|
|
Post by scarpia on Nov 4, 2022 17:52:46 GMT
Good news. You’ll struggle to get much sympathy for the ROH and NT losing funding from anyone outside London. Why would we care? We’re never going to see their stuff. Seen the train and hotel prices? In fact it seems that most people in London aren’t interested in seeing their stuff either. I think this is an incredibly short-sighted view. Some of these (especially NT, ROH, and the Donmar) are world-class institutions with a huge amount of soft power worldwide and help to bring in wider investment to the entire UK. Decimating them will do no-one any good, and nor will it help anyone outside of London. |
|
|
|
Post by ruthieh on Nov 4, 2022 17:56:15 GMT
Gutted to hear The Watermill theatre have lost their NPO funding…
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 4, 2022 18:00:26 GMT
Good news. You’ll struggle to get much sympathy for the ROH and NT losing funding from anyone outside London. Why would we care? We’re never going to see their stuff. Seen the train and hotel prices? In fact it seems that most people in London aren’t interested in seeing their stuff either. I think this is an incredibly short-sighted view. Some of these (especially NT, ROH, and the Donmar) are world-class institutions with a huge amount of soft power worldwide and help to bring in wider investment to the entire UK. Decimating them will do no-one any good, and nor will it help anyone outside of London. I’ll give you the ROH and NT for name recognition (not sure about “soft power”) but nobody outside London knows or cares what the Donmar Warehouse is unless they’re specifically into theatre. |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 4, 2022 18:00:47 GMT
Gutted to hear The Watermill theatre have lost their NPO funding… Hope Mill Manchester also. |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 4, 2022 18:18:28 GMT
It’s a big strong to say places like the Donmar and Hampstead will be decimated without ACE funding. There are plenty of theatres which thrive without it like Southwark Playhouse, the Bridge etc and the Donmar has only been ACE funded since 2000
|
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Nov 5, 2022 1:27:56 GMT
If it forces Hampstead and the Donmar to be less self indulgent and to put on stuff that actually deserves to sell tickets then good.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 5, 2022 7:56:12 GMT
Anyone else baffled at a football museum getting an Arts Council grant? Given the colossal sums of money football clubs spend on players, surely a football museum could be run with backing from one or more clubs rather than from the Arts Council? Remind me of Cameron Macintosh's net worth again. #devilsadvocate |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on Nov 5, 2022 8:59:16 GMT
Is there any appeal mechanism to ACE about refusal for National Portfolio funding?
Did venues like the Almeida and Young Vic get it, and if so why not the Donmar? How was the distinction made?
Edit: I've checked the list and both Almeida and Young Vic were successful. I can't see the Royal Court on the list ?
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 5, 2022 9:43:10 GMT
Anyone else baffled at a football museum getting an Arts Council grant? Given the colossal sums of money football clubs spend on players, surely a football museum could be run with backing from one or more clubs rather than from the Arts Council? It does feel like an own goal. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 5, 2022 9:50:14 GMT
Almeida was successful but did get a 15% cut. YV maintained their funding level.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Nov 5, 2022 9:51:40 GMT
Anyone else baffled at a football museum getting an Arts Council grant? Given the colossal sums of money football clubs spend on players, surely a football museum could be run with backing from one or more clubs rather than from the Arts Council? Remind me of Cameron Macintosh's net worth again. #devilsadvocate That analogy would be like Arsenal being asked to fund Chelsea, in that these are theatre companies and producers competing (sort of) for the same audiences. The Football Museum situation is more like asking Cameron Mackintosh to donate to the V&A theatre collection (fair enough), except with football there are more Cameron Mackintoshes around, both clubs and individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 5, 2022 10:09:04 GMT
Would love to see a formula that sent ROI to the north as a means of supporting levelling up, though I'm reminded one of Truss's lunatic plans was to cancel VAT for tourists, as if they need encouraging (sterling = euro 1.17, USD 1.15) You do know that the “lunatic” Truss plans on allowing tourists to reclaim VAT would have only returned us to the situation as it was until January 2021 ? Until then it was always the case that foreign tourists (from outside the EU in that case, so including USA) could reclaim VAT. I never remember anyone complaining about the scheme then. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 5, 2022 10:14:12 GMT
Well, £Sterling was a shade under $1.40 then - pretty much 25% more. Tourism less inhibited now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 5, 2022 10:17:55 GMT
Repeating what I said on another thread, the Donmar’s own website says that public funding only makes up 8% of their total income. So losing it doesn’t seem to be such a big deal.
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Nov 5, 2022 10:18:47 GMT
I can't see the Royal Court on the list ? The Royal Court is funded under its 'official' name of the English Stage Company. £2.236 million p.a. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 5, 2022 10:25:05 GMT
Remind me of Cameron Macintosh's net worth again. #devilsadvocate That analogy would be like Arsenal being asked to fund Chelsea, in that these are theatre companies and producers competing (sort of) for the same audiences. The Football Museum situation is more like asking Cameron Mackintosh to donate to the V&A theatre collection (fair enough), except with football there are more Cameron Mackintoshes around, both clubs and individuals. Not sure I get you logic there; there is more than one producer around too. I just think bemoaning a different kind of cultural venue getting funding because of the value of the industry it's focused around a bit asinine. The funding from Arts Council is for 'creativity and culture' not just theatre darling. Culture exists outside the sphere of theatre. Museums preserve heritage which in turn fuels culture, regardless of their content. It's like questioning why a local tea shop is not doing well, when Costa and Starbucks are making billions and should therefore be expected to be funding the tea shop. No-ones questioning why a circus got funding when Cirque du Soleil are so successful. Or why Photoworks got funding when Instagram's value is floating round $33billion. Or why Thackray Medical Museum received a hand out when theres so much profit in big pharma. Because the logic doesn't check out; and they have won their funding applications rightfully due to a successful relevant application. Really, brutally, the fact that so many organisations are reliant on grants like this to exist and operate at all, is mental really and shows how unsustainable the arts industry fundamentally is. |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 5, 2022 11:03:55 GMT
Not sure I get you logic there; there is more than one producer around too. I just think bemoaning a different kind of cultural venue getting funding because of the value of the industry it's focused around a bit asinine. The funding from Arts Council is for 'creativity and culture' not just theatre darling. Culture exists outside the sphere of theatre. Museums preserve heritage which in turn fuels culture, regardless of their content. It's like questioning why a local tea shop is not doing well, when Costa and Starbucks are making billions and should therefore be expected to be funding the tea shop. No-ones questioning why a circus got funding when Cirque du Soleil are so successful. Or why Photoworks got funding when Instagram's value is floating round $33billion. Or why Thackray Medical Museum received a hand out when theres so much profit in big pharma. Because the logic doesn't check out; and they have won their funding applications rightfully due to a successful relevant application. Really, brutally, the fact that so many organisations are reliant on grants like this to exist and operate at all, is mental really and shows how unsustainable the arts industry fundamentally is. I agree, people forget it is Arts funding, not theatre funding. It does suck for museums to lose ACE funding as well although I do wonder how a museum can receive ACE funding and DCMS funding, should be one or the other. The Barbican also lost ACE funding although IIRC that is mostly funded by the City of London. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 5, 2022 11:06:37 GMT
Well, £Sterling was a shade under $1.40 then - pretty much 25% more. Tourism less inhibited now. However UK gets about 6x more tourists from the EU than the USA and the £/Euro rate is currently exactly the same as it was in Jan 2021. |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Nov 5, 2022 11:58:03 GMT
That analogy would be like Arsenal being asked to fund Chelsea, in that these are theatre companies and producers competing (sort of) for the same audiences. The Football Museum situation is more like asking Cameron Mackintosh to donate to the V&A theatre collection (fair enough), except with football there are more Cameron Mackintoshes around, both clubs and individuals. Not sure I get you logic there; there is more than one producer around too. I just think bemoaning a different kind of cultural venue getting funding because of the value of the industry it's focused around a bit asinine. The funding from Arts Council is for 'creativity and culture' not just theatre darling. Culture exists outside the sphere of theatre. Museums preserve heritage which in turn fuels culture, regardless of their content. It's like questioning why a local tea shop is not doing well, when Costa and Starbucks are making billions and should therefore be expected to be funding the tea shop. No-ones questioning why a circus got funding when Cirque du Soleil are so successful. Or why Photoworks got funding when Instagram's value is floating round $33billion. Or why Thackray Medical Museum received a hand out when theres so much profit in big pharma. Because the logic doesn't check out; and they have won their funding applications rightfully due to a successful relevant application. Really, brutally, the fact that so many organisations are reliant on grants like this to exist and operate at all, is mental really and shows how unsustainable the arts industry fundamentally is. Well, big pharma profit has funded a lot of arts institutions e.g. the disgraced Sacklers, and no doubt the current govt would love to see more of that, but not sure there's the same direct connection between Thackray Museum and drugs companies in terms of supporters/vistors as there is with the football museum and clubs. I don't really disagree with you. I'm not snobbish about football, and I think there should be wide govt funding of all kinds of cultural institutions, but I don't think the current govt agrees with me, so surely it makes sense to look at which organisations might have the best options to appeal to private funders? Re sustainability, I think there has been research to show that arts/culture make more money, e.g. in tax and tourism revenue, than they costs to subsidise. So I'd argue it's more like having free education or subsidising public transport, which is money paid by the state for no direct financial return, but benefits the economy in other ways. A big chunk of the arts/culture industry might go to the wall without subsidy, but that would also cause economic damage, apparently larger than the cost of the subsidies. |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 5, 2022 12:07:25 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the organisations that lost funding were on notice with ACE that if they didn't do better that they would get reduced or no funding. ENO and Hampstead for example have had cuts for various reasons.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by Rory on Nov 5, 2022 13:49:40 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the organisations that lost funding were on notice with ACE that if they didn't do better that they would get reduced or no funding. ENO and Hampstead for example have had cuts for various reasons. Why have Hampstead and the Donmar been cut? Is it because they have had few or in fact no recent commercial transfers, unlike the Almeida and Young Vic? |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 5, 2022 14:08:55 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the organisations that lost funding were on notice with ACE that if they didn't do better that they would get reduced or no funding. ENO and Hampstead for example have had cuts for various reasons. Why have Hampstead and the Donmar been cut? Is it because they have had few or in fact no recent commercial transfers, unlike the Almeida and Young Vic?
I suspect it's a combination of factors. Hampstead's programming in the last few years has been lacklustre and clearly ACE didn't think things have improved under their new AD. The Donmar I was a bit more surprised about TBH. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 5, 2022 14:30:25 GMT
Why have Hampstead and the Donmar been cut? Is it because they have had few or in fact no recent commercial transfers, unlike the Almeida and Young Vic?
I suspect it's a combination of factors. Hampstead's programming in the last few years has been lacklustre and clearly ACE didn't think things have improved under their new AD. The Donmar I was a bit more surprised about TBH. Yes I guess the same about Hampstead. Maybe they cut the Donmar because it is clear they can quite easily survive without subsidy (only 8% of their income). Cheek by Jowl is an interesting cut. Maybe they haven’t been doing enough in UK in recent years. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 5, 2022 19:44:34 GMT
8% to 0% will make a difference. Staffing, cleaning contracts..I dunno but it ain’t nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Nov 7, 2022 11:18:40 GMT
Interestingly, I don’t see any philistinism on display.
|
|
