We’ve been having an interesting debate on the @ArtsPro Twitter account today, after the lovely Katie asked a question about whether it’s OK to Tweet at the theatre. Personally, I’m all for sharing experiences and opinions, but not during the show. No offence to anyone, but your opinion is not so important that it can’t wait until the interval/end of the show. By all means tweet about plays, and by all means tweet from inside theatre buildings, but during the actual play, phones off. And that includes iPhones, iPads, blackberries etc, too.

It’s not the noise I object to (although very few phones are silent), it’s the light. Back-lit screens are incredibly distracting when you’re sitting in the dark. So, by all means tell your followers if Jamie parker was fabulous as Prince Hal at the Globe (he was) or if Alan Bennett’s ‘The Habit of Art’ left you cold (it did). But wait until a suitable break. Please.

But, lots of people disagree, including this article, which I commented on when it first appeared (I’m @EllieFace, and I’m a curmudgeon). I reckon designated ‘tweet seats’ would be OK, so long as they were at the back of the stalls, where the audience can’t see. I don’t know how distracting it would be for the actors. What do you think?

With Creative Scotland due to be launched next month, following several years of political wrangling and rebellion, Eleanor Turney finds out from Chief Executive Designate Andrew Dixon what happens next.

Creative Scotland’s (CS) creation has been a bumpy ride, but Andrew Dixon is confident that the new quango will be “the right model for Scotland”. The new body set up to support Scottish arts is being constructed through the contentious merger of the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Scottish Screen, after years of to-ing and fro-ing with the Scottish Parliament and the arts sector. Dixon himself is new blood. He was previously in charge of the NewcastleGateshead Initiative, the marketing agency that promotes the region as a place of culture-led regeneration, and prior to that he was Chief Executive of Northern Arts and a member of the national executive team of Arts Council England. Dixon freely admits to not having spent much time in Scotland prior to his appointment, and brings a (perhaps necessary) outsider status to the role, as well as a wealth of experience.

With NewcastleGateshead he learnt that “artists and arts organisations are at the heart of everything”, and also how to “package and promote arts and culture”, properly. The ingredients, he says, are all there in Scotland, but it is CS’s job to “shine a light on all the hidden gems” as well as to take risks. Dixon enthuses about the “phenomenal energy” he has already encountered in the Scottish arts community, and sees his role as one that should be “keeping the momentum and building momentum”. However, he insists that he is not just planning more of the same: Dixon says that CS aims to “develop a different model of working” when it comes to funding and supporting Scottish arts. CS will have a “much more flexible way of working… taking a holistic view. We will carry artform specialists, but they will also have a higher responsibility for an area of geography, and for projects such as the Commonwealth Games or capital projects.” He is clear that the body will have as wide a remit as possible, and will “promote everything, whether we fund it or not”. There are several mentions made of CS being “a rallying call, not an institution”, but despite the repetition, he remains a little woolly about what a “rallying call” might actually mean in practice.

SCOTCH MIST?

CS’s new head has not been in post very long – he is in charge of a national organisation that does not technically exist yet – but it will be interesting to see whether the sound-bites will translate to a genuinely new vision, or are just enthusiastic rhetoric. Dixon is keen to “create a different language about how we spend money”, choosing to refer to the money CS gives away as ‘investment’ not ‘subsidy’ or ‘funding’”. Sceptics will note that it is going to take rather more than a change in language to introduce a new way of working and substantially differentiate it from, say, SAC. If a change in language truly reflects a new way of thinking, then all is well, but changing the language does not change CS’s relationship with the arts sector – at its heart CS is still a large public body with millions of pounds of public money to distribute. That’s not all it does or will do. CS also calls itself “advisor, advocate, investor and broker,” but whether you call it investment, subsidy or funding, money has to get from CS into the bank accounts of arts organisations somehow.

The Scottish Government lost £332m in last week’s efficiency savings. It has deferred making these cuts until next year, which will leave Scotland facing budget cuts of around £1bn. I suggest to Dixon that all of his hard work now, particularly soothing the arts sector, could come to nothing if the financial rug is swept from under his feet next year. But he is upbeat: he suggests that the Scottish Government’s decision to directly fund its National Companies (which has been successful [AP217]) demonstrates its commitment to the arts, and tells me he is “getting every message that the Scottish Government is committed to Creative Scotland”.

This potential uncertainty makes Dixon’s role itself a tricky one – is he a messiah or a guinea pig? “Scotland is a little bit different” from the other UK countries, he thinks, with “distinctive cultural differences”. He has to get his head round them pretty quickly and make CS a body that works with a sector that is wary of the change. There is a fear that the new body will be leaner, and therefore meaner, but this does not have to be the case. In his first few weeks in the post, Dixon has spent time talking with, and listening to, the arts sector. He is aware of comparison with other countries’ arts bodies, and acknowledges that “people will be watching” to see how it turns out.

FUTURE FUNDING

In his hands, CS has the potential to change the traditional funding model and also to become a model of best practice. However, unlike the arts quangos in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the new body no longer mentions ‘arts’ or ‘culture’, but rather concentrates on the all-encompassing ‘creative.’ Dixon defends this decision: “’Creative’ and ‘Scotland’ are good words”, he says. Well, yes, but so is ‘arts’. The jury is still out as to whether CS’s broad scope will prove to be its greatest strength or biggest weakness. Only time will tell whether such scope gives CS, and its Chief Executive, a deep and thorough understanding of the entire cultural sector in Scotland, or whether it stretches already-thin resources too far. In any case, now that the ball is finally rolling, Scottish arts organisations should sleep better – after all, CS has been too long in the planning to fail now.

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional issue 219. Monday 7 June 2010. www.artsprofessional.co.uk

Belts are tightening and cuts are looming: are local authority arts officers fighting a losing battle? Eleanor Turney talks to arts officers from across the UK.

As the recession continues, it is clear that local authorities’ (LAs) budgets are being cut, and arts departments cannot be immune from this increased financial pressure. AP spoke to arts officers from across the UK, and there is no doubt that money is tight and likely to get tighter in the coming months. All but one of the 30-plus arts officers contacted, mentioned potential or actual cuts as a key issue, with an increasing need to demonstrate value for money. Arts departments are either in danger of being squeezed out altogether, or are being asked to “deliver more with less”. It seems obvious that this is not a sustainable way to continue.

So what can arts officers do to fight their corner? Adele Poppleton, Arts and Creative Economy Development Manager at Kirklees Council, believes that “the strength of local government is that it is responsive to local need”, so perhaps some of the responsibility lies with local people and organisations to demand (and vote for) councillors who are enthusiastic about the arts. One ex-arts officer points to “the ignorance within most LAs regarding the value of the arts”, while several mention that all non-statutory services are an easy target for budget cuts. Another summarised the situation: “Whilst arts officers have always been good at developing projects on a shoestring, it feels more like creating a full-scale opera on a bootlace at the moment.”

For Art’s Sake

Among the LAs where the arts are valued, there is another fear emerging. None of the arts officers who spoke to AP mentioned the intrinsic value of the arts – except those who highlighted the lack of recognition for this crucial aspect. The arts are increasingly being used to deliver other agendas, to the extent that instrumentalism is in danger of overpowering artistic vision. The arts have necessarily become adept at making the case for the instrumental benefits they can bring, but this is now happening at the expense of entertainment, enjoyment and artistic worth. One arts officer, who wished to remain anonymous, told AP that she had observed “a move from enjoying the arts, to viewing arts as a tool for social change, often when every other service has failed”. Not only does this attitude seem to set the arts up to fail, but it puts arts services in the place of the last resort rather than top of the bill.

Many arts officers highlighted an increased demand from their councils for partnership work, particularly in environmental or health-related projects. One said, “the community/health/well-being benefits of cultural projects have to be highlighted for them gain support”. Emma Andrews, from Warwickshire District Council thinks “we’ve seen a real step-change in how arts is viewed within the authority, particularly in terms of how arts can be used to meet other agendas”. There is a whiff of desperation about some of these collaborations – excellent though the results may sometimes be: a sense of chasing the money rather than developing projects for their own sakes. Another arts officer puts it more bluntly, “Arts and health is something of a boom area and, as funding is available, we are working more closely with the Primary Care Trust and health providers.” While there is a place for the arts in health provision, and it can only be a good thing that the benefits are being recognised, it can’t be a case of either/or. People might begin to wonder if they have to be ill before someone will fund their arts activity.

Double Jeopardy

Arts officers are under a double pressure to forge these partnerships, and to make them work. Not only are LAs pressing for the arts to address their social agendas, but the money is in these other areas and the arts therefore need to fit in with the funders’ visions. There was a lot of talk among the arts officers AP spoke to about “how to add value”, how to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in the absence of concrete statistics and how to “make the value of [our] spend as visible as possible”. Patricia Dixon, Arts and Young People Manager for Birmingham City Council, mentions the problems of “how to respond to the challenge of accessing budgets held in education and social care by improving the evidence base to support commissioning of arts organisations to deliver against their objectives”. Loz Samuels, Arts and Play Development Officer for Wyre Forest District Council, says that they are “under increased pressure from the community to deliver. It’s fantastic that the hunger for arts development work has increased”. While local demand must be a cause for celebration, Samuels warns that “we are starting to see real impacts on our service… less resources and budget cuts”. Beate Mielemeier, Arts Development Officer in Rochdale, highlights the need for projects to be “well documented and evaluated”.

It’s not all doom and gloom, however. Chris Dixon at Ashford Borough Council was remarkably upbeat. He sees these partnerships as “new opportunities” and is aiming to “devise a long-term plan for a new Arts Vision”. Peter Salt, Arts Development Officer for Bath and North East Somerset Council, is also thinking about the future, and planning ahead: “We are increasingly augmenting our financial support to arts provision with packages of advice and training for arts organisations, artists and sole traders. Our aim is to… enable them to be more strategic about how they generate income and reduce their dependence upon local authority support. Skilling people as well as subsidising activity seems a more logical route to building sustainability.”

Polar Opposites

As arts officers are forced to develop partnerships across departments to survive, let alone flourish, the support and advocacy of the regional officers for Arts Council England (ACE) becomes even more important. Interestingly, questions about relationships between arts officers and the regional offices of ACE elicited very mixed responses. The best relationships are “very supportive” and take arts officers’ views into account, although many felt this was down to shared history, and that new officers in either post would find it harder. However, several arts officers were unstinting in their criticisms (they all, unsurprisingly, wish to remain anonymous). “The LA liaison officers do not liaise,” one told AP, while another accused their local ACE officer of “not really grasping the problem or the scale”. A number describe the relationship as “very poor” or “nonexistent”, with “intermittent support”, and there are fears that the imminent restructure of the regional bodies will be detrimental.

Looking to the future, there was a feeling of uncertainty, although there were places where the future looks either “reasonably positive” or, conversely, “grim”. Several arts officers said that financial hardship has forced them to work more creatively, but many felt that “discretionary services are seriously under threat”, and one feels “like I need even broader shoulders than ever before”. The only person who went against the expected opinion that arts services deserve to be fought for was the Manager of one Arts Development Service, who said, “Our service is not sacrosanct and I can’t argue that it’s more important than other council services, because it’s not.” This sentiment might well dismay arts organisations in her area.

Shining Examples

This all seems pretty bleak. There are glimmers of hope, but they are mostly found outside England. Belfast City Council is doing things differently. Kerrie Sweeney, Tourism, Culture and Arts Manager, says, “Our objective is to create a vibrant, cultural capital where arts and culture are… at the centre of economic, social and environmental regeneration… which inspires, empowers and elevates.” She recognises the benefits of the arts to help regeneration, but places them at the centre rather than shoehorning them in as an afterthought. She is also aware of the intrinsic benefits, as well the arts’ ability to boost the city’s cultural and economic infrastructure. Lorraine Grant in Aberdeenshire is similarly refreshing: “I hope we are developing a reputation for being supportive of and committed to our resident artists and arts organisations, even in times when resources are tight, because without

them many lives in Aberdeenshire would be far less rich.”

When non-statutory services are under attack, there is a sensible argument to be made for piggy-backing on a statutory one – hence the increase in partnerships with health work. However, during difficult times, the sector needs strong, committed arts officers who will fight to preserve and extend their service for its own sake. While most of the arts officers AP spoke to remain convinced of the importance of their service and determined to fight on, there was a worrying lack of talk about the intrinsic value of the arts. By working more creatively, and harder, many arts officers are making the best of a challenging situation. The lingering question, though, is when did the instrumental agenda become the only thing anyone can find time or money for? When was that argument lost?

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional 208. 14 December 2009.
www.artsprofessional.co.uk

Dodgy seats, wobbly sightlines and a controversial closure have given the Bristol Old Vic plenty of trouble in the past, but its prospects are looking up with Tom Morris at the helm. He talks to Eleanor Turney about his plans for the theatre’s future.

Tom Morris reminds me of a proud parent. He counts the ways in which he adores the Bristol Old Vic (BOV), asserts that it is “the most extraordinary theatre in the country”, and eulogises about his hopes for its future. Just as one would be loathe to tell a new dad that his baby is anything less than exquisite, I refrain from mentioning the shabbiness of the auditorium, the bum-achingly uncomfortable seats, the poor sightlines. It was once a beautiful theatre, and I’m convinced (partly by Morris’s enthusiasm and partly by Arts Council England’s (ACE) £5.3m cash injection) that it will be again, but at the moment it leaves something to be desired as a space to watch a show.

BUILDING EXCELLENCE

“The kind of theatre that I like is theatre that celebrates the presence of the audiences, rather than pretending or wishing they weren’t there,” says Morris. This can only be a good (if slightly obvious) thing for an artistic director to think – after all, audiences mean tickets which in turn, mean money, something the BOV is sorely in need of. Morris’s beloved auditorium is, he says, “ripe for that kind of programming” as he believes it is a “uniquely intimate, interactive theatre”. Unique it may be, but I can’t help thinking that’s a good thing, given how uncomfortable the experience of watching a show there can be. As a former associate director at the National Theatre, probably best-known for his success with ‘War Horse’, Morris is not unfamiliar with the challenges of unusual staging. He dismisses criticism that the BOV’s auditorium is flawed, suggesting that “if you engage with the auditorium in ways that are influenced by its original design… and if you think intelligently about the sightlines and how to improve people’s comfort and how to engage with the playing area, you end up with something that is a really exciting place for a theatrical project to meet an audience”.

ACE has put its money where its faith is by granting the theatre a large contribution towards its restoration, which will go some way towards fulfilling Morris’s vision of returning the theatre to “architectural principles that are much closer to an Elizabethan theatre than Victorian”. Again, it seems churlish to quibble with him when he is trying to take an intelligent approach, but Elizabethan audiences were rather different to theatregoers today, who expect a seat where they can see and hear the action. The space may be a marvellous one for a theatrical project to meet an audience, but it’s not such a great place for the audience to meet the project: a good third of the stage is invisible unless one sits dead centre, and the seats lurch enough to cause seasickness, distracting from the action on stage. Perhaps this will just set the theatrical bar very high – if the performances are good enough the backache will be forgiven, if not forgotten.

COMMUNITY SPIRIT

Morris, who took over artistic management of the theatre just over a year ago, is nothing if not enthusiastic (he uses the word “exciting” a lot during the course of our chat), and animated about the BOV’s possibilities. He is, for obvious reasons, keen to look to the future and put the building’s “period of inactivity” (when the theatre suddenly went dark for 18 months, many staff lost their jobs, and renovation costs crept up from an estimated £7m to £9m) behind him. Although he does not criticise his predecessors, he does admit that “the [previous] operating model for the theatre had not worked for some time”. However, he has big plans, beginning with “re-engaging [Bristol]”, a city which he describes as “very culturally active and potentially very, very culturally fruitful”. He also emphasises his ambition to restore the theatre to its former glory – both architecturally and artistically.

Bristol may well be the place to do that. Morris often returns to the importance of the city and its residents. He would like to position the BOV as a responsive site, one that allows the city’s creative community to come up with ideas that might turn into pieces of theatre. “There has been a slight shift away from thinking of theatre simply as a product to be put in a shop (or a theatre) and sold,” he explains, keen to emphasise the idea that theatre should exist as part of an ongoing debate with artists.

Morris also acknowledges that ticket prices are a substantial obstacle to the casual but curious theatregoer (echoing findings from the most recent Society of London Theatre report [AP215]), curiously referring to the BOV’s £5 tickets as “an invitation” rather than an audience development initiative. His commitment to programme theatre that lures in new audiences is another high priority, he wants “work that doesn’t seem alien to non-theatregoers”. Morris has no shortage of experience and creative ideas. As he reels off the triumphs of the city’s assorted cultural venues, it is easy to be convinced of his fondness for the area. More than that, it is reassuring to come away feeling that, finally, the Bristol Old Vic is in a safe pair of hands.

This article first appeared in ArtsProfessional 216. 26 April 2010.
www.artsprofessional.co.uk

“People will pay for it if it is good enough. People will pay if it is original, exclusive, has authority and is relevant to our audiences.” John Hartigan.

I’m not convinced this is true. We’ve been chewing this one over at AP towers quite a lot recently, (www.artsprofessional.co.uk if anyone’s interested – it’s good), and perhaps once a decision has been taken I’ll be at liberty to share the discussion here. However, what came out of today’s meeting is that I really think that print journalism is on the way out. Logically, if you can get something for free – legally – why would you pay for it? While it’s nice to read a paper in bed on a Saturday morning, the chances of me actually forking out £1.50 for it are vanishingly small. Putting aside the fact that I get paid to read the papers for News from the Nationals, I get my news from free sources, and no-one can deny that newspaper circulation is diminishing. Colleagues have variously said that the Guardian is losing £50m or £80m a year (don’t quote me), and its journalists don’t get paid to blog. In my humble opinion, it is the blogs that put the good ole Grauniad above the other broadsheet press. I love the debate and opinions that fly around on the ‘Comment is free’ section and on the blogs – which you just can’t get with a print copy of the paper unless you specifically sit down with other people who have bought and read the same paper. Sharing a link is so easy.

I think the value of newspapers lies in the expertise of the writers, what Hartigan refers to as ‘having authority’. Anyone can blog (um…) but not anyone can be published in the Guardian (or the Times, Telegraph etc). It is this vested authority that makes the content appealing. The point was made that bloggers will never have the authority and gravitas of a paid national journalist. I disagree. The point that you don’t know whether you can trust bloggers because they haven’t been verified by a newspaper, is valid insofar as, as I said, anyone can blog. However, it is only by proving some kind of value that bloggers build up a following. It may take longer to figure out a blogger’s political slant, personal bias, background etc, but perhaps that will just make readers more open-minded. If I come across a journalist because they have written something for the Guardian, I immediately make certain assumptions about them, just as I do when reading someone who writes for the Mail. If I came across Melanie Phillips in cycberspace it might take me a whole nanosecond longer to work out that she’s poison than if I read her in the Mail. While I would still search out validated heavyweights for educated political or financial analysis, if I’m looking for information on something I know a little about already and have enough nous to judge the truth and relevancy of an opinion, the blogosphere is great for less restrained content. Originality, exclusivity and relevancy are not enough to make people pay when they can find all three for free. I acknowledge that it is harder for free content to have authority, but it is by no means impossible. With respected journalists and academics writing for free, the only problem is that it can take a long time to sift thought the rubbish to find the useful content. But then that’s true of certain newspapers, too.

I am now, officially, a real journalist. Oh yes. Having worked for ArtsProfessional for almost exactly six months, I have been writing APe-mail since January. Yes, I am known as The Ape. No comment necessary, my colleagues have made all the jokes. And I mean all. Anyway, APe-mail goes out to about 11,700 people - not all of whom are my friends and family - and gets read by lots of other people in the arts. It’s basically a round up of the fortnight’s arts news, and it’s actually quite useful for people who don’t get paid to read all of the broadsheet press every day (smug smug smug). As of today, due to a well-timed request, I now have a byline. Having been an anonymous Ape for the last few weeks, I am now bylined in all my glory at the end of my overview piece of writing. I am really quite excited, and feel like a proper journalist.

The free tickets scheme for under-26s launches on Monday. My colleague and I are already plotting our assault on the website, and have every intention of getting as many freebies as is humanly possible. I will be blogging on our experiences – how easy/hard it is to actually get hold of tickets, how different theatres are handling the scheme, whether what we see is any good – on the ArtsProfessional website, and as usual, would welcome comments and information on other people’s experiences, too.

I am not filled with hope at the moment, I have to say. Call me a cynic, but there’s just not enough money behind it to give away tickets without damaging theatres’ revenue. I know that makes me hypocritical for using and abusing the system, but it’s free! And I’ve only not been a student for sixth months, and free stuff makes me happy. Very happy. I’ve noticed already, though, that the Young Vic are limiting people to one booking per year (although you can book up to six tickets at a time, provided each ticket goes to a named under-26 who turns up on the night with ID), and The National’s link from the Arts Council’s website doesn’t work and its own website strangely carries no mention of it. The National, the RSC and the Young Vic all already do their own cheap ticket deals (The National’s Travelex tickets are a tenner, and available to anyone, the RSC do £5 tickets for every show on a first-come first-served basis with at least ten available on the day, and the Young Vic offer £5 to Southwark residents and £10 to students and under-26s anyway), and it will be interesting to see whether these have more or fewer takers. I hope that people who try and book a freebie and miss out will be tempted to book for a small fee anyway, but we shall see.

I’m slightly annoyed that I’ve already booked, for real money, almost everything that I want to see at participating theatres in the next few months, but I only have myself to blame. There’s some good stuff coming up at the National, and a free ticket makes the prospect of paying the train fare to London and dashing to catch the last train home again much more appealing. I’m still upset that the only venue in Cambridge that’s participating is The Junction, when everything good seems to be at the Arts Theatre, especially given that the Arts Theatre’s student/young person reductions are pitiful and never seem to apply to anything I want to see. On a tangential note, the worst culprit for student deals that I have come across is the Theatre Royal, Bath, which takes a quid off prices. A whole quid. Unsurprisingly, it is not offering freebies, either.