|||
Back in May 2015 The Place’s Eddie Nixon and Christina Elliot and I had an email exchange that we then presented at a symposium at Oval House in London. I’d cut my formal ties with The Place (perhaps in 2013?) and was no longer a Work Place artist. It had been a difficult departure and I was disappointed by how I felt I’d been treated, and perhaps even a little disillusioned. That disappointment is not really part of the conversation Eddie, Christina and I presented but it did mean I felt freer to be direct.
I think it’s important to add that this to-be-presented-in-public conversation was Christina and Eddie’s idea. That they approached it with openness and generosity and presenting this at the Oval House can’t have been easy (although we did have a lot of fun as I remember it).
In November 2020 I emailed Eddie and Christina to see if they’d be OK with me posting the conversation online. Christina asked to read over the text but then I never heard back. They are busy there for sure (I get that), but one of my pet peeves as a Work Place artist at The Place was that so so many emails went unanswered.
So, here I am, posting this. Eddie and Christina — if you’re reading this and you aren’t happy that I posted it, let me know and I’ll edit/take down.
Subject: the sign on the door
Dear Christina and Eddie
On the door of the space that you work in at The Place is a sign that says “Artist Development Office”. What kind of development do you think this is referring to, and who are these artists?
Simon
Subject: Re: the sign on the door
Hi Simon, hi Eddie,
For me, “development” covers the series of projects or programmes that we run, which have as their most immediate objective that the participating artists achieve some positive shift in their creative or professional practice as a result of taking part, which they would not have been able to achieve on their own.
The more or less distant, and ultimate objective is better art for people. Sometimes that feels quite close to the project as an objective, but it needn’t always be.
The “artists” are mostly professional dance makers, who we think can benefit in some way from taking part in the programmes we run, and where that “benefit” has the potential for a wider impact (on audiences, or the sector, or the organisation).
Best wishes,
Christina
Subject: RE: the sign on the door
Afternoon both.
Some years ago we discussed painting over the ’and Artist Development‘ bit on the door but I argued to keep it. Our time and resources aren’t just spent putting on shows in a black box. As Christina says, we are trying to offer frames, interventions and people that will help artists nurture not only their next production but, perhaps, some distant idea instinct or need that they maybe can’t even define yet.
Those artists are the ones we ‘choose’ to help and work with. I imagine they could all develop their work and careers without us but I hope their artistic life becomes enriched by the possibilities and opportunities we provide.
I always hope that the words on the door are a reminder to all the people who work in the office on the other side — me, our producers, our technical and front of house teams — that we are all focussed on both the people who come to the theatre and the people who make the work that goes in there. I hope the sign is also a signifier to others that this is what matters to us.
Does that sign make you feel we have an ‘agenda’?
Eddie
Subject: Agendas and honesty
Hi,
I’m interested in this question of the ‘agenda’ behind artist development and the related issue of honesty between those ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’ the development.
Eddie and I were in an introductory session this evening for a project we’re running for recent graduates - a series of directed and self-directed research intensives to provide them with tools, inspiration, friends to begin their artistic career.
We were all asked to share our hopes for the project, and to do so honestly and openly. Eddie said something about hoping they would leave feeling excited rather than afraid; I said something about wanting to be open to learn myself from the sessions.
I didn’t articulate a key hope I have for the project which is that out of the six participants we continue to work with at least one or two, because they exhibit some combination of brilliance, initiative and ambition which we can nurture. Basically, that they prove themselves worthy of the time/money resource that we’re investing.
I didn’t say that, because in the moment, and in front of that vulnerability and hope, it would have been wrong I think. Also, I didn’t actually feel it - sitting with those young artists just starting out I felt invested in them as people and happy that even if they failed, whatever that might look like, it would be ok.
But it works both ways. Not one of the participants said they were excited to be part of the project because they thought it would give them a better chance of being programmed at The Place in the future. It does, and I’m sure that’s there in their minds.
Would that session have been better if we had articulated these things? It was a lovely, supportive first meeting as it was. I feel excited and happy to be part of it.
So often though, I find that tension with an artist has at its root some lack of honesty, or misunderstanding of expectations or agenda. I think it is really hard to get right, and really important to keep trying.
Christina
Subject: vision, agenda and transparency
Dear Christina and Eddie
Sorry for my delayed response. Already it feels like we have various threads or strands running through this conversation so forgive me if some get left behind or are not addressed.
Eddie, I think the sign on the door ought to reveal something about the work that goes on in that room. I am not implying that it doesn’t, more that I was curious about your grounds for those terms “artist” and “development”.
Christina, in your most recent email you raise some interesting problems about honesty, and ask “Would that session have been better if we had articulated these things?” I understand that within the question is the concern that by openly stating that being part of the recent graduate programme would “give them a better chance of being programmed at The Place in the future” might somehow compromise the feeling of warmth or support in the group.
I suspect there are different ways of addressing this problem.
First, I think that the artist development team could more clearly — and more publicly — articulate its vision (perhaps this is a better word than ‘agenda’, with that word’s common connection with the word “hidden”). This would help me — as an artist — decide if that vision a) makes sense to me, and b) something that seems to fit with my practice and understanding of the arts world.
Second — and more importantly — I think it’s a question of transparency, not honesty. Your concern is about a possible outcome for these recent graduates, but I understand artistic development to be part of a series of processes — some planned or co-ordinated, some arbitrary, some lucky, and some self-made. In other words, where I think The Place has failed in the past is in making the processes of selection and decision-making (and perhaps even the programmes themselves) as transparent as possible.
As someone who has been both an insider and an outsider in “artist development” at The Place, I can state very plainly that when I look at the artists who are chosen for different programmes (Work Place is probably the simplest example) it is a mystery how these people were chosen, and more importantly why others have been left out.
I know that resources are limited, but even with limited resources an organisation must be able to communicate clearly — and transparently — beyond those that are already ‘insiders’. If this doesn’t happen then people (including me) fill the vacuum of this lack of transparency with half-truths, gossip, frustration and at times anger.
I wonder if you agree that this is a weakness of The Place, and if so, what might you do differently to address it?
Love from sunny, warm and outrageously beautiful New Zealand.
PS Let me know if you want more or less provocation.
Subject: Fwd: vision, agenda and transparency
Dear Eddie and Christina
Just checking in to see that you got this aok, and to try and help keep the conversation going.
Curious to hear your thoughts. I have been thinking a bit more about this but will wait until I hear back.
Head back to London this week. See you soon.
Subject: RE: vision, agenda and transparency
Hi Simon,
I believe Eddie is half way through a response and has been waylaid by going on holiday…
In the meantime, I have a couple of thoughts which connect to what you’ve written, though perhaps don’t address it directly.
As a producer I often trust an artist’s instinct. Not always — sometimes I see it as my role to question or provoke — but I recognise that it’s not always straightforward to verbalise or justify creative decisions.
I sometimes find that less value is attached to a producer’s ‘instinct’. Granted, the decisions we make around money or schedules or contracts need to be backed up by solid reasoning, but there’s a more nebulous area which concerns partnerships, suggestions for creative team, when and where to expose new work and to who, which come, I think, from experience. My most fulfilling relationships with artists have existed when there is this sort of trust on both sides.
Separate to this, though related, is the importance of the personal relationship between artist and producer. At Fuel, a decision was made, about five years into their life, to only work with artists they liked. This may sound flippant, but where our resources were stretched, we wanted to focused on relationships which brought a degree of fun, excitement, pleasure. It was really unfulfilling working with artists who didn’t respect us or who were, in our view, difficult or obstructive. Of course, we didn’t explain it like this to the artists we stopped working with.
(By the way, I don’t mean in any way to imply that your comments, Simon, are difficult or obstructive!)
Best wishes,
Christina
Subject: Re: vision, agenda and transparency
Hello Christina and Eddie
Well, this opens up a lovely can of worms.
Was Fuel’s decision to “only work with artists they liked” made clear to artists interested in working with (or being ‘developed by’) Fuel? Do you mean to say you’d rather work with mediocre (or perhaps weaker?) artists that you like, rather than extraordinary artists that you don’t like?
What worries me about this (quite deeply) is that already the barriers for artists to develop a choreographic voice, make work, practice (etc) are quite high, but now you are implying (or saying) that they also need the right personality?
I don’t mind being an artist you don’t like by the way, and I’m happy to be difficult and obstructive.
Back in London now, but that sun is still shining.
Very best
Simon
Subject: Re: vision, agenda and transparency
Hi Simon and Eddie,
I think if there isn’t mutual trust and respect on both sides of the artist/producer relationship then it won’t be a successful partnership. No matter how extraordinary the artist, a producer won’t be able to support them in the best way they can without this.
But we should make the distinction between the relationship between a producer and an artist, and other relationships which exist between venues and artists under ‘artist development’. Of course this sort of connection isn’t necessary in all artist development programmes.
To answer your question, yes, I would choose not to work with an artist who is rude to me or my colleagues, or who doesn’t exhibit a level of care for the people they’re working with, no matter how extraordinary. Thankfully there are many many brilliant artists who are wonderful to work with - it’s not a question of settling for mediocrity.
I think we’re straying a bit from your original questions, but I suppose I’m trying to resist the narrative that you seem to be outlining of influential, faceless venue versus struggling independent artist. I’m suggesting that there’s a role in artist development for individuals, personalities and relationships which are not easily categorised or justified. It’s also why The Place isn’t the only source of artist development support in the dance industry (albeit I realise we are one of the larger resources and with this comes responsibility). If true objectivity were possible then we could leave it all to the Arts Council.
See you soon perhaps if you’re back in the country?
Best wishes,
Christina
Subject: Re: vision, agenda and transparency
Hello both
Yes, it’s difficult to keep these various threads alive and I agree we are (or I am!) straying off track a bit.
I’d still like to hear quite direct responses to my email of 31 March regarding transparency in the work of the artist development office. But if this is not that useful to this discussion then perhaps another question might be about the word development.
What do you understand “development” to mean in the context of The Place’s work?
And, just out of curiosity, what conditions exist — or have existed — at The Place that might retard or interfere with artist development? This is not to imply this is a common occurrence but rather to do with the edges of The Place’s vision, resources, experience and programme(s).
Best
Simon
PS I have to bite: my narrative has not been about “influential, faceless venue versus struggling independent artist” — it is more about venues with faces that make decisions behind closed doors. If it is a struggle to be an independent artist (over and above keeping and developing any kind of employment) then what aspects of that struggle might be softened by organisations in the name of artist development? An example that I really like about The Place is how application forms are kept to the barest and that you value face-to-face ‘interviews’ as part of selection processes.
PPS Eddie? Where are you man?
Subject: Re: vision, agenda and transparency
Dear Simon,
I’m sorry.
I have some thoughts in response to your questions below - Eddie can jump in as well. Perhaps if I say something really controversial…
You ask about vision and transparency.
For a ‘vision’ to be a useful guide for an artist, necessarily it would include some and exclude others. This would be artificial as there is no guiding principal, other than our subjective view of the best and most exciting dance artists and work, which governs the artist development programme. We do have agendas - they include supporting artists who we can see making work for our theatre, and who can help us reach new audiences. However, to state this in too bald a way would be to reduce the potential for surprise. We don’t only support artists who fit into these categories and we wouldn’t want to be in a position where artists are trying to adapt their ideas or practice to fit into our vision.
I would argue that there is a balance to be struck with transparency. It is because we understand the fundamental subjectivity of our job that full transparency is difficult. We make judgements about people’s work as part of selection processes, for example, recently, for Choreodrome. These judgements are made in as rigorous a way as possible - 4 people reading 250 applications (3.5 full days reading each), a day long shortlisting meeting, 4 days of interviews - and if we thought our notes constituted the final word on that artist’s work we would share them. But we know that despite this rigour others would disagree and that artist need not feel disheartened by our views. Many will receive support elsewhere. You may say that smacks of a resistance to defend ourselves. Perhaps, but it’s also a balance of our time and resources.
In the case of Choreodrome, I felt uneasy that we were applying criteria to the selection process that we had not published as part of the call out. However, again it comes back to a desire to be surprised by an artist’s idea that sits beyond and outside any guidelines we may wish to apply.
You ask specifically about the selection process for Work Place. I’ve responded to this in previous emails about the importance of the producer/artist relationship. With Work Place we’re offering a relationship, with all its nebulous, unstable qualities, rather than a straightforward give and take transaction. It’s really hard to articulate this.
These thoughts don’t necessarily constitute a defence though. I tend to agree that the issues you raise should be revisited each time we develop a new programme and whilst I’ve highlighted a few difficulties we grapple with, the frustration you speak of amongst artists is clearly something to be taken seriously.
I have a couple of questions for you Simon. Can you talk about any time you’ve had a positive experience with ‘artist development’ and, conversely, a negative experience (with The Place or elsewhere)?
Looking forward to continuing this conversion.
Best wishes,
Christina
Subject: Re: vision, agenda and transparency
You’ve both been pretty patient. An apology would have to be bigger than I can write here at this second .
So I am going to dive in and save that for later.
I don’t totally understand how one would articulate in a few sentences a vision for ‘artist development’. I might end up having a fairly reductive, ‘corporate’ feel; to try and sum up something that is based on relationships with many different creative artists in a soundbite on your website. If someone wants to know what kind of work The Place, or any other theatre might be interested in then pick up a brochure and go and watch some stuff. If you want to know what kind of artists they might be interested in collaborating with then do some research and look at which artists are involved in projects there. If you think you have an idea that is brilliant but doesn’t seem to fit then go ahead and pitch it to them anyway.
When we have open application processes we generally publish some simple guidelines about the kinds of projects we are choosing. Some of these opportunities are oversubscribed by 10 to 1. We don’t publish a bullet point list of criteria for selection. This is because I don’t believe this would be more or less transparent: Plenty more people will fit any set of criteria than we have the resources to help so decisions are based on evidence and knowledge about each individual and their work. They are not scientific. They are necessarily subjective — based on experience, aesthetic taste and yes, professional instinct.
If by transparency we mean giving individual feedback to say, all 250 applicants for a project. Well there aren’t enough hours in the week. But we do give individual feedback to artists that we shortlist and interview for projects. Often these conversations, though they might start out awkward, end up being the beginning of working together in the future. This is a really important way to work.
You specifically mention the Work Place. I am interested in how artists really feel about this idea of being ‘associated’. I know it is something you were uncomfortable with Simon. We’d gone for a few years without such a scheme but redeveloped it in response to hearing artists talk about the need for a home. That a series of residencies and commissions wasn’t enough and that they wanted to feel the support was ongoing rather than dependent only on whether the last show was a success. There was no application to be part if this scheme. We’ve chosen to work with artists whom we thought we could commit support to over a number of years based on our experience of them and their work. But of course I can see how these kind of relationships can feel exclusive. Why them and not me? Whose money is paying for all this support anyway? Again it comes down to the responsibility of those who manage resources to make subjective decisions.
Back (ages ago) when I was a dancer, I sent off CVs and went to plenty of auditions for lots of jobs I didn’t get. I can’t think of a single time when I ever received any feedback. Plenty of choreographers don’t ever hold an audition or advertise for collaborators. They recruit through private networks and research. I am not sure I’ve ever thought this lacked transparency. It is just a given that they are artists exercising their creative autonomy.
I wonder whether those individuals who work in artistic organisations making programming decisions and choices are really granted the same creative licence? To what extent is their subjectivity afforded the same respect by artists as is assumed the other way around?
I know that we are publicly funded but we’re not distributing benefits. It’s not like we can have a very detailed, complex application form and if you jump through every hoop you can automatically be given the support you are after. Our applications are pretty straightforward — answer a couple of questions and send some links to your work. There’s plenty of room for artists to communicate their ideas their way. Do you think this is the problem? In our desire to give people space to talk about their ideas we imply that the processes are completely egalitarian. Perhaps we could just be clearer about the fact that we are going to have to choose. Either that or we could get the Dept. for Work and Pensions to take over our application processes.
I am happy to be accountable for how we spend the resources we have the responsibility to look after. But does that mean we have to justify every creative decision in a public forum. Since we have been running the Work Place only two people have ever come up and asked me how they could get to be part of it and I have given them both a very direct, honest, personal ( and private) answer.
Gosh. We’ve also really deviated into a discussion/defence of selection processes. I know that many ‘artist development’ opportunities are accessed that way but before we know it we’ll be discussing aesthetics …
I wonder how it might be different if we thought about artist development as something with a small ‘a’ - a personal philosophy rather than something one has done to you. So you might work carefully on your own, or with your own producer, to ensure that you are getting opportunities and inputs that grow your art and career in a way you are interested in. You might also find theatres and organisations that are able to support some of those objectives too. We work with some artists who are more like this and it is much easier to have an honest conversations about what we need from each other to make it work and stack up. There isn’t really a hierarchy. We both have things to share with each other.
I also wonder about that need for an artistic home and how real that is? What kind of relationship do you envisage having with an organisation that supports you? Is it a two way, committed reciprocal co-habiting kind of thing? Or would it be easier if it was just commissions, residencies one night on the stage and no strings attached?
Eddie
Subject: transparency and development
Hi Both
Transparency isn’t about publishing selection criteria. It’s about communicating the kinds of things you have been communicating to me so that people understand the reasoning of how an organisation makes decisions. Everyone know its subjective so why not be transparent about that subjectivity?
Nevertheless I’m confused by the fact that you were applying criteria to (in this case) Choreodrome selection but are both talking about the subjectivity and fluidity of the process. Which is it? The confusion or ambiguity worries me.
Christina, in response to your questions:
Positive experience of artist development: I think the Workplace “Retreat” to Norfolk was positive. We seemed to start to discuss things that (I believe) matter about collaboration, power, and our personal histories. These discussions became difficult or heated at times and this seemed like it provided the opportunity to transform our thinking and practices
Negative experience: The Workplace seemed to want to be about supporting artists over a continuous period but I had a lot of trouble even getting email responses from the team. I felt isolated and it increasingly seemed to be a privileged club for (mostly) men. I remain unconvinced that it ‘develops’ artists as opposed to provide opportunities for them to present and make work.
I found it easier to remember negative experiences and indeed the one I mention is a long way from being the worst — that happened in Australia. Perhaps I’m jus a sourpuss and now no one will support my work after hearing me read out this shit.
This is from Guy Watson who grows the fruit and vegetables I eat:
“Vision can be inspiring but seldom lasts without a fair degree of compromise” — Guy Watson, Riverford Farms 27/4/15
In haste
Simon
PS I really like application processes for The Place. They are appropriately straightforward and give plenty of room to communicate ideas. I often describe them to people as a ‘model’ for how all application processes should be.
Subject: transparency and development
Hi Simon and Eddie,
Simon - it’s a little difficult for me to comment on your experiences as part of Work Place as you left before I arrived at The Place. Nevertheless, I’m interested in the distinction you make between ‘developing’ as an artist, and presenting/making work.
You’re right that we spend a lot of time brokering opportunities for presenting work. I believe this is an important aspect of artist development. For example, next week six of the Work Place artists will present work at BAC, as part of a programming exchange we organised. We’re aiming, through this, to position their work more broadly within the performance arts sector in London, and to expose their work to different audiences and promoters. We’re also taking three shows by Work Place artists to Edinburgh this year for similar reasons — it’s a chance to engage with the wonderfully curious cross art form Edinburgh audience and because of the undoubted showcasing opportunities it offers.
These are both opportunities for presenting finished work. We’ve also worked closely with an artist recently to tour his work before it was performed for press and promoters in London. There’s no doubt in my mind, having seen the show regularly through the tour, that the chance to develop the work in front of an audience has led to a more robust, nuanced and confident show.
I feel fairly strongly about the benefit of audience dialogue and engagement as an aspect of making work — the benefit of sharings, of touring work widely and to people who aren’t your mates, and of finding moments when on tour to revisit and respond to feedback.
I suppose I’m deliberately straying into ‘vision’ here. I’m still resisting giving a neat summary of my vision, but these are aspects of it. A couple of projects that I’m really excited by also describe it a bit. We’re working with the National Rural Touring Forum (NRTF) and China Plate on an artist and audience development project for dance on the rural touring circuit in England. It’s a chance for artists to explore a different way of touring, and there are lots of opportunities for dialogue with local audiences and promoters.
Another is Pivot Dance, a European project which pairs early career choreographers with creative producers to make a new piece. It allows for and encourages a dialogue around audience; local, national and international context; and funding alongside ideal process; creative team; and dramaturgy as part of the making process — all conversations that an artist and producer can have together.
I can’t help but counter your negativity with what I’m finding interesting and rewarding in my role at the moment. And yes, our vision is continually compromised. Today, by two negative funding decisions; yesterday by a sales report for shows coming up that we’re taking a risk on that might not come off; on Friday by the awful news from the Arches. We’re always having to make judgements that are limited by the climate we’re working in.
For me, the ‘before’ of artist development is one that is solely reactive (perhaps in a way that you hint at when you talk about emails going un-responded to — it suggests that you were the driving force in the relationship — though I’m also sure there are two sides to that story). The ‘after’ is an environment in which proactive producing sits alongside plenty of opportunities for us to be open to surprises and ideas from artists that we would never have thought of ourselves.
Best wishes,
Christina
p.s. we should probably think about how we edit and tie all this together. I suspect it may already be a bit long, and there’s probably some more ground to cover. I could have a go at this on a couple of train journeys I have on the Thursday, following your initial compiling Simon. We should also meet a bit earlier on Friday. It starts at 11am. They’ve asked us to turn up at 10am, but I’m sure I could push this back so we have time to chat.
Subject: Re: transparency and development
Hello Simon and Christina.
Your examples of good and bad experiences are actually helpful. Partly because they make me realise how far our relationships with Work Place artists have come in the last 18 months. Also because they remind me that every project or scheme evolves and grows and you can learn from what is working and what isn’t. You are right — the communication wasn’t good enough 2 years ago. It’s much better now. But not perfect yet. As you well know, for some of us timely email responses are a challenge.
I do unapologetically think that a pretty big part of artistic development is getting opportunities to make and show work. I also think that you can try and ‘catalyse’ this by engineering healthy circumstances under which this creation happens and also providing creative ‘food’ that encourage everyone to question their practise.
I am not sure I see the ambiguity around selection though. It’s pretty possible to have criteria and let the discussion be informed rather than restricted by them. There are just so many nuances to those conversations — the project, the artist’s history, the artist’s present practice, the work we might all have previously seen, our past experiences of supporting that artist. I’d argue that criteria that are too tight make for proscriptive choices. They might be less likely to encourage the forming of new relationships with artists. Of course if you are focussing support towards a really specific outcome - like you want to commission a new Christmas show or something — then that’s wholly different. But most of the time we aren’t. We are looking for some surprises.
I’ll think more on transparency and subjectivity and how we could be unequivocally clear how that works. Golly. It sometimes feels like there is so much suspicion about the motives of presenters and those who work in theatre’s etc. The majority of my colleagues who work in these roles care so much about artists and their creativity, livelihood and longevity. In fact it’s this motivation that probably made these people want to work in the subsidised sector of the performing arts. It’s certainly what motivated me. We all know that without artists and their ideas and determination and skill to create stuff then nothing else can happen. No art, no theatres and nothing new for an audience to see. I am pretty aware that the relationship is symbiotic. You know the last thing any of us want is to be opaque. And I am not interested in reinforcing hierarchies even though they can end up existing anyway when you have resources to share and too many people who deserve them.
I would say my ‘vision’ is compromised regularly by my own ability, time (everyone’s ), resources ( space, money) and by the context of working in London and England ( specifically distinct from rest of UK in this instance). But maybe I prefer the idea that ‘vision’ is constantly adjusting to the circumstances. Just like making anything.
I see the answer to the ‘before’ and ‘after’ question revolves around the artist. People will be making things happen before we meet them and probably, hopefully long after our support has stopped being useful. For some time in between we’ll work with them to see if we can realise ideas or a bit of that ‘vision’ together. How about you? How do you see it?
Questions for you both:
· If you had £50,000 (no strings) to spend on artist development what would you do with it?
· To what extent do you think the idea of having an organisation that is your ‘home’ might be useful?
· Do you think we should sustain support for a few artists or constantly look for different people to help? How long should we stick with them?
· How do you think running a theatre and an artist development programme can co-exist? How is it different if you are just(?) a producer?
PS: Simon - Thanks for your PS. Keeping things simple is a conscious decision. Especially when writing is a means of ‘applying’ for support for an art form where words are not the main currency. Here’s mine. I am not getting into the ‘mostly men’ comment though I feel able to point to our record generally at The Place and say we give lots of opportunities to women and men to create and present work here. Four WPlacers are women, seven are men. When we started it was 5 and 6. There is never going to be a quota because I think they are a terrible way to run an arts organisation but I am mindful of this balance. I also can’t remember ever sitting on any ‘selection’ panel here that was dominated by men.
PPPs: Simon - Ages ago you sent me this. http://www.australiantheatreforum.com.au/?page_id=1995&preview=true I read it again today. It’s really good.
Eddie
Subject: Re: transparency and development
Hi Simon and Eddie,
£50k - I would use it to develop a programme for dance producers. A combination of skills development, such as dramaturgy and fundraising, and individual bursaries which producers can use to commission an artist/new work they’re excited by, pay for some of their time to work on it, and support their own professional development (travel to festivals, attending conferences etc).
I’m interested in the question of how an artist development and theatre programme can sit alongside each other, as I’ve come from a building-less producing organisation. My observations are that being based in a theatre has some benefits - it’s great to be able to offer space in kind to artists, and having a doorstep makes it easier to get to know your audience. Also, I think funders understand and respond to doorsteps. I’d say the main disadvantage for artist development is that you can’t be as promiscuous with the support you elicit for artists you support. I don’t really subscribe to the idea that you ‘outgrow’ a venue or that an artist’s career trajectory is about scale, but there are some journeys or relationships, in our case with other venues in London, that we find it hard to go on with artists.
I think this goes some way to answering your question about what it might mean to have an organisation that is your home as well.
Do you think we should sustain support for a few artists or constantly look for different people to help? Ideally we do both - we offer committed and meaningful support to a small group, whilst making sure there are plenty of ways to get to know the work of others. A challenge, which I don’t think we’ve really addressed yet Eddie, is what happens when we need to stop supporting a Work Place artist. The more embedded and useful the support, the harder this will be, and it will be important to get it right or the balance between supporting artists long term, and being fleet of foot in responding to the needs of a wider group of artists will start to feel wrong.
Eddie — I want to know what you’d do with £50k too.
Best wishes,
Christina
Subject: Re: transparency and development
Hello both
Wow, you write long emails. Clearly you’ve got far too much time on your hands. (I wonder if that joke will read as a joke?).
I’m going to cut to the £50k question.
I would run 5 annual meetings with the entire independent dance community. These meetings would have themes and their purpose would be to build community, have artists listen to artists, and find ways to ask difficult questions. They would be very well catered and the location would be bright and spacious.
Themes could be something like:
Basically, I think the arts community has fallen into a trap of thinking that this is the way it has to be. It takes the boldest of all visions to imagine that one is not necessary or important. I would ask the most rudimentary of all questions — “What if what I/we do doesn’t make any difference?” and then assume that the question is accurate. The mantra for arts organisations would or should be “We are not important, we are not important” and individuals in those organisations could all wear t-shirts that say “I am not important”. I would join — and work my arse off for — any organisation that took this approach. I would stop being an artist. I would pledge my entire being to such an organisation. And I’d do it for nothing.
£50000 to stop, clear the decks, and quit pretending that artists need organisations to organise “artist development” would be a fucking great deal.
I suspect that reads/sounds like a salvo.
Simon
