Thursday, September 30, 2010

Theatre, opera and national arts companies… [i]

We don't go to the theatre because it is cute but because we are members of the human race...


I lived in London for a short but wonderful 3.5 months. If there was one thing London proved to me about arts and theatre it is that there is a lot of it.

I always knew in theory that there was an abundance of choice available to me when it came to entertainment; the widening of the entertainment industry is well documented. Academic Chris Anderson - who pioneered the The Long Tail Theory - sees that as production and promotion becomes less expensive niche markets become more economically viable; the result for the consumer being an abundance of choice. (Anderson: 2008). This means the entertainment industry market place is becoming more and more crowded; there are more and more companies and individuals offering hits and non-hits.

Yet never had I been so aware of it in reality as when I came to London. Compared to Sydney, London is absolutely bursting at the seams. The print advertising on any given tube station is evidence of this. In one day in London (the 20th October) I saw an English National Opera production of Britten’s The Turn of The Screw in the morning and Inherit the Wind at the Old Vic in the evening. In one week I went to Canterbury Cathedral on saturday, to the Comedy store on Sunday, to the Tate Brittain, a Turkish restaurant and the Arcola theatre on Thursday and to the Tate Modern, Borough Markets and local pub on the Friday. The amount on offer –paid or free –is extensive

For large subsidized cultural organizations such as Opera Australia in Sydney or the National Theatre in London, this can mean new opportunities as it becomes commercially viable –and sometimes necessary – to offer both hits (LaBoheme, The Pirates of Penzance at the Opera House and Warhorse The NT production which moved to the West End) and non-hits (or at least something a little more esoteric like the opera Lady Mcbeth of Mtsensk or the play Endgame), but it also means they must be active players in the market place. They can no longer rely on getting government grants, but must work to maintain cultural relevance and audience attendance. They must prove both to governments and to audiences that they are worth supporting. So here are some of the reasons why it is good to have a national company, and why it is good for those companies to be financially supported through private giving and government funding.

SO WHY HAVE A NATIONAL THEATRE?

Given that society values the production of high quality theatre which is enjoyable, entertaining and sometimes challenging, a theatre company the size of the National Theatre in London of Opera Australia is of importance because they can put on a varied season offering several productions that meet a variety of tastes and interests; employ large numbers of fulltime and permanent part-time staff and are able to gain an international reputation thus acting as an advertisement for the nation by showcasing it’s artistic and cultural potential.

BUT ISN’T THIS SORT OF THEATRE JUST FOR WEALTHY PEOPLE?

There is a significant argument against subsidy for companies like Opera Australia due to the fact that they attract small audiences from a fairly limited demographic. I would counter this firstly by suggesting that if OA received no government support and relied solely on ticket revenue for profit, they would never be able to reduce the cost of ticket prices, thus people with lower incomes would become even less likely to afford a ticket, and so the audience demographic would be narrowed even further. Secondly, by offering regional tours and schools concerts OA is able to widen its audience demographic and take opera to people who may never be able to make it to a performance at the Opera House. A recent article in the SMH illustrates the value which the Oz Opera tour adds not only to the company, but also to the towns which act as host to the touring arm of OA. Through tours like this companies like OA are able to demonstrate that they are not just for wealthy inner-city dwelling people.

OA is also beginning to film its performances for future cinema and DVD release, as other international companies (Metropolitan Opera, National Theatre) are already doing. In the National Theatre’s 2009 annual report, the Director, Nicolas Hynter wrote about new ventures the company was undertaking to extend the reach of the National Theatre into the entertainment market, such as live broadcasts in cinemas and new Sunday performances. These programs have been well received, and have become permanent features of the company. Hynter writes that:

Our determination to attract the widest and largest possible audience to a challenging repertoire found expression also in a three month season of Sunday performances which were so successful that, from July 2009 Sunday openings became a permanent part of our operation. We are now open seven days a week, we are available all over the country and much of the rest of the world. (p7)

For a company to run offer a wealth of repertoire, as do Opera Australia and the National Theatre, in mainstage performances, tours, schools, programmes and broadcasts, they require financial support from government funding, private giving and audience patronage. But in funding these ventures governments and individuals can see great return for their dollars and pounds as high quality, innovative and engaging theatre given back to the community.

DOES A NATIONAL COMPANY REALLY EMPLOY THAT MANY PEOPLE?

Because national theatre companies operate on a full-time year-round schedule they really do employ a lot of staff with expertise in a variety of areas. For instance:

Opera Australia employs a total of about 1 300 people each year – over 300 permanent and seasonal staff and up to 1 000 more on a casual basis. This staff includes singers, repetiteurs, language coaches, directors, conductors, designers, electricians, mechanists, props technicians, dressers, make-up technicians, and other production staff, stage management, stores-persons, carpentersm welders, architects, tailors, sewers, wigmakers, painters, writers, ticket sellers, and administrators.

(2007 Annual Report, p 46)

That’s a whole of artists and professionals being employed within the arts industry.[1] Opera Australia obviously has to pay these employees, which of course adds to the operational costs of the company. In the Annual report Opera Australia writes that they employ 425 full time equivalents. If these 425 members off staff were paid $40 000, that bill would come to $17 000 000. That just on wages. Not on the manufacture of props, wigs, costumes or set. It doesn’t include venue hire, marketing or publications. Opera, and theatre is expensive to do at a full time, professional global standard.

NATIONAL COMPANIES CONTRIBUTE TO THE MUSIC AND ARTS EDUCATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

One of the best ways national (and state) companies give back to the community is through the provision of schools concerts and tours which offer programs devised specifically for children. These programs are often developed in direct connection with the state syllabus and so they act to enhance classroom learning in very relevant way. In supporting the education programs of organisations like the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, Opera Australia and in the UK the National theatre, government bodies and individuals show that they care about the education and development of the nation’s children. For children of all demographics to be exposed to music and theatre is a wonderful thing. It can inspire in children a desire to perform and a knowledge and appreciation of music and theatre they may otherwise have never witnessed. It will hopefully lead children to become adults who financially support the arts industry by becoming the audience of the future. The National Theatre in the UK is committed to providing entertainment to children and adolescents as they “want to encourage life long engagement with theatre and believe children need to actively participate”. (Annual report, 2009, p 21). They achieve this through masterclasses, schools tours and adult training programs. The Sydney Symphony Orchestra also provide specific programs for infants, primary and high school aged students, as well as the Discovery concert series for adults and pre-professional ‘training’ orchestras for tertiary music students. Likewise Opera Australia runs school tours in Victoria and New South Wales, and runs a Young Artist program which offers valuable performance and industry experience to emerging singers.

These sorts of programs can not exist through the revenue gained from ticket sales alone. (SSO school concert tickets can be as cheap as $4) In order for these types of companies to provide such valuable education programs they need to receive generous support through government funding and philanthropy.

In the movie Dead Poet Society, Prof. Keating tells his students “We do not read and write poetry because its cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race”. I agree with him, but I also think this sentiment can be extended to include classical music, opera and live theatre. These artforms are far from out dates. They are constantly being renewed with innovative re-interpretations, new compositions and new scripts and new productions. Learning and experiencing classical and traditional music and drama is a brilliant foundation for exploring other more contemporary or experimental forms. Learning the rules is essential for being able to break them. Providers of traditional cultural forms deserve the continued support of the community not because opera or symphonies are cute, but because opera and symphonies can speak to us about what it is to be human. They can teach us and educate us. They can open our minds to a wealth of creative possibilities. If we are passionate about education and creativity and the arts then we should approve of government funding to these companies which seek to provide theatre and music to the nation.



[1] This doesn’t include Sydney Opera House staff (such as ushers and box office staff) who are vital to the smooth running of any production at the house, either by one of the House’s resident companies (Opera Australia, Sydney Symphony Orchestra), as well as the other companies who hire the theatre spaces (Bell Shakespeare, Sydney Theatre, individual artists).



[i] This rambling essay of sorts contains extracts from an assignment I wrote for the course London Theatre In Performance, at the University Of Westminster.

Works cited include:

Anderson, C (2008) The Long Tail: Why the Future Of Business is Selling Less of More,

Hyperdion: New York

(2009) The Royal National Theatre Annual Report and Financial Statements 2008 – 2009, www.nationaltheatre.org.uk

(2007) Opera Australia Annual Report 2007

Monday, September 27, 2010

For the love of a dead artist…

My thought on art for the day. Don't worry there will be more.

I suppose it is both a wonderful thing and a terrible thing that art (The Arts) is so entirely subjective.

Wonderful because when we experience art that appeals to us we are filled with joy and fascination. Maybe even inspiration. When I first walked into the Turner Room at the Tate Britain I fell in love with a dead artist. Where, I wondered had JMW Turner been all my life? Why had my high school art education spent so much time talking about bicycle wheels, urinals, paintings of the Cahill Expressway, artists who suspend themselves from the ceiling by putting hooks through their flesh, appropriation (that curse to all 16 year olds who still believed in the myth of genius , originality and authenticity) and the delights of the Heidelberg School (for the record I really do quite admire Streeton, and Roberts and the rest, and I admired them with fresh eyes when I returned to sunny Sydney after a short stint in London). Turner’s work left me feeling like I needed to get painting, making, doing, composing, writing – it didn’t really matter, I merely sensed there was a creative realm of possibility out there that I had never witnessed. I’d been missing out.

On leaving the Tate Britain I was struck by the fact that Turner was in many ways much like the other dead artist I am simply enamoured with. Dear JMW, thought I, you are Mozart with a paint brush.

Loving dead artists, Mozart, Turner, Handel, Austen makes me one of those people who likes that thing called High Art, or (which I think is meant to be more insulting) Elite Art. I’m not exactly sure when being Elite, or aspiring to be Elite became such a bad thing. Why did women ever complain about not being able to go to Oxford, why did working class men ever form unions and demand fair pay or the right to be represented by a government they had elected if it was not that they wished for an enhanced quality of life, which aspired to equality with the Elite? But perhaps this is just me being blissfully (wilfully?) naïve. I’ve been to uni now, I’ve sat through lectures run by media and cultural studies departments and bit my tongue (or not), as I’ve heard people who love dead artists being ridiculed and cut down, because we lack sub-cultural capital.

And this is why it’s a terrible thing that art is so subjective. Because when we don’t like something we often fear it, and those who like it. So we call each other names, elitist and snob, oh yes, snobbery. There is an awful lot of snobbery involved, but it goes both ways, and sometimes I think the sub-cultural capitalists are bigger snobs than the historic snobs, but maybe that’s just because no-one likes to be the minority. Its very easy to get caught up in promoting what we like. I like Opera, and I think it’s a worthy cause. I don’t like some other forms of music, for instance, I don’t particularly like the music my own brother writes and plays in clubs, I don’t find it as enjoyable or intellectually stimulating as a baroque masterpiece of counterpoint, but, I respect that what my brother does is actually very time consuming, very skilled, and much enjoyed by people who spend the early hours of Sunday mornings in Kings Cross. I would never choose to play this sort of music or to buy it, and why should I? However, sometimes my brother succeeds in getting me to come sit by his computer and listen to something he has written, or he gets me out late on a Saturday night and after a while a strange thing happens and I have to dance. See my ears don’t receive the same audible pleasure they do when I hear an aria by Mozart or Handel, but by exposure and by learned experience, I dance, because I enjoy it. I see other people enjoying it and I know that this music is good for them, it is encouraging and uplifting, it is creative just the same, but entirely different to Mozart and Handel.

So I don’t really see the point in a bunch of artists who love Hip Hop or House, or Rap saying ‘you shouldn’t get funding because you think Bach is the only real composer’ or in an Opera composer saying ‘you shouldn’t get funding because you wrote that piece of music on a keyboard and couldn’t even notate a perfect cadence to save yourself’.

I don’t know how to make funding be distributed more fairly. Should it be per capita for the amount of artists involved in a project? Or perhaps as a flat percentage of the operational budget (a problem if you have no budget, obviously)? Should it be on audience size? I’m really, really not sure. I’m only just starting to poke my nose in to the world of arts policy. What I am really, really sure about is that as diverse as the cultural industries are, fighting each other really isn’t a good idea. We should be happy when an arts project receives funding, even if its not an art form we like. Because once we’re dealing with likes and dislikes we’re on very shaky ground.

I stand by my original objection to Westbury’s article, I don’t think a criticism of arts funding or the decisions of the Australia Council should be equated with a criticism of Opera Australia. But I do want to make it clear that I am passionate about the arts and theatre in general. I am passionate to see a government that cares about the arts. I am passionate to see a society that cares about the arts, all of the arts, and recognises the value and worth of the entire creative spectrum.

I love my dead artists. I do believe that Turner and Mozart were particularly and uniquely gifted. I am grateful for the curators at the Tate Britain who have kept Turners innovative and revolutionary artworks on display, and I am hugely indebted to a whole host of singers and musicians who have kept Mozart alive these 250 years, because without them I could never have this nerdy, elitist love affair.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

On Marcus Westbury's Funding Amusia

Tone Deaf in a Popularity Contest

SMH, News Review, 25-26 Sep

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/tone-deaf-in-a-popularity-contest-20100924-15qhc.html


On reading Marcus Westbury’s article Tone Deaf in a popularity contest, I find it hard to swallow all his claims. While I agree whole heartedly that on the whole arts funding in Australia is shameful and our cultural policy needs serious reform, I object to the way Westbury has made this point at the expense of Opera Australia. Westbury has presented a confused view of arts funding that distorts the activities of the Australia Council, Opera Australia and to a lesser extent the state orchestras, demonising them as institutions which are gobbling up the “finite Australian arts budget”. His final plea, “is it too much to ask that we support and value living artists as we do dead ones” slights the work of the hundreds of artists and employees of the national opera company.

In the opening paragraphs, Westbury draws attention to the $18.3 million grant Opera Australia received from the Australia Council and the fact that OA is “receiving more than the total split among 781 separate projects”, and writes with disgust at the amount of money given to OA, the state orchestras and other providers of traditional western cultural art forms. This bias which focuses on the monetary value of particular grants ignores the fact that on the Approved Grants list on the Australia Council website for 2010 to date, Opera Australia has received just two of the eight hundred and ninety approved grants, and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra has received none.

Westbury also ignores the fact that Cultural institutions such as OA and the SSO do not rely solely on government support. The majority of OA’s income is from ticket sales, which “account for 55% of the company’s income and to ensure its survival, they have to grow by 5% annually”[i] .In fact in 2009, government grants only accounted for 35% of the company’s income. I’m not denying that OA received a large amount of government funding, but the funding they receive should not be viewed out of context. In 2009 the SSO received approximately 40% of its income from Australia Council and Arts NSW grants, the remainder of their income being comprised of ticket sales, sponsorship and donations. It should also be remembered that funding for OA and SSO goes not only to mainstage performances but also to regional and schools tours – tours that generate little immediate income, but widen accessibility, and are of great public and social worth.

I also object to Westbury’ implication that the work of OA and the funding they receive places living artists in second place to dead ones. In Westbury’s defence he acknowledges that supporting OA is worthwhile as the company “employs many talented people … and its practitioners are highly skilled and deserved to be paid”, yet that OA would be put to shame by activities that he and other “unpaid artists put together every day”. Westbury seems to suggest that because he and other artists go unpaid, big companies are being supported while “living artists” aren’t. Westbury seems to forget that the production of opera is more than the recital of a dead composer’s creation. Opera is a hybrid genre which is not merely a showcase of vocal expertise. Any full scale opera production relies on the hard work of many creative individuals with an entire spectrum of skills, not just singers. It is true that the composers and librettists, who give us the written text, may be dead, but it is simply insulting to suggest that financial support for Opera does not value living artists.

Having worked backstage for OA for seven years, I freely admit my own prejudices for the company and the art form. I read Westbury’s article while at work, it was pinned to a notice board in a dressing room. On stage, Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro was being sung to a full and responsive audience. Ok Westbury, lets think about this. Mozart is dead. DaPonte is dead. But what about the director, the conductor, the principal artists, the chorus, the orchestra, the designer, the make-up artists, dressers, prop staff, stage managers, set builders, and costume makers who make this production possible. Are we not living artists? And what about Bliss, the new Australian opera by Brett Dean and Amanda Holden, based on the novel by Peter Carey which premiered this year and recently toured to Edinburgh, is this not the work of living artists? This opera was a highly innovative piece of contemporary theatre. Its hard not to read the concluding paragraphs without thinking that perhaps Westbury is a little bitter. He compares OA productions and the money paid to employees with the projects he has worked on with “no budget to pay the artists”. While I can heartily understand the desire to be paid (I’ve been in several community theatre productions where I’ve paid the company for the privilege to perform), it is simply absurd to compare the activities of a national opera company or state orchestra with a profit share production. The fact that many artists can not make their living from their art is sad, but its also a reality. The fact that more individual artists don’t receive funding to make this possible is not the fault of OA.

The lack of arts funding is of course what is really at the heart of Westbury’s article. The fact that he chooses to bemoan the sad state of cultural policy and funding in Australia by going over an argument of who deserves the funding more detracts from the fact that all artistic endeavours deserve to be adequately funded regardless of individual taste. It simply isn’t true that arts funding in Australia values opera and orchestras at the expense of “supporting opportunity and investing in innovation”. CEO of the Australia Council, Kathy Keele describes the work of the council by saying ‘Our key focus is on the development of excellent contemporary Australian arts, and building sustainable arts organisations and artists' careers’. [ii] Westbury is right that Australia needs to seriously re-think cultural policy and arts funding. Every artist in this country dreams of living in a society which values creativity and artistic endeavour; a society which believes the arts are a public good which is beneficial to all. We’ve seen glimmers of hope in Keating’s Creative Nation, or in the findings of the Creativity stream in the Rudd government’s 2020 Summit, but little has come to fruition. Rather than turning ones nose up at opera, or at any art form that is not their own, wouldn’t it be better if prominent players in the arts community, in conjunction with a proactive government, worked together to create a cultural policy without dissonance or tone deafness, but wonderful harmony. Then, positive reform might actually happen.



[i] Berman, A (2006) The Company We Keep: An Intimate Celebration of Opera Australia, Opera Australia and Currency Press: Sydney

[ii] Keele, K, interviewed by Klaus Krischok, accessed 12th may at http://www.goethe.de/ins/au/lp/ges/pok/en5825007.htm

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

The New Post

It seems I've cooled off a bit from this darling blog.

I'm not entirely sure how that happened.
First i actually wrote some essays and made some wigs. Then I entertained my wonderful Irish guest. Then I went back to uni and wrote some more essays...

That is where I am currently at. Or not at, as it seems I'm actually back here, writing a 'new post'.

its just occurred to me (yes, just! right now, this very second... well that very second that it was a moment ago when I typed the word), how odd the phrase 'new post' is out of this blogging context. I think its because I just wrote a piece for my English class in which I ranted at length about how society was so enamoured with the concept of 'post'... as in after/against/beyond, not at in the act of sending physical mail. Which of course we have mostly forgotten.

We have the usual subjects such as post modern and post war and post impressionism (not, historically in that order). But I think other notable contemporary posts include:
Post Victorian (my current angst)
Post the boom years
Post Sub-prime mortgage lending
Post incident Depression (eg, post natal depression, post election depression, post exam depression, post holiday depression, post ordering depression [a personal favourite which refers to the cognitive dissonance felt when the food you're friends order in a cafe is undoubtedly so much better that yours])


but thankfully it seems i'm not post-blogging, evidenced by the fact that i am posting a new post.

I will now conclude this ramble of nothingness with my quote of the day, from Danahay's Gender At Work In Victorian Culture:
"Mental labor was not obviously a form of exertion in the same way as physical toil, and could thus be seen as idleness. Idleness, it was believed would lead to sin and should be repudiated through self-disciplined physical exertion. The Imperative to work was thus a counter to the threat of sexuality...while work was an antidote to temptation for men... for women to work was often represented as releasing a dangerous sexuality rather than repressing sexual desire. Therefore, while it was appropriate for men to work, for women it was seen as an inappropriate libidinal activity"

This is why I am not Post Victorian. I always knew going to work was bad for me. Bring on the baking and filling up my days on ye Olde Face Book and the writing of the New Post.