Written evidence submitted by Wayne McGregor
Random Dance, Akram Khan Company, Jasmin Vardimon Company, DV8
Physical Theatre, and Hofesh Schechter Company (arts 83)
SUMMARY
— The five companies submitting this evidence
to the inquiry are all led by visionary choreographers/directors,
who create and tour critically acclaimed dance and physical theatre
productions.
— Between them the companies have won numerous
awards for their work including the Prix Italia, Rose d'Or, International
Emmy, Helpmann Awards, Globe de Cristal, Green Room Awards, Prix
Benois de la Danse, Laurence Olivier Awards, Time Out Awards,
IMZ Dance Screen Awards, Critics Circle Awards, and South Bank
Show Awards.
— The Companies range from the established
to the new, with DV8 Physical Theatre formed in 1986 and Hofesh
Shechter Company in 2008.
— All receive core-funding support from
Arts Council England at a minimum of £200,000 per annum.
— Arts Council England funding supports
the creation and touring of the Companies' productions to venues
throughout the UK, and the export of outstanding British dance
internationally. This core funding also supports a wide range
of other activity including dance training across statutory, vocational
and University education including teacher training.
— All five companies provide significant
return on this investment through earned income from commissioning,
producing and presenting venues, education work, and trust and
foundation support.
— Collectively the companies reach audiences
in excess of 250,000 in touring years; this does not include substantial
audiences across TV film, or participants in the Companies education
programmes.
— All five companies successfully engage
with and impact on the modern world, for example: Wayne McGregor
has been engaged in over a decade of collaborative research into
the nature of dance-making and the 21st Century body, particularly
its cognitive and biological/technological aspects. DV8's productions
around contemporary social issues such as human rights, religion
and multiculturalism have sparked debate and controversies, not
least amongst the Muslim community.[37]
What impact recent, and future, spending cuts
from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage
at a national and local level
1. The dance sector is thriving as a result
of sustained investment over the last 15 years. The 25-30% cut
that DCMS is currently asking Arts Council to model would, if
passed on, completely destabilise the sector. It would result
in less new work being made and less access to great new dance
for communities across the UK, as the funding from Arts Council
England currently subsidises the commissioning of new dance productions
and the touring of those productions in the UK.
2. Spending cuts are already being felt
by Companies particularly through UK touring. With funding directed
away from non-essential services at local levels, regional venues
throughout the UK find their funding negatively impacted. Whilst
venues are still booking shows there is a greater reluctance to
pay existing fee levels, and less support is being provided through
technical staff and resources. This results in a potential double
cut to dance touring companies if funding is reduced through venue
fees at a local level, and core subsidy to the companies at a
national funding level.
3. Touring within the UK for Companies at
this level is a loss leader whereas the Companies break even or
make money from international touring. However it is vitally important
that great British dance, subsidised by the British public, is
toured throughout the UK to give people access to great art within
their communities. The work often has a particular relevance within
the UK, and historic funding increases to some of these companies
were predicated on increased national touring.
What arts organisations can do to work more closely
together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make
economies of scale
4. This inquiry prompted an initial meeting
between five companies who work on a similar economy of scale—all
touring at the middle and large scale in the UK, and undertaking
substantial touring internationally. There is a great willingness
to explore working together but it has to be recognised that the
companies are businesses with different models and different "product"
that in some way are in competition with each other.
5. Although discussed, it was agreed that
it is inherently difficult for the companies to work closely together
on education, or the sharing of talent. The education work delivered
by the Companies is aligned to each choreographer's methodologies
and works. Sharing dancers assumes homogeneity to the works produced
by the Companies, which is definitely not the case for the five
represented here, whose differing styles and genres of works require
different talent.
6. The Companies are however committed to
further conversations and tangible efforts to explore working
jointly on marketing & publicity; to build expertise across
technical and production staff; the sharing of finance operations;
and shared administration on touring and company management. It
is anticipated that this could be valuable in thinking of new
ways of working and sharing knowledge. The Companies were in agreement
that outsourcing would not be considered as previous efforts had
not proven cost effective.
What level of public subsidy for the arts and
heritage is necessary and sustainable
7. The level of public funding necessary
varies significantly between dance organisations with the range
of models funded including producing and touring dance companies;
agencies—local, regional and national; and independent choreographers,
dancers and educators. However there is agreement that all organisations
in receipt of regular funding from the Arts Council have a responsibility
to generate between 30-50% of turnover from other sources.
8. Very few of the organisations within
the dance sector would survive without a basic level of regular
subsidy. It may be possible to tour, and perhaps deliver education
programmes reactively but it would be impossible to create new
work without Government investment.
9. The sustained increase in investment
in dance over the last 15 years has resulted in the largest number
of people ever watching and participating in dance.[38]
With continued or increased investment, the dance sector would
be able to increase distribution through being able to take greater
risks in underwriting the touring of work, giving more access
to audiences, and furthering audience development for dance.
10. The dance sector plays a vital role
in society in bringing communities together, in positively impacting
on health and wellbeing and creating work that inspires and challenges
individual thinking and creativity. The dance sector generates
significant return on Government investment, and contributes to
the economy through job creation and income through tourism and
export.
Whether the current system, and structure, of
funding distribution is the right one
11. We strongly support the existence and
role of Arts Council England. The organisation has a streamlined
and effective funding system, providing regular ongoing funding
to a wide range of arts organisations, and a simple open application-funding
stream through Grants for the Arts for time limited specific projects.
12. The regular three-year funding allows
organisations to plan effectively and work strategically with
a wide range of partners. It is vitally important that this regular
funding remains focused on core funding, which is the singular
most difficult area to secure from other resources.
13. Specialist staff within the Arts Council
rigorously assess this regular funding, and in principle we support
that this specialist assessment can lead the Arts Council to take
the difficult decision to disinvest in organisations.
14. Grants for the Arts funding supports
a very wide range of activity and has simple streamed application,
and processes. However we note that this funding stream has been
negatively impacted by the diversion of Lottery funding to the
Olympics with success rates reducing.
15. In addition to its two main funding
streams we also strongly value and support Arts Council England's
role as advocate for the arts sector in the UK. It has lately
been particularly excellent in informing and galvanising the sector
on key issues relating to arts policy and development, and demonstrates
a strong understanding of the environment and operations of arts
organisations.
16. We are concerned however on recent consultation
by Arts Council England to reintroduce strategic funding. We believe
that the current system, of ensuring that the majority of funds
are invested directly into the sector, is the most productive
spend of DCMS and Lottery funds. We also believe that since the
2002 restructure, which brought the Arts Council of England together
with the nine regional funding bodies, the role of "HQ"
has yet to work effectively. We believe that this HQ role could
be managed effectively between the four regional teams.
What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organizations
17. We strongly support restoring the percentage
share of Lottery funding to the arts back to 1998 levels. With
a minimal percentage of total Government funding directed to the
arts, any funding increase is to be welcomed.
18. The change has the potential to disadvantage
the arts sector if the increase in Lottery funds is used to correspondingly
reduce the percentage of Government funding directed to regular
funding for arts organisation. Organisations who previously had
to rely on Lottery funds to top up their Company's regular grant
are acutely aware of the negative impact on a Company's ability
to work strategically and plan without appropriate core grants.
Companies have to put significant human resources into the preparation
of competitive applications, are unable to plan in advance with
venues, and have to respond to differing reporting requirements.
This all takes up valuable staff time within companies resulting
in lost time to exploit other opportunities. A mixed economy of
Arts Council funding is debilitating to organisations, and debilitating
to organisations achieving Government goals for arts delivery.
19. The average audience reach of over 250,000
people across the five companies demonstrates the significant
impact regular funding has on our ability to plan, particularly
with venues.
20. We believe that arts organisations will
continue to work closely with the voluntary and community sectors
to ensure great arts experience and participation opportunities
for all. We believe that this will mitigate against the corresponding
reduction in Lottery funds directed to these groups.
Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery
funding need to be reviewed
21. We support the current National Lottery
policy guidelines for the Arts Council of England.
The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
22. The abolition of both these organisations
without consultation within the sectors affected has created a
climate of fear within the cultural sector. It is also more difficult
for us to understand the Government decision behind this abolition
without consultation to refer to. Whilst Government has indicated
that the funding for UK film will continue to be invested through
the BFI, it is not clear how the specialist expertise provided
by the Film Council will be replaced or how decisions will be
managed to ensure successful investment within this important
British cultural sector.
23. A particular concern for the arts sector
is the impact of the Film Council decision on investment in the
Regional Screen Agencies. These agencies work closely with the
arts sector on increasing the distribution of British art through
the creation of film and installation work, and greater exposure
and access to great British art through the digital screen network.
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play
a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level
24. We note that the current Government
regularly points to the United States arts funding model as the
example for increased philanthropic giving to the Arts in the
UK. There are inherent problems in using the US model as an example
of how long term philanthropy could play a role in funding the
arts in the UK. Direct US contemporaries of all five companies
involved in this submission have been unable to achieve anywhere
near the successes of the British companies in this submission,
primarily as a result of solely having to rely on philanthropic
giving. They have not received the same level of international
acclaim or awards for their work, with limited investment in new
productions, as extremely few philanthropists will invest in the
making of work. They commonly have to support their Company activity
with positions in dance faculties diverting time and energy away
from making their own work. They tour minimally in the US with
extremely limited international exports as they require greater
investment than companies coming from countries with public subsidy,
and they are able to provide little education and learning activity
in the US. We cite Robert Moses Dance Company and Brian Brooks
Moving Company as evidence of US companies surviving, not thriving
as a result of no public subsidy for over 15 years.
25. In addition support for younger artists
in the US is non-existent—historic US government support
was partly responsible for the development of the major US dance
artists we know today eg Merce Cunningham, Trisha Brown etc, however
there is no support for the new generation of US artists coming
up now. The Hofesh Schechter's of the US do not have the opportunity
to emulate the huge successes that this company has delivered
to national and international audiences over the last three years.
The significant successes of the five companies identified in
the summary paragraph are all underpinned by sustained public
funding. The most exceptional and successful dance companies in
the last 20 years have thrived in countries where public arts
funding is very strong such as Germany, Belgium and the UK.
26. The global economic crisis is now severely
impacting on philanthropic investment in the arts in US, and efforts
in the UK will be similarly hampered.
27. We also note that efforts to secure
business and philanthropic investment require significant human
resources to support them.
28. All this being said a number of the
companies involved in this submission are actively working on
philanthropic giving but it is generally acknowledged that the
current financial climate is challenging for philanthropy drives.
Philanthropists have also been extremely clear that they are not
interested in regular funding, or plugging gaps that occur as
a result of decreased Government spending in the arts.
Whether there need to be more Government incentives
to encourage private donations
29. It is difficult to change the UK tax
incentive model to that of the US as the majority of people within
the UK do not have to submit tax returns. However, the majority
of philanthropists do and therefore allowing them to directly
deduct their philanthropic giving from their income before tax
is deducted (as opposed to the Charity's claiming that back from
Government) would further incentivise private donations in the
UK.
September 2010
37 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/gay-muslims-support Back
38
http://www.danceuk.org/metadot/index.pl?id=22613&isa=Category&op=show Back
| 
