|
David Adams' full response to the Draft Drama strategy for Wales |
|
Preface I have no vested interest in any model of provision and I hold no brief for any company or any category of drama. I have, however, probably seen more theatre in Wales than anyone else and have certainly reported, as a freelance critic, on more theatre than anyone else. I have also the benefit of twenty years lay experience of the arts council as a member of the YPCT panel, drama committee, development panel and, currently, projects panel. My comments, then, are based on the above and on a proven expertise in YPT provision (consultant and author of a major report to MAA), in arts funding (as advisor not just to WAC/ ACW but to MAA, YHAA and SWA), in drama theory (lecturer University of Glamorgan, Visiting Fellow at University College Worcester) , in popularisation of theatre (tutor/organisor of adult theatre-appreciation groups) and in Welsh theatre history and practice (author of several articles and books on Welsh theatre) This response is as an informed and supportive consumer of and commentator on Welsh theatre. I make no attempt to argue for or against specific companies affected by the strategy , but to take issue with the thinking behind the strategy itself. This response , then , is essentially an analysis of the presumptions behind the language used in the document -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments There is a preamble where consultation is referred to but much of what follows seems to be faits accomplis, although the paper's points are described as "intentions" rather than proposals. I fear this immediately raises suspicions that the paper is simply the penultimate part of an irreversible process, the implementation of a pre-set agenda. "ACW is committed to consulting with sectors directly affected" (my italics) "by its intended policy changes" says the preamble. I suggest that the whole population is directly affected by such as the withdrawal of TIE/community Theatre provision. The first section of the document introduces ACW's thinking. It is necessary to know that there was published a previous consultation document, Building a Creative Society, as part of ACW's 1998 Expenditure Review, which itself followed a little-noticed advance warnings (albeit sometimes in contradiction of ACW's Corporate Plan) 'Most responses to consultation...argued for change,' says the draft strategy (1.3). Here, as elsewhere, the earlier consultation is referred to selectively. Of course change was demanded: was there a demand from respondents to that consultation for any of the specific policy changes outlined later in this draft strategy? I would like to see the evidence and acknowledgment of the views expressed in the earlier consultation. The tone of the document is introduced here in a key sentence with reference to 'high quality and thereby a better service to the people of Wales', a phrase loaded with ambiguity. What is meant by 'high quality' ('excellence'?); the assumed (false) link 'thereby'; the notion of drama as 'service'; the populist 'people of Wales' (existing theatregoers ? potential theatergoers ? everyone ?)...? Quality is a subjective criterion and as a concept is meaningless and too often a way of avoiding other issues like appropriateness, challenge, development, innovation, relevance, etc. Crucially 'high quality' is not something that can be bought, which is the implication of this document, but more to do with intent, commitment, ambition, insight, ideas, excitement, etc., than with more obvious professional skill-levels. The document goes on to discuss 'The prime concerns'. Clearly what ACW sees as 'prime concerns' (2.1) do not necessarily coincide with what I as a commentator see. I see as prime concerns (a) the nurturing of a still-fledgling art form as the major task, (b) the development of audiences (i.e. the democratization of provision, a.k.a. 'access') as crucial and part of this (c) the promotion/advocacy of theatre as a vital and vibrant part of culture. We are told (2.2) the Policy and Expenditure Review 'has attempted to address professional drama provision holistically' (a buzz word whose relevance here is ironically contradicted in the detail) where conclusions are in the context of 'ACW corporate concerns,' the last of which is 'establishing at the outset that fewer better funded organizations is the key to higher quality'. This is far from the self-evident truth as presented here. It can only be defended if various assumptions are made, e.g. quality = cost. It seems to me Wales's greatest success stories utterly deny this: I refer to Volcano and Frantic as recent examples and could supply you with a list of budget productions that were stunning (and some expensive ones that were awful). This is not to deny that Welsh theatre companies are underfunded and might well produce better work with a higher level of revenue. In the next section, 'Where we want to be - five years on', we again get the glib phrase 'high quality' (3.1). If we were to agree on what this meant there would be little disagreement on the broad statement of intent as regards 'five years on', but we won't, because ACW seems to have its own reasons for equating it with cost and size. The acknowledgment of the 'diversity' of Welsh theatre (3.2) is at odds with the intentions to invest in two major WNPA companies and to halve the current client list.. We also get here the notion introduced of a 'general audience' who want some kind of 'excellent home produced theatre'. This is an ideological construct: in reality there is no such thing, unless you mean that old-fashioned 'bourgeois theatre ' audience. All theatre is specific in time, place and targeted audience (or, in the elegant words of Shakespearean scholar Andrew Gurr, 'a transmission tuned to a highly specific wavelength and a specific set of atmospheric conditions'). A 'core provision..for the general audience' has no meaning - except, perhaps, bland middlebrow commercial fare. But such unthinking philistine ignorance would, of course, ill befit the arts council. The document discusses 'strategic links' particularly between producers and presenters (3.4) and to ACW's commitment to innovation and new work. (3.6). There is obviously no essential conflict between exciting, innovative theatre and strategic partnerships between presenters and producers. There is if the presenters dictate the product - in other words, if theatre becomes purely market-led. Language used elsewhere in the document suggest that market thinking has dictated much of the strategy. The next section 'Production and Touring' reintroduces that mythical beast 'the general audience'. This concept is closely linked to a vision of theatre provision as existing in England, based on the repertory system, on a 400-year old tradition of literary theatre, on a century of naturalism and its dominance of tv drama, of commercial West End productions, large companies like the RSC and RNT, etc, none of which exists (or has ever existed) in Wales. Yet again there are certain unquestioned assumptions, particularly that the form of theatre known as 'mainstream' is the desired norm. This again is an ideological position that is too tiresome to dispute here; suffice to say, it is not proven to be the artistic or popular choice in Wales and, historically and culturally, is an alien form. Despite this, we read that 'Council intends to concentrate resources in this area of provision'. We thus are presented with the invention of two Welsh National Performing Arts Companies (4.2). The motives for establishing the WNPACs seem to have little to do with the desires or needs of practitioners or of existing theatregoers; instead the motives are about status, national pride and self-aggrandisement (4.2.1-2). They would represent the 'apex' of the profession: this is another bigoted assumption. The English-language WNPAC is to be based on Clwyd Theatr Cymru (whose change of title last year almost seems to anticipate this proposal - although, of course, these current 'intentions' were supposedly not decided then), whose audience comes mainly from England, The Wirral in particular. In a telling linguistic transition from the meaningless artspeak to that of the market economy, the document informs us in one paragraph (4.2.5) that 'ACW intend to offer an annual grant...of just of £1million to help Clwyd Theatr Cymru present excellence and serve Welsh artistry for the people of Wales...and ACW will expect the payback across Wales to be considerable'. I make no comment here on the suitability of Clwyd Theatr Cymru to take on the role of the National Theatre of Wales in either or both languages. Critically, the establishment of the WNPACs (as with the YPTCs, as we see later) destroys utterly any sense of regionality (4.3.1). Regional theatre, whether on the mainstage or through community groups, has been a major strength in Wales. A theatre to which local communities can relate should surely be supported, not demolished: it is to England's shame and its loss that regional theatre has been under such threat. The strategy completely fails to acknowledge the principal of regional theatre provision. The role of the Sherman Theatre (though whether the company or the building is meant is not clear; presumably a deliberate ambiguity) is apparently 'problematic'? We now start touching on named companies who would suffer from this new strategy and immediately we see there is no evidence presented for threatening The Sherman (and cutting Hijinx, e.g.). What are the arguments ? They are not stated here. (The Millennium Centre is not a good enough reason). I do agree that a role as a dedicated new-writing theatre is attractive; but this has been under discussion for some while. The general prevarication about the Sherman is symptomatic of the general confusion of the whole document. The section on 'Theatre for Young People' is distressing in its apparent ignorance and the policy is based on a distortion. There are two, linked, main proposals: one, to withdraw funding from all eight TIE/Community theatre companies; two, to offer four franchises for new Young People's Theatre provision. But the 'strategy issue' referred to at the beginning (5.1) has not been based on 'the nationwide provision of young people's theatre set up in the 1970s and 1980s', as claimed, but on the creation of a network of theatre-in-education companies. YPT is not synonymous with TIE, which is very specific. I am not convinced the author knows the difference between TYP, YPT, TIE and Youth Theatre; the aims, practice, audience, skills, etc are all different. Welsh TIE provision was a model of good practice throughout the world and the withdrawal of some LEA funds is not a good enough reason to abandon the provision. There is a debate about the form and delivery, inevitably, but surely not about the provision itself. (Yet again, referring to the paucity of provision elsewhere is a shabby way of justifying cuts; Wales should be proud of its provision.) Further, and most crucially, Welsh TIE companies are also (and, indeed, to most people, better known as) community theatre companies, responsible for delivering the fine pledge to take theatre to everyone throughout the country, and to ensure that that theatre was relevant, accessible and innovative. Most of the best Welsh playwrights worked in TIE/community theatre. Some of the best work of the last two decades has come from TIE/community theatre companies. The arguments are constantly complicated by the confusion between TYP and TIE. TYP provision is something else and there are other companies (e.g. Green Ginger, Small World) who operate in this area that have nothing to do with the practice of TIE. The suggested four franchise companies would provide what ? TIE ? TYP ? YPT ? Youth theatre ? A mix ? Why four companies ? Why not one ? Or would the four be based at the four main theatres ? There is no sense in this whole section, merely an ignorant stubbornness and ideological antipathy to TIE and community theatre provision. The 'consultation' over this issue is clearly token, since boards are being urged to wind up companies and the franchises advertised (5.9). There is a sixth 'catch-all' section that is headed 'Audience for other production companies and projects', another echo of the market-led thinking of the strategy. This area ('quality, home productions for smaller audience communities'), hitherto considered Welsh theatre's main strength, is here relegated to almost an afterthought. In fact the only successes in the development of an indigenous Welsh theatre have been in the areas so described here - community theatre, 'special needs' (ACW's phrase), 'artform experiment' (ACW's phrase again), cross-disciplinary and new projects. 'Development of new writing in Welsh and English will continue to be a priority' the document states earlier (3.6). It is, however, ghettoised to this section, where it is described as 'fundamental' (6.1.1). Yet new writing, while important to some areas but not to others, is surely not fundamental to this area of provision. However, fundamental or simply important, new writing needs more than a few vague paragraphs of goodwill. As regards an area that many informed commentators feel is the most exciting in Wales, and the most distinctive, 'In the interests of diversity and development of practice, ACW intends to offer a single fixed term commitment for 3 years,' says the strategy (6.2.1), so describing its investment in the one area of theatre for which Wales is well-known and respected in Europe, which attracts the audiences of tomorrow, is expressed in fresh dramatic languages and addresses the concerns of the present. The 'experimental theatre franchise' will go to Volcano (6.2.2); any other 'new practice' will be put into the 'project' pile. While I am an admirer of the work of Volcano, I find it offensive that they are to be regarded as the sole standard-bearers of 'experimental theatre', where non-mainstream, non-YPT theatre is pigeonholed into what looks like another precarious franchise. 'Community touring as a discrete strand of provision can no longer be supported at revenue level.' Why ? What are the arguments for destroying the great democratisation of theatre provision for which Wales is so respected ? It seems to be they would have to be compelling to rob all those people whose experience of live theatre is only through community touring shows at their local community centre. And why does ACW not intend continuing revenue support to Hijinx Theatre ? Hijinx can make their own case, but the complete lack of justification in this document for this move is breathtaking in its callous authoritarianism (6.3.1). There has grown up in recent years a funding problem relating to particular companies, for example Fiction Factory and Theatr y Byd, who do not easily fit into any category or budget column-heading. These remain unresolved - indeed are invisible in this document. There is yet again no evidence to support another controversial decision, to withdraw funding from the Magdelena Project (7.1.3). The final section is headed 'Advocacy and critical debate'. This is perhaps one area where I, as a professional critic, do have a vested interest. But I hope I can be disinterested when I suggest that 'absence of informed critical forma of debate and discussion' should not be an afterthought (8.2). ACW should be taking a more pro-active stance in raising the profile of theatre and in stimulating 'critical fora'; theatre practice is all but invisible inside as well as outside Wales and until it is 'on the agenda' of the mass media (as well as taken seriously by specialist publications) all the other intentions for the development of Welsh theatre will come to nothing. It is thus of fundamental, immediate concern. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY This document leans very heavily on certain concepts that are at the very least somewhat slippery: 'high quality', 'excellence', 'service', 'access', 'the general audience' and the mantra 'fewer means better', with little or no regard for the complexities and ambiguities inherent in these terms that suggests either naiveté or disingenuousness. There is an appalling ignorance (in both senses of the word) of the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous Welsh theatre. There is little indication of any notion of development, i.e. building on what has emerged as constituent parts of a Welsh theatre.. The document seems deliberately to reduce theatre to a service industry with an identifiable market (the mythical 'general public') and a product that can be quantified by cost. It seems to me that pragmatic, economic policies are disguised as a concern for 'excellence' and 'accessibility'. There is never any evidence presented to support crucial decisions. Finally, I recoil from what seem to be four very clear examples of intellectual dishonesty: Fewer does not mean better and frequently means the opposite; Any professed concern for 'the general public' is contradicted by the destruction of community theatre provision Many of the 'intentions' are not fair or reasonable and what are clearly decisions are presented without any supporting evidence The 'intentions' are more than consultative proposals, indeed seem to be decisions; these intentions/proposals/decisions do not appear the results of either consultation or art-led strategic debate but of a political (i.e. market-orientated) agenda set down before the Building a Creative Society paper was drafted. |
| web site: |
| David Adams e-mail: |
Friday, February 12, 1999 |
Older news
stories have been carefully archived.
2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999