Australia Council Make-it-new discussion paper/response
1
What should be the role of a national funding body?
Answer:
It could be said that Australian theatre has generally since the heady days of the 70’s fallen into a slough of despond as a result of ingesting too much postmodernism (POMO). We now seem to have theatre which has its feet in one of two distinct camps.
Re-enactment theatre: the flagships rolling out William S. in semi-modern dress,
Macbeth as Goebbels or Noel Coward’s Private Lives (again) gamely trying to keep their Grey Gonads who are terrified by shows such Shopping and Talking about Fxxxing. In truth it’s v. expensive amateur theatre, amplified. Same aesthetic aims, just bigger sets. Modern design in the flagships has become so powerful that the sets have become very good at eating the actors and the director. Another measure of good RT is its ability to trundle out a few TV soapie celebs.
On the other side of the divide is Un-Theatre: after a sustained quest to break with ‘old’ shibboleths, there’s not a lot left:
a) no structure which the audience can follow,
b) no landscape for transformation,
c) no legibility wherein the audience can find it self,
d) no content - just earnestly photo-copied hypotheses
In truth RT is retro-active and caters for the petit-bourgeois who like to see their culture as specimens safely suspended in formaldehyde - no messing with the formula, please! Its retro-active culture is dependant on keeping the fading demographic stumbling through the door.
Un-Theatre is essentially reactive, not so much standing for anything, but defined as standing against as many things as possible. Its culture is dependant on political credibility that is it has to be au courant with whatever is the current ‘appropriate’ thinking position.
Re-enactment theatre is best left to the Majors (and the amateurs!) who have the dough to survive for a few more years until another Nugent report while Un –Theatre is very precariously balanced on the edge of the fashion-chasm.
Both of them are beholden to extrinsic cultural forces- they have no real intrinsic culture.
The point I’m making here is that the good stuff lies between these two - Hard work and there’s not much out there either, but this is the Theatre Board’s true purview and I suggest that it concentrates its resources on those groups that have a strong internal culture - that is: a bunch of fellaheen who believe in something strong enough that they can survive a few years before they come to the Ozco. The TB’s first question could be: ‘What is their intrinsic culture which we can augment, rather than prop up?’
2
On what basis should the Theatre Board enter into long term funding agreements with organisations?
Answer: The only two questions to be asked are:
What is the intrinsic culture? Was it self sustaining BEFORE us? Is it self sustaining WITHOUT us? and,
Do these jokers really believe in something or are they just pumping out the right art-speak?
3
Do we need a greater variety of structures and mechanisms for the artists to realise their work, and if so what would they look like?
Answer:
· Not so much new structures as reframe the issues away from the defensive position of ‘what’s happened to the 70’s when everything seemed so positive, Gough was in charge and Nugget pulled the strings?’ Well, Gough’s gone mate won’t be back and Paul’s joined him. Bin Laden killed those post modern paradigms and a lot of arty types just haven’t figured it out yet. This is a new world and like it or not you have to face it, oh, and by the way…. Kevin won’t return it either!
I’m not for a moment suggesting rationalising the arts - that would be succumbing to a simplistic view of the modern world. I am saying you have to run parallel to it - you certainly cannot run against it. That re-active, rancorous approach died with the Berlin Wall and Glasnost.
This implies a de-politicising (actually a dis-Marxing) of the artistic process and a resumption of the classical position of art as a spirito/psychic arena - not easy given the residue of Post Modernism.
4 What would be the effect of the TB investing more of its resources in producers?
Answer:
· This would be breeding up a new class of middle managers. This is what accountants do when freaking out about the bottom line: “Get some bodies (who speak our lingo) between us and the shop floor, just in case!” Another negative defensive position!
5
Should the TB devolve more decision making to those more directly connected to the work being made, and if so, who would they be?
Answer:
· Is this code for…..‘Should we create another level of management?’
6.
What would be the effect of the TB focussing less of its funding on the creation of new work and more on creating opportunities for existing work to have a longer life?
Answer:
· This is an excellent idea as it would mean moving from a hospice approach propping up things up only to see them cark, to one of parallel investing i.e. The TB’s financial investment parallels the aesthetic investment of the artist/company.
7
Should nurturing these practices (such as innovation) become a particular or even exclusive role of the TB?
Answer:
· The true question is: should the TB fund temporary mirages? The idea that something new springs into existence parthenogenetically without reference to any forebears is absurd and actually is the POMO equivalent of Biblical Creationism.
It is only in retrospect that something is found to be innovative. The Beatles admitted that at the time of their greatest creativity they were ‘only making songs’. Of course what they were doing was filtering history and place, digesting and then expressing their re-configuration. Artistic progress has always been about re-configuration. Van Gogh was re-configuring Japanese wood blocks, Francis Bacon was re-configuring abattoirs and Muybridge.
Re-configuration also means that it is not about the girl or guy, but what they’ve done AND who they’ve done it with.
Maybe the way forward is to avoid the whole idea of chasing after situations that seem sexy because of their bauble-like ‘new-dity’ and instead look for integrated lineage where several experiences can be flowcharted into what might become progressive outcomes.
8
How can we support fruitful relationships between the majors and those artists and companies who rely on TB support?
Answer:
· The job of the Majors in this situation is to behave like clever multi-nationals and occasionally poach the up-and-comings from the s2m’s and suck ‘em into the big time.
· Witness STC’s collaring of Benedict Andrews by Robin N. If this is done properly the s2m concerned falls to bits and you have the added advantage that the guy is no longer outside the tent pissing on it - he’s inside. Olivier did the same thing with Tynan. What this means is that the majors are the big bogeymen and an artist should only consider joining them when he wants to bail out of the frontline back into the arthritic endgame. I think it’s not the TB’s position to encourage this!
Email makeitnew@ozco.gov.au
The Grand Nabob
twotadjerzysociety
