594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 5, 2022 10:25:05 GMT
Remind me of Cameron Macintosh's net worth again. #devilsadvocate That analogy would be like Arsenal being asked to fund Chelsea, in that these are theatre companies and producers competing (sort of) for the same audiences. The Football Museum situation is more like asking Cameron Mackintosh to donate to the V&A theatre collection (fair enough), except with football there are more Cameron Mackintoshes around, both clubs and individuals. Not sure I get you logic there; there is more than one producer around too. I just think bemoaning a different kind of cultural venue getting funding because of the value of the industry it's focused around a bit asinine. The funding from Arts Council is for 'creativity and culture' not just theatre darling. Culture exists outside the sphere of theatre. Museums preserve heritage which in turn fuels culture, regardless of their content. It's like questioning why a local tea shop is not doing well, when Costa and Starbucks are making billions and should therefore be expected to be funding the tea shop. No-ones questioning why a circus got funding when Cirque du Soleil are so successful. Or why Photoworks got funding when Instagram's value is floating round $33billion. Or why Thackray Medical Museum received a hand out when theres so much profit in big pharma. Because the logic doesn't check out; and they have won their funding applications rightfully due to a successful relevant application. Really, brutally, the fact that so many organisations are reliant on grants like this to exist and operate at all, is mental really and shows how unsustainable the arts industry fundamentally is.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 5, 2022 11:03:55 GMT
Not sure I get you logic there; there is more than one producer around too. I just think bemoaning a different kind of cultural venue getting funding because of the value of the industry it's focused around a bit asinine. The funding from Arts Council is for 'creativity and culture' not just theatre darling. Culture exists outside the sphere of theatre. Museums preserve heritage which in turn fuels culture, regardless of their content. It's like questioning why a local tea shop is not doing well, when Costa and Starbucks are making billions and should therefore be expected to be funding the tea shop. No-ones questioning why a circus got funding when Cirque du Soleil are so successful. Or why Photoworks got funding when Instagram's value is floating round $33billion. Or why Thackray Medical Museum received a hand out when theres so much profit in big pharma. Because the logic doesn't check out; and they have won their funding applications rightfully due to a successful relevant application. Really, brutally, the fact that so many organisations are reliant on grants like this to exist and operate at all, is mental really and shows how unsustainable the arts industry fundamentally is. I agree, people forget it is Arts funding, not theatre funding. It does suck for museums to lose ACE funding as well although I do wonder how a museum can receive ACE funding and DCMS funding, should be one or the other. The Barbican also lost ACE funding although IIRC that is mostly funded by the City of London.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 5, 2022 11:06:37 GMT
Well, £Sterling was a shade under $1.40 then - pretty much 25% more. Tourism less inhibited now. However UK gets about 6x more tourists from the EU than the USA and the £/Euro rate is currently exactly the same as it was in Jan 2021.
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Nov 5, 2022 11:58:03 GMT
That analogy would be like Arsenal being asked to fund Chelsea, in that these are theatre companies and producers competing (sort of) for the same audiences. The Football Museum situation is more like asking Cameron Mackintosh to donate to the V&A theatre collection (fair enough), except with football there are more Cameron Mackintoshes around, both clubs and individuals. Not sure I get you logic there; there is more than one producer around too. I just think bemoaning a different kind of cultural venue getting funding because of the value of the industry it's focused around a bit asinine. The funding from Arts Council is for 'creativity and culture' not just theatre darling. Culture exists outside the sphere of theatre. Museums preserve heritage which in turn fuels culture, regardless of their content. It's like questioning why a local tea shop is not doing well, when Costa and Starbucks are making billions and should therefore be expected to be funding the tea shop. No-ones questioning why a circus got funding when Cirque du Soleil are so successful. Or why Photoworks got funding when Instagram's value is floating round $33billion. Or why Thackray Medical Museum received a hand out when theres so much profit in big pharma. Because the logic doesn't check out; and they have won their funding applications rightfully due to a successful relevant application. Really, brutally, the fact that so many organisations are reliant on grants like this to exist and operate at all, is mental really and shows how unsustainable the arts industry fundamentally is. Well, big pharma profit has funded a lot of arts institutions e.g. the disgraced Sacklers, and no doubt the current govt would love to see more of that, but not sure there's the same direct connection between Thackray Museum and drugs companies in terms of supporters/vistors as there is with the football museum and clubs. I don't really disagree with you. I'm not snobbish about football, and I think there should be wide govt funding of all kinds of cultural institutions, but I don't think the current govt agrees with me, so surely it makes sense to look at which organisations might have the best options to appeal to private funders? Re sustainability, I think there has been research to show that arts/culture make more money, e.g. in tax and tourism revenue, than they costs to subsidise. So I'd argue it's more like having free education or subsidising public transport, which is money paid by the state for no direct financial return, but benefits the economy in other ways. A big chunk of the arts/culture industry might go to the wall without subsidy, but that would also cause economic damage, apparently larger than the cost of the subsidies.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 5, 2022 12:07:25 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the organisations that lost funding were on notice with ACE that if they didn't do better that they would get reduced or no funding. ENO and Hampstead for example have had cuts for various reasons.
|
|
3,070 posts
|
Post by Rory on Nov 5, 2022 13:49:40 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the organisations that lost funding were on notice with ACE that if they didn't do better that they would get reduced or no funding. ENO and Hampstead for example have had cuts for various reasons. Why have Hampstead and the Donmar been cut? Is it because they have had few or in fact no recent commercial transfers, unlike the Almeida and Young Vic?
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 5, 2022 14:08:55 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the organisations that lost funding were on notice with ACE that if they didn't do better that they would get reduced or no funding. ENO and Hampstead for example have had cuts for various reasons. Why have Hampstead and the Donmar been cut? Is it because they have had few or in fact no recent commercial transfers, unlike the Almeida and Young Vic? I can't imagine it's to do with them not having commercial transfers otherwise a lot more theatres would have lost funding, a transfer isn't a barometer for success.
I suspect it's a combination of factors. Hampstead's programming in the last few years has been lacklustre and clearly ACE didn't think things have improved under their new AD. The Donmar I was a bit more surprised about TBH.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 5, 2022 14:30:25 GMT
Why have Hampstead and the Donmar been cut? Is it because they have had few or in fact no recent commercial transfers, unlike the Almeida and Young Vic? I can't imagine it's to do with them not having commercial transfers otherwise a lot more theatres would have lost funding, a transfer isn't a barometer for success.
I suspect it's a combination of factors. Hampstead's programming in the last few years has been lacklustre and clearly ACE didn't think things have improved under their new AD. The Donmar I was a bit more surprised about TBH. Yes I guess the same about Hampstead. Maybe they cut the Donmar because it is clear they can quite easily survive without subsidy (only 8% of their income). Cheek by Jowl is an interesting cut. Maybe they haven’t been doing enough in UK in recent years.
|
|
5,587 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lynette on Nov 5, 2022 19:44:34 GMT
8% to 0% will make a difference. Staffing, cleaning contracts..I dunno but it ain’t nothing.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Nov 7, 2022 11:18:40 GMT
Interestingly, I don’t see any philistinism on display.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 7, 2022 13:42:12 GMT
8% to 0% will make a difference. Staffing, cleaning contracts..I dunno but it ain’t nothing. Their funding has been cut by £500k. Their capacity is 250 and they’re charging £1000-£2000 a seat for the benefit night they’re running so that should cover a lot of the shortfall this year. Some of the people attending that can can no doubt be persuaded to contribute on a more regular basis. I see Sam Mendes has been vocal in condemning the cut - he could contribute from his personal fortune couldn’t he ? It is much easier for the Donmar to access private funds than (for example) The Watermill Newbury which has also had a 100% cut.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 7, 2022 14:07:21 GMT
8% to 0% will make a difference. Staffing, cleaning contracts..I dunno but it ain’t nothing. Their funding has been cut by £500k. Their capacity is 250 and they’re charging £1000-£2000 a seat for the benefit night they’re running so that should cover a lot of the shortfall this year. Some of the people attending that can can no doubt be persuaded to contribute on a more regular basis. I see Sam Mendes has been vocal in condemning the cut - he could contribute from his personal fortune couldn’t he ? It is much easier for the Donmar to access private funds than (for example) The Watermill Newbury which has also had a 100% cut. It alway surprised me that the Donmar got less than Hampstead.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 7, 2022 14:56:29 GMT
Their funding has been cut by £500k. Their capacity is 250 and they’re charging £1000-£2000 a seat for the benefit night they’re running so that should cover a lot of the shortfall this year. Some of the people attending that can can no doubt be persuaded to contribute on a more regular basis. I see Sam Mendes has been vocal in condemning the cut - he could contribute from his personal fortune couldn’t he ? It is much easier for the Donmar to access private funds than (for example) The Watermill Newbury which has also had a 100% cut. It alway surprised me that the Donmar got less than Hampstead. To each according to their need I suppose. The Kiln gets almost £1m a year.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 7, 2022 15:10:24 GMT
To each according to their need I suppose. The Kiln gets almost £1m a year. The Kiln has the advantage that it's in a London borough which is being targeted for increased support in the arts.
|
|
18,811 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 11, 2022 6:13:32 GMT
|
|
4,594 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 11, 2022 7:44:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 11, 2022 7:59:59 GMT
The section on WNO is interesting. They don't mention at all the context of the ENO being obliged to relocate out of London and being funded with £12.8m a year to do so. Given that it's not really a surprise that WNO, that is already getting funding from the Arts Council of Wales, is to lose part of its additional funding from ACE which was being spent on touring to English venues outside London (their ACE grant has been cut from £6m to £4m). WNO says “Obviously provision of opera to England is going to have to come down” but it doesn't follow that provision of opera to England outside London is going to come down overall, that depends on how ENO reinvent themselves. As far as I can see funding opera in England outside London is being massively increased.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 11, 2022 11:55:50 GMT
The section on WNO is interesting. They don't mention at all the context of the ENO being obliged to relocate out of London and being funded with £12.8m a year to do so. Given that it's not really a surprise that WNO, that is already getting funding from the Arts Council of Wales, is to lose part of its additional funding from ACE which was being spent on touring to English venues outside London (their ACE grant has been cut from £6m to £4m). WNO says “Obviously provision of opera to England is going to have to come down” but it doesn't follow that provision of opera to England outside London is going to come down overall, that depends on how ENO reinvent themselves. As far as I can see funding opera in England outside London is being massively increased. I always thinks it's best to look beyond the headlines when it comes to articles to ACE funding because a lot of them are mainly ACE and government bashing when the reality is somewhat different. ENO have been on notice from ACE for years, likewise Hampstead about needing to do better or risk losing funding so the whole act of them being blindsided doesn't ring true.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 11, 2022 14:54:10 GMT
An 18% inflation-busting increase in overall ACE funding in the middle of a recession makes Government bashing difficult. Even R.Norris made quite measured and sensible comments on it.
|
|
1,265 posts
|
Post by mkb on Nov 11, 2022 15:10:47 GMT
Giving to some organisations while taking away from others (which will likely lead to cut-backs for the latter) is pretty cruel in these uncertain and worrying times.
It would have been kinder, just while we ride out the recession, for ACE to use that 18% to give inflationary increases to the existing recipients who are still trading, and use only the remainder for new initiatives.
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 11, 2022 15:26:23 GMT
Giving to some organisations while taking away from others (which will likely lead to cut-backs for the latter) is pretty cruel in these uncertain and worrying times. It would have been kinder, just while we ride out the recession, for ACE to use that 18% to give inflationary increases to the existing recipients who are still trading, and use only the remainder for new initiatives. ACE has always operated like that, it's not fair but that how it works.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousoctopus on Nov 11, 2022 15:41:59 GMT
I’ve always felt cynical about the ‘levelling up’ stuff. Not that giving extra funding to the north is a bad thing, but I’m just aware that the government’s main aim in this is essentially bribing undervalued northern cities to vote Tory again (despite how disastrous they’ve been for the entire country)
Also the idea of taking away excess funding from London to give to more needy venues falls apart when non-London theatres (like the Watermill and Hope Mill theatres) have had their funding completely cut. It really does seem like they’re throwing money at the north for votes rather than a sense of altruism
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 11, 2022 23:33:12 GMT
I’ve always felt cynical about the ‘levelling up’ stuff. Not that giving extra funding to the north is a bad thing, but I’m just aware that the government’s main aim in this is essentially bribing undervalued northern cities to vote Tory again (despite how disastrous they’ve been for the entire country) Also the idea of taking away excess funding from London to give to more needy venues falls apart when non-London theatres (like the Watermill and Hope Mill theatres) have had their funding completely cut. It really does seem like they’re throwing money at the north for votes rather than a sense of altruism So how come they are giving lots of new and extra funding and relocating London organisations to Labour-run big Northern cities like Manchester and Birmingham which will never do anything other than return Labour MPs ? Newbury on the other hand has a Conservative MP who could be at risk from The LibDems so why did they allow that to be cut 100% ? Well, not 100% really, ACE funding only made up 14% of the Watermills total income.
|
|
4,594 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 15, 2022 8:39:31 GMT
@jan, I suspect the ACE deciding bods arent Tory voters. Sure it has to be signed off by ministers, perhaps a lot of this was done in the summer by the hysterical Dorries which explains a lot.
I dont know what Michelle Donelan is like at all but she can't be worse than Dorries can she?
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Nov 15, 2022 9:19:09 GMT
Greater Manchester has several Tory MPs, some with very small majorities, but I don't know the demographics. I doubt opera in itself is a great vote-winner anywhere, but this will play into the narrative of a populist govt taking £12m from subsidising the leisure activity of wealthy southern socialists.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 15, 2022 10:19:41 GMT
Albeit with due warning to those of concern, it has always been the role of ACE to cull the weak and promote the promising: keeps everyone on their toes and rewards coherent aspiration. Isn't the same argument had every year?
Plus, leveling up isn't just a Manifesto pledge, it is a Government Department. Under Michael Gove. It is national policy with serious people in charge, and ACE spends a lot of public money.
For ENO, the Coliseum is an enormous 2, 350 seat, 120-year old, music hall albatross. A straight-jacket. Surely most people can see flexibility is the only way. I hope the organisation has the chutzpah to embrace what it has clearly feared for decades.
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Nov 15, 2022 11:08:23 GMT
Flexibility and more touring seems the way forward, but better to support the ENO in working out the best way to do that, whether that's touring from a (smaller?) London base, or choosing their own regional location based on demand/venue availability/consultation with local authorities and other opera companies, rather than being told where to go?
|
|
4,594 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 23, 2022 14:46:44 GMT
|
|
301 posts
|
Post by properjob on Nov 23, 2022 19:18:19 GMT
I wonder how that relates to the quarter thought out plan to move ENO to Manchester? Has WNO picked Liverpool as the city to cut because it thinks ENO is about to appear in Manchester even though they might not? Alternatively have they picked Liverpool because it was a city they were least successful in which would not bode well for a permanent opera company in Manchester?
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 24, 2022 8:07:00 GMT
I imagine the average travel time to The Coliseum is no worse than Liverpool to Manchester - an hour- 1 hour 20 on the train, or 37-mins on the Pennine Express.
|
|