ages

(sorted by age of company)

Age of I'heatrc Coiupam company Source for determining age

1 Downstage 3 http://www.downstage.ca/past.html

2 Stage Left 4 http ://www. stage-left.org/past.html

From "Mission, Values, History," emailed to author 3 Broad Minds 5 4 Dec 2007.

4 Fire Exit 5 http://www.fireexit.ca/hi_speedflash.htm

No granting history recorded with CADA ("34 Year Grants to Calgary Theatres"). Liz Nichols' Calgary Herald article "A Stage Stampede" (9 Oct. 2007) 5 Maple Salsa n.a. identifies it as under ten years old.

No granting history with CADA. Website lists production history to 2006 (http://www.urbancurvz.com/past_performances.ht m). Liz Nichols' Calgary Herald article "A Stage Stampede" (9 Oct. 2007) identifies it as under ten 6 Urban Curvz n.a. years old.

No granting history with CADA. Website gallery (http://theatreboom.com/gallery/main.php) includes 7 THEATREboom n.a. two years of productions from 2006,2007.

Granting history with CADA begins 2004 ("34 Year 8 Mob Hit n.a. Grants to Calgary Theatres").

Curiously Canadian Granting history with CADA begins in 2005 ("34 9 Improv n.a. Year Grants to Calgary Theatres").

Old Trout Puppet 10 Workshop 7 http://theoldtrouts.org/pages/history.html

11 Sage 10 http://www.sagetheatre.com.html.

http://www.ghostrivertheatre.com/main- 12 Ghost River 11 archives.html Appendix IX 185

'Nieulre Company Source lor tUicrininiiiK ago 1 13 Ground Zero 11 http://www.groundzerotheatre.ca/home.html

Granting history with CADA begins 1998 ("34 Year Grants to Calgary Theatres")._Liz Nichols' Calgary Herald article "A Stage Stampede" (9 Oct. 2007) indicates Vertigo (nee Pleiades Theatre) was operating as an amateur theatre company a decade 14 Vertigo Theatre n.a. ago.

15 Morpheus 12 http://www.morpheustheatre.ca/prod/shows.htm

16 Shakespeare Co 12 http ://www. shakespearecompany. com/home.html

Calgary Young 17 People's 15 http://www.cypt.ca/index.html

18 All Nations 16 http://www.allnationstheatre.ab.ca/organize.html

19 Evergreen 16 http://www.evergreentheatre.com/about.htm

20 Green Fools 16 http://www.greenfools.com/history.html

21 Theatre Junction 16 http://www.theatrejunction.com/cms/201 .html

22 WP Puppeteers 16 http://www.wppuppet.com/

http://www.questtheatre.Org/webpage/l 001957/10005 23 Quest Theatre 23 55

24 One Yellow Rabbit 25 http://www.oyr.org/perf_history_2000.html

25 Loose Moose 30 http://www.loosemoose.com/contact.htm

26 Storybook 30 http://www.storybooktheatre.org/pages/about_us.html

From "Lunchbox Theatre Society Financial 27 Lunchbox 32 Statements."

Alberta Theatre 28 Projects 35 http://www.atplive.com/index.html

29 Workshop 38 http://www.workshoptheatre.org

30 Theatre Calgary 40 http ://theatrecalgary. com/ Appendix IX

Calgary Theatre Companies: Status of Participation and Budget Size

My listing below is compiled from Calgary Arts Development Authority's client list of theatres for 2006-07 (), cross referenced with Alberta Foundation for the Arts (AFA) listing of Calgary not for profit theatre companies (this latter document supplied to the author by an Alberta Foundation for the

Arts researcher). For the purposes of this study I did not contact amateur/community, education-oriented (ie, not general public), or improvisation-based theatre companies. I have listed 'n.a.' where a website was unavailable. For definitions of 'professional' and

'emerging professional' regarding the theatre companies I followed Canada Council for the

Arts definitions. This federal granting agency for the arts defines emerging professionals as artists "at an early stage in their career who have completed their basic training and have created a modest independent body of work,"; professional organizations are defined as

"Canadian non-profit.. .theatre companies.. .that are staffed by arts professionals who create artistic works, or present them to the Canadian public"

(). Many of the smaller companies included in the data are informally considered by the community as semi- or emerging professional theatre companies, such as Broad Minds Theatre Company,, in that they often are run by emerging professional artists whose payment arrangements for playwrights and other artists involved in the productions may be in the form of an honorarium or possibly negotiated as a percentage of box office returns once expenses are covered, as opposed to normative professional rates. Raw data from the various sources identified below is available upon request. Appendix X

Breakdown of Revenues for Calgary Professional Not-For-Profit Theatre

Companies, Source of Data, and Status of Participation

From ('AI)A :>r:iuis and AFA client F.arncd Cent ['male TOTAL list Revenues Ke\enues Revenues BUM;ET

1 Information Alberta provided by Theatre CBAC statistics Projects $1,260,067 $1,044,654 $1,436,482 $3,741,203 for 2004-05.

2 All Nations n.a. No response

3 Financial statements provided for Broad Minds $11,636 $3,553 $2,959 $18,148 2005-06.

4 Financial statements provided for Ghost River $70,531 $27,898 $21,557 $119,986 2005-06.

5 Financial statements provided for Green Fools $237,750 $69,500 $42,286 $349,536 2005-06.

6 Seems receptive to providing statements; have yet to Ground Zero n.a. receive them

7 Annual report provided for Lunchbox $185,166 $211,492 $302,021 $698,679 2005-06. Appendix X

From (.ADA Status sind AFA client F.:iriK'd Co\t Prhalc TOTAL list 1 Ucvcniics UcM-nues , Kc\eiiiics , BI'IK^KT

8 Old Trout $142,291 $60,191 $97,246 $299,814 Financial Puppet statements Workshop provided for 2004-05. NB: Private support figure here includes casino at $71,952, a non-annual special event. When calculating percentage of private support for small companies, I subtracted casino revenues from the total to get a figure ($25,246) closer to corporate and individual support and to more closely parallel the private sector figures I received from other financial statements who did not receive casino funds in this fiscal. Appendix X

I'romC Al)\ Status and AFA client Earned Gin ( Pri\ale TOTAL list Kc\ Willi's lU'\cniics Utf\ I'll IK'S BUDGET

9 One Yellow Financial Rabbit statements $674,445 $458,279 $240,904 $1,373,628 Performance provided for Theatre 2004-05.

10 Quest Seemed receptive to providing n.a. statements; have yet to receive them

11 Sage Seemed receptive to providing n.a. statements; have yet to receive them

12 Stage Left n.a. No response

13 Theatre Information Calgary provided by $3,134,972 $995,593 $1,516,335 $5,646,900 CBAC statistics for 2004-05.

14 Theatre Information Junction provided by $45,678 $241,787 $297,242 $584,707 CBAC statistics for 2004-05.

15 Vertigo Information provided by $805,550 $220,000 $317,807 $1,343,357 CBAC statistics for 2004-05.

TOTALS $6,568,086 $3,332,947 $4,274,839 $14,787,763 Appendix XI 190

Four Calgary Theatre Companies:

Trends in Accumulated Debt Loads and Audience Attendance

Accumulated Debt

1992-93 1995-96 2000 2005

ATI' -$472,264 -$399,765 $62,421 $369,461

Lunchbox -$ 60,035 -$30,332 $99,745 n.a.

OYR -$ 1,523 -$48,008* $0 $41,538

Theatre Calgary -$567,273 -$ 1,143,522 $1,046,937 $1,239,591

TOTALS'" -$1,101,095 -$1,621,627 $1,209,103 $1,650,590

*OYR actual figures for 1995-96 were unavailable; figures are projected from 1994-95 survey statistics, which include next year projections.

Audiences

1992-93 1995-96 2000 2005

ATP 74,808 67,456 59,982 54,225

Lunchbox 21,975 15,515 18,443 n.a

'OYR 11,914 23,175 15,559 n.a

Iheatre Calgary 102,806 110,823 67,214 107,887

TOTALS 211,503 216,969 161,198

Rate of audience attendance decline from 1992-93 to 2000 is 24%. Appendix XI

Sources:

CBAC surveys were used for all statistics excepting 2005 financial data from

Lunchbox and OYR. This data was obtained from Lunchbox's Annual Report and OYR's financial statements for each company. Audience figures were unavailable.

Notes:

The $2.8 million difference in Theatre Calgary's financial reportings between 1995-

96 and 2000 are due primarily to an extraordinary fundraising campaign the company undertook in 1996-97 to erase its $1.6 million deficit (Morrow, "TC enjoys first surplus..."). Following the campaign, in the 1996-97 year, Theatre Calgary reported an accumulated deficit of $76,344. Its accumulated debt became a surplus in the following year and has been growing ever since.

ATP followed a similar pattern and following a recorded deficit of $516,658 in

1998-99. It undertook an extraordinary fundraising campaign the following year (Morrow,

"ATP rings alarm..."). In 1999-2000 ATP recorded an accumulated surplus of $579,079. Appendix XII

Corporate Website Source Listing

I searched the websites of professional not for profit theatre companies in Calgary for information on current sponsorship associations; I gathered a listing of fifteen corporations I found present there. The corporate websites I researched include:

1. BP (http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?categoryld=6906&contentld:::::7030799).

2. Canada Safeway Foundation (http://www.canadasafewayfoundation.org/

requestfunding.asp).

3. CIBC Finance Group (http://www.cibc.com/ca/inside-cibc/cibc-your-

community/how-to-apply-for-funding.html).

4. ConocoPhillips (http://www.conocophillips.com/social/engagement/Philanthropic

/index.htm).

5. Enbridge (http://www.enbridge.com/corporate/community-investment.php).

6. EnCana (http://www.encana.com/responsibility/investment/guidelines/index.htm).

7. Esso: Imperial Oil (http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/Donations/

Charitable/TI_D_C_ApplyingFunding.asp).

8. Petro-Can (http://www.petro-canada.ca/en/socialresp/960.aspx).

9. BD&P LLP (http://www.bdplaw.com/titanweb/bdp/BDPWEBSITE.NSF

/AllDoc/DAE28E6987CD6C9387256C690055FCF3?OpenDocument).

10. Nexen

(http://www.nexeninc.com/Sustainability/Community/Donations_Guidelines.asp).

11. RBC Financial Group (http://www.rbc.com/responsibility/community/index.html). Appendix XII

12. Rogers Communications

(http://www.shoprogers.com/aboutrogers/communitysupport

/contact_community_relations.asp?shopperID=6L2WFWDDT7M68N8D3GQSHU

A7HJPQ3GUC).

13. TD Bank Financial Group (http://www.td.com/corporateresponsibility/community

/index.jsp).

14. Telus (http://about.telus.com/community/community_boards/en/community_

funding/funding_application.html).

15. TransAlta Corporation (http://www.transalta.com/transalta/webcms.nsf/AllDoc/

008C99A32F8813 Al 87257157004FA5D8?OpenDocument).

For interest, I cross-referenced my findings with Canada's and the United States' top

100 companies. Canada's list is found in the Report of Business.com's article "100 Biggest

Companies by Market Cap," Report ofBusiness.com 2007 Edition. The United States' listing is found in the July 23 edition of Fortune Magazine, "Fortune Global 500,2007." Of the top

American companies, only one, ConocoPhillips, showed up on Calgary theatre company support lists. Of the Canadian top 100, 6 of 100 appear on Calgary's theatre websites. This study is by no means comprehensive; my interest was to see how many of the biggest corporations supported the arts, and I was surprised at how few did. It raises further questions and the need for further study regarding the relationship between corporate power and the value seen or not seen in supporting the not for profit arts sector. Appendix XIII 194

Theatre Practitioners Interviewed and Biographies

Artist/ Brief Biography Practitioner (Unless otherwise noted, biographical information was obtained during the interview.) Ethan Playwright, performer, composer, lyricist and producer, Ethan has Cole worked with a number of theatre companies including Alberta Theatre Projects, Ground Zero Theatre, Mob Hit Productions and THEATREboom. Ethan is a member of Alberta Theatre Projects' Playwrights' Unit, facilitator of ATP's Student Writers Group, president and co-founder of Bubonic Tourist Performance Creation Society, and co-founder of birds and stone, Calgary's trans-disciplinary performance and visual art venue. Past projects include Hunting For Cat Kids (THEATREboom), Smuggling Dog and Nude (in)Fusion (Bubonic Tourist), Tartuffe (Mob Hit Productions), and Get Lost- A Love Story (Alberta Theatre Projects) (Cerealized, "Crew: Writers, Ethan Cole").

Johanne Currently Executive Director of Alberta Playwrights' Network, Deleeuw Johanne is a senior arts practitioner, having worked in professional theatre since 1985. She served as Lunchbox Theatre's Artistic Director from 1999 to 2005, having held other roles with that company previous to this role, including dramaturg and production manager. Johanne also freelances as a director and a stage manager, she has directed plays for Lunchbox Theatre, Destiny Theatre, The Actor's Conspiracy, Shakespeare In The Park, Ground Zero Theatre, Blacklist Theatre, Alberta Theatre Projects and Vertigo Theatre (Alberta Playwrights' Network, "Staff: Executive Director"). Appendix XIII 195

Theatre Practitioners Interviewed and Biographies cont.

Artist/ Uriel" liiograpln Practitioner (l nlcs.-, mln-ru Nc imicd. hi^sxrupliicsil iiili'iiiKiiion was obtained .luiini: the ; interview.) Cheryl Foggo A senior artist in the field of writing and recently awardedthe Harry Jerome Award, a national award "that recognizes and honours excellence in African-Canadian achievement" (Hunt, "Local writer Foggo wins national prize"), Cheryl has written a host of novels, including One Thing That's True (1997) which was shortlisted for a Governor General's Award for Children's Literature. She has also been published and produced as a journalist, screenwriter, poet, playwright, fiction and non-fiction {Banff Centre Press, "Cheryl Foggo"). Her play Heaven was successfully produced by Lunchbox Theatre in 1999. Cheryl is married to fellow writer Clem Martini. Clem Martini Award winning playwright and screenwriter, Clem is a Professor of Drama at the University of Calgary where he teaches playwriting, screenwriting, and theatre for young audiences. He is also past president of the Playwrights Guild of Canada. Selected plays include: Conversations with My Neighbour's Pit Bull, Illegal Entry, The Life History of the African Elephant, and Selling Mr. Rushdie. Clem is married to writer Cheryl Foggo. Eric Graduate of University of Calgary's Drama Department with a BFA, Moschopedis Eric was a co-founder of Bubonic Tourist Performance Creation Society in 2000. He curated five Mutton Busting festivals in his leadership role at Bubonic Tourist. He also co-founded birds and stone in September of 2004. He was also instrumental in the creation of Motel in 2006; Motel is the name of the intimate performance space in EPCOR CENTRE for the Performing Arts. Eric and the Bubonic Tourist board shut the company down in 2006. Eric is currently an MFA student in Kelowna at UBC's Okanagan Campus. Appendix XIII 196

Theatre Practitioners Interviewed and Biographies cont.

Artist/ Brief liiogrnphv Practitioner (1 nlcss (Ulk-ruiM* nolcil. Iiiiu>r;i|ihic;il iiiloiniiitii'ii WSIM uhliiina.] duiinu llic inlcnicw ) John A senior Canadian and award winning playwright, John has been Murrell writing professionally since the mid-seventies and has been produced across Canada and internationally. His plays include Waiting for the Parade, Memoir, Democracy, The Faraway Nearby, Farther West, and New World ("Murrell," Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia). John has also served on the Canada Council for the Arts' theatre section and was head of the theatre department at Banff Centre for the Arts. John has written librettos for two new Canadian operas with Calgary Opera {Filumena and Frobisher), and is currently working on a third. Vanessa Vanessa is currently a freelance director and dramaturg, as well as the Porteous coordinator of translation projects at the Banff Playwrights Colony. Previous to her freelance career, she worked at Alberta Theatre Projects as the Associate Director and Dramaturg for ATP's playRites Festival. Recent dramaturgical credits includes The Wars (Theatre Calgary) and Flop! (Quest Theatre). She co-wrote and directed Why Freud Fainted (Alberta Theatre Projects). Stephen Stephen Schroeder has been the Managing Producer of One Yellow Schroeder Rabbit Performance Theatre for the past eleven years. Prior to that position he served as associate manager to OYR. He recently won the Rozsa Foundation Award for Excellence in Arts Management. In May of 2007 the company was awarded a Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award. Shows produced during his tenure include Doing Leonard Cohen, Dream Machine, History of Wild Theatre, A Fabulous Disaster, Five Hole: Tales of Hockey Erotica, and Mata Hari - Tigress at the City Gates {One Yellow Rabbit, "One Yellow Rabbit Performance History"). Appendix XIII 197

Theatre Practitioners Interviewed and Biographies cont.

Artist/ Brief Biograpln Practitioner (1 nlesx ntlK-ruiM." tinted. Iiiouiiiphk'nl inlorniaiion was obtained during I he iiitci\ icw.) Glenda Glenda is a freelance director, playwright, choreographer, and Stirling movement instructor at Mount Royal College. Recent playwriting credits include Flop! (Quest Theatre) and Lillibet (Ship's Company Theatre); recent directing credits include Vincent in Brixton and Get Away (ATP); Music for a Contortionist (Sage Theatre); Wait Until Dark (Vertigo Theatre); Blood Relations (Mount Royal College); Lillibet (Ship's Company Theatre); and Cheek to Cheek (Lunchbox Theatre). She has been an intern director at Shaw Festival. VickiStroich As Dramaturg at Alberta Theatre Projects, Vicki is the head of play development at ATP, as well as working with Artistic Director Bob White to program play Rites Festival of New Canadian Plays, including the newly created Stage 2. After graduating with a BFA from University of Calgary's drama department, she worked at ATP as an intern, then moved to Toronto to work at Harbourfront Centre in Fundraising before returning to Calgary and to ATP in 2001. Appendix XIII 198

Theatre Practitioners Interviewed and Biographies cont.

Artist/ Brief Hiogranln Practitioner (Unless otherwise noted, biographical information was obtained during the interview.) Bob White Bob White is one of Canada's leading developers and producers of new Canadian work; since 1999 he has been ATP's Artistic Director; prior to this position he was in charge of the company's playRites Festival of New Canadian Plays since 1987; the festival is a national centre of development and production of new Canadian plays. Through Bob's leadership ATP is also a co-producer of The Banff Playwrights' Colony (Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia, "Alberta Theatre Projects"). Bob is the recipient of many awards, including numerous Betty Mitchell awards for direction and the Harry and Martha Cohen award for his contribution to Calgary theatre. In May of 2008 The Calgary Herald reported that Bob - "call him Dr. Bob" - was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Calgary (Bob Clark, "Theatre icon White receives doctorate," Calgary Herald). ATP's 2008-09 season is Bob's final year at the company's helm, as he announced his departure in March of 2008 (Clark, "White's tenure fading to black," Calgary Herald). Appendix XIV: Ethics Approval and Interviewee Consent Form hi

Name of Researcher, Facility, Department, Telephone & Email: Jw% Lawrence, MFA Stalest Faculty of Fine Arts, Drama Department, 403.245.104i; iudytoweiK:[email protected]

Supervisor: Dr. James Dupa Title of Project: The State of New Play Creation, and Production in Calgary: -fee Astisf s' Point -of View

n.a.

This consent form, a copy of which has been green to you, is only part of the process of Manned consent. If you want more details abort semething mentioned here, or iafbtoaattoa not included here, ycra should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any aecomipaayiiig Morimtion.

The University of Calgary Cbnjotnt Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.

Pyrpose of the Study; This interview is pair of die research I am doing as part of ray Masters iti Fine Arts, thesis, to help me understand the health of new play creation in Calgaiy currenrly and in relation to in recent (10-20 years) pa»t. My intent is to interview several Calgary playwrights as well as theatre organizations that produce new work, as parr of this research. Results of rtasreseardiwiu form part of my thesis, which examines the state of the theatre community in Calgary and its support systems. As such, my research and understanding would be greatly enhanced by your participation as a working professional in this field.

OTiat Will I Be Asfced To Do? Yw withe asked to give appros.iJBatelyS'OiBiQBtes of your time to sue, sotelaMyktarview yw regarding yoor experience as a working professional m the field of play creation and development.

Please understand ftis interview is completely voluntary. Appendix XIV: Ethics Approval and Interviewee Consent Form

I have corajsted a list of 20 questions (wife seven additional questions for interviewees who are involved ia operating theatre coaspaaies) related to the conditions thai may impact you in working as a theatre artist in this cotimiwaity..

My intent with these questions and this research is to address issues that are of concern to playwrights and to new play creation. The questions I have brought to this are primarily qualitative., discusstcn- orieated inquiries, as opposed to more compartmentalized survey-form questions. They are meant only as stimulators to discuss matters that are of the greatest interest and value to you and your capacity to work as a professional artist in this community. They are not intended to preclude you or me from changing the direction of our discussion, should your responses and interest take us there.

The questions are meant to explore the issues around playvvriting in Calgary in a thoughtful and meaningful way, and the interview could take upwards of 90 minutes. (If after 90 minutes you wish to pursue the discission'interview further, this can certainly be undertaken, and we can continue it then or make arrangements to meet again at a mutually convenient time and place. Bat there is no expectation or onus on you to give more than the 90 minutes of your time.)

If you are uncomfortable at any time with -any of the questions or the direction of the interview, or just don't have an answer or an opinion, please let me know, and we' 1! either move to die next question, change direction, or call a halt to the interview: what you would prefer.

If one of the questions asked - or a question you think should be asked, and hasn't been - stimulate?. your thoughts on another matter you think is of relevance to the matter of the health and well being of Calgary's playwrights and the art of playvvriting from your perspective, do not hesitate to talk about it. It is your perspective and your experience that is relevant.

VWiatType of Personal Information Will Be Collected?

There are several options, for you to consider if you decide to take part m this research. You can choose all, some or none of them Please put a check mark on the corresponding line(s) that grants me your permission to proceed with the following:

I grant permission to have my company's name used (as applicable): Yes: No: I wish to remain anonymous: Yes.: No: I wish to remain anonymous* but you may refer to me by a pseudonym: Yes: No: The pseudonym I choose for myself is: You may quote me and use my name: Yes: No:

Please be aware the interview will be .audio taped.

Sheill you agee to participate. I will ask you to provide your gender, ethnicity, and age. It is not mandatory that you provide me with any or all of this information for the interview to proceed: if you are proceeding anonymously andVor are not comfortable with sharing any part of this information, let me know and you can choose not to tell me and-'or it will be kept confidential. Appendix XIV: Ethics Approval and Interviewee Consent Form

Please note as well that.if, at fie end of the interview,, there ace any responses you have brought to fee interview ftat you have re-considered, or do .oof want attached, to your same, or do sot want published, at all, evert anonymoDSily, let me know and we will aniens! your conmaerits accordingly is writing as well as oo tat'li four and my copy of your consent form as/if required, accordine to your wishes and comfort level.

If upon later reflection you have any changes, additions, deletions, an&'or adaptations that you would like to make regarding your responses please let me know within two weeks of this interview, and I will adjust your responses accordingly. After two weeks, I cannot promise to have that capability.

Please understand you will not have the opportunity ro review my use of the material a* ir appears in my written tais. Are there Risks or Benefits if 1 Participate? I believe the risksinvolve d is these mtereiews are minimal; however you could have a concern that if you voice critical comments of certain theatre companies and/or granting agencies this might oqpEively impact your fetae employment opportunities and/or successful pant applications. If you have any such concerns, please let me know; you can choose to respond, to particular (or all) questions anonymously, to have your identity disguised, or to not answer at all.

This interview is volioatary and no participant is being paid to take fart of receiving lermmeratios. in any way.

What Happens to the Information 1Provide? Any or all parts of the interview may be inc luded in my Masters of Fine Arts thesis paper, which if successful will be published by the University of Calgary Drama Department. Information from these interviews will nor be reported in aggregate form: rather, it will help qualitatively inform aggregate data compiled from other sources {funding agencies, etc) in the body of the thesis paper. Your participation is completely voluntary, under the terms, of confidentiality as you have indicated by your checkmarks and ins tractions to me in the above section and by your instructions to roedurin g the interview. Should you decide to withdraw, my notes and any recording fromyou r interview will be destroyed, and will not be used ia any final report thesis emerging from the -study.

It is my intention to collect, transcribe, and retain this infermauoa myself, ia soles and on taped cassettes. This raw data will be securely stored in my home office indefinitely, for possible use in forte studies by .me only; my use of it will follow the same conditions of consent you have indicated on. this consent form. Please be aware tat aichi¥ei ai»nymois data in this raw form will have identifying information attached.

For the duration of my status as a Masters student in University of Calgary Drama Department's Theatre Studies program, only I and my supervisor will have access to the raw data. Following the anticipated completion of mv Masters sn Fine Arts degree, only I will have access to the raw data. Appendix XTV: Ethics Approval and Interviewee Consent Form 204

Signatures (written consent) Your signature on tins form indicates that you 1) understand to your satisfiKtion the MoimMion provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree to participate as a research subject. In. no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or invoked institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free co withdraw from this research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. Participant's Name: (please print)

Participant's Signature Date: Researchers Name: (please print)

Researcher's Signature: Date:

QuesionslConewns If you toe any ftafher questions or want clarification regardingthi s research and/or your participation, please contact:

Judy Lawrence. MFA Graduate Student Drama DepartmentFaculty of Fine Arts University of Calearv 403.245.104S' jiidyla\vrence'aitelas.net or Dr. James Dw§aa, Supervisor Chair, Department of Drama IMversitvof Calgatv 403.220,5422' If you tee any concerns about the way you've been treated as a participant, please contact Bonnie Scienter, Ethics Resource Officer, Research Services Office, University of Calgary at (403) 220-3782; email %onfiie.scherref@«ealpnr.ca..

A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. The investigate* has kept a copy of the consent form. Appendix XV 205

Interview Guideline of Questions

The State of New Play Creation and Production in Calgary: the Artists' Point of View

Reiterate and clarify what's been stated in the script guideline and on the consent form. Thank them for participating.

Have participant sign two copies of consent form.

Interview questions for playwrights and other related artists (ie, artistic directors of companies who produce/create new work) in the theatre:

1. [for emerging artists] Do you consider yourself to be a professional playwright/artist (as applicable)? If so, for how long. If not, how would you describe yourself? 2. How long have you been in Calgary? Where else have you lived and worked as a professional playwright/artist? Are you planning on staying in Calgary (why/why not)? 3. Can you give me a brief history of the steps, processes, milestones, that got where you are today, professionally speaking? 4. Anything in that history that would be different if you were to do it all over today? 5. What percentage of your work life (in a day, week, year) do you spend on your art? Has that changed over the last 10 years, 20 years (as applicable, depending on age of participant and length of time they have been in the work force)? Can you elaborate? 6. What percentage of your work life do you spend on other aspects (funding, promoting, etc)? Has that changed over the last 10 years, 20 years (as applicable, depending on age of participant and length of time they have been in the work force)? Can you elaborate? 7. Can you live on your playwright-related earnings? Please elaborate. 8. When I compiled a list of playwrights in Calgary that I wanted to interview, I could think of far more men than women, and I could not think of any playwrights who were from a visible ethno-cultural community. What would be your observations in this regard? Appendix XV

9. A year over year tracking of productions of new plays is not available anywhere for this country, let alone for this city. Can you comment on your sense of the volume of new plays being produced in Calgary over the past 10-20 years? The quality and scope/size of the productions? Any identifiable trends that you have observed? (If so) what influences do you believe have impacted these trends? 10. Is there a difference between what and how playwrights are producing today versus 10-20 years ago? Can you elaborate? 11. Is there a difference between what and how theatres are programming versus 10-20 yrs ago? Can you elaborate? 12. Is there a difference between what and how funders - Canada Council, AFA, CAD A, other - evaluate and contribute to the arts community/your work versus 10- 20 yrs ago? Can you elaborate? 13. Can you comment on the relationship between theatre/your work and corporations (sponsorships)? Is there a difference in this relationship versus 10-20 years ago? If so, can you elaborate? 14. Can you comment on the status of the relationship between artists and community currently - ie, how playwrights/artists are valued, who sees the work, how well is it received? And reciprocally, how does an artist see/value community? Is that relationship shifting? Can you elaborate? 15. Canada Council has a new pilot program called "artist in community program," based on the deconstruction of the paradigm of a 'signature culture' - of a singular 'genius' of an artist creating for the benefit of mankind - it is instead moving to shared, collaborative processes where the focus is off the product and refocused on the relationship between artist and community participants and the process. Can you comment on this movement/approach? 16. The 'creative city/class/economy' movement has been adopted by several cities across Canada - most notably Toronto and Vancouver - and Calgary Arts Development is an active member of the movement as well. (I will elaborate as necessary.) How do you see the impact this might have (if any) on your capacity as an artist and on the community in general (artistic community, and broader community)? Appendix XV

17. Are artists and producers developing new models of creating? Of producing? (if need be, prompt with examples such as: self-producing, performance creation, inter­ disciplinary fields, multi-media/ technological influences, etc.) Can you elaborate? 18. In various conversations I have had with arts producers, discussions on the similarities between arts producers and entrepreneurialism are raised (if need be, prompt with examples such as balancing artistic risk with financial resources, meeting 'product delivery' deadlines - ie, opening night - and investment in research and development, etc.) Can you comment on these observations from your experience? 19. How do you define success? How has risk - financial and/or artistic - impacted your career choices? 20. Where can we go from here? (prompt, if needed: what could our focus be, as artists, as community members, as funders, etc)? How can we grow?

For those involved in arts organizations that develop new work:

21. How does your organization nurture artists and/or the creation and development of new plays? 22. What kinds of support do you have for this? 23. Are there ways and means to value and evaluate artistic accountability? Please elaborate. 24. Do you consider the operational and structural norms of a not-for-profit theatre company - as examples, having a Board of Directors, the AD/GM relationship, public funding, choosing a season, subscriptions - of help or hindrance, artistically? Why and/or why not? (Sources of income: ratio of govt to private to audience, relationship to donors, audience.) 25. What have been your company's priorities through the last 10-20 years (ie, accountability, financial stability, artistic excellence, creative development, audience development, etc)? Are they differing now? If so/if not, how and why/why not? Appendix XV 208

26. All three levels of government are currently in 'tri-level meetings' to work on homogenizing/standardizing the structure of their granting forms. Can you comment on this development? 27. Can you offer a national perspective on your company's work? International? *****************************

• Any other questions or concerns • Any adjustments to the consent form • make sure they have my name and contact info and know about the two week deadline for changes. • Thank you.