Creative Community Companies may be better than charities for c21st cultural organisations

c Nex Architecture on the Behance Network

There is a huge wealth of skills and ability amongst arts board members, matched by some brilliant cultural leaders at the helm of our organisations but the system simply does not support them to adapt their organisations during turbulent times.

The current system of arts funding and cultural governance suspends our arts organisations in some sort of aspic, resisting change and discouraging risk taking.  We have created arts organisations which are not robust enough to lead change through setting them up as interconnecting components of public administration.  Most are charities but, unlike charities which are accountable to their members, most of these charities have directors who are also the only members, thereby never having the legitimacy of democratic election.  Being unpaid as well as suffering from a democratic deficit,  they often do not take long term responsibility and neither do they take risk.  They are kept in check through a bespoke system for arts boards governance and investment is made in publications, training and the like.  There is a push for increased diversity on boards, but the reality is that this a pretty elite system with board members almost always well established in the community and the system being pretty inaccessible to newcomers.

Why don’t arts organisations get together and merge?  Because the current artistic directors don’t want to, and the boards neither want to upset the directors nor put their heads above the parapet nor get their sleeves rolled up.

Why don’t some of the high experienced business people and entrepreneurs on boards apply their skills to generate income for the organisation?  Because that is not their role, as charity trustees, and their ideas must pass the taste test of their arts executives.

Tomorrow’s successful local or regional arts organisation will be embedded in its community, be dynamic, risk taking and take a high level of responsibility for success.

It will maximise local entrepreneurial skills and community engagement. The charity model does not support this and so a new model would be to develop Creative Community Companies, cultural Community Interest Companies. CICs are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a “community interest test” and “asset lock”, which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes.

A CIC can be set up with a mixture of members, representative and individual.  The key thing is that all the members are working within a structure which exists to service a particular community.

The Creative Community Company would be set up to serve the interests of all those in a local arts and culture and creative community – creative practitioners, artists, participants.   The CCC could govern all the infrastructure or some of it, accepting that its job was to provide the best creative and cultural experiences and products for its community and that is likely to involve continually evolving and changing.

Board directors would be accountable to their community of interest and would include executive directors – paid for their professional services and taking full responsibility. An executive Chair, rooted in a community, could lead change and provide robust and dynamic leadership for the organisation long term.  Local authorities, enterprise agencies, universities could all be members and would serve therefore without any of that awkward conflict of interest that can exist in the current system.

We could harness the skills and enthusiasm of some of the volunteers currently serving on board in more satisfying ways  - as cultural champions in schools, for example.  With fewer and small professional boards, the focus for the staff, artists and volunteers can be on creating and supporting the activity and less on convoluted governance matters.

The CIC vehicle is used by Culture and Sport Glasgow and Watershed’s Ished amongst several others, and the model offers an opportunity to change the dynamic of art organisations and to add both entrepreneurialism and community ownership. As our communities become ever more diverse and in the future maybe more so with migrant populations, the CCC model can be designed to be genuinely porous supporting creative hubs which offer neutral space for all collaborations.

And the Creative Community Company can adapt to change.  Who knows what will emerge this century or even this month as a creative interactive experience, or what Spotify, Google, Apple and people we don’t know yet will do?

During the current public sector expenditure reduction, he arts have argued well their case to national governments.  But with the pressure on local authorities, its only a matter of time before parts of the system begin to collapse.  The Creative Community Company can be the phoenix for future growth.

(from a longer presentation)

 

Are the subsidised arts in a parallel universe to the rest of the creative economy?

There was a diversity of creative business leaders at last week’s C&binet Forum.  As well as global industry leaders from Google, Spotify, EMI, Vivendi and many other major media leaders, publishers, content providers and distributors, there was a rich smattering of creative entrepreneurs (mostly not wealthy either because they work in community creative enterprises, or simply because they are emergent).  So both the formal sessions and informal chats were driven by an energy and passion around change and improvement to maximise the impact of UK creativity.

The ‘arts’ did not emerge much during the formal discussions, perhaps due to the domination of the copyright agenda. Twice they were mentioned, once by the CEO of  DACS and once by Colin Tweedy of Arts and Business who was given short shift by the panel talking about investment, who were interested in profit not patronage.  In their mind, music , publishing and games fell clearly under the remit of the creative economy, but subsidised arts did not.

This division is one which some of our artists and subsidised arts organisations feel comfortable.  It provides  some necessary protection and a space for the state to encourage the vital support of individual artists and arts activity which cannot and should not be commercial.  The metrics of the arts are not only (if at all) commercial but are educational, social and cultural, promoting well being, cultural identity, individual growth and community cohesion – as well as , most importantly, provoking ideas, thoughts and revelations.

But not to engage in the fast moving change  around the way we communicate and interact in the digital age  could be a catastrophic mistake which threatens some subsidised arts organisations with irrelevance and possible extinction.

And its not about using Twitter as a marketing tool.

The key areas are around interacting with audiences and around 21st century business models.

In terms of interaction, the massive increase in people interacting through games must surely given some ideas to arts organisations – especially those involved in drama and music – some scope to review current products and seek new collaborative methods of creating work.

And as for 21st century business models   – its all about Freemium and upselling.

The leaders of some arts organisations engage in the challenge and break through the aspic of subsidy.  Watershed, for example, in its Ished project is about to embark on creating theatre with participants through mobile technology. Cornerhouse through the Art of With is at least asking the questions about collaboration with users in curation and programming.  But the examples are few and far between.  In the mainstream of subsidised arts, the production and presentation of work is entirely led by the visions and drives of the artists at the top, and the machinery around that is concerned with realising the artistic ambition and attracting an audience for it.

So does it matter? Maybe subsidised theatres and arts centres are simply the organised versions of individual artists who create work for arts sake and damn the audience?

A colleague , faced with the evidence which demonstrated the type of work which would attract larger and more diverse audiences, and noting the artistic director’s disdain, described the ’salon  theatre’ with which that organisation was engaged.

Personally, I think that is a great pity.  I, like many, discovered the arts with a little help from the library, my dad’s work night out to the (variety) theatre, and school trips.  A typical child of the ‘C2DE ‘ household with no books, art or music, the arts unfolded as I began my journey of discovery.

Subsidised arts organisations should encourage the discovery of today’s youngsters and engage with their equivalent of libraries and works socials – social networking and gaming as well as intense engagement in education.  Or else adopt the the model of supply-led theatre and arts, the ’salon’ and make the case for investment for other reasons – the arts are, after all, good for your health, well-being, community cohesion and sense of self.

If that is the case, individual arts organisations will need to have their evidence ready.  We have less and less public expenditure available.  And government, particularly if the Conservatives win the next election, get it about business models.  Barnet Council’s freemium model could, if extended, mean that the arts and culture are an additional extra for tax payers.  And will they pay for salon theatre?

 

Getting beyond copyright and into the gold rush – C&binet Forum 2009

Last week’s C&binet Forum was, on the surface, dominated by concerns about copyright from those with most to lose from filesharing. The agenda was framed to encourage the most fulsome arguments to be voiced by representatives of big players in music and publishing. And although all recognised the need for carrots to encourage consumers to pay for downloading content, and a campaign to raise awareness that filesharing is theft which could deny a livelihood to musicians and authors, most of the discussions were about the need for sticks. Today only 1 in 20 of downloaded music tracks is paid for.

C&binet is a not-for-profit network, created by the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport to link the international creative and commercial communities to grow the global creative economy. At last week’s forum,  business leaders from across the creative and finance industries came together to debate access to finance for creative industries, new business models for online content, developing talent and securing creative rights.

Three cabinet ministers trailed the announcement made by Peter Mandelson on the final morning of the conference, that the Government proposed a new Copyright Strategy for rights management and licensing in the digital age, including the British version of ‘3 strikes and you’re out’, which is two notifications and then ‘proportionate’ action for those who violate copyright.

So with that all important stake in the ground,  other issues which were debated and discussed ..

Its all about the bandwidth, baby

In 5 years time the capacity of the internet will be enormous and with band widths and speeds on a completely different scale from today. So won’t the issue of downloading be redundant?

Mobile is more and more the future

Won’t our devices be ever more disposable as everything is kept in the cloud and as technology becomes embedded in our walls and cars? Notions of disposable Kindles were floated, looking down the evolutionary telescope.

Be Greater with Data

With the exponential extension of cyberspace, the amassing of meta data will form a content –aware network which will be pretty much able to know everything. This will generate multiple issues of licensing and privacy but will be able to be used for almost everything. People/consumers/customers/users will become more and more aware of the monetary value of their personal data as the transaction between users, suppliers and advertisers becomes ever more sophisticated.

Freemium is the business model for tomorrow- make that today

Although there were many references to the need to find new business models, that really was from those who only have old business models.

Taking publishing, Gail Rebuck of Random House told us that within 24 hours of the publication of the latest Dan Brown novel, there were 70 pirate sites offering it for free.

Cory Doctorow, on the other hand, is developing the whole suite of Freemium services with his forthcoming collection of short stories, with free downloadable editions in a variety of formats, pay-per-use audio CD, opportunities for readers to enhance their product, from the $250 hand bound edition to the $10,000 bespoke edition with a unique chapter for the purchaser. These are in addition to buying from a bookseller and his ‘donate’ service where you can buy a book and donate it to a deserving school or library.

This business model nestles comfortably amongst Spotify and Playfish- both of whom use the upselling model as their framework.

Collaboration is king
All of the statistics show that the areas where there is major growth is where people can interact and get involved – games and social networking.

Some of the industry leaders from the games industry, from Spotify and Google were bemused by the focus on copyright and old business models. With a global perspective, they have an eye on what is happening in China, India and Brazil where the growth in creative industries and internet activity is faster than in the UK. The next billion mobiles are projected to be bought in China. And Australia has invested $43bn in fibre networks.

In the words of a games industry leader  “if we don’t get a move on, the UK will simply be trampled on in the gold rush”

But now, with Mandelson’s announcement, we can get beyond copyright. Other areas were aired and discussed at the Forum and with a wide range of leaders of all types and scales of creative businesses attending, this could be the beginning of an effective network in which to influence Government for the success of our creative economy.

 

Why the suspension of funding from Lloyds TSB strikes at the foundations of the arts in Scotland

The collapse and reforming of the banking system has had obvious effects on the arts, most of them blows.  Taking the most sweeping view, the banks can be scapegoated for  our worship of money, greed, imprudence and blamed now for the recession and for the medium to long term reductions in public expenditure which we will need to make. And then for the decline in corporate and individual sponsorship and giving, which makes up a significant part of the economy for arts and cultural institutions and where 70% of London institutions report a drop in income.  Some of the trusts and foundations which have supported our arts have also had to call a halt to funding while investment income is low.

But this week’s news that Lloyds TSB Foundation Scotland is suspending its grant-making activities for the foreseeable future has sent shock waves through Scotland. The Foundation has been  more than a supporter, its has enabled activity throughout Scotland that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.  Since 1986  it has provided £85m to charities in Scotland, to the most disadvantaged groups through a wide range of general grants as well some targetted, like young people affected by drugs abuse and its capacity building support.

The role of Lloyds TSB in the arts is pivotal because of its support of many community arts programmes, particularly through part funding of staff.  Many of these community programmes simply cant earn any more money to make ends meet.  Many of them cant achieve some public sector funding because they dont meet the artistic quality thresholds framed by the purse holders.  So Lloyds TSB has been a godsend, funding artistic activities which would not happen otherwise, engaging communities who would not be engaged otherwise.

A scroll through the 2008 general awards includes sums to :

• Project Ability Ltd working with 32 Black and Ethnic Minority disabled

• Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy for a Music Therapist

• Drake Music Scotland Towards the salary costs of the Artistic Director

• Dynamica Drum Corps To purchase new instruments £ 2,450

• Visual Statement Towards the salary of the full-time Production Assistant/Choreographer in order to deliver a pilot project to disadvantaged young people within Greater Easterhouse

• Sounds of Progress To contribute to the salary of the Music Development Officer

• Toonspeak Young People’s Theatre Towards the salary of the full-time Artistic Director

• Creative Therapies to support the salary and running costs of Art Beat, an art therapy project supporting children and young people affected by substance misuse

Most of these are unknown outside their communities and most are in Glasgow, most are firmly rooted in local communities.  If it were left to the public agencies entirely, they wouldn’t survive.  Take Visual Statement, Founded 30 years ago in darkest Easterhouse by Danny Dobbie, a local lad who defied all expectations by going to ballet school but, unlike Billy Elliot, came back to his own ’scheme’ and started a dance school. Easterhouse was at that time widely known as the worst slum in Europe and perhaps the biggest, poorest,  unhealthiest and most violent.   At the interval of a show, full of razamatazz,  in a delapidated, disused, dank and damp school, before the shiny new Platform Arts Centre was built, the whole audience went out for a cigarette at the interval.  The community is engaged in the arts in a way that a strategic public arts worker on a three year project will never achieve let alone sustain.

For this example, Lloyds TSB  has supported many more over the years, often with three year funding attached.

Meanwhile, in the bigger world of private investment in the arts, we look to Arts and Business.  In return for over £7m each year from the public purse, A and B champions private investment in the arts,  conducts research, encourages sponsorship and partnerships and runs some great parties and award ceremonies.  One of the current competitions is the Lloyds A nd B award for innovation.

The Lloyd’s A&B Innovation Prize recognises the most innovative and progressive partnerships of the last 18 months. Each finalist is an example of how innovation and strategic risk taking can lead to unique projects that expose brands to new markets, deepen audience engagement and develop new audiences.

In particular, the successful implementation of innovative solutions through new channels and methods from which both the arts and the business have benefited is the key to the Prize.

A good and glittering prize – Scottish Opera , National Theatre and Accenture are up for it for their partnership and that ticks all the right boxes for partnership, innovation and sparkle.  This prize is for additional activity from clever organisations.  But the Lloyds TSB Foundation supports more important community grass roots activity.  Surely one of the lessons we have learned as a society recently is the value of the less glittering prizes, community activity?   More and more of these decisions will fall to the public sector agencies and hard decisions will need to be taken so that we sustain core artistic capacity at all levels to survive the recession.

Meanwhile, the fall of the banking sector might deliver some public benefit as the RBS art collection might go on display.  Hooray!

 

Why its time to be vocal about the local value of arts, culture and creative industries

Over the last few weeks governments in Scotland, Wales and Ireland have declared commitment to the value of the arts,  culture and creative industries in recovery from recession, whether as a tonic for dented spirits, an antidote to an unbalanced life, to strengthen  national cultural identity. ..or for international competitiveness.

The rallying call, particularly in Ireland, is expressed in the passionate tongues of art and culture more than in the lexicon of the more contemporary newspeak  of  the creative economy, smart economy and innovation on which many a paper has been written and on which a glut of autumn conferences will proclaim and chatter.

But winning the hearts and minds of national politicians is only one part of the equation, particularly in the UK where local authorities as a block represent the largest funders of the arts and culture, far larger than the arts councils, and are major providers as well of museums, libraries, theatres and art centres: owning buildings, supplying services and employing staff.

In Scotland, the arts community has been focussed on national structures of late, concerned to make sure  that the new single agency Creative Scotland will be better than the Scottish Arts Council without any loss of funding for specific art forms.

In the meantime, local authorities are having to deal with accelerating  and medium to  long term reductions in resources and having to make cuts  in services and reductions in staff.  The arts and culture are not a statutory function.  In Scotland, the Single Outcome Agreements with Scottish Government do not signpost arts and culture as first order services.  So champions for the arts – artists, creative enterprises and their supporters need to get vocal at local level.

There tends to be a clustering of creative professionals  in metropolitan areas, cities and some rural areas, as immortalised by Richard Florida and these are active, connected and articulate.  Dublin Central Arts workers are becoming more and more political in their campaigning.  In Glasgow, where Culture and Sport Glasgow has an annual budget of  £96m (compare this with maybe £60m for Creative Scotland), audiences and participants exceeding 13m and a commensurately expert team  to boot, the benefits of culture are being evidenced in terms of proven impact on health and wellbeing, demonstrating a politic approach to establishing local value.

But what is happening outside of creative cities and rural areas?  In great swathes of Scotland, the arts and creative community is ever changing and without a local focus.   Arts and creative people are natural nomads, moving to where the pastures are fertile.  I am as guilty as the next creative professional, living in Fife for the meantime but without any professional roots in my community.  Creative professionals who live in my area work in Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee running some of our major institutions, or write, make music and art all over the world.

We need creative hubs in all parts of Scotland, where there is a focus for the arts and creative communities. And we all need to get local.

 

Why recognising the true value of the arts will mean hard choices

Artists operate in a delicately balanced economy, where it can be very hard to make a living from artistic endeavour.  That is why public sector subvention is so critical, through financial instruments such as tax exemption, bursaries and grants.

But as public expenditure gets smaller and smaller, artists and artistic enterprises are now being squeezed so hard they are squealing.  In Ireland, the end to artists tax exemption is one of a range of cuts on the table.  In Britain, Tracey Emin is threatening to leave the UK if (and when?) we have to put the taxes up to 50%.

Public subvention in only one part of the triangle as the economy of the arts is also dependent on the forces of earned income- through sales, box office and the like and  private giving  – sponsorship, corporate and individual giving.

Unsurprisingly, corporate and private sponsorship is well down on the recent fatter years.  And now, the box office is beginning to dive in many theatres.  Although its too blunt to divide theatre into ‘entertainment’  (escapist, fun, easy) and ‘art’ (difficult, through-provoking, poetic, political),  West End theatre is flourishing while others are struggling including London’s Tricycle Theatre.  It receives £ 3/4m from ACE but, despite an additional £361k from ACE’s Sustain Fund, the Theatre is reportedly struggling because audiences are staying away from political or ‘art’  theatre and because of the drop in charitable donations.  This is a story which is unfolding across the British Isles.

We need to preserve the artistic capability to survive through recession.  We need to support artists in our communities, whether these are local, regional or national.  And that means that public funders must make hard choices.  They need to choose who and what to support, recognising they can’t support everyone.  The Arts Council of England is investing £40m through its Sustain fund and so far this is largely to support the most established of arts organisations from the Royal Opera House, the Halle Orchestra to Yorkshire Sculpture Park.. But the Tricycle story signals that this may not be enough and so funders will be forced to be ever more discerning about who to put into the lifeboats and who to leave to sink or swim, through changing their programme, merging, or other innovations which cost less.

We also need strong leadership and powerful advocacy.  In Ireland, the National Campaign for the  Arts  campaigning against cuts proposed by An Bord Snip and the Commission on Taxation, has evinced strong support from business leaders and artists, who confidently express the value of the arts and artists, including their contribution to reputation, employment, tourism, the broader creative economy and the all important national psyche.

What is critical about this is the championing of art and artists and expressing the high value that artists have for our societies, whether or not this is recognised through tax exemption or financial rewards.  As we move away from a value system which is based entirely on money, artists can take the lead.

 

Why All’s Well that Ends Well is only the beginning

The NT live season streamed its second show last night.  All’s Wells that Ends Well is one of Shakespeare’s ‘problem’ plays which is unlikely to be seen by many. Firstly, its a ‘ problem play’ because of its genre defying characteristics and idiosyncracies.  And secondly, the production resources needed to solve the problem – more than met in Marianne Elliot’s wonderful, grim and fantastic fairytale production with very fine performances, a wonderful design and all the creative and technical resources afforded by the National Theatre – are scarcely available outside the NT, RSC, Globe etc.  It simply doesn’t stack up for a regional theatre to produce this play.

So last night the audience for this show was seated not only in the Olivier Theatre but in 70 cinemas throughout Britain. Most of us were seeing a show to which we would not have access otherwise and that is a great thing.  The quality of the experience is fantastic – as an audience you are in the room with the performers, live but also have the advantages of being in great and moving seats, up close.  And, for those of us who live far away from London, we haven’t spent a fortune or increased our carbon footprint.  So it is certainly the way forward for work which our regional theatres won’t or can’t produce.

But its only the beginning.  NT Live is a spearhead for change in theatre programming and participation throughout the UK and for cultural planning.

Taking All’s Well that Ends Well as an example – its just the beginning for other plays by local writers and for participative projects  on What Happens Next or Be careful what you wish for or Why that could never happen in Perth or Why do clever women want men who behave badly etc etc

The next issue to sort out is venues.  We need creative hubs throughout the land, neutral, enabling spaces where live screenings, performances and participative activities can all mingle and mash up with the local communities.  Like the Dukes in Lancaster. The Dukes remodelled itself two years ago, leaving behind the sausage machine of traditional producing theatre to become more open, mixed, varied and connected with Lancaster and Lancashire.  Yesterday the Dukes programme included their own production of  Of Mice and Men, Live Theatre’s Motherland, and a full creative learning programme so couldn’t accomodate the  screening of NT Live in their modest multiplex. But they did screen Phedre and will do more. The  audiences at the Dukes happily browse and buy in all the spaces and are treated to the same standards of ‘customer care’  – or good old Front of House management no matter what the event.

This is in contrast to the Cameo Cinema in Edinburgh which is a fine little cinema – not a creative hub.  Many of us found the queues at the box office frustrating – because only one sales assistant  was on duty, I guess because for movies you dont have all to be there at the beginning and you filter in during the ads.  But the audience at the Cameo last night was a theatre audience and we wanted to be on time!  The queues for the loo were just like at old theatres, so that was familiar.  And the Front of House presence was not the friendly Front of House Manager which most theatres provide, but some very assertive market researchers determining our demographic details.

As the NT live stream flows, we need the venues, the interface with local partners and other advances like letting all the audiences communicate with each other.  Sure we can tweet.  But we should also applaud.

Bring it on.

 

Why its time for Scotland to be butch about its games industry

Sir Gerry Robinson’s advice to the Global Irish Economic Forum is to take decisive action and target  4 or 5 games companies from Scotland to relocate to Ireland by providing a package of support including five years of tax incentives.   Ireland built up its film industry by taking action in this way and now boasts  a thriving audio visual sector which now contributes €557m to the economy.

Countries across the world are investing in their creative industries to get out of the recession – even in Iceland

The Scottish and UK Governments are fully aware of the vital importance of the games industry to the Scottish economy. There have been several reports now making a strong economic argument for investment in the games industry throughout the Creative Britain process, the Digital Britain report  and, specifically,  by NESTA and by TIGA, the games industries association.  TIGA’s most recent report:

presents a robust argument for the introduction of a tax break for the UK video games industry, similar to the tax credit which already exists for the UK Film Industry. This report was submitted to the UK Government’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport on August 28, 2009.

Key report findings included:

• Over 5 years the Games Tax Relief would create 1,400 new jobs in the studio sector
• 60-80 UK developed titles would benefit per year
• A tax credit would trigger growth in employment, new game development, innovation and investment, and more sustainable business models for British studios
• By year 5, for every £100 of investment by government in the Games Tax Relief, the industry will invest £176.
• Over 5 years the Games Tax Relief would increase investment by games studios by £146m, direct and indirect annual tax revenues by £133m and GDP contribution by £323m

Mike Russell, the Scottish Culture Minister, frequently refers to the importance of the games sector and it will be one where the Creative Industries Partnership will get involved beyond the work Scottish Enterprise already does, it if deems it necessary, which surely it must.  Scotland has watched while France and Canada have invested  in the games industry and stolen a march.

Mike Russell states that full fiscal autonomy is necessary to offer the right package of support.

A spokesman for the Scottish government said to the Herald in its coverage at the weekend:

There is a range of support available for the games industry in Scotland. Of course, our view is that Scotland should have control of key fiscal levers in order to do more. This is a clear example of the need for radical change which at least provides full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. Until we have those powers we’ll continue to make the UK government aware of the implications for the Scottish gaming industry. We’ll also work with the industry to provide evidence of the impact.

If the Conservatives win the next election we can expect progress in this area, if Ed Vaizey has has way.  Perhaps Ireland will wait patiently.  Perhaps its hot air. Perhaps a deal is being done with the games industry while the political points are being made.  Dundee MSPs are seeking action. All the evidence is there.  Its just the action we want now.

 

Now the best seats in the house for Shakespeare – at a cinema near you?

Following hot on the heels of NT Live, Opus Arte has announces that productions  from Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre will now also be accessible  in cinemas throughout the UK and abroad.

The Opus Arte 2009/10 season also includes world class productions from the Royal Opera House, Glyndebourne,  Madrid’s Teatro Real and Barcelona’s Gran Teatre del Liceu as well as concerts from the chapel of King’s College, Cambridge.  Opus Arte claims:

“Recorded in High Definition and true Surround Sound these performances from the world’s great stages give you an experience as vivid and as ambient the best seats in the house”

As the work of world class brands becomes more and more accessible, regional theatres will have more opportunities to diversify and free up resources.

Its part of the programming balance in a regional theatre to present world classics and Shakespearian productions but this is a costly business.    The cost of mounting a Shakespearian production or major classical production in our regional theatres varies.   So does the cultural success of the productions, in terms of the specific resonances and connections to local audiences through the production and the quality of the production.

But if a regular supply of excellent productions of Shakespeare and classics becomes available at a nearby cinema, then theatres could free some of their resources into the streams of theatre that are very specific to their audiences.  Collaborative work, participative and community work, research and development are all costly activities which tend to be subordinate to putting on the big productions but which embed theatres into their communities and allow them to take artistic risks.

Cinemas should be the bed rock of cultural planning for the 21st century.      In their inherent neutrality, they are more democratic and accessible than theatres, concert halls and opera houses.  The network of cinemas streaming opera and theatre live does not cover the whole of the UK at the moment, but it could.

It remains to be seen how much more diverse the audiences will be for Shakespeare and opera  in cinemas than they have been in  theatres, where audiences in regional theatre overall have remained static and lacking in diversity over the last five years at least.  Removing the barriers of cost and location and providing more certainty as to the quality through the assurance associated with household names should surely open up the experience to a wider audience.

 

How our currrent board systems keep the arts in check

Although public appointments in the arts have attracted attention of late, its worth remembering that the great majority of cultural governance in the UK is of a different order. Just about all arts organisations – theatres, arts centres, orchestras, festivals and so on, are charities, or limited companies with charitable status.  They are voluntary organisations and require to be governed by charity trustees and to comply with regulations, OSCR in Scotland. But the regime for serving as a charitable arts trustee is much less clear cut than serving as a Public Appointee, where the Seven Principles of Public Life apply, along with Registers of Interest and the like.

Charities are much more of a mixed bag.  Each organisation, required to comply with the law, will have its own constitution, memorandum and articles of association and/or other legal frameworks. Most arts organisations were established as charities in the days before social enterprise companies and Community Interest Companies existed, as the only type of organisation which would allow them to receive grants and avoid corporation tax.  Most of them are still charities because they can get rate relief on their premises.

There are some 23280 charities in Scotland of which 598 have the arts as one of their objects. These arts charities are encouraged to operate according to guidance provided by arts councils and their agencies.

Care Diligence and Skill, a handbook for arts boards in Scotland describes in detail the system, the requirements, the expectations and gives direct advice to arts board members assuming a low level of experience and understanding.  Versioned by previous SAC directors, the handbook is a useful bible particularly for new arts boards and trustees.  The book lays out the idiosyncracies and differences between arts boards and businesses, and arts boards and other charities.  It gives advice on a range of issues including recruitment, running board meetings, selecting members, legal and fiscal responsibilities, role and remit of the board etc.  There are are also several training courses to encourage adoption of this system, run  by other intermediaries such as Arts and Business.

But none of this advice is compulsory and its up to each board to behave and operate as it sees fit, and in accordance with its own constitution.  Take, for example, the agreed good practice around length of service.  Public appointments are offered at a maximum of two terms of four years.  In Care Diligence and Skill, a total length of service of six years is proposed.  But there are quite a few boards where the Chair and some board members have served for a longer period than that.

So is it worth the effort and resources of creating and disseminating bespoke advice and training, when there is free advice and affordable generic training available, for example on SCVO website?

That depends on how important it is to maintain the current regime and the style and behaviours of arts boards.  Because the arrangements for arts boards differ from others.

Where most arts boards differ from other charities, as well as businesses, is in their lack of accountability to members or shareholders.  In most arts organisations, the directors of the company are congruent with the members, and so the directors are only accountable to themselves, and of course, the funders who are significant stakeholders. Those arts boards who are elected by, and accountable to, a membership, are in the minority.

This contrasts with, for example, a health charity, where the members pay their subscriptions and vote for the trustees.  It also contrasts with private companies, where there are shareholders.

The danger of this is that some arts boards view themselves as primarily part of the (arts council) system as opposed to responsible to their community for the arts activity or facilities.

The most effective arts boards I know nowadays have three characteristics:

1. they have a board which is skilled and expert, particularly with a strong and experienced chair

2. the boards include representatives of the communities which the arts organisation serves; this could be local politicians, artists, education partners etc.  The inclusion of community and partners goes against custom and practice of recent years which has tended to narrow down the constituencies on boards, to make them easier to manage

3. they have clear and contemporary terms of reference which set out the roles and responsibilities of the board and enshrines its commitment to refreshment and renewal of skills – with a maximum term of office

The question is, is the current system, which keeps the arts in check and retains the status quo, what we need for the 21st century?  We seem to have created a coterie of bespoke limited companies with charitable status, populated by some talented and hardworking board members.

But in a fast changing world, with less and less public sector resources, we need our arts boards to be proactive, looking ahead and innovating.  We need them to take responsibility for the long term success of their facility or activity, to maximise their embedding into their community and to be  involved in as much partnerships and entrepreneurial activity as is appropriate. Perhaps even remodelling and merging.

Part of that look ahead for individual boards should include a fundamental review of the corporate structures and governance arrangements.

Maybe a Community Interest Company (CIC) or another type of Social Enterprise Company would better than a charity.  These vehicles are more suited to wider community ownership and to income generation.

But its horses for courses.  In some cases  maybe its even best to retain the status quo and for people to stay in their seats.