I am tired of the sound of my own voice

Presentation at Federation of Scottish Theatre Meeting, Edinburgh,7 December 2016

I am tired of the sound of my own voice.

I am tired of having to point out that women make up 52% of the population and are therefore not a minority.

I am tired of saying what I have been saying since the days of the Labour Party’s campaign, Women in the Arts in 1980s: this is not only about jobs and equality but also about how who we are and how we see ourselves. It’s about feminism.

I am tired of being told that the fight is over when we see one woman being appointed in a key leadership role. Like everyone else I welcome Jackie Wylie’s appointment on many levels, but it is still the case that women lead only a minority of our theatres.

I am tired of hearing about the first second, third and even fourth waves of feminism. I have frequently used the aphorism, ‘feminism is like housework: you have to re-visit it every 10 years’. But it is not true. Coming as I do from a long line of Lanarkshire housewives, I know that housework is a daily task – as is feminism.

I am tired of being told that the issue is not about gender – so ‘last millennium’ – but the issue of the day is ethnic diversity, or it’s about disability or age – as if there is some kind of hierarchy of protected characteristics and black women, old women or women with disabilities can be ignored because of their gender.

I am tired of being talked to about gay rights when what is meant is male gay rights. As a lesbian I find this a tad patronising.

I am tired of being reminded that gender is not a binary concept when what this actually means is that women, not men, can be ignored again because we now rightly acknowledge that gender is more complex than previously understood.

I am tired of seeing shows which are not only written by men with a majority male cast – common in ‘classics from the canon’ – but are directed by men and the whole creative team is male (director, designer, lighting designer, composer, sound designer etc). I am so tired of this that I have resolved not to go to any more productions that do not include women in the creative team – even if the tickets are free. You know who you are.

I am tired of being told that ‘we only want the best talent for the job’. I acknowledge there is always a need for support for development programmes across the arts, but please don’t tell me that we have a problem for women in theatre. There is plenty of talent out there.

I am tired of being lectured to about the irrelevance of data when what is implied is a fear of data that might tell a critical story. In the report on creative roles in theatre Where are the Women we made it very clear that data are a starting point – not the whole story. Here’s what the data tell us:

In 2014/15, in 24 Scottish publically funded theatres covering 1,698 roles:

  • 39% of creative roles across all categories went to women.
  • 38% of theatre companies had women in artistic leadership roles.
  • 4 out of 24 theatre companies were artistically led solely by women.
  • Women were cast in 46% of the 811 roles.
  • Women made up 47% of directors of shows.
  • Women wrote 39% of the plays.
  • 29% of set and costume designers and 6% of lighting designers were women.
  • Women made up 11% of composers, musical directors and sound designers.

It tells us that in some roles – acting, directing and writing the % of women is around 40% and suggests it would not take much to push to 50:50 – and that is down to you — theatre companies themselves. It tells us that, in contrast, in set and costume design, music and sound the figures are dire and – here’s just one suggestion- perhaps we need a programme of development with colleges and universities or a series of funded apprenticeships.

What is does not tells us is if 2014/15 was an unusual year – we only get that through a regular gathering of data.

Nor does it tell us who got the bigger acting roles – men or women; if the assistant directors included in the director category were truly there to assist in the directing or just make the tea. This research does not tell us how big the commissions were for women – although I can tell from other research that the longer the show and ergo the bigger the commission, the more likely it is to go to a man.

I am tired of asserting that data are an important starting point. Don’t take my word for it:

‘If our aim is to reflect the country we live in, we do need numbers in order to measure our progress against that. But it has to be an absolutely robust and authentic part of everything we do.’ Rufus Norris

The report also does not tell us which theatre companies achieved or were close to achieving gender balance. But I will tell you now that the Traverse, Dundee Rep, A Play, A Pie and A Pint and of course Stellar Quines were amongst some of the top performers in achieving gender balance- all run solely or jointly by a woman that year.

I am tired of the suggestion that programming a diversity of work across a season somehow removes the creativity required to run a theatre company and reduces it to tick box. I have talked to artistic directors who have been clear how a process of looking at balance across the season opens up possibilities. But here is Rufus Norris again on the record.

‘We are changing the way we programme at the NT so that diversity is actively considered at the start of the creative process. And in that case it can be helpful to look at, say, the number of female writers – it gives you the lay of the land, the shape of a season, in quite a stark way. But this isn’t about trying to make everyone aspire to a certain kind of work or checkboxes; it is about enabling those from all different disciplines, backgrounds and experiences to tell the stories they want to tell.’

I tired of pointing out how research into women in theatre was done voluntarily by those working in theatre who were keen to help. Imagine a young playwright in front of the fire wearing her Christmas pyjamas counting (and checking) figures from 6 plays produced by one of our funded theatre – that’s what this project was about and if she can do it- so can you. How hard is it?

Time to move from warm words to action; time to move from being told what to do and to take up a leadership role.

Collect data, analyze, contextualize, publish and work on making it all better.

Because I am tired of sitting in meetings where I am told that you won’t cooperate with data gathering when I know that is not true. What you resent is gathering data and other impact information, doing fine reports only to have this work at best ignored and at worst not even read.

You are also tired, as I am, filling in pointless feedback forms or surveys which tell us nothing or worse still are used to concoct an overblown claim for the arts which fits just nicely into this post-truth world.

I am so tired of going through these arguments in my head and asking again and again is what I am suggesting so outlandish?

I am tired of being nice when I want to be the young woman in Julia Taudivin’s Blow Off, stuff my bra full of dynamite, strut up, say, Princes Street and blow myself up from the top floor of a glass fronted building in the middle of the night. Not an act of terrorism but a howl of anguish and despair at patriarchy and our acceptance of the unacceptable.

I am tired of being told I am obsessive, or eccentric when what I am is fucking angry.

I am tired of the sound of my own voice.

Beware false prophets

The front-page splash on Saturday’s Herald was about impending cuts to public expenditure and the possible impact this could have on the arts in Scotland. Richard Findlay, Chair of Creative Scotland is raising the alarm and warning the Scottish Government and the arts world about the devastating affect these cut will have. Findlay and Creative Scotland should be congratulated for taking a lead in influencing the government and advocating for the arts.

The justification for arts funding is familiar and in summary is a. the arts don’t cost very much as a proportion of public expenditure; b. the sector employs lots of people for that money; c. their turnover runs to billions; d. the arts are good for our economy.   Given that one of the key priorities of the Scottish Government is economic growth, it is understandable why Creative Scotland is making the economic case.

However I would argue that it is not the arts’ strongest suit. First the numbers are a bit slippery. Findlay asserts that Creative Scotland supports 118 regularly funded organisations (although later in the article this figure becomes 121) and these organisations employ a total of 8,000 people. This averages 68 people per organisation. Even a cursory knowledge of the arts in Scotland suggests this is inflated- presumably by including freelance and contract artists- who are not employees and not on 12 month full time contracts. Perhaps more concerning is the conflation ‘arts and creative industries’- where 71,000 people work and these businesses turnover £5.75 billion. What the article does not say is that the creative industries include areas such as advertising, architecture, computer games, radio and TV, heritage, software/electronic publishing- all of which fall outside Creative Scotland’s remit[1]– indeed most businesses in these areas are not supported by the cultural budget at all. Perhaps it is unfair to be picky about figures quoted in a short article, but if the argument is to be made on numbers the numbers have to be clear and consistent. [2]

Second, while the arts have got a role to play in Scotland’s economy, it is hardly their raison d’être. Their role in tourism and image making is pretty clear – see the Edinburgh festivals — and Ministers regard the arts as being important in supporting Scotland’s image abroad. It is not unusual for the arts to be part of the soft diplomacy of a country, region or city. However outside these areas, arts organisations supported by Creative Scotland do not in and of themselves generate a large economic return. If people of Glasgow, for example, are spending their money in the theatre, they are not spending it in other wealth generating areas.

As we move closer to the big reckoning we are going to hear more of this. If not the case for economic impact, it will be the impact on health and education. Like the economy, the arts have a role to play in those areas too. There are examples of engagement in the arts affecting mood in those suffering from depression, or providing a therapeutic support for those with Alzheimer’s or well-designed hospitals aiding healing process. However there is a lack of robust evidence that the arts are good for your health and well-being. There is also an argument to be made in the role of the arts in schools being stimulation to learning concentration and confidence. But there are other activities and actions that can aid health and well-being or raise educational standards.   The Big Noise in Raploch has had an enormous affect on the youngsters participating in music-making. Elsewhere in Stirling a primary school has used sport and exercise to improve the health as well as the concentration of its pupils. Both these projects are excellent and in their own way support the development of the next generation. The arts do not have the monopoly on good ideas and effective interventions.

So while arts organisations should be demonstrating how they are contributing to local economic development or linking with schools, or working with people with disabilities or combatting isolation of the elderly, or supporting the refugee community as they learn about life in Scotland, the case for arts funding will not be won by claiming that the arts can solve society’s ills nor that they can be instruments in socio-economic development.[3]

So where should the arts be staking their claim? In entertainment, enlightenment and provocation; by exploring ‘who we are and how we carry ourselves’[4]. In 2000, I co-authored an article that examined the place of the arts at the start of devolution. We said about the place of the arts in the pre-devolution era[5]:

‘The impression is that in the dark days of 1980s and 1990s, when the devolution cause was nurtured in Scotland by a growing band of Scottish politicians, community leaders, churchmen and trade unionists, it was Scotland’s cultural community that kept the flame alight and warmed the spirits. It was the poet who articulated our national identity as both nostalgic and radical; it was the film maker who presented Scotland in all its beauty and quirky nature to the wider world; it was the singer who told of Scotland’s industrial devastation at the hands of an uncaring Westminster government; it was the fine artist who made us look at ourselves and our cities in a new ‘cool’ way. In these ways Scotland’s artists defined us for ourselves and re-defined our place in the world as a nation capable of at least being able to run our own domestic affairs.’

If the arts had a role in the 1980s and 1990s in how we saw ourselves, they moved nearer to centre stage last year during the referendum campaign– not only with campaigning, although some did- but in exploring ideas of cultural and civic identity and imagining a better Scotland regardless of the constitutional position.  Artists challenged ideas and images of the place we occupy in the world today. Or, to put it another way:

‘Fostering our sense of belonging by supporting and promoting cultural and creative opportunities, events, festivals and the celebration of key dates in the Scottish calendar.’ -from The Scottish Government’s National Outcomes

After the Charlie Hebdo atrocities, sales of the books of Voltaire, Montesquieu and other authors of the French enlightenment soared, in reaction to an attack on free speech. The recent attacks in Paris have led to another literary phenomenon – this time copies of Paris est une fête have sold out. Known better by its English title, A Moveable Feast, it is a memoir by Hemingway of his time in Paris in the 1920s. It is being read today as an assertion of Parisian identity and French values. The author says in his introduction:

‘If the reader prefers, this book may be regarded as a fiction. But there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact.’

Surely this is the place of the arts and the role of the artist – to throw a light on ‘the fact’?  It’s not about the economy.

 

[1] http://www.creativescotland.com/resources/our-publications/plans-and-strategy-documents/creative-industries-strategy-2015-17 (p24)

[2] Mark Brown wrote a letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Fiona Hyslop criticizing Creative Scotland’s Creative Industries strategy. Re-printed in the Sunday Herald 15 November 2015 https://scottishstage.wordpress.com

[3] This is not just an issue for us in Scotland. Last month I was at a gathering of the European Cultural Parliament where there was a great deal of discussion about the current crisis facing Europe with the arrival of thousands of migrants (this was pre Paris). That was until a Greek delegate pointed out that culture could not prevent the deaths in the Mediterranean and Aegean nor could it solve the problem refugees landing in Lesbos or Lampedusa. There is a humanitarian crisis that demands a humanitarian solution. The arts cannot intervene where we have no real role.

[4] From the speech of the First Minister Donald Dewar MP, MSP at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, 1 July 1999.

[5] Cultural policy and Scotland: a response to the National Cultural Strategy, co-authored with Adrienne Scullion, Scottish Affairs 39 (spring, 2002): 131-48.

 

 

Diversity on Boards

Creative Scotland has advertised for board member(s) and a discussion has been taking place on FaceBook about whether or not board members should be paid and how they should be selected.  Several suggestions have been made about how to reform the process.  Here are some thoughts:

What is the problem to which we are seeking a solution? Is it that the board of Creative Scotland (CS) is not diverse enough (helps if you are male, over 50, live in Edinburgh, work in the finance sector, and are a keen attender at arts events during the festival but never actually worked in an arts organisation)? Is it that the barrier to greater engagement by artists and others from the sector is due to lack of remuneration or is it lack of confidence or even lack of experience?

My own view is that the rules/process for appointing board members are already in place to ensure diversity. It’s just that they are not being applied particularly rigorously. Since Nolan (Lord not the sisters), public appointments DO have to go through a process- call it a job application, a tender or even response to a potential commission. It’s all about saying who you are and what you can bring. The problem is that the way in which the rules are applied appears not to be very rigorous. And my suspicion is that in part this comes down to leadership – political leadership even. When it comes to Govt appointments—like the Chair of CS- too often in my view the civil servants encourage the ‘safe option’. On the other hand an overtly political appointment is to be deplored too. Bet there were lots of retiring Tory MPs getting appointed to paid quango chair positions in the last few months. As ever we have a chance for it to be better here. Before our FM went off to win hearts and minds in rUK, she made a very important point about diversity on boards (and I think it is in the SNP manifesto). So maybe some hope as CS follows the political lead.

However this debate started with the advert for board members – not the Chair and but these are also public appointments managed by the civil service.   Is it really the case that artists are not putting themselves forward because they would not be paid? Assuming all reasonable expenses are met – including child care- is attending 6 meetings a year a real issue for practising artists in terms of time? If it is, then yes let’s ask CS to consider setting a ‘loss of earnings’ amount and/or meet actual loss of earnings if they can be demonstrated. Can’t imagine that would break the bank. And in my experience folk who are earning will claim out of pocket expenses but not cheat – and those ‘too-rich-to- work’ will not claim because they see it as part of their civic duty.

Of course being a board member of CS should go beyond this and you should attend events/shows/exhibition locally but again most who work in the arts do this anyway (I assume either comps offered or tickets reimbursed).

The other option is to look and see what other organisation pay their board members but here we are getting in some cases into the several hundred £s a day attendance and to be honest I for one would prefer to see the money go into making work. This is OUR sector and to an extent we should take responsibility for it and work within its limits and capacity. Like academics who do not get any more money for peer reviewing articles or attending long meetings to decide who will get the research money, there is an element of doing it for the good of the sector and the standard of the work (don’t get me wrong, I know academics are paid a salary but this work is over and above teaching, research and admin- and believe me they moan about those areas but rarely about peer-review work).

Is it the case that artists are not applying to be board members? Do they think it is not for the likes of us? Given the current advert is specifically about members with finance experience, I suspect they are right to think that. But more broadly, do they feel they are not sufficiently skilled? Is that down to how the adverts are framed or is is more to do with not wanting to sit through boring meetings? Or, heaven forfend, have they witnessed boards of arts organisations demonstrate a complete lack of diligence and skill, and want to be no part of a board as a result?

So I suppose I am saying if we want more diverse membership on CS board, there needs to be a clear message saying ‘artists welcome’; a reasonable loss of earnings amount offered for freelancers; out of pocket expenses reimbursed. We should encourage this engagement as part of a broader desire to see good decisions and good work. Over an above this, we need to really start taking seriously the role of boards cross all arts organisations. I have seen some shockers – and some good ones- but mainly the former. Good well-functioning boards are good ‘feeding grounds’ for larger bodies like CS- and also good for the sector.

 

Women in Theatre Scotland – Where next?

Thanks to all who came along to the Traverse on 26th September to discuss this issue.  As said at the time, the response to the event was overwhelming.  I also want to thank those who could not make it along but who before and after the event made a special effort to talk to me about this is question and express their support for any action.  You are part of this too. Attached are the contributions from the three speakers and notes on the discussion which followed.

The key question now is where next?  A few of us kicked this off, but this does not imply that we have all the answers – nor that this is a centrally run campaign.  Our intention was to raise the issue and see where it took us.  Nevertheless, if there is to be change, it is helpful if there is some kind of coordination and the circulation of this report on proceedings is a contribution towards that.  I am happy to continue to circulate information and provide a space for people to share ideas.

It was sheer serendipity which saw this event followed up by a week of theatre at the Tron under the title ‘Reclaim the F Word’ and many congratulations to Julia Taudevin for putting together a great platform and presenting such an interesting range of work.

Meanwhile there is a Facebook page established by writers – Feminist Scottish Theatres Network –and Nicola McCartney, Chair of the Scottish Society of Playwrights has posted:

The women playwrights have been meeting together for a while to chat about this issue. We have come up with an idea that we try to organise some sort of theatre industry forum event in early December this year to facilitate a discussion on the way forward. Possibly followed by a direct action day around International Women’s day in March. What do you think?

There were several issues that I am happy to coordinate and to take the lead. The issue of data is central to making the case and I will be working with others in lobbying both Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government.  I am also interested in building alliances across artforms- this is not an issue which is just relevant to theatre.  All support on these welcome!

Finally thanks to Equity, Federation of Scottish Theatre, Playwrights’ Studio Scotland,  Scottish Society of Playwrights for supporting the event; to the Traverse for giving the space and to their staff for being so helpful; and to Jon Morgan for taking notes.

Thanks are also due to Max Beckmann from Equity and Blandine Pélissier from H/F Network, France, to Anne Withers Tradeecosse who was on hand to help with translation for Blandine and to Sheena McDonald for her expert chairing.

Christine Hamilton

 

Women in Theatre Scotland- Where Next? Speakers’ contributions and notes from the discussion

Max Beckmann,  Equality Organiser, Equity

Women in Theatre:  Traverse Theatre 

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you tonight.   I’ve been asked to talk to you about three areas:

  • What Equity does to promote the employment of women in theatre
  • What we are currently focusing on in this work
  • And about how the Public Sector Equality Duty applies to theatre

Before I start, for those of you who don’t know who we are and what we do, Equity is the UK trade union representing 37,000 performers working throughout film, television, theatre, the music industry and the live arts.  Our membership includes actors, dancers, singers, television and radio presenters, models, variety acts, theatre directors, stunt performers and other creative professionals.

Equity’s membership is evenly split between the sexes overall and the leadership of the union includes a female General Secretary, Christine Payne, and two female Vice Presidents, Jean Rogers and Natasha Gerson.  Our work on women’s Equality is also led by our Women’s Committee which is made up of of nine female Equity members who are elected to represent the interests of our female membership.

So, what has Equity done to promote the employment of its female members over recent years?

For a good number of years we concentrated on research to inform our awareness raising and campaigning work.  Our research has involved working with academics and undertaking it ourselves.

And I want to give you a brief overview of these two areas of research:

In the early 1990s Equity’s Women’s Committee worked closely with the academic Dr. Helen Thomas who produced two research reports on the subject of gender, one looking at the position of women in the recorded media and the other the position of women and pay, both in recorded media and the theatre.  Helen found that women:

  • worked less than men across cinema, television, radio commercials and theatre;
  • played fewer different types of roles than men,
  • had shorter careers than men.
  • earned less than men and significantly less than men in TV;

More recently, members of Equity’s Women’s Committee raised the subject of women’s disadvantage at meetings of FIA (the International Federation of Actors) and this resulted in a pan-European Steering Group being set up to look into the subject of women’s equality. Funding was secured from the European Commission to undertake a piece Europe-wide research on the employment situation of women performers, with a specific reference to both aging and to portrayal.  The research was carried out by Dr. Debroah Dean from Warwick University and her key findings were these, in summary:

  • Female performers have shorter careers than men;
  • 26% of men see ageing as an advantage in relation to pay, compared to just 3% of women;
  • 49% of women perceive ageing to be a disadvantage, compared to just 9% of men
  • A greater proportion of women fall into the lowest income groups of performers (38% earning less than £6k compared to 24% of men); and
  • Women represent a small proportion of high earning performers (0.1% earning over £60K compared to 4% of men);

So moving on to look at our own research, in 2011 Equity’s Women’s Committee undertook an audit of roles for women in a selection of subsidised theatres in England based on published cast lists. Of the 36 theatres surveyed only one, the Manchester Royal Exchange, appeared to have employed more female than male performers.  A further five, the Royal Court, Soho Theatre, Bristol Old Vic, Keswick Theatre by the Lake and Northampton Theatre Royal, had cast slightly more men than women.  In the remaining 30 theatres roles for men significantly outweighed those for women.

Because this research had been compiled from published sources only and we couldn’t be certain of its accuracy, we then wrote to all 36 theatres asking them to check the figures and to discuss with Equity the lack of roles for women.  Only eight theatres responded.

We did manage to extract statistics on women’s performer employment from the National Theatre.   Nicholas Hynter explained in his correspondence to us that “Whilst we support the Equity Women’s Committee campaign and endeavour to increase the number of female actors appearing on our stages each year, our casting is inevitably dictated by canon.  But although we can never achieve a gender balance in some areas of the repertoire – Shakespeare being a good example – we do strive to feature work which is more representative.” And he offered up the following figures:

In 2008-2009 the National employed 93 female actors and 185 male actors. For 2009-2010 these figures were 76 female to 152 male actors and for 2010-2011 they were 127 female to 200 male actors.

And last year we undertook some elementary research into the professional acting opportunities for men and women in two producing theatres in Scotland over the last twenty years.  What we have found is that for every five opportunities for men, there are only three opportunities for women.  This is slightly better than the 2:1 ratio in England but what’s alarming from the data we’ve collected is that the situation appears to have been getting worse for women in the two Scottish theatres we looked.  Looking at five sets of data over the twenty year period, 62% of roles went to men and 38% to women.  But if we look at the situation in 2012, 70% of roles went to men and 30% to women in these two theatres.

So, a clear and consistent picture of the disadvantage experienced by women performers has emerged from both the academic research and our own research.  So what then have we done about it?

Well we’ve made sure that over the last few years the subject of women’s employment is rarely out of the press.  Whenever we undertake research we put it in the public domain and generate as much press attention and publicity as possible around it.  Jean and members of our Women’s Committee and leading Equity women including, for example, Harriet Walter, Ann Mitchell and Maggie Steed have all probably lost count of how many interviews they’ve given to the press over the last few years about the lack of work available for women performers and particularly older women performers. And we do feel this is having an impact.  It helps keep the pressure on theatres to deliver change.

We concentrate on making sure that employers and the theatre establishment can’t possibly claim to be ignorant of the fact that the industry is characterized by significant discrimination against women in access to work and we challenge them to do something about it. We make sure that we regularly raise the subject of women’s employment with employers and we ask them questions about their record on gender.  We also draw their attention to the findings of, and the recommendations arising, from the research, such as the Good Practice Handbook put together by FIA.

We keep the subject of women’s equality very much on the agenda by organising meetings of women performers, speaking at conferences and panel debates.

A couple of years ago we organized a petition which called for the equal representation of women in Film and Television drama and we managed to get over 10,000 people to sign it. It was primarily an online petition but Equity members also stood outside of theatres gathering hundreds of signatures from members of the audience and we’ve used this support in our negotiations with employers and in our representations with the politicians.

We have also built solidarity with other trade unions, particularly our sister entertainment unions and we form links with and support the work of organisations such as Sphinx Theatre Company, Women in Film and Television, and organisations that campaign on the subject of women’s portrayal such as the Fawcett Society and UK Feminista.

And when groups of our female members feel particularly aggrieved by the inaction of individual theatres on women’s equality, our members are not afraid to take a more direct action type approach to campaigning, as happened last year in North West London in respect of Hampstead Theatre’s record on roles for women. Hampstead had staged a number of plays which delivered 80% or more roles for men and it then concluded its season with the all-male company Propeller performing Henry V and The Winter’s Tale.  Women performers living near the theatre felt they were being denied the opportunity to work at their local theatre and they made sure that both the local and national press knew about this situation and asked questions of Hampstead about its choice of programming and how it was spending public money.  As a result Hampstead was forced to issue a statement and publish its own statistics on women’s employment on its website.

So moving on to the current focus of our work, it’s very much on the Public Sector Equality Duty and the area of legal compliance.

So what is the Public Sector Equality Duty?  It’s a legal duty set out in the Equality Act 2010, the Equality Act being the law that protects people with, what are called protected characteristics, such as race, sex or disability, from discrimination.  The Equality Duty which is set out in the Equality Act applies to all public authorities and this includes Arts Council England and Creative Scotland.

Amongst other things the Equality Duty sets out that in exercising their functions public authorities must have what’s called ‘due regard’ to the need to:

  • Eliminate discrimination; and
  • Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not; such as between men and women

What this means is that both Arts Council England and Creative Scotland must consciously consider how they can eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between men and women in their decision-making processes, and that includes when they are making decisions about funding processes.  They need to be taking steps to remove or minimize the disadvantage experienced by women in theatre in order to comply with the duty.

The existence of the Equality duty provides us with a legal mechanism to hold Arts Council England and Creative Scotland to account if necessary, in a way that we are unable to do with individual theatres themselves.

We have been using the Equality Duty in our meetings and correspondence with Arts Council England on the subject of gender equality and we have clarified the basis on which we think Arts Council England should be meeting its equality duty in respect of women’s performer employment.

We have made it clear to Arts Council England that we think it’s not enough for it to rely on a policy that seeks to achieve

  • greater diversity of arts engagement;
  • an increase in the numbers of women who sit on boards or in other senior leadership positions in arts organisations; or
  • an increase in the numbers of female staff employed by theatres;

Initiatives to deliver all of these things are obviously incredibly important but we say that Arts Council England also needs to be taking tangible action to address the under-representation of women on our stages.

Arts Council England already considers the potential contribution made by arts organisations to race and disability equality as part of its funding process, so why doesn’t it do this with reference to gender?  Why is no consideration given to advancing gender equality on stage?

Arts Council England already collects large amounts of data from funded organisations about the protected characteristics of the people who run arts organisations or who are employed by them, so why doesn’t it require these organsiations to provide data on those who are actually employed on stage?

We have been calling on the Arts Council England to do this, to monitor on- stage employment by gender and by actor weeks.  Surely organisations in receipt of large sums of public money should be required at the very least to know how many jobs are being created on their stages for both men and for women as a result of the decisions and choices they are making.  Monitoring would expose the imbalance of roles for women and men and focus minds on addressing it.

Our dialogue with Arts Council England on the Equality Duty is continuing and it’s our intention to have a similar conversation with Creative Scotland about its compliance with the Equality Duty. We want to engage in dialogue with Creative Scotland about how it’s using the Equality Duty to address the under-representation of women on Scottish stages.  Here in Scotland public authorities are also under a specific legal duty to equality impact assess their policies and practices.  How is Creative Scotland doing this when it comes to performer employment?

We fully accept that advancing gender equality in the theatre is very different to advancing it in other occupations.  The artistic nature of what theatre does makes it particularly complex but it’s not impossible.

Our message to all those who are engaged in the making of theatre is this, if you are serious about advancing gender equality make a public commitment to it and formulate an action plan on how you will deliver it.  Make yourselves aware of the findings of the research and the recommendations that have come out of it.

  • Get more women onto your boards and into positions of artistic leadership. As Elizabeth Freestone’s research has shown, this does make a difference.
  • Review how your artistic policy impacts on women performers;
  • Invest in new writing and commission more women writers;
  • Employ more female directors;
  • Look at how the Tricycle’s season of plays “Women, Power and Politics” delivered so many roles for women and consider how your programming does this or could do this;
  • Think of innovative ways your theatre can help address the underemployment of women on stage.  This might involve asking Phyllida Lloyd to direct an all-female Julius Caesar, as the Donmar Warehouse as did, or reviving three major female roles from Jacobean drama, as Eric Whyman has chosen to do at the RSC.
  • Make gender the determining factor in some decisions you take;
  • Support Equity’s My Theatre Matters campaign and our fight against the Arts Cuts.  Theatre is the bedrock that supports many female performers throughout their careers, particularly theatre that invests in new writing by female writers.  We need to fight the funding cuts that will hit women performers hard as companies will look to revive old plays and content rather than invest and take risks with new material.
  • And to wind-up, whilst we clearly need to celebrate the fact that more women are breaking through to run our theatres we still need to look at whether or not theatre is a female friendly environment.  We need some in-depth analysis which looks at issues such as recruitment and career development, the working hours that are expected, workplace culture and issues relating to pregnancy, maternity and childcare.  This type of analysis might help us better understand how to really tackle the whole area of women’s equality in theatre going forward.

Max Beckmann

Blandine Pélissier, founding member of the H/F association for gender equality in culture in France 

In France, it all started in 2005 when the then Minister of culture got concerned by the fact that he seemed to be surrounded by men only in meetings regarding arts. He commissioned Reine Prat, a high civil servant, to do a qualitative and quantitative research on gender equality in the performing arts. The first report was issued in July 2006 and made the headlines of journal Le Monde. It felt like a bomb going off in the art world where it is hugely taken for granted that it is avant-garde and progressive, as it clearly showed a massive gender imbalance regarding top positions as well as programming or production means.

Some key figures from this report :

18% of the top managers in cultural administration were women (less than in the Army)
4% of directors of Opera houses were women
9% of directors managing CDN (National Theatre Centers) were women
0% of directors leading the five National Theatres were women
30% of directors leading CCN (National Choreographic Centers) were women

This under-representation has a direct impact on employment, especially for female writers, stage directors and conductors.

15% of shows performed on stage are written by women
25% of shows are directed by women
5% of concerts are conducted by women
13% of technicians are women

Despite Reine Prat’s report, nothing was done on a political level, except quickly appointing 2 women at the head of Comédie Française and another of the 5 National Theatre..A second report confirming the findings of the first one was issued in 2009. But Nicolas Sarkozy had been elected in the meantime and gender equality in the arts was the least of his concerns. The report was put in a drawer and not even published.

Meanwhile, a group of people from the performing arts, mostly women but not only, got together in Lyon in 2008 : they aimed to raise awareness of these reports so the relevant authorities could not ignore them. They started off by organizing events just like this one. Women who attended realized that their relative lack of success, compared to their male peers, could not just be attributed to their lack of talent but that there was something else going on. It was a comfort… or not, depending how you look at it! They were clearly not being given the same chances. This explains why, even with a majority of female students in art classes, we see them “evaporate” as soon as they come out of school. Besides, we find the same glass ceiling effect that is vastly documented in the corporate world.

From then on, the HF movement spread region by region. It is now established in 14 of 22 of  the regions in Metropolitan France. It is currently structured as an inter-regional Federation and it has a strong lobbying impact. It has been working hand in hand with the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Women’s Rights that president François Hollande re-established after years of non-existence.

Until recently, the public bodies responsible for appointing theatre directors insisted that there were not enough women to choose from. By refusing to question the reasons for such limited female options, they actually played a part in perpetuating this state of affairs.

In May 2012, new President François Hollande formed a government with as many women than men and repeatedly stated his commitment to achieving equality within the lifetime of his presidency. We, at H/F, believe that rules regarding equality in politics must also apply to the arts. Hence our insistence that measures should be taken as soon as possible in order to encourage the appointment of women to top positions in the arts.

A few of our actions :

–       We have been organizing debates in our own regions but also during  the Avignon festival, the major theatre festival in France

–       We participate in a number of forums, symposiums etc. whenever we are invited

–       We lobby and are in touch with other feminists associations (amongst them the feminist activist group La Barbe who initiated actions for example during Festival de Cannes 2012 and at the presentation of season of Théâtre de l’Odeon in 2012 (0% of female playwrights and directors): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lxF1BE3Jls )

–       We sit down at the table with professional bodies like the SACD (Authors Society), CNT (Centre National du Théâtre), unions, ministries and local authorities, asking for data and studies. For example we have been working with the SACD since the beginning and for the second year, we co-produce this brochure called “Où sont les femmes?” (Where are the Women?) to highlight the percentage of women playwrights, directors, choreographers and so on in the main subsidized institutions (http://www.sacd.fr/Nouvelle-edition-de-la-brochure-Ou-sont-les-femmes.3533.0.html ).

–       We gather our own data and studies to establish a resource center

–       We use communication tools (like videos or sound objects, fb pages, twitter and a tumblr – http://culturedelegalite.tumblr.com/ )

–       We develop partnerships with universities holding a gender studies department

–       We encourage theatres to join the Saisons Egalité. HF gets things moving on a local scale by inviting theatres to commit  to a policy of gender equality  both in terms of programming and of producing, and in their governance (with equal pay for ex and a greater gender mix within the teams). Those theatres also commit to “spreading the word” in their season‘s brochure.

We also wrote down a Manifesto calling upon public bodies to promote equality in the following ways:

– re-instigating the collection of statistics regarding gender inequalities

– promoting female/male equality in all official communications and policies

– enforcing existing laws on professional equality

– promoting the use of anonymity of applications whenever it is possible. For ex, it’s the use of screened-off auditions for recruiting orchestra musicians which has helped women join orchestras

– making symbolic gestures like the admission of women in the Pantheon. The Pantheon is the monument where Great Men who served France in different ways are buried; it currently houses only two women, Marie Curie and another woman who is only there because she was such a good wife she must be buried next to her husband!

In short, we demand the implementation of a voluntary policy in order to drastically reduce the gender imbalance in every field, as recommended by the European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on equality of treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts.

We have had a few successes so far.

A “gender equality research institute” was set up within the Ministry of Culture to collect data  (for ex, we are expecting a study on the movie and tv business in November).

A high civil servant has been appointed specifically to be in charge of gender matters at the Ministry of Culture.

Short lists for top positions as head of theatres or operas or choreographic centers are now shorter, and composed of 2 males and 2 females.

A law on women’s rights is currently being discussed in which there was originally nothing regarding the arts. With the help of the Senate delegation for women’s rights, we had the Senate vote an amendment to include artistic and intellectual production in the law.  It was of great symbolic importance to us that the word “Culture” be spelt out in this law.

To conclude, I would like to say that the distribution of public money must embrace all audiences. Artistic projects should be many and broad. A biased cultural output can only produce a narrow-minded and unbalanced society.

Blandine Pélissier

Christine Hamilton, Consultant

What’s the problem?

In May I was invited to speak at a conference in Lyon organised by Blandine Pellisier and her colleagues in the H/F network. For this, I went back through my personal archive and found material/research prepared over the past four decades- mainly, but not exclusively, in theatre and performing arts:

  • In the 1980s— I was involved in campaigns on women in the arts.  This work originated from the Labour Party and the publication in 1987 Missing Culture.  I was working with the trades unions in Scotland at the time and organised a campaign and a conference on this in 1989. Our concern then was that the exclusion of women was not simply an issue of jobs but also affected the very roots of our culture.
  • In the 1990s I was working at the Scottish Arts Council.  We introduced a policy that all organisations that received public funding, monitored their activity and produced figures on equal opportunities.  In 1996 we analysed these figures in a major review which highlighted continuing inequalities facing women in positions of influence and power across the arts. This led to the development of policies in that area.
  • In the first decade of the new millennium, I undertook a review of training in theatre directing in Scotland where I observed that it appeared that you had to be a man to run a theatre in Scotland. Part of the recommendations on training was to create a greater diversity in leadership.
  • More recently, I led the theatre review for Creative Scotland, We uncovered the absence of monitoring of equal opportunities policies within the theatres which received public funding.   Nearly 50% of those surveyed did not bother to monitor. Creative Scotland itself took no steps to gather data nor monitor the application of these policies.  This means that there are no current data available on the number of plays by women which are produced, nor on job opportunities for women directors and designers in theatre in Scotland.  This takes us back before 1990s.

So the title for my talk in Lyon was, not surprisingly, ‘Feminism is like housework you have to re-visit it every ten years’[1].   And I am pleased to say there is a similar phrase in French. Which appeared in the publication Causette in 2010:  «Le féminisme, c’est comme le ménage, si on ne s’y colle pas régulièrement, on finit par s’habituer à la crasse. »  ‘Feminism is like housework: if you don’t get down to it regularly, you end up getting used to the dirt.’

For today’s event, I could be reading a paper I prepared at the end of the 1980s and apart from updating the statistics slightly and making some of the references more contemporary, nothing has changed. The conclusions are just the same.

However I had a look behind the data to see if there were any shifts in what is happening, any victories won, and clues about how we might continue to tackle this issue.

To find the most detailed recent research in Scotland we need to turn to work done by Stellar Quines, which commissioned research comparing the position of directors, writers, actors, designers and composers in theatre when they were founded in 1993 with the situation in 2009.

Key findings are:

  • The gender balance in a typical theatre season was more female in 2009 than 1993 but in no one category were women represented at a level of 50% or more.  Indeed in only one category (actors) was women’s representation above one third.
  • In general comparable data from UK, European and international sources showed an increase in women represented in theatre across a range of artistic roles.  However the trend in Scotland was slow in comparison and there was evidence that women got more opportunities in the less well funded companies.
  • Governance—the boards of theatres are mainly male.
  • Non- white and women with disabilities struggle with the complexity of their identity and appear to suffer from multiple discrimination. (And I might add —  the identity issue is further complicated in Scotland by a debate around the desirability –or otherwise—of having Scots leading key cultural institutions- however we define that.)

There are other arguments which echo down the decades:

  • The position of women in the arts reflects what is happening elsewhere—for example still in the academic world and in business there are too few women leaders.   I want to return to this broader question later.
  • There is the problem of ‘the canon’– a particular issue in England.  Shakespeare dominates theatre in England. An interesting fact – he created 981 characters of which 826 are male and only 155 female. I love the US initiative ‘On her Shoulders’ which aims to ‘re-load the canon’–  and address this issue of lack of historical examples of women playwrights ‘by familiarizing potential producers and audiences with a neglected legacy of plays– not by women playwrights– but by great playwrights’.
  • In Scotland we have a different issue.  Interestingly there is much less in the way of the established ‘canon’ of work and indeed in an analysis of repertoire over the decades we showed in the review of theatre that new work – and new work created or written in Scotland, is central to theatrical output.  So if women playwrights are not getting their work produced then it is because they are being offered fewer opportunities. But, as I said already, there is a lack of data.
  • There is also the ‘female phenomenon’ –where women are in positions of power, they stand out and everyone thinks the problem is solved.  For example in Scotland we might point to Vicky Featherstone’s tenure as Artistic Director of the National Theatre of Scotland. In response to the information which has gone out on this event, I was contacted by Andy Arnold artistic director of the Tron Theatre who wrote in an email to me which he invited me to share:

‘Of the seven main building based Scottish theatres, four are run by women ­ Rachel (O’Riordan) at Perth Theatre , Orla (O’Loughlin) and Linda (Crooks) at the Traverse Theatre, Jackie (Wylie) at The Arches , and Jemima (Levick) (with Phillip Howard) at Dundee Rep.[2] That just leaves CitzLyceum and The Tron run by men (I currently have Julia Taudevin as Artistic Associate).  The National Theatre of Scotland has been run for the past several years by Vicky (Featherstone), and various leading touring companies are run or co-run by women ­ Vox MotusGrid Iron , Company ChordeliaCora Bisset’s company, Cat Evans’s A Moment’s PeacePoor Boy and more….’

This is both true and great progress. Lack of data means we cannot tell if this is a trend which is sustainable or a blip but Andy does have a good point.  One of the questions it raises with me is ‘Is theatre trail blazing on this issue? (one might say theatre and dance) if so why?

It certainly is not the case that major shifts are happening in music. We only have to point to Marin Alsop’s reaction to being selected to be the first woman to conduct the last night of the Proms.  She expressed

‘shock that there can still be firsts for women in 2013.’

Furthermore, Vicky Featherstone as you know has left to take over the Royal Court in London and has been replaced by a man.  This means not one of Scotland’s national cultural institutions is artistically led by a women- including orchestra, opera, ballet, theatre, the national museums and galleries, the national library of Scotland and the Edinburgh International Festival.

What Has To Be Done?

  • We need the data: Creative Scotland in their Equalities Impact Statement has indicated that they are collecting data from this current year. This means that it will be several years before we see any kind of pattern.  We need to get them to act now to go back and do some retrospective data gathering.  We also need to challenge their Equalities Impact Statement which they have a statutory obligation to produce.  It is not good on gender and has all the hallmarks of a box ticking exercise.
  • We need action: Julia Taudevin is curating an exciting week next week at the Tron theatre under the title Reclaim the F Word which features work of women of all ages and stages in their performance and writing career.  Let’s have more of that and where the door is open or at least ajar, let’s get in there.  A Play, A Pie and A Pint, The Arches, here at the Traverse and so on.
  • We need to re-frame the question: The female condition is not the same as the issues facing, for example, non-white artists and audiences in Scotland.   Nor is it the same challenge as working with artists with disabilities or even gay artists.  Robert Softley If these spasms could speak which is touring at the moment, is a brilliant piece of political theatre which has come from the experience of a young gay disabled man- and activist.  And it speaks to a wide audience and should be recognised as such. But it does not ‘represent’ every aspect of discrimination. So while the data gathering might all be wrapped up together for convenience sake, let’s ditch the term diversity and re-cover feminism.  We are not a minority to be catered for, we are the majority who wants to claim its place.
  • We need to critique: I understand the reluctance of many in the arts community to be critical of those who might give them work—but we need ways of feeding back concern on this issue.   It is a really fine balance to be struck between artistic freedom and narrow programming. A play like Black Watch with an all male cast is as important as The Guid Sisters with an all female one. And I am not suggesting we deny one over the other. However I am unashamed about speaking to the Artistic Director at the Citizens’ about his autumn’s season of all male work- and the same could be said about the autumn season at the Lyceum. So much of this is about awareness and we need to keep raising the issue.
  • We need to be inspired by good examples: Creative Scotland has an organisational change programme on equalities happening in six organisations across Scotland- it will be interesting to see what comes from this but embedding equality in an organisation should feminise it not just diversify it.
  • We need to be clear about why this matters: It may seem very far away literally and metaphorically, but the rape and murder of women in India, the shooting of girls in Pakistan because they want to go to school, the restriction of women’s rights in Saudi, the grooming of young girls in Rochdale, Oxford and Northern Ireland, the disproportionate effect of the UK government’s welfare reforms on women, the tension for young women between being obedient daughters and fulfilled adults in Muslim households- which so parallel the experience of many Catholic women of my generation—all these are in our world today.   Of course no one is suggesting that a problem with roles for actors or commissions for playwrights is as dangerous as a girl going to school in parts of Pakistan, but surely it is the artist’s role to witness and reflect, examine and explain. That reflection needs to be a female one as well as a male one.
  • We need to organize: This is not a situation unique in Scotland and while the starting point today is theatre, we know this extends to other areas of the arts and we need to work across the whole spectrum. My email address is on business cards- send me yours, and let’s get moving.

Christine Hamilton

Notes of discussion session at Women in Theatre event on 26 September 2013 at the Traverse Theatre

Please note – these notes represent a reasonably ‘verbatim’ transcript of the main points made by each speaker (separated by ***).  I have not attempted to summarise or draw together common themes. The speakers are unnamed, except for where one of the 3 panel speakers (Maxine, Blandine and Christine) responded to a question or made a point further to their original presentation.

***

Theatre is old fashioned in its format and hierarchical (male) structure.  We need not to copy male structures.  The Magdalene Project in Wales presents such an alternative model.

There is a distinction between ‘women in theatre’ and women’s theatre’.

***

People hide behind Shakespeare.  Male parts can be played by women – gender blind casting. Can be done creatively.

***

Why is gender blind casting so often in favour of men?  E.g. Macbeth production with 3 male witches or all-male Midsummer Night’s Dream.

There is evidence that women did perform in productions in Shakespeare’s time – e.g. Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estates.

Shakespeare should not be an excuse for not casting more women.

***

Women’s writing is often defined as ‘about women’ whereas men’s writing is considered ‘universal’.  Theatre can challenge mainstream culture and redefine what might be determined interesting and universal, beyond the predominant white, male narrative.

***

There is a growing trend in Scottish theatre (borrowing from European/German/Polish culture) of questioning realism e.g. Lyric Hammersmith ‘Secret Theatre’ season, where for instance they have cast young British black women in classic theatre roles.

***

Many male writers in Scotland have created great roles for women.  But women writers struggle to get plays produced.

There have been some good examples of positive discrimination e.g. Traverse Theatre’s women’s writers group which supported the early careers of writers such as Zinnie Harris and Nicola McCartney.

There a more women writers than before in Scotland, but the work is not getting staged as frequently.  But this may be part of a larger problem of fewer plays getting staged as other forms of creating theatre are becoming more popular.

***

There are often more opportunities for women with smaller theatre companies, including women’s theatre companies.  However, it is very hard to sustain a career based on the usually low wages these companies can offer.

No wonder we can’t break the glass ceiling when we can’t even afford a ladder.

***

Maxine:

Low wages are an issue.  Equity is pushing for National Minimum Wage to be adopted by all companies.

Changes to welfare (Universal Credit) are likely to affect female actors in particular.

Also as freelancers, actors only ever get Statutory Maternity Pay [£136.78 per week].

***

It is an issue that pay in theatre in general is low, but with women having fewer opportunities overall, it is particularly so for women practitioners.

***

Do successful women do enough to support and promote other women?

***

In Scotland, leading women in theatre do support other women practitioners.

Another barrier for women who work freelance in theatre is that they cannot afford childcare costs.

***

Christine:

There is a great age-range of people present tonight.  The event seems to have struck a chord and could be the start of a network.

***

Blandine:

Networking is very important.  Men do it all the time and women don’t always do this so readily.

***

We seem to be more accepting of the status quo and to have lost the pain and the anger of the feminist movement exemplified by theatre companies such as Sphinx.  We need to retain feminism.

***

The way we make theatre is as important as the ‘product’.  Community, support and dialogue are female values which are more important than product which is a male / capitalist concept.

***

It is about business and production models.  We have made the economic and moral case, let’s make the creative case.

***

We share the same issue in film.  The Writer’s Guild Film Committee (and no doubt the Theatre Committee) would be keen to take this on and get involved.

***

We cannot look at the situation of women in theatre without looking at the whole spectrum of protected characteristics and the intersection of these.

***

60% of people attending theatre are women, so there is a commercial imperative to address this issue.

***

The panel were asked what they thought needed to happen next:

Christine:

Set up a network by sharing all our email addresses

Write up and share the notes of the meeting

Lobby Creative Scotland about collating and disseminating retrospective data

Raise the issues with people who run our arts companies

Blandine:

It is important to reclaim our female heritage.  In France they have coined the term ‘matrimoine’ [in French ‘patrimoine’ means ‘heritage’ and derives from the Latin ‘pater’ or father].  It is important that we research and rediscover great women who have preceded us.  Otherwise, women will always feel as though they are starting from scratch. There is a history or herstory of women’s heritage to be found.

Maxine:

Data is important.

ACE and Creative Scotland need to enforce data collection and proper action plans by funded organisations.


[1] I think (and so do others) that this is Liz Lochhead’s quote, but have not been able to confirm this.

[2] You could also add Fleur Darkin, Scottish Dance Theatre at Dundee Rep

 

Flagging national flagship: the role of the politician

On the face of it, there is little connection between the Théâtre National de Nice and Scottish Opera but while their raison d’etre and repertoire may diverge (as the French might say), there are interesting parallels in current stooshies which are affecting both.

First, Scottish Opera which has been plunged into crisis by the swift departure of its Musical Director Emmanuel Joel-Hornak after only 58 days.  It is supposed this came about when Joel-Hornak discovered he did not enjoy the artistic freedom he assumed was due to a musical director of an opera company and found himself restricted by a powerful general manager.  I say ‘supposed’ because there has been a refusal from Joel-Hornak and Scottish Opera to make any comment beyond the announcement. Considering the level of public money that is given to the company every year, this silence has raised eyebrows.

Whatever the problem, what is not in doubt is that both the board of Scottish Opera and crucially the Scottish Government has responsibility to sort this out.  As an organisation directly funded by the Government the Cabinet Secretary has to take this one on herself.  This is not, as a Scottish Government spokesperson claimed,  ‘operational matters for Scottish Opera.’ The cancellation through illness of an appearance of a soloist is an operational matter.  The resignation of the musical director because of artistic differences, is an artistic crisis.

So where does the link come with the Théâtre National de Nice?  The French Ministry of Culture recently agreed a new set of regulations for those running national institutions (of which this theatre is one).  In essence, no one is permitted to do more than three terms of office as artistic leader of these institutions.  Interesting idea that presumably has been introduced to ensure regular refreshing of the artistic approach and has the effect of allowing younger, different leadership.  Whatever the motivation, the fact is that Daniel Benoin at Nice has been in charge for four terms (twelve years) and it is time to move on.  However he has a powerful ally in the Mayor of Nice who has been involved in a stand off (describe in the French press as ‘arm-wrestling’) with the Ministry of Culture insisting that Benoin continue and rejecting any suggestion that a new director be appointed.

This resulted in a letter being sent from Aurelie Filippetti, Minster of Culture that stated her case in no uncertain terms.  For those who read French, I re-produce in the original.  It’s a corker:

Dans l’éventualité où vous confirmeriez votre souhait de ne pas respecter les règles propres aux centres dramatiques nationaux, je vous informe que je serai amenée à étudier concrètement la possibilité de retirer le label de Centre Dramatique National au Théâtre National de Nice, et, de procéder au désengagement financier de l’État.

In essence:  follow the rules or I will strip from you the title of a national centre and I will cut your state money.

So what’s the parallel with Scottish Opera?  It is this:  the Scottish Government, and specifically the Cabinet Secretary has the power and the responsibility to intervene.  For the most part, direct state funding of the national companies, galleries and museums brings with it positive headlines and a warm glow to Ministers.  This is the other side – the crisis when political leadership is necessary.  There is no shortage of advice around (and some very good historical material: Scottish Opera has been the subject of consultancies and reports every few years over the last few decades) but whatever is decided, there has to be some evidence that the Government, working with the board, is getting to grips with the problems that currently beset the company.

And a final word on Nice.  The new artistic director, due to take over 1 January 2014, is the French-born British actor and director, Irina Brook, who, incidentally fulfils another of Filipetti’s commitments – to increase the number of women in charge of French cultural institutions.

 

 

Women in Theatre Scotland: Where next?

Are women playing a full role in theatre in Scotland?  A quick look around suggests ‘no’.  On the one hand, all theatres profess to have an ‘equal opportunities policy’ on the other hand, the Review of Theatre in Scotland last year showed that fewer than half actually monitored that policy.  Recent research by Equity shows that opportunities for female actors are shrinking.

Does this matter? After all we can see women everywhere in theatre in marketing, management, front of house and other roles.  Are women just not interested in running theatres or taking a lead creative role?  What affect does this have on the work and on what audiences see?  How does this differ from the situation elsewhere in the UK and Europe?

Come and debate and discuss at Traverse 2, Cambridge Street, Edinburgh EH1 2ED Thursday 26th September 6pm -7.30 pm with glass of wine in bar afterwards.

Speakers:

  • Max Beckmann, Equality Organiser, Equity
  • Christine Hamilton, arts consultant and author of the Review of Theatre in Scotland 2012
  • Blandine Pélissier, founding member of the H/F association for gender equality in culture in France

Chair: Sheena McDonald, journalist and broadcaster.

Supported by the Equity, Federation of Scottish Theatre, Playwrights’ Studio Scotland and Scottish Society of Playwrights, organised by Christine Hamilton Consulting christinehamiltonconsulting@gmail.com

Event is FREE but please book via the Traverse box office www.traverse.co.uk 0131 228 1404

 

Thanks to the Traverse Theatre for their support.

 

A Modest Proposal: a new structure for the arts in Scotland

It is with some trepidation that I publish this proposal about the future of the arts in Scotland.  I was one of those who applied for the post of CEO of Creative Scotland and was not interviewed.  This blog, therefore, could be read as the response of a bitter and spurned candidate.  It is not, but I understand why it might be considered such and there is little I can do about that.

Throughout the last 15 years of observing the development of the arts and creative industries in the run up to and post devolution, I have had a growing sense of a systemic problem in the way government develops and delivers policy in the cultural sphere.  While on the one hand the arts are flourishing and our international reputation grows, on the other we have been suffering ‘planning blight’ in the policy.   From a cultural commission spawning huge unworkable recommendations, through structural changes which took longer than they should, to ‘stooshies’ about how decisions are made to what appears to be a botched recruitment process with distinguished names being mentioned but no final announcement, we have witnessed, or so it appears, a series of failures in governance and management. In the course of preparing my application for the post I began to wonder if there were not something more fundamentally wrong with how things were structured- although, I admit, that did not stop me throwing my hat in the ring. Now I am free to examine these concerns more openly.

My thesis is that the arm’s length policy by which government funds the arts via non-departmental public body no longer serves us well, and has not since 1999, and it is time to look at the creation of a Ministry of Culture and funding the arts directly from government.

A useful starting point is work by Susan Galloway and an article by her and Huw Jones, The Scottish dimension of British arts government: a historical perspective[1] in which they examine through the archives the relationship between the arts and government pre-devolution.  One of their conclusions is that that as Scotland became more autonomous as a nation at the same time the arts policy function became more politicised.   In the 1970s and 1980s the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) automatically received 12% of UK arts funding via the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), and then spent it in ways it chose even if that did diverge from ACGB policy.  SAC was ‘at double arm’s length’ from government.   In 1992 the responsibility was moved from Westminster to Edinburgh and the Scottish Office which brought arts policy closer to Scottish politicians.  Then, of course, along came devolution which was, it was argued, a means by which decisions taken previously at distance from government were placed in the heart of a democratic process.   Yet despite these changes, and the subsequent merger of SAC and Scottish Screen into Creative Scotland, there has been no fundamental challenge to the notion that politics and the democratic process has no part to play in cultural policy and we persist with the fiction that somehow the arts are too important to be part of that process.

The ‘arms- length’ principle for the arts was established in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War and was in part in reaction to the twin threats of fascism and communism and the fear of a state run arts world doing only state-approved art. Its intention was no more and no less than to prevent politicians interfering in decisions about what should or should not be funded.  The principle has its roots further back in the establishment of the BBC and our University system.  It is a very British compromise with all the brilliance and muddle that implies. And indeed it has worked:  I can think of no evidence to suggest that there has been one exhibition or performance which has been approved or banned because of central government interference. However what is clear is that spending public money means being accountable for it.  The government of whatever persuasion has its own priorities and will direct money in that way.  This is called democracy but sometimes this has been interpreted as ‘political interference’.  So let’s do away with the muddle and establish some clean lines between the artist, the arts organisation, the creative project and the political process which votes the money.

After all what have we got to fear?  Freedom of expression is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.  This is the structure which works across most of Europe including Germany where the federal cultural budget has just been increased while government spending overall is being tightened. In none of the countries which fund the arts directly– with left or right wing governments –is there any suggestion that individual artistic decisions are influenced by party politics.  The biggest threat to the arts comes from the economic crisis – and some might argue, the failure of global capitalism.

And what would it mean in Scotland?  As we have all witnessed in other areas, Government decisions are open to scrutiny: we have a robust committee system in the Scottish Parliament with the checks and balances needed to prevent undemocratic political actions and we also have more media outlets than you can shake a stick at.

But the most persuasive argument is that it already happens.  Government directly funds our national performing arts companies, museums and art galleries.  As far as I can tell, the orchestras are not being instructed to perform Hamish MacCunn in every programme nor is National Theatre of Scotland doing all its plays in Doric. In fact we can see a flowering of many of our national institutions – one only has visit the Scottish Portrait Gallery or National Museum of Scotland to see that. What’s more it is time our national companies were pulled more closely to the rest of the cultural world in Scotland. We are too small a country to have such a division in the way things are managed.

What about cost? Well of course we would have to write off the money and time already spent on setting up Creative Scotland but it’s minuscule in comparison to the billions written off in badly thought through government procurement projects.  Mistakes happen. Let’s move on.   There are potential savings too. The Government would require additional expertise internally drawn from existing Creative Scotland staff but staffing in of central functions could be merged with existing corporate departments.  The use of ad hoc external expertise would address some of the recent demands of the arts community to be involved more in consultation on funding decisions and the process whereby some of the funding is already devolved to small specialist organisations could be extended—especially the funding of individual artists.  Few would weep at the disposal of Waverley Gate – and probably the Glasgow office — with the new Ministry accommodated within the existing estate.  There is, of course a lot of devil in any detail and this proposal is intended as a point of departure for debate not as a blueprint.

In 2002 I co-authored a report to Scottish Executive about the Scottish Arts Council, as part of the quinquennial review of the organisation.  Re-reading the conclusions, I can see hints of concern about the structures which operated:  “There is confusion about the role and remit of SAC that affects all aspects of its work. To clarify this the arm’s length principle needs to be re-visited and relationship made clearer between the Executive, SAC, the cultural community and the partners and agencies which interact with SAC. ‘Ministerial interference’ needs to be transformed into ‘Ministerial leadership’.”

Now is the time to see evidence of that Ministerial leadership and a maturing of the relationship between the arts and government.

 

 

 


[1] Susan Galloway and Huw David Jones, (2010) The Scottish dimension of British arts government: a historical perspective, Cultural Trends, 19, Issue 1&2. 

 

Les acteurs français sont trop payes! (French actors are paid too much)

Thus ran the headline in the French daily newspaper Le Monde on 29 December above a photograph of Gerard Depardieu.

Yet this was not an article about the larger than life French actor, his drunken antics on a scooter, his move to a dreary village in Belgium to avoid the new 75% tax on earnings above €1m.  Nor was it about him in a fit of pique at the French government, tearing up his French passport and accepting President Putin’s invitation to settle in an inhospitable part of Russia (followed by his decision to fail to appear to answer the ‘drunk-in-charge- of-a-scooter’ charge which may result in him being detained in France on a criminal charge).  No, this piece was not about ‘pathetic’ film stars –the French PM’s description of Depardieu.   Instead the article suggested that French cinema is in crisis and it has little or nothing to do with Depardieu.

The author of the think-piece is Vincent Maraval, founder and director of Wild Bunch the successful film distribution company which counts The Artist (Oscar winner Best picture 2012) and Angel’s Share (Jury Prize, Cannes 2012) as two of its recent successes.   So a man who is a key part of the film industry in France and globally and who, when he speaks, is listened to.   Although he subsequently rejected the title given to his article by Le Monde’s sub-editors, his thesis is, nevertheless, that French movies cost too much and this can be put down to the level of fees paid to the ‘talent’.   He blames the financial structure of the film industry in France for the problem and has attacked the process of film finance which has underpinned not only a treasure of French culture but also an industry with lots of jobs.   This is of interest not only to France but also to those who look on the French film-funding model with envy.

First, his thesis.  Put simply, French films cost too much.  According to Maraval, the French movie costs on average €5.4 million.  Only US studios produce movies are more costly.  The average US independent movie costs €3 m.

The recent success of movies such as The Artist and Amour—reaching as they do a global audience- masks the fact that most French films have a limited market beyond France.  At home, French video sales are collapsing , TV  audiences for French films are in terminal decline in the face of reality TV, and cinema attendances stagnating.  There is, according to Maraval, a mismatch between reach of a movie and its cost. He cites the recent Asterix film (Astérix et Obélix : au service de Sa Majesté) which attracted a cinema audience of 4 million – perfectly respectable until he points out that it cost €60 million – equivalent to the cost of a Tim Burton US studio  movie.

Maraval’s argument is that the cost is down almost entirely to the fees paid to artists.  Again he makes comparisons: French actors appearing in American movies are paid a lot less for these movies than they are for appearing in French ones.   Well known names like Vincent Cassel, Audrey Tautou and Marion Cotillad can command fees of between € 0.5-2m for a French film, but are happy with a fee of between €50-200K for an American one which has a global reach.

So why is this happening?  Maraval puts this problem down to the way in which French movies are financed and the availability of state funding.  This ’state funding’ comes via the CNC (Centre national du cinema) which in turn receives funding directly from government with its film investment coming principally from a level on ticket prices (10.7%) and also a levy on French broadcasters—both free to air and subscription channels.   Maraval’s point is that there is no link between the popularity or earning potential of a movie and its cost.

The reaction to this piece has been vociferous and in those news-lite days between Christmas and New Year, there were several headlines criticising Maraval’s attack on individuals and accusing him of putting the government support at risk at a time when Hollande’s presidency is struggling with economic problems and sinking poll ratings.  Effectively, it is argued, Maraval has given the politicians and excuse to cut funding to film.  Leaping to the defence of the film industry, however, is the Minister of Culture,  Aurélie Filippetti and there is talk of a ministerial summit on the funding of the French film industry later this month.

What relevance is all this beyond France? Since the original article was published, the French movie has yet again broken though the ‘foreign film’ barrier at the Oscars with Amour (co-pro with Austria) nominated for five Oscars. Whatever Maravel says, from where we sit, the French film sector continues to produce movies in French about French stories, with French talent and money a few of which become global hits, or are translated into globally recognised films—the rest being shown primarily in France and shaping French culture and ideas.  Is there a problem?  That’s for the French to decide.

In terms of the UK film industry  — and film-making in Scotland—the lesson from France is that commitment from the government and the industry does deliver cultural and economic rewards.  However intervention in the market place with public money does not always guarantee quality (assuming quality means movies which enjoy critical, audience or financial success) and supporting innovation and experimentation should be just that—support for the new and not the enhancing of fees for those who already enjoy great success.

 

 

 

 

Creative Scotland and the creative industries

The debate around the future of Creative Scotland includes calls for a re-visiting of the role of the arts funding body as laid down when it was first established.  In essence what is being called for is the removal of responsibility for supporting what is called ‘creative industries’.  I disagree, and here is why. 

Jenna is a dancer.  She is a member of Spilt Milk, a company formed by two of her fellow dance graduates.  They produce work which takes a witty, intelligent and sometimes ironic look at social dance.  They have performed in festivals across England and were showcased at the Linbury Studio, the Royal Opera House.  Like all emerging artists, they spend time making applications for public funds – especially from the Arts Council.  And like all emerging artists, they don’t earn much from this work.  So to support herself, Jenna teaches dance at University level.  She has also runs a business which is her passion: weekend dance classes for children and their parents. Jenna wants to do a PhD in inter-generational dance and these classes provide her with the material which will inform her research as well as being a creative outlet and, crucially, an income source.

I met the entrepreneurial Jenna when she came to work with me in the Midlands as we developed a centre to support recent arts graduates establish their own businesses.  We received economic development cash to retain creative graduates in the area, support the development of sustainable businesses, and, through this, create jobs.  We worked with graphic artists, photographers, film-makers, dancers, theatre artists, musicians and web designers Our job was to give them access to advice, mentoring, specialist training, technology and hot desk spaces to allow them to launch their businesses. Or that’s what we said when speaking to people in economic development.  When talking to the Arts Council we spoke about helping artists to create work through providing studio and office space and expert support and guidance from established artists and academics working in their field—as well as providing short courses on things like marketing and finance.  Both these statements meant the same thing.  Jenna and I are bilingual in the language of economic development and art, and for us there was, and is, no tension.

More importantly there was little conflict for the artists with whom we worked and they were happy to accept advice on how to work in a variety of settings if it meant they could make work.  Applying to the Arts Council to do a collaborative project or develop a full-blown show or exhibition, or selling the work to specialist markets— both allowed them to do what they wanted to do.  The desire to make money was secondary in all cases to making work (although some of the web-based companies had half an eye on being the next big thing in social media). However everyone needs to make a living and our role was to help our graduates sustain their practice through accessing commercial and public sector opportunities. Which is precisely what Jenna is doing through her dance classes.

We worked with tiny businesses and fledgling companies so I watched with interest the proposals to establish Creative Scotland out of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council and make a closer and more explicit link at national level, between work which is supported via arts public funds and work which can be sustained through engaging with the market —sometimes given support from economic development agencies.  However for a variety of reasons the debate in Scotland became sterile and there was a growing mistrust from the artist.   Arts funding equalled good; economic development equalled bad and, worst still commercial equalled selling out.  There was no bilingualism, just babel.

This discontent grew into the rejection of whole the idea of ‘creative industries’. Many a tree has died in critiquing the concept of creative industries- and I too tire of the overblown rhetoric around the concept of creative industries being the saviour of our economy.  But it is foolish to deny the link between of film, broadcasting, publishing, recording, design, games architecture and the rest of the arts sector and build some kind of cordon sanitaire.  Equally it is depressing to promote the notion that if a theatre show makes money in a commercial sense it must be without merit and exploitative of the artist and the art.

Some who reject what they call the ‘ideology’ behind the establishment of Creative Scotland and the term creative industries have their own deeply held ideological position which they will hold fast until we reach the sunny uplands of a new Marxist world.  I however, can’t wait that long.

Another position taken by some is that Creative Scotland should focus on art and the artist, and let another agencies in economic development do the rest.  However, as I have tried to suggest above, it is not always so clear-cut and tidy.  I also think this is a timid position. Surely we want to see leadership from the arts community when it comes to seeing public investment in creative businesses?

The real failure in our approach to the creative industries in Scotland is not that Creative Scotland has funded a cookery programme — that’s bad judgement and rightly pilloried.  No the real failure is that, in common with other industrial and commercial sectors in Scotland, we are brilliant at creating and inventing and terrible at making any money from it.  Thus, we have in our midst, paying taxes and being part of our society, the most successful living writer in the world (J.K. Rowling) but Scotland makes next to nothing out of the ‘exploitation’ of her talent in publishing and film making.  And before anyone tells me that we are too wee to make any impact on the global film industry which is US dominated, I say, Wellington, New Zealand.  And oh if only we could use our fabulous talent in writing, acting, music, design, and technical skills and produce just one TV drama to match that which is coming out of Denmark at the moment!

Not all of this is down to what Creative Scotland supports from its budget — economic development bodies have a role too — but the leadership must come from the arts body, surely.  And in turn its legitimacy will come from the expertise and skills it gains from working with artists whose creative output it supports.   It starts with the art whether we call it a project, business or an industry.

Postscript Spilt Milk is keen to tour to Scotland and especially the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.  Follow the link to get hold of them if you can help!

Update****

This blog has attracted a few comments on Facebook and Twitter.  I quote them here with my response.

From Robert Dawson Scott on Facebook, two points:

1.    I’m really glad someone has at least come and out argued this case. Like you, Christine, my initial thoughts on the idea of Creative Scotland were not negative; the very fact that government was treating the creative sector as something worth investing in, rather than just a drain on money that could have been spent on schools/hospitals/la la la, seemed to be a positive step. Where it began to unravel, I think, or at least where one of the threads began to work loose, was when it became clear that CS wasn’t going to get any of the resources that, say, Scottish Enterprise, can access to invest in industries. Whether that was the Enterprise network leaning on government to protect their comfy berths for clapped out business men or not we may never know but I shouldn’t wonder. It left CS a bit broken backed from the start; and also made the mash-up of art and commerce more uncomfortable than it needed to be.

Good point – maybe this needs to be re-visited at the very least to make the relationship between Creative Scotland and the enterprise agencies (let’s not forget Highlands and Islands Enterprise) more effective.  There is what is called the Creative Industries Partnership of which Creative Scotland is a member along with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Funding Council, Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Development International, and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities  (or if you prefer CS, SE HIE, SDS, SDI, COSLA – aka a bad hand at Scrabble). Maybe some clarity is required.

2.    On a smaller point, and you should know better than repeating this, CS has not invested in a cookery programme. It invested in the pitch to get a network programme to Scotland. The cash will be repaid since the pitch was won and the result is about 28 jobs in the TV industry at no cost to anybody (except the licence fee payer). Even cookery programmes need camera people, editors, blah blah. Oddly enough, for all the opprobrium this has attracted, it was actually an example of CS doing something that it was supposed to do. Of course I am an employee of STV so I would say that; but also I am an employee of STV so I do actually know the detail.

I stand corrected and agree I made a cheap dig.  However I do not think this is what CS is supposed to do.  I do not think that its remit should include supporting the core work of a PLC.  I do not think supporting jobs CS’s primary role (although it is always excellent when it does). This perhaps just illustrates how muddled the thinking has been in this area—and I don’t blame STV for trying.

From @johnnygailey on Twitter several tweets and two main points.  I have re-produced the tweets as they appeared but because of the restrictions of Twitter, the points are made in abbreviated form.  I have re-stated what I believe to be the essence of what is being said but happy to correct if I have got it wrong.

1.  it’s not the same thing: one you fund coz it can’t find form in the market, the other you find coz it can, and you expect return

The point is that the creative industries and the arts are not the same thing because you expect a financial return on the former.  I agree with this.  State funding for the arts is indeed about supporting the creation of work which cannot be sustained via the market.  This in itself does not deny the link between the artist/idea and a viable business.  CS has a role in supporting artists directly but it also can, should and does work in other ways to allow the work to be produced and distributed in a way which will make a return.  Whether CS shares in this return depends on what it is.  For example, film funding can be given as ‘an investment’ so the public purse is recompensed if the movie is a hit. But normally the view is that public money is sued to assist the artist – and the work—to reach a wider market and this will in turn help to support future work.  Whether this works as well as it should is a moot point and one I am raising.

2.  The ideology is not to dump ctve ind remit..the ideo is whethr arts should spec. be tied to the Single Overarching Purpose of Govt:”2 focus govt & public services on create a more successful country,with opp fr all of Sctld to flourish,thru increasg sustnble econ growth”

Economic growth is not the only way to ensure a country ‘ flourishes’

Just because there is economic growth, doesn’t mean ALL Scotland is flourishing.

I suggested that the problem with CS is not one of ideology but how the relationship between creative industries and art is managed and developed.  @johnnygailey’s challenge is that the ideological problem is not as I have described but the fact that CS is expected to follow Government policy and in particular the focus on public services being aligned with economic growth. Absolutely fair point. I agree that I have misinterpreted some of what has been said about the underpinning ideology of CS’s remit.

I agree that economic growth is not the only way in which a country flourishes.  I also agree that not all benefit from economic growth. Further, to link the  development of the arts solely to an economic return flies in the face of everything artist stand for – and indeed what we all understand as the role of state funding for the arts.  So far I agree wholeheartedly.

However I think we need to recognise the realpolitik.  The funding is public funding.  Government is responsible for setting the budget and determining how that funding is spent. The current Scottish Government was elected to do just that.  It is not surprising that it expects its public bodies to develop their plans in line with its objectives.  This should not be confused with government interfering with individual funding decisions in terms of what is or is not funded. It is about CS’s plans and priorities.

This is nothing new.  All governments have sought to determine how their money is spent whether directly by them or via another agency.  In reality this works as a continuous dialogue between government and the agency.  I sat around the board room table of the Scottish Arts Council during the last Conservative government in the early 1990s and witnessed the Council managing its relationship with a sometimes hostile—and sometimes not—political reality.  As was said in 1999, the good thing about devolution is that it brings the arts and government closer together and the bad thing about devolution is that it brings arts and government closer together.  For an utterly brilliant and fascinating exploration of all this check out a project led by Susan Galloway at the University of Glasgow, The Scottish Arts Council 1967-2007: arts governance and national identity. A historical analysis of cultural policymaking.

This is neither good nor bad but, like the weather, we have to live with it and how we handle it is part of the democratic process.

From @southfilmfest:  I wonder if JK took HP to Canongate? & no film studio i Scotland, calls for one ignored by Scottish Screen for years.

No idea about whether or not there was an opportunity for Canongate to publish Harry Potter.  It is a remarkable business and has made a great contribution to the cultural as well s economic scene.  I am not an expert int his area but I belive it becomes very hard for small publishers here or elsewhere in the UK to hang on to successful writers as they cannot compete with ‘the big boys’ on advances.

On the issue of film studio, the issue is partly capital investment to create such a facility– which could  attract lottery funding–but also the viability of such a facility.  I realise there is a bit of chicken and egg here but I understand that what is needed is a big commitment from major film and TV companies to make the business plan stand up.