1.1
We are disappointed that ACW has failed to secure more money for the Arts in Wales generally and the performing arts in particular following the Welsh Office Comprehensive Spending Review.
1.2
We are aware that "most responses to consultation on professional theatre argued for change's We are concerned that ACWs ' new vision for drama in Wales" will not necessarily:
a) guarantee the "high quality" which, by implication, ACW appear to be suggesting is presently lacking or
b) provide a "better service to the people of Wales
c) ensure that 'employment opportunities for Welsh artists be maximised"
On this later point, we are concerned that the number of companies will be reduced, and that by implication so will jobs for highly skilled professionals in the industry. There is no indication that companies and jobs will increase, therefore further eroding the arts provision to the people in Wales.
1.3
Of course, just as there is no direct correlation between fewer companies and higher quality there is no fundamental reason why the existence of a smaller number of companies should imply fewer job opportunities or a diminished quantity of product. If only because of economies of scale, fewer 'Larger" companies could actually generate a greater aggregate of productions. The WNO and CTC between them probably employ more theatre workers than the entirety of the remaining Welsh Theatre Companies. However, there will undoubtedly be a net shortfall unless the proposed fewer companies enjoy substantially greater financial support.
1.4
We propose that ACW join with other umbrella bodies in Wales, to persuade the National Assembly to re-prioritise the Arts in Wales and the funding it receives from the Block grant in the next three years. That in the meantime, no decisions be taken to close or merge existing clients. In the interim, assuming ACW are not dissatisfied with individual organisations' policy and practice, to award fair shares for all existing revenue clients.
1.5
We are acutely conscious of the compressed time table offered by the ACW for the Sherman Theatre and others to prepare coherent responses to its consultation paper, especially in the light of ACW's perception that the future role of the Sherman Theatre is ~problematic". Given the fact that the Welsh Arts agenda and its funding is shortly to become the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly, we feel that any collection of major and irreversible policy decisions announced in the near future by the ACW may come to be regarded as potentially highly undemocratic, especially if these had been undertaken in a rushed manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Production and Touring 1:
2.1
Whilst ACW recognise that none of the current building based companies are 'operating to full production and touring potential' and "The four building bases are a vital audience development network in strategic provision of production and presentation of drama.", the Sherman is extremely concerned at the implications for touring in the Drama Strategy. If the only major increase in funding is to Clwyd Theatr Cymru we cannot see that an additional £200k per year will be sufficient to resource additional touring. We cannot see how the Torch can be required to tour with no additional funding. We cannot see how the Drama Strategy can deliver "excellence, reach large numbers of people in Wales and provide economic benefit to Wales."
2.2
Performing Arts Companies throughout Wales have spent many years building a relationship with their audiences. We are sceptical whether the WNPACs will be able to provide the same aggregate level of support or relationship to those audiences. There is also a question of access - for example, CTC ticket prices for their work are usually quite high. The Sherman's work for the Under 7's has a unique relationship with its audience. There is a danger that established networks would be destroyed as a result of having only two Companies supplying the main element of all touring product, with the remainder being provided through project work.
2.3
On what hard evidence (e.g. audience statistics / touring patterns) have these proposals arisen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Welsh National Performing Arts Companies:
3.1
How will the WNPACs and Torch service Swansea, Cardiff and the proposed Theatre and Arts Centre, Newport? What about the smaller venues in the Valleys and Mid Wales? The strategy does not seem to address how touring Drama will be delivered to them. Given our comments above, we cannot see that this will be possible. There will therefore be no opportunity to deliver middle or small-scale work that the presenters in Wales are asking for.
3.2
We are aware that there is a concern from the Presenting venues about developing relationships with the Producing companies in Wales - the Strategy does not seem to address this except through project funding which we comment on later.
3.3
The touring agency model which was researched through PAG isn't mentioned in the strategy. Has this been dropped?
3.4
We have a major concern about the provision of main-stream Drama in Cardiff. The strategy appears to leave the Capital City of Wales without a resident main-stream production company. The Sherman Senior Managers have met with officers of ACW and discussed this issue. ACW confirmed that this is indeed their intention and that local needs could be answered through an increased role in the Capital City for CIwyd Theatr Cymru through extended residencies. Officers stated that the review of facilities for presentation and production in Cardiff being carried out by ACW will clarify this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have four major concerns above the provision of main stream drama in Cardiff:
· the geographical imbalance in siting both WNPACs in North Wales.
· that Clwyd Theatr Cymru, with only £200k increase in funding, cannot enjoy a close relationship with audiences in Cardiff
that the above review leaves the Sherman and its staff in "limbo" for an undefined period of time.
nor can we see that more employment opportunities for artists based in South Wales will be created.
3.5
Historically, we believe that drama in Wales has worked at its best when it has enjoyed a direct relationship with its audiences. We would question whether the proposed WNPACs would be able to extend that relationship with audiences to achieve ACWs aims and objectives. Would presenting venues be obliged to take the WNPACs product whether or not it was relevant to their audiences?
3.6
It is disappointing that the Strategy only deals with drama as a product and does nothing to enrich and develop the process by which theatre is made. To ensure a product of quality, the process has to be invested in. The following examples may help ACW understand this practice:
A MAIN STAGE DRAMA:
a) "Pulling The Wool" Frank Vickery: audiences over 2 ½ weeks 4,900
2 years development period with the writer including development
workshops with actors during the second year. Six draft scripts from
the writer before arriving at the final draft to take into rehearsal.
3 weeks rehearsal before performances began.
Co-Production with the Swansea Grand Theatre.
b) The Secret 7 Save the World by Charles Way: audiences over 7 wks:
16,845
18 months development period. Four drafts of the script workshopped
with young people from the Sherman Youth Theatres.
3 weeks rehearsal before performances began. The involvement of
30 young people from the Sherman Youth Theatres in the rehearsals
and performances.
c) Everything Must Go by Patrick Jones:
3 years in development. Seven drafts of the script. Two workshops
with professional actors, six weeks of workshop with Welsh College of
Music and Drama students.
3 weeks rehearsal.
B SHERMAN YOUTH THEATRES
d) The Sherman Youth Theatre during 1998/99 operated for 35 weeks of the year, and presented three productions in the Sherman Studio Theatre - one of which toured Wales, another of which was performed at the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre in Guildford. The Youth Theatre in addition participated in the European Summit Celebrations in June of 1998 with street theatre performances, celebrated World Aids Day with another street production, were integral to a major production with other young people and No Fit State Circus. 30 young people from the Youth Theatre are also involved in the rehearsals and 7 weeks of the main stage Christmas show performances each year. 200 young people PER WEEK take part in ten Youth Theatre workshops covering the age range of 10 to 25 years.
3,7
Neither of the above categories of activity can be sustained by a Presenting House. Both strands depend upon the artistic and technical skills of a producing theatre and its resources. This work cannot be bought-in. Each piece of product can only exist because of the permanency of the theatre's artistic team and its ability to develop the work over a minimum of two years. Also, because of the uniqueness of the product, each project requires a marketing strategy of at least 9 months, and close liaison between the Resident Artistic, Marketing, Technical and Administrative teams. Such liaison and process cannot (and does not) exist in a presenting house. We would therefore like ACW to clarify how they envisage such a relationship working in the Arts Centre model posed in the Strategy.
3.8
We would urge that any consultation regarding any refocusing of the Sherman Theatre's role must include Sherman Theatre Council of Management and its Senior Management Staff, who should have access to all the responses received throughout the current consultation process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Production and Touring 2: Theatre for Young People
4.1
Whilst we appreciate that this section of the strategy is mainly concerned with Theatre in Education provision, there is no recognition of the kind of professional provision the Sherman Theatre Company undertakes through the "Policy of Work For and With Young People" developed in conjunction with ACW in 1990/91. Sherman Managers have clarified with ACW officers that ACW are considering additional purposes for the Sherman, that they would like to see New Writing continuing to be developed by the Sherman in some form, and that this will be debated,alongside the review of Cardiff provision mentioned earlier.
4.2
We understand from our discussions with ACW Officers that the provision of theatre for and by young people will be part of every venue and company's Funding Agreement. We applaud that intent, but express disappointment that the very successful range of work for, with and by young people at the Sherman could well come to an end with the implementation of the Drama Strategy. We cannot see how undertakings on behalf of each presenter or producer to have a policy for the provision of theatre for young people, (in the same way that clients are currently expected to have policies about Disability, Cultural Diversity and Equal Opportunities) can replace the actual provision of professional work that is specifically targeted towards young people.
4.3
In particular we have to register our concern over such a policy since the ACW has chosen to adopt Clwyd Theatr Cymru as its model for a National Company, despite the fact that CTC have dismantled their highly successful youth theatre and disbanded their permanent operation of Outreach work. It seems the ACW have condoned these developments, then rewarded this company with a National Franchise. We cannot see how the additional £200k to CTC can be stretched to support increased touring, extended residencies in Cardiff, and reinstatement of the above work.
4.4
The current level of funding to the eight TIE companies, compared with the four new franchises, leaves £1 68k balance. The inference in the strategy is that this balance will go towards project funding. It is suggested in the strategy that, along with other priorities, "...collaborations with venues or presenters and filling gaps in provision such as some community touring, special needs audiences'; production project funding will assist in the delivery of these objectives. We are concerned that Project Funding cannot fulfill a long term strategic role. It does not help the development of the work, of partnerships, of audiences.
4.5
Since 1992 the Sherman's grants have been reduced by a combination of standstill funding and a cut in real terms following the withdrawal of the Vale of Glamorgan grant. As a direct result of these reductions, the Sherman has (along with other things) had to withdraw its very successful, accessible Shakespeare productions with their commitment to young audiences through play-days, lowered ticket prices etc.
4.6
The reduction of eight TIE companies to four is surely at odds with the "Arts and Young People" report where the whole emphasis is about 'increasing opportunities" for young people to partici pate in and attend arts events, including 'to increase the number of productions... created specifically to cater for the interests of young people~. The target laid out in the ACW Draft Corporate Plan for 2000/2001 for reaching 57,000 young people is less than half the figure being achieved by the eight TIE companies, let alone the current Community and Project work that is supported by ACW. We cannot understand why such a low target has been set when the strategy is about increasing opportunities", and to 'increase the number of productions~. The two notions do not correlate.
4.7
We question whether the author of the Draft Drama Strategy understands the differing concepts of - Theatre for Young People (TYP) and Young People's Theatre (YPT). There appears to be a lack of understanding and knowledge of these genres throughout section 5 of the draft (where, additionally, the "Professional Theatre provision for Young People in Wales" document is referred to as TYP and YPT in separate paragraphs). We would ask the ACW to expand on its concept of the different genres so that we can clarify our responses accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Production and Touring 3: audience for other production companies and projects.
New Writing:
5.1
At our meeting with ACW Officers, we posed the question whether ACW recognised the contribution of STC in producing some 94 new plays by Welsh writers over the past nine years, and the development processes for New Writing instigated by the Sherman as part of the overall strategy? ACW Officers said they had not quantified things in this fashion and that they could not say at this stage what their thinking on this would be. We submit that it would be a disastrous to lose the impetus in favour of new writing that the Sherman Theatre Company has generated over the years, and since the inference of the Drama Strategy in terms of the Sherman would appear to include new writing, it would be appropriate for this element of the Strategy to be the subject of separate and detailed consultation, review and research involving the Sherman Management.
5.2
We also feel that it would be a calamitous to lose the major links with Television and Radio that the Sherman has built up over 9 years. The unique relationship with BBC Radio Wales and HTV Wales, through the Sherman Lunchtime plays and the youth theatres, has provided further new writing work for Wales based artists and is not something that can easily be replicated.
5.3
There is no other theatre in Britain that has such a strong relationship with the broadcast media. It is the Sherman Theatre Company that produced the first live drama on BBC radio in 25 years - all New Writing.
5.4
The Sherman's new writing work has attracted major awards and an international profile along with co-producers who want to develop the work with us. It has taken 9 years to build our reputation and these networks. How does ACW foresee the continuation and development of this work through the proposed strategy?
5.5
In point 4.3.6. the strategy refers to an 'arts centre model" running alongside a "Theatre for Young People franchise" and a new writing franchise". Is the concept of "franchise" to be applied to all clients of ACW in delivering the strategy? This is the first mention of franchises, other than in relation to Theatre for Young People.
5.6
In point 6.1.1. ACW recognise the "risk" of new, untried work. We recognise that CTC is strategically not best located to "take a risk" in adopting the responsibility of developing new Welsh writing. The high proportion of that Theatre's audience which is attracted from across the border is unlikely to be highly motivated or interested in those contemporary Welsh issues which stimulate our writers. -
Conversely, there are many good reasons why the support of new writing
should become one of the dedicated responsibilities of the Sherman Theatre
Company. Coincidentally, two pieces of new writing are being staged in the
Capital City this week - one, by CTC, an adaptation of a novel written in the 1960's draws attention to the plight and social conditions existing in Wales in the 19th Century; the other, by The Sherman Theatre Company, highlights the problems confronting the young people of Wales in 1999.
We believe that this plurality of purpose and contrasting styles of work should be encouraged and cherished. Yet if the Sherman is to become the focus for "the new writing mantle for English and Welsh language", the "risk" would require greatly increased levels of support. Yet in points 4.3.5. and 4.3.7. ACW state that 'solutions... will be informed by affordability and expediency...". Does one factor not negate the other?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Touring:
5.7
We view the decision to withdraw funding from the one Company which specialises in work for adults with learning disabilities as being totally at odds with ACW's commitment to equal opportunities. Whilst we recognise that ACW see this provision being continued through production project funding, we are greatly concerned that a wealth of experience of developing this work could be lost, along with employment opportunities for disabled performers. The access to opportunities for adults with learning disabilities in particular will be lost. We would ask ACW to reconsider this proposal.
5.8
The potential loss of the Sherman Theatre's Under 7's touring work to communities through the proposed change in role for the Sherman would be catastrophic to the community touring circuit in South Wales. It is our view that, given our track record of 9 years very successful productions for this age-group, it would be unthinkable for ACW to contemplate terminating this strand of work which is so particular to the Sherman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects:
5.9
Whilst we can understand that some of the provision currently supported through revenue funding is by necessity and 'expediency" no longer affordable, we are not convinced that project funding is going to encourage :-
'Arts of the highest quality being produced in Wales" nor
'Access for people of all ages, cultures and communities to a full range of
arts events...
increase of production, performance and audience targets set out by the
ACW in its draft Corporate Plan 1999-2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Support to artform practice & Support to individual artists:
6.1
We do not feel qualified or informed to make particular comment on section 7 "Artform Development" of the draft strategy and will leave others, and umbrella bodies to make relevant points regarding this section, other than to comment on training;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Training:
6.2
If writers residencies and commissions are to continue in the future through minimum criteria clauses built into funding agreements with major clients" then the financial implications of commissions and residencies must be properly built into the strategy of those clients, and into the funding packages offered to them by ACW.
6.3
Realistically, the Strategy reduces opportunities for training if the amount of work produced is being reduced. With "fewer companies'; training is going to be far more difficult. There are more young people coming through the colleges, more opportunities for Arts Management and Administration courses and more demand from students for work placements. There is already more demand from the colleges for experienced practitioners from the profession to share their skills as tutors on these courses, and now with the advent of the anew good cause" NESTA, training opportunities will put even more strain on the profession. And all for what? Fewer available jobs in the profession?
6.4
The suggestion that major drama organisations play a part in "mentoring" and training individuals is to be treated with caution. Mentoring is a particular skill, and should not be part of any funding agreement with clients. Training opportunities should also be treated in the same way. We are only too conscious of the amount of work, effort and support that these schemes need in order for them to be of real benefit to the individuals concerned. We are also conscious that such schemes work best in organisations where staff have the time and energy available to devote the necessarily considerable commitment to the trainee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Advocacy and critical debate:
7.1
We are disappointed that the "Advocacy for the Arts" policy, the process for which was begun in November 1997, has still not been published and that the manifesto for the Arts, discussed as being a priority, has still not appeared. Time is extremely short for ACW to put its case to potential Assembly members. A lot of time and good work was put into the Advocacy meetings to develop the policy. If ACW expects arts organisations to utilise the policy and its accompanying arguments in support of the arts practitioners and their clients, we urgently need this information in order to prepare a coherent, cogent and unified case for an increase in arts funding - in particular for the performing arts - to the National Assembly.
7.2
Point 8.3. and the accompanying intent, states that ACW will ensure that "written reports by ACW advisors are sent to funded theatre organisations as a contribution to their self-evaluation" - this point has already been made in the ACW "Accountability and Openness" document which we understood to have been adopted by ACW. To state here that it remains merely an "intent' is confusing.
|
