Howard Barker is cut
The Wrestling School has been cut. Not quite like a Mark Ravenhill play but it probably feels like it [the cut performed in the play that is].
Howard Barker writes here and on at his site
“When we applied for an Arts Council grant this year, it was to mark a further drastic switch in form, this time to a swift and nearly wordless series of 40 texts played in two hours. Yet at the end of last week The Wrestling School was destroyed by the Arts Council’s decision – for reasons entirely without artistic value – not to award the grant, following the massive cut in its allocation to service the crisis of the Olympic Games. The squeeze on arts funding is presumably the reason behind the Arts Council’s removal of support for artist development, which has been the grounds for our funding over the last 20 years.”
And
“The sinister character of a regime that makes utility its sole value is nakedly evident in the decision-making process. We are describing censorship, not by the police, nor even the critical police, but by a process of selective de-funding. The Wrestling School is a victim of this, and is neither the first nor the last. It asks its public to contest its funeral.”
The comments are divided. George Hunka, Alison Croggon, Andrew Field amongst others make good points and counter statler from viewfromthestalls who argues
“when resources are limited I’d always prefer to see it going to new emerging companies and talent, and given that your company has been running for (almost) 20 years, if it still can’t be made to work commercially, even with trimmed down budgets etc, then I’m sorry but doesn’t that suggest the work isn’t that worthy (although I admit to having no knowledge of it)”
And Lyn Gardner comments
“we should all be making more noise and keeping the pressure up on both Arts Council and government or they will just think they can get away with it. The thread on subsidy versus the commercial is fascinating, and the truth is that the lines are much more blurred than we think. Subsidised theatres make commercial deals all the time, and you have only to look down the list of those who have received Grants for the Arts over the last three years to see that commercial producers have benefited. It is not as clear cut as it might appear, and that is often to the benefit of theatre as a whole.”
[my bold]
For my own two pennies
If one does actually try to cast it as an “economic” and commercial argument one key problem is that Howard Barker’s work has a large “intangible value” that pure ticket prices would not cover.
But that intangible value may well be larger (and so better to invest in) than the new emerging companies statler would prefer.
I’m not sure we should be looking for economic justifications, an inexact science at best, but still I wonder what has been the (intangible) value that, for instance, Alan Ayckbourn has given to Scarborough? Much greater than any subisdy, I would estimate.
comments
One Response to “Howard Barker is cut”
-
About me
I'm a playwright and investment analyst. I have a broad range of interests: food, gardening, innovation & intellectual property, sustainability, architecture & design, writing and the arts. I sit on the board of Talawa Theatre Company and advise a CIS investment trust on socially responsible investments.
-
Recent Work
Recent plays include, for theatre: Nakamitsu, Yellow Gentlemen, Lost in Peru, Lemon Love. For radio: Places in Between (R4), Patent Breaking Life Saving (WS).
-
Nakamitsu
-
-
Yellow Gentlemen
-
Thanks Ben for a fair summary of the discussion and for your own contribution to it. I agree with Lyn and others who commented that such debates over individual cases, of which there will be many, shouldn’t be allowed to hide the bigger picture and the impact in particular on groups that may now *never* get the opportunity to receive funding. We all seem to agree on the desireability of arts funding and it’s just a pity that these cuts have divided opinion on where our priorities lie.