|
It is fashionable to put the blame squarely on bankers these days for any and every cut. The Arts Council England (ACE) recently announced their National Portfolio Funding Programme for the Arts for 2012-2015 with £965 million going to 695 organisations. Not one penny is going to any Chinese or East Asian related organisations – why? Who is to blame?
Funding from ACE to Yellow Earth Theatre Company of £150.513 for 2011-2012 comes to an end. Why were they not successful in their application under the National Portfolio Funding Programme? According to ACE’s decision when determining applications - each organisation has received the level of funding judged appropriate to its individual circumstances and to the programmes set out in their applications, rather than applying a policy of 'equal pain for all'.
For example, many are receiving increases due to a major transformation of their organisation, because they will greatly expand their programmes of activity, or because they provided a compelling vision in their application. So, has Yellow Earth Theatre Company failed on all three criteria?
The bare truth was that the company’s output had been declining in quality in recent years, their artistic policy was vague and there existed a ridiculous situation that this company was the only East Asian company in receipt of any funding from ACE.
This indefensible policy of funding only one arts organisation for an entire community, was never going to work. Having only one company sidelined a vast swathe – a majority, I would argue – of artists for whom the “vision” of Yellow Earth was not one they shared.
However, being pragmatic, most actors and artists kept silent in their artistic criticism of this output through fear that they would be actively excluded from the productions or communications outreach of the company and wind up with no company at all to represent them. This had happened in some cases and it was not a desirable state for a struggling artist.
This autocracy was not up to par artistically, however, and standards were acknowledged to be worsening, not improving. Even now, their only argument against the cut is that it leaves the sector without a subsidised theatre company and it’s not fair! They chant racism! They are not defending their position on any artistic grounds, which for an arts company is an interesting stance. But all is not lost.
I believe it is better to have no company at all representing the “East Asian sector” than only one which is prescriptive in its vision of “East-Asian”, only one which has such a monopoly on its power base and only one which does not serve up representative work and costs so much money to boot. The quality of the work was never even particularly high.
Good enough for some critics, maybe, in a patronising way – but it was never good enough to get any stand-out reviews, (or critic’s choice nominations) or anything that ever really, truly, underlined artistic success? They never produced one really good show. Lots of money was being spent and nothing much was being delivered in return. Even in the good times, this equation normally results in the axe.
That it did not happen earlier is the most striking symptom of ACE’s one-company policy. They had painted themselves into a corner, which prevented anyone from criticising the company’s output without being charged a Sino-phobe or worse... What we were served up was very, very worthy for sure.
All done, in case you were wondering, with oriental music, lofty artistic programme notes, and a host of stereotypical influences – guaranteed! - in an otherwise East-Asian cultural vacuum. Well done, ACE! It was Ethnic Theatre at its most ethnic! Dragons, gongs, big sleeves, martial arts and actors with 2 weeks’ training copying classical Beijing Opera moves that in reality take at least 7 years to master!
All done, too, with a serious Chinese undertone, that made even the funny parts humourless. And to top it, all under the banner of the re-claimed word, “Yellow”! But even with this worthy pill the company, unhappily, had become tired and was costing a not inconsiderable sum of taxpayer’s money.
The Yellow Earth management must be held responsible for this. As critics sat through their shows, struggling to find positive ways to sum up their experience, everyone felt altruistic and worthy – but how good were the actual shows? Were they engaging and entertaining? Those of us outside the bubble felt not. We also felt overlooked and patronised. “This is the best they have”, people would think, so they would not let us poor East Asians have both barrels.
If only they had known that this was not the best we have, by any means. Indeed we had a lot better some years ago when there were two companies representing the East Asian sector*. And imagine if we had had three companies (which by 2011 we surely deserved)! But no, one company would do for us!
No one dared to speak the truth in our politically correct straitjackets. Even now, it’s the bankers’ fault! To be clear, I blame the Arts Council and Yellow Earth’s Management. It was a fait accompli and the rest of us suffered as their grip and monopoly on the sector grew firmer. The board were simply not competent enough to acknowledge or address the steady drop in artistic standards and reviews.
Now that we British East Asian artists are no longer ruled by such an unrepresentative autocracy, we should be thankful. We can even be optimistic. We can take matters back into our own hands and make a noise.
ACE has been able to extricate themselves out of a hole of their own making. ACE need to support the sector again, as soon as they can - and this time, by funding more than one organisation at the same time, a move so obvious it beggars belief no one had hitherto recognised this. Healthy competition is always good in any business. Only then will reviewers be able to do their jobs properly.
Only then will we be able to see who does the most interesting and popular shows. Only then will there be a benchmark for the junior partner to aim for. Only then will there be a true progression in the sector’s growth and development. Only then will we truly flourish as a sector, artistically.
Competition also assures us of different approaches and artistic goals. More chance of being represented. ACE must next time attempt to nurture this sector with a policy and aim to drive up artistic quality bearing this obvious fact in mind. There was no attempt to monitor and benchmark the quality of artistic output in the past and this must, too, be addressed.
There was no accountability to the very people who matter – the taxpayers / users. Why could they not compare the output / critical acclaim across all cultural sectors on a value for money basis? Whatever their methodology was, it was not working and had a detrimental effect on the whole sector. It was a tick box exercise that suited all those involved in its making (and of course the small number of beneficiaries).
This funding cut will be derided and argued about for a long time. I argue it has worked out well for East Asians in this case, albeit unwittingly. I am more optimistic now than I have been for some time. I predict an optimistic future if ACE gets its act together and starts a policy of properly supporting the sector – a future in which the artistic output bears little resemblance to anything Yellow Earth has produced these last 10 years and hopefully a few stand-out award-winning productions among them.
This time, we should never allow any one theatre company take that position of ‘representing’ the community. WE should learn from our mistakes and if we don’t we will indeed be invisible.
* Paul Courtenay Hyu was involved with Mu-Lan Theatre Company, another company that represented British East Asians (BEAs) which had their funding cut in 2002. The very week Mu-Lan were cut, their show, Sun is Shining, was playing to a sell out crowd at The King’s Head, Islington.
This show was universally critically well acclaimed and placed in Time Out’s Critics’ Choice list, where it would remain for the following three weeks. Mu-Lan argued, that this artistic success was not to be taken for granted and that the cuts would have a direct artistic impact on London and BEAs. Not a single show featuring BEAs has featured on that list since that date, so those arguments have been proven correct.
Sun is Shining went on to feature at the Best of Critics Choice season at Battersea Arts Centre and 59E59 Theater, New York, where it received a 5 star review from the New York Times. Mu-Lan was nominated for a Peter Brook Empty Space Award and Carlton Multi-Cultural Achievement Award that year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/theater/theater-review-london-romance-sex-money-and-off-to-the-dog-races.html?scp=1&sq=sun%20is%20shining%20wilkinson&st=cse
Mu-Lan’s specific artistic policy was to support, develop, nurture and provide a platform for new BEA theatre to flourish in both writing and on the stage with a focus on quality productions. 'Porcelain' won the Best Drama Award at London Fringe Festival and achieved a successful 4 week run at the Royal Court Upstairs - the home for new writing/staging; 'The Magic Fundoshi' won the Best Comedy Award at the London Fringe Festival and had a successful run at the Lyric Hammersmith and Singapore; This production also won the Best Ensemble Award.
Takeaway won the Diverse Acts Award and was nominated at Manchester Evening News Awards. The company also produced the first mid-scale East Asian Shakespeare production, Mu-Lan’s Romeo & Juliet at Basingstoke Haymarket Rep and was the 1st to develop a BEA Youth Theatre and develop New Writing from within the BEA sector. The company also produced the 1st BEA comedy troupe, Sweet ‘n’ Sour which went on to make a television pilot for the BBC.
|