At this month's What Next? meeting in Basingstoke, we talked about the issues surrounding Arts Council funding that looks undoubtedly London-centric. A look at this map shows you the distribution of National Portfolio Organisations that will receive funding for 2015-18.
Joanna Ridout (Basingstoke Cultural Forum) alerted us to recognise that it may look like more money is going to London because theatre companies such as Hightide, Paines Plough and English Touring Theatre have their offices in London, and this is where the funding is directed. The secretary is not the one performing in front of an audience, and we must consider this before expressing too much anger at the injustice of it all.
Nevertheless, this accounts for only a small portion of the imbalance, and it is difficult to argue that the focus on the arts is directed towards London. And there is nothing wrong with that – as Sam Cairns (Cultural Learning Alliance) pointed out, it’s not that we want to sacrifice London theatre for the sake of regional work, we just want a fairer spread of the wealth. The more that regional theatre cannot afford to put on work, the more audiences will flee their local community and put their money into London theatre, aggravating the problem further. And what really gets my proverbial goat is the cheek of the Lyric Hammersmith seeking submissions for their Fun Palace. Correct me if I'm wrong, please do - but isn’t this supposed to be a neighbourhood project? So now we have applicants from all over the country ready to desert their community in favour of joining the project in London. I throw my hands in the air, I purse my lips.
And yet, who am I to judge? A scroll through this blog is enough to tell you that the majority of theatre I see is in London. I went to University in London. I am currently flat hunting to leave my peaceful, leafy surroundings in Basingstoke which will, worst of all, make work with my local arts centre a commute away. But I don't have much choice - my primary reason for moving is that local artists are too few and far between. This should be a reason to stay, but by the same token, it is absolutely why I should move.
Psychogeographically speaking, if you live in a small town and do not venture much further than said small town, I would argue that you can only endeavour to think, speak and create within the perspective of that small town. Likewise, if that town is not a tourist spot in any way, the influx of people with different perspectives on the world is reduced, to the point where you are surrounded only by people who think and work like you. Where is the progression? The challenge? The impetus to create art in response to anything?
The impetus to move, to travel, to 'be where the action is' is traceable throughout history. One only has to look towards the industrial revolution to recognise the drive for social mobility and the influx towards the city. Furthermore, the invention of the telegram brought London into contact not only with the rest of the UK, but also the rest of the world – within minutes. Suddenly, the world is bigger than the sleepy little village one initially called home, and driven by that ineffable will to learn and achieve evermore, we moved away. Because why wouldn’t you want to be in the centre of it all, in what must have felt like the centre of the universe?
This exact sentiment is here articulated by Bruce Robinson, composed for the BBC:
“So what happened to our child of 1800? Raised in a slow, rural life, he probably migrated to the city, leaving behind his old cosy community to start afresh on his own. Working in a factory, he would have been on his own: if lucky and diligent, he might have made a comfortable living. But every decade would have seen ground breakingly new inventions and the pace of life pick up: he might have travelled on trains and exchanged telegrams before he died. What is certain is that the world must have seemed ever smaller, while spinning ever faster.”
No comments:
Post a Comment