ISSUE 43: WHO IS GOING TO CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD?

Issue: Who is going to cut the umbilical cord?

Convener(s): Tom Martin

Participants: Matt T, Greg M, John P, James, Dave, Andrew, Rhiannon, a couple of others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

• An umbilical cord is a two-way system – it provides food and sucks up shit. Does the current / past funding / subsidy system represent this at all?
• ‘Putting on our George Osborne masks’ – why aren’t artists in charge of deciding where funding goes? Not in a selfish, ‘fund me!’ way, but out of the belief that the government what art can do for them, rather than what art can be (?).
• We have the broader perspective.
• Artists that react to a removal of funding / cutting the umbilical cord – those that stand on their own two feet, crying AND those that shrivel up and die. So can the removal of funding (and perhaps the seeking of other models?) be productive as well as destructive? And perhaps destructive for good reasons?
• ‘I’m playing devil’s advocate here, obviously.’
• Artists that thrive on their own / artists that survive on their own / artists that die on their own.
• Setting experimental performance up as a commercial theatre model – do we need to hack into Legally Blonde: The Musical’s audience?
• Do we need to PICKET Legally Blonde: The Musical? And say ‘you should not be watching this – it will not be productive/good?’
• Can we get a 10-minute opening slot at Legally Blonde: The Musical?
• Should we sell our wares in the foyers, to strangers?
• So much experimental theatre plays TO ITSELF – how can we wriggle away from an audience comprised of fellow artists, and do we need to?
• In the same way as youth theatres attract parents and schoolmates, so too does live art etc attract fellow practitioners, but not Legally Blonde’s audience. What would happen if we started self-censuring our interest and support? Would it all dry up? And is it worth doing if we’re just perpetuating a cycle that doesn’t see outside itself?
• YOU CAN’T COMMODIFY CULTURE FULLY STOP TRYING TO.
• Possible models:
o HEN NIGHTS
o Money in a slot
o Taking inspiration from Pay-per-View telly
• And how much are we/they prepared to pay?
• Why aren’t we connecting artist and audience through the WORK and the EXPERIENCE, rather than MONEY?
• Can art just by itself and just for its own sake be sustainable?
• Are you a subsidised theatre company? Does subsidy make you work IN A VACUUM – i.e. not connected to the outside (real?) world?
• Cull everyone without a workable business model.
• Cull everything niche and high-cost.
• No more excuses, no more grants.
• Abolish buildings. Float about.
• Should theatre have insurance policies? What is the Sultan’s Elephant had BROKEN? And just STOOD THERE? For a DAY?
• ‘I think the way to tackle it is to make the highest quality work that you can.’ ‘Be honest about the worth of your work. You can never always make your best.’
• Adopt the Argentinean model – ‘I think it is worth this, what do you think it was worth?’
• MEANS-TESTED ADMISSION! Theatre, like charity, could be x% of your net income.
• What is STAR QUALITY in experimental work?
• Is it still Keira Knightley?
• Isn’t crowd-sourcing a horrible idea? Because WHAT IF THE PIECE IS SHIT?
• Buying shares, investing in a conglomerate of experimental artists, getting a share of profits back...
• Shares / units of theatre – Rotozaza’s Etiquette, £4000, here’s the box, there you go?
• Keira Knightley went to see Black Watch at the Barbican ‘many times’.
• Is it a sellout for Keira Knightley (or a lookalike of Keira Knightley) to walk across the stage for two minutes?
• Is it a sellout for Keira Knightley (or a lookalike of Keira Knightley) to walk across the stage, naked, for two minutes?
• WE ARE GOING TO CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD OF FUNDING WITH KEIRA KNIGHTLEY’S LEGS.
• ‘I’m playing devil’s advocate here, obviously.’