O'connell 2013
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Towards a finer ecology: a study of fixed term subsidy for theatre in England O'Connell, C. Submitted version deposited in CURVE October 2014 Original citation & hyperlink: O'Connell, C. (2013) Towards a finer ecology: a study of fixed term subsidy for theatre in England. Unpublished MRes Thesis. Coventry: Coventry University. Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. CURVE is the Institutional Repository for Coventry University http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open Towards a finer ecology - a study of fixed term subsidy for theatre in England. By C.O'Connell MAR September 2013 Towards a finer ecology - a study of fixed term subsidy for theatre in England. by Chris O'Connell September 2013 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the Universityʼs requirements for the Degree of Master of Research Coventry University Abstract 'Towards a finer ecology - a study of fixed term subsidy for theatre in England.' This study contests that subsidy for theatre in England, as administrated by Arts Council England, is constricted by historical preoccupations that organise culture and are neither progressive to the organisation's goals as outlined in its document Great Art For Everyone (2010), nor adaptive to twenty-first century society. It explores the notion of what is often referred to as 'the wider theatre ecology', interrogating what is understood by the word 'ecology'. Finally, it outlines an alternative model for subsidy that invests not in buildings, but in a finer ecological approach that refutes hierarchy in subsidy and brings theatre organisations across cities or regions together into a matrix of provision. Contents Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 The birth and journey of subsidy in the arts and theatre .. 9 Chapter 2 Arts Council England and subsidy: State of Play 2012 .... 34 Chapter 3 An alternative model for the use of Arts Council subsidy .. 82 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 129 Bibliography .......................................................................................... 136 Appendix 1 Figure 1............................................................................ 144 Appendix 2 Figure 2............................................................................ 145 Appendix 3 Ethics Approval ................................................................ 146 Acknowledgements With thanks to the following, all of whom kindly agreed to be interviewed for the purposes of this study: Eleonore Belfiore (via e-mail), Matt Burman, Neil Darlison, David Edgar, Hamish Glen, Charlotte Handel, Meli Hatzihrysidis, Seth Honnor, Leila Jancovich, John McGrath, Julia Negus, David Nuttall, Joanna Reid, Ros Robins, Peter Stark, Martin Sutherland, Nick Walker, James Yarker. Thanks also to the following who submitted their thoughts by email, in response to various provocations: Mark Babych, Christopher Gordon, Jane Hytch, Jonathan Meth, Open Clasp Theatre Company, Dan Rebellato With special thanks to Dr. Geoff Willcocks Adrian Palka for their intellect, support and encouragement. To my dad. In Memory of Sheila O'Connell. Introduction 1 It is the intention of this study to postulate that Arts Council England's1 current programme of fixed term subsidy for theatre is constricted by a matrix of historical preoccupations that organise culture, and that have changed little since the organisation's creation over half a century ago. In light of the above, the study also considers that Arts Council England administrates a programme for subsidy that is neither progressive to the organisation's goals as outlined in its document Great Art For Everyone (2010)2 nor adaptive to twenty-first century society. Having discussed this, this thesis then goes on to consider what other models of subsidy might be applicable, or indeed, more appropriate in meeting and addressing the needs of the contemporary landscape of English theatre. It is important to mention that as well as being the author of this thesis, I am also a theatre practitioner with some twenty years experience. I acknowledge that although it evolved through a desire to construct a critical analysis of my professional experiences, writing this study presented some challenges. As a practitioner with Theatre Absolute, in Coventry, with first hand experience of both receiving and, in 2011, being refused NPO3 subsidy from the Arts Council, my opinions expressed within this thesis might understandably be viewed as being subjective. It was important, therefore, to ensure that the research methods I adopted were able to equalise any concerns of subjectivity. It was crucial that the people I chose to interview possessed developed professional knowledge of the subject matter, were able to respond openly to the issues I explored, and that their voices and opinions would remain authentically their own. My experience as a practitioner also offers the study a unique perspective in light of the fact that, had I not been a 1 As it is currently known, 2012. The Arts Council has changed its name over the course of its history. To avoid confusion, for the purposes of this study, unless stipulated, the more generic term the 'Arts Council' will be used. 2 See http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/browse-advice-and-guidance/strategic- framework-arts 3 See http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/our-investment/funding-programmes/national-portfolio- funding-programme/ 2 practitioner embedded within the structures of public subsidy for theatre, the research imperative of my thesis might never have evolved. The study was written from a post-positivist standpoint. By this, it seemed clear from both my long-term professional experience, and academic research of the subject matter, that there are no overall truths or certainties that can be applied to my subject. For example, it is not possible to prove that to administrate subsidy in one way, is categorically better than doing so by another, or indeed that the theatre produced will be 'better'. The ontological stance of my study, however, felt clear: subsidy for theatre and the arts, historically and currently, is controversial. I almost exclusively utilised qualitative research. It was not a choice made from the outset. Large amounts of secondary quantative data exist, and would support aspects of my research. For example, in the last thirty years the Arts Council has commissioned a series of reports and enquiries into subsidy, public participation, and attendance in the arts. For example, its Theatre Assessment (2009)4 and its Target Group Index5 contain significant quantitative data. However, the prospect of generating fresh primary research material through a largely quantitative approach, felt inappropriate for the study at hand. This was informed by my belief that data alone would not be sufficient to express the emotional landscape of subsidy for the arts. The study has referenced published texts regarding the formation, politics and constitution of the Arts Council, both past and present. Additionally, the study draws heavily on unique research material such as interviews and written personal testimony, collated via meetings with Arts Council employees, arts administrators, playwrights, theatre makers, directors and producers. Primary research has revealed that there is little evidence of other studies of this nature, which challenge the current model of theatre subsidy in England and imagine alternative models that may be utilised, in order to achieve a 4 http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/publications/theatreassessment.pdf 5 http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/TGI_arts_attendance_2009_10v2.pdf 3 more representative strategy for subsidy. Documentation on the Arts Council website which records an Open Space6 event hosted by Improbable Theatre circa 2007, perhaps comes closest to this study in terms of its provocation: "If you were the Arts Council, how would you do it?" The event, however, was a practical and discursive exercise and not recorded in any recognisable academic document such as this. The Arts Council itself has commissioned a variety of reports throughout its history7 that have recommended strategies of investment or sought to address inadequacies in its programme of subsidy. Yet, significantly, there appear to be none that have suggested alternative models for subsidy. Fundamentally, this study strives to articulate what it perceives to be a central juxtaposition for the Arts Council; that the model of subsidy which it currently uses and has implemented over the last sixty years is related to the value system of the historical period into which it was born, but is alien to that which now exists in the twenty-first century. Following its formation in 1945, a year later the Arts Council of Great Britain, as it was then known, was granted a Royal Charter8. Pledging to develop greater understanding and accessibility of the fine arts, the Arts Council encountered a nation and a century that had already witnessed huge social, economic and political changes. Following