British Theatre Guide logo
 
Articles

 

Links

Articles

News

Reviews

Amateur Theatre

Contact

Other Resources

 

Putting the House in Order

Dateline: 5th July, 1998

It is a far from universally acknowledged truth that public funding for the arts is essential. If scepticism has increased in the past few years it has much to do with the fact that the Royal Opera House has come to be seen as a barometer of the health of the world of the performing arts. That organisation has inspired righteous indignation, invited mockery, invoked accusations of irresponsibility, overspending, mismanagement and élitism, and begged questions about the validity of the principle on which all arts organisations receive taxpayers’ money.

So Richard Eyre begins the Foreword of his Report. It's a very contentious paragraph in which he pulls no punches, and that sets the tone for the whole Report. Eyre is totally committed to the idea of public subsidy for the arts and this passion informs every word he writes and explains his disgust (not a word he uses, but that is the feeling which comes across throughout) at the "arrogance" with which the Royal Opera House has treated the public purse - and, indeed, the public for many years.

He is very conscious of the view that the public has that the arts are "élitist" -

If it’s in the nature of the performing arts that they can only be accessible to a few people at any one time, it’s a tragedy that these people always seem to come from so limited a social and geographical spectrum.

Access to the arts is, for him, of paramount importance -

The power to engender real access can, however, only be achieved in one way: by reducing ticket prices - at the very least for first time audiences - and funding education so that the arts became a genuine ‘choice’, without carrying the baggage of class. In short, making the arts truly inclusive.

In spite of the demands on the public purse of health, social services and education, he still believes that government must provide proper subsidy -

(The arts) are part of our life, our language, our way of seeing; they are a measure of our civilisation. The arts tell us truths about ourselves and our feelings and our society that reach parts of us that politics and journalism don’t. The arts entertain, they give pleasure, they give hope, they ravish the senses, and above all, they help us to fit the disparate pieces of the world together; to try and make form out of chaos.
But in order to justify this subsidy, arts practitioners have a duty: they must make their argument for continued existence in the quality and content of their work - and they must also make themselves accessible, accountable and cost effective. And it is at this point that he makes the most publicised of his attacks, not particularly on the ROH, but their history makes them the obvious target:
There is a wealth of first class work in lyric theatre, ample to confirm that the claim of excellence is not a self-serving boast, even if extending access to this work has often been half-hearted at best. It is also true that there has been much mismanagement and lack of financial accountability in lyric theatre. In some cases, deficits were accumulated with knowing recklessness, and in others with a fatal blend of arrogance, naïveté and wilful optimism. Like Mr Micawber, there has been a widespread assumption - without any supporting evidence - that something would turn up (in the shape of increased grants) to pull the companies back from the edge of the precipice of debt, and even bankruptcy. The Arts Council compounded the folly by not offering effective advice, or by exercising sufficient authority to preserve the companies from their excesses of self-mutilation.

But in all the furore attendant upon his attacks on the ROH, little has been made of a point he returns to again and again:

I have prayed fervently for deliverance from the unachievable task of trying to create true access to the performing arts without a wholesale reform of our educational system.
and
If in addition, educational initiatives went hand in hand with artistic ones, I believe that a profound change could be made in the arts and in our society.
and, again,
I know how to bring this Utopia into being, and so does the Prime Minister: education, education, education. Education could change the economy and employment and attitudes to class and to art and to leisure, to the state, to each other and to ourselves. “It is through education,” says Tony Blair, “that the potential of each of us is fulfilled.”

And he finishes the Foreword thus:

It is precisely that potential for fulfilment that is offered by the arts. Of course it can’t be achieved by the application of money alone; money on its own never produced any art worth having. One can’t legislate for talent: it is inequitable, unpredictable and finite. What money can do is this: help talent to breathe, be educated, be trained, be exercised, be recognised and be enjoyed.
It is against this background that he presents his recommendations.

In order to keep download times to a minimum, I have highlighted what appear to me to be the main recommendations and I've spread them across a few pages. In addition, I've tried to keep specific topics together. Please click on the index below to go to those areas which most interest you. I have repeated the index on each page so you don't have to keep returning here.

Index

Articles Indices:

2001
2000
1999
1998
1997

 

©Peter Lathan 2001