Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-402)
LICHFIELD GARRICK
THEATRE, DERBY
PLAYHOUSE, BELGRADE
THEATRE COMPANY
22 FEBRUARY 2005
Q400 Mr Doran: It is only a link to tourism.
Mr Glen: There are various other
pockets of money, but they are specific pots of money to develop
the companies in cities and areas that are eligible.
Q401 Mr Doran: That raises the point
about how the arts gets its message across in respect of the impact
it makes on the economy. Earlier I was able to question a member
of Birmingham City Council, and they have done half a job in identifying
the actual spend and the impact on job creation, but the only
way you will access public money is by doing more on outcomes,
and impact; and it seems that the Arts Council and certainly the
theatres have not been very good at doing that so far.
Mr Glen: I think that is true.
At Dundee Rep I did an Economic Impact assessment ten years ago,
and it became a crucial piece of evidence for me to take to Scottish
agencies to attract money, which had previously thought it was
an absurd idea that they should be investing money in theatre,
until they had an economic impact, so they found they almost had
to. I am less certain as to how well that has been done down south
over the last 10 years.
Ms Reid: We have done another
on the Belgrade as well.
Mr Ablitt: Can I just add to that,
because a comment was made that the Arts Council is less rigid
with their outcome expectations. It so happens that I sit on the
Arts Council West Midlands and there are a wide range and constantly
fluctuating outcome expectations of their investments, but I just
wonder whether they are communicated at all. I do not feel, certainly
talking to Paul, that he has been made aware of them, and indeed
that he has had much in the way of constructive dialogue at all.
There are expectations about the council's money, but it is just
such a maze.
Q402 Alan Keen: If we had been sitting
where you are, we would have been giving you all the answers you
wanted in respect of the questions. You have been so well behaved
and respectful, and some of the other witnesses as well. Can I
give you some freedom? We will put the report together—and
DCMS might tell us to go and jump, but can I give you the freedom
of not speaking for your own theatres and ask what paragraph would
you like to go in there on theatre as a whole?
Mr Everitt: What a huge question!
The whole thing about art must be—Samuel Johnson's thing
and Shakespeare's thing about art must reflect society, is absolutely
vital. For theatres like ours in rural areas, I think there are
voices not heard in the country; there is a whole deafness to
certain communities. I find Lichfield a fascinating community,
in the fact that no-one quite understands it. These days, in the
make-up of its community, no-one quite wants to understand it.
What is interesting to me is that as a working-class boy growing
up, I felt that growing up anyway as a working-class man—in
my early career at Theatre Royal Stratford East and then Oval
House, I straight away identified that with the black theatre
companies and the black and Asian communities, there was a huge
struggle in the 90s for theatre for those communities to be created,
and the whole fight with the theatres I was working with to reflect
those voices. But they are not the only hidden voices in this
country; there are also communities like Lichfield that are hidden.
The resources are not being given for new artists to be created
from those communities. That is the investment that we think should
be coming out. It applies to your question to Birmingham Rep about
working-class people going to the theatre. Actually, there are
great examples of that in this country. Joan Littlewood was one
of the principals of Stratford East in the 50s. There needs to
be investment in those voices.
Mr Ablitt: I believe it is about
quality of life. I think it is quite possible for art to get completely
hung up in its existence for its own sake, but it is about the
quality of life both in terms of the height of the quality and
the breadth of people it touches. I think the function of our
theatre and of others is to try and give the highest quality of
artistic experience for the maximum number of people. Consideration
of grant or consideration of public subsidy is a function of how
you can achieve that bulk. The greatest thrill I get in our theatre
is when I talk to people who have come to see a piece of quality
art as a consequence of having been to see a piece of popular
art that was probably their first experience in the theatre. We
get adults and children in who have not seen theatre before, and
they can graduate through the theatre to enjoying quality art,
and they would not travel 20 miles for that experience because
they would see it as a risk.
Ms Hebded: The two gentlemen on
my right have talked about art and I am going to talk about money!
To put it on the record, I think that the standstill funding that
has been put on the table for the arts and the Arts Council is
a scary place for those of us who work in the sector, especially
because of the fantastic investments through the Theatre Review
and through the extra money that went into the Arts Council is
in danger of being lost if you start going through a stop-go like
the one we had in the 90s. There is a real danger that we might
go backwards—that everybody has a little bit of a breathing
space to start to grow and flourish and look at what might be.
That work has just started, and there is a real danger that we
might just go backwards. As a sector we need to find the language
to talk to government and to make the case. We need to be more
transparent and come up with economic arguments, economic impacts
and artistic arguments to have a strong dialogue with government
to make sure we can continue. I am not talking about the same
level every year because it is not possible, but we must make
sure that we do not lose what was gained by that kind of foresight
and investment.
Mr Galvin: I agree totally with
what Karen has said but I also want to build on what Colin said
a moment ago. One word I have not heard much about, which is an
important ingredient—it is not the only reason or necessarily
the most important, but people go to the theatre to have fun and
to be entertained. I think there is room to recognise that that
is an important part of people's quality of life. Like Colin,
I get wowed by the wow factor—those people that have not
been there before but come out and go "wow, I never knew
things like this happened in our city". Perhaps there should
be just a little paragraph saying that theatre is about fun too,
which would be really good.
Mr Glen: I was going to make that
point as well. We were certainly defeated in the industry by what
looks like a settlement from the Treasury that threatens an investment
that has been made and has proven itself to be hugely successful.
I do not really understand the penny-pinching. The only thing
I would add, in terms of linking the buildings with art, is that
you tend to get the mentality that shows a poverty ambition; you
start to go into a mentality of the management of decline if you
are on year-on-year cuts or stand-stills which equals cuts; it
provides a different mental space for people in our sorts of organisations.
Ms Reid: At the moment theatre
I think is at a really exciting stage. It is incredibly vital
and the work is fantastic. We have seen Schiller on the West End,
and it is absolutely amazing, and it is wonderful what is happening
at the National. Actually, that is a direct result of the Theatre
Review money that came in two or three years ago. It is sustained,
regular funding which is really important. It allows the theatre
to change gear, and we are ready to carry on and move on and move
up, and to go back to the stop-start funding is a real disaster.
Chairman: That is useful time. Thank
you very much indeed, and for your contribution this morning.
| 
