VIEWS of THEATRE in IRELAND Report of the Arts Council Theatre Review
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
VIEWS OF THEATRE IN IRELAND Report of the Arts Council Theatre Review An Chomhairle Ealaíonn/The Arts Council Theatre Review 1995 - 1996 Theatre Review Co-ordinator Declan Gorman Administration Frances Ryan Additional Administration Liz Powell Steering Committee Paraic Breathnach Mary Elizabeth Burke-Kennedy Eithne Healy Vic Merriman (Chairperson) Officers at Committee Phelim Donlon (Drama) Marian Flanagan (Arts Co-operation - North/South) Mary Hyland (Communications) This document is the first part of a process, which will take a year to complete. Publication of this report will be followed by a sequence of consultation meetings to be held at national and local level, between December 1995 and February 1996. Details of these meetings are set out in Appendix 4 of the final section. ISBN 0 906627 67 2 © An Chomhairle Ealaionn/The Arts Council 70 Merrion Square Dublin 2 Published Nwember 1995 Designed by Public Communications Centre Printed by Wood Printcraft VIEWS OF THEATRE IN IRELAND Report of the Arts Council Theatre Review 5 Foreword Ciarán Benson, Chairperson of the Arts Council 11 International Perspectives Essays by Neil Wallace, Helena Kaut-Howson and Eduard Delgado 13 The Four Estaits Neil Wallace 27 Flowers Among the Ruins - Identity and the Theatre Helena Kaut-Howson 47 The Music the Stranger Hears Eduard Delgado 59 Theatre in Ireland A research project conducted by The Business Research Programme The Graduate School of Business University College Dublin in association with Coopers and Lybrand Corporate Finance 199 A Doing of Life A Profile of Drama and Theatre Practices involving Young People and the Broader Community Compiled by Declan German FOREWORD Ciarán Benson Chairperson The Arts Council Foreword Inertia sometimes saves a system, but more often than not renders it inflexible and unresponsive. It did not take the present Arts Council long after assuming office to realise that the types of decision it was meant to make and the range of options it had to choose between need not necessarily be those that had worked well in the past. In coming to grips with our statutory brief we formed the view that across the arts the landscape was rapidly changing but that the quality of the shapes it was assuming was often very unclear. Were we to think of ourselves as Capability Browns who should re-model and re-contour our fields according to some harmonious masterplan or as benevolent governors who with meagre resources responded to the many citizen farmers in a piecemeal way and who allowed the landscape as a whole to develop as it would without a governing vision? In preparing the Arts Plan 1995-97 we implicitly decided in favour of coherence but of a particular kind, or rather from a particular source; neither the Arts Council alone or the arts community alone but both together in the most creative way. With a minimal level of staff who had to cope with a relentlessly expanding range of demands, and a voluntary council, we acknowledged our limitation from the beginning. Many of the questions we asked had no available answers and without such answers we found it very difficult to frame our policies. Theatre and drama highlighted our dilemma. In our first year of office we spent an anxious time realising that the growth of the independent theatre sector, the needs of the National Theatre Society, the Gate and the rest of the theatre world was in all likelihood fast out-stripping the resources available to nurture and sustain it. Starkly presented, were we to cut and concentrate, or dripfeed and starve, or put all of our efforts into campaigning for a bigger cake and temporarily stave off the necessity of either type of choice. The Arts Council does not need to be convinced that a lot more by way of resources is needed; but together with the arts community we need to convince government, both political and civil, that these are worthy ways to spend taxpayers’ money. This was the purpose of the Arts Plan 1995 -1997, as well as The Public and the Arts and The Employment and Economic Significance of the Cultural Industries in Ireland, all of which were published in 1994. At the same time, we were being made aware by the theatre sector that there seemed to be an underlying problem with audiences and with the state of the infrastructure for theatre in Ireland. The quality of the work and the numbers of people working in theatre across the country was growing all the time. But nobody knew enough to have the sort of confident overview that would assist us in planning how best to support theatre in Ireland. The world of theatre itself was disunited and did not speak for itself with a clear voice. The reasons for this may have had to do with a territoriality induced by inadequate resources but it may also have had to do with the lack of the an occasion or opportunity to collaboratively work towards a consensus on the best interests of Irish theatre in the coming years. The present review is the Arts Council’s attempt to create a climate out of which some lineaments of possible consensus might emerge. In the most succinct terms the process is one of review - debate/consultation - policymaking. This document is the first part of a process that will take at least a year. The process is new and the document is deliberately experimental. To have followed the usual path and commissioned a single expert-author report on ‘Theatre in Ireland” would have missed the point and an opportunity. No single viewpoint, in my opinion, could do justice to the richness of perspectives currently at play in Irish theatre nor are a single set of recommendations what we need just now. The way forward must come from frank, open and informed dialogue. Change will be required of all involved including the Arts Council. To achieve a context for constructive debate this publication is deliberately and explicitly inconclusive. Its job is to open up and not to shut down debate. It is a document of many voices and that ensures that in the text, most points of view should find some sympathetic resonance. It is in two parts. There is an empirical core in the form of the largest ever collection of data and opinions on theatre in Ireland. This was opened to competitive application and the consortium of UCD and Coopers and Lybrand won the contract. Both have accumulated expertise over recent years on the social and economic dimensions of the arts in Ireland. Although appointed by the Arts Council to carry out this part of the review, they did so independently and at arms’ length. As such this section is theirs and as objective as is possible in the circumstances. Their findings are very authoritative in that the response rate from those surveyed was exceptionally good by normal survey standards. Areas covered include the available resources for Irish theatre, funding, repertoire, touring, audiences, the National Theatre society and the Arts Council. Paired with this report is a second section compiled by Declan German which offers an outline of theatre for young people in all its variety together with a description of amateur and community drama. Appendices to this section include a description of the contribution of FAS to the theatre world. Taken together this report contains the richest and most comprehensive description of the infrastructure of theatre and drama ever compiled and published in Ireland. Some people whose concerns are not primarily with the infrastructural aspects of theatre organisation might find this detail a little indigestible. So we asked three distinguished people from outside Ireland to come and visit Ireland, to talk to whomever they liked, to see whatever theatre they wished to see, to read whatever documentary information was available, and to write a personal essay which looked forward for the next five years or so. Neil Wallace, Helena Kaut-Howson and Eduard Delgado agreed to do this and have visited Ireland a number of times over the last few months and have entered into the spirit of the review process with enthusiasm and independence of mind. Their personal essays are intended to kick start the interpretative side of the coming debate and consultation. Views of Theatre in Ireland 1995 is exactly that - views, and there are many legitimate ones. Not everybody will like what they find. Speaking for ourselves in the Arts Council, the criticisms of our funding policies and practice come as no surprise at all. We arrived at these opinions ourselves in the course of the internal examination which we carried out on ourselves last year. It was precisely because of our own awareness of these problems that we instigated the whole process of which this review is the start. Coherence of vision for itself from within the expert world of theatre practice would be greatly welcomed by the Arts Council. The alternative is the one we often face whereby all the hot chestnuts which can not be solved by the theatre world are shunted for Solomon-type solution on to the table of the understaffed Arts Council. Maybe at the end of this process of review and consultation we will come to the conclusion that this is how it must inevitably be. But our hope is for more than this; we want the best for Irish theatre and that means knowing whether Irish theatre has a viable collective vision for itself. 86% of those surveyed were of the view that the level of interaction and contact between the different areas of theatre was poor and 73% believe in the need for a body to represent the interests of theatre in Ireland.