Hi Christopher, I agree that any administrative culture which becomes a leech is a bad thing. I also think that some of the best artistic practice I’ve experienced – many of the strongest projects I’ve seen – and the most meaningful long-term relationships with communities I’ve witnessed – have come about through a balance of great artistic vision, administrative support and the availability of welcoming buildings. It’s a balance. D

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments – but the problem goes deeper. What’s wrong with our English artistic culture is that the institutions (such as BAC) have become self-perpetuating and ossified. They suck up all available public funding, and increasingly seek to justify their existence in terms the funders can understand – that is, as social services hubs rather than artistic powerhouses.

There’s a clue to your thinking in the very first paragraph of this stimulating post, where you imply that you would like the “participation” model to be “mainstream”. The problem is, that art can almost never be both “mainstream” and vital. It has a way of breaking through, or kicking up against, institutional five-year plans, balance sheets and vision statements. It survives in spite of – not because of – the kind of institutional stranglehold which we’ve allowed to take over our performing arts scene.

You are attractively open about the vulnerability of your own position as a middle-class white male. I feel you should also be open to the possibility that it is the whole Administrator Culture (the only “career path” open to theatre people nowadays) which is responsible for today’s appalling disjuncture between creators and consumers. Unless we get rid of this vampiric administrative tier in the performing arts, and return to project funding models in place of these lethal revenue grants which put buildings not people first, our performing arts will continue to dwindle and die.

Yours
Christopher