Independent, non-mainstream and youth theatres look to have again been bypassed with the announcement today that the Australian Major Performing Arts Group (AMPAG or read union for the establishment) are launching a 'Performing Arts Industry Advocacy Campaign'. 
AMPAG in association with the Federal Arts Minister Peter Garrett, as well as Live Performance Australia, MEAA, Australian Children's Music Foundation, Australian Performing Arts Centres Association and the Australian Network for Art and Technology are launching the campaign at the Sydney Opera House on Wednesday.
Independent performance artists and venues, again, have been left out in the cold with no organisation, no unified voice and no representation leaving the major performing arts groups (who get all the government and private funding by the way) to determine the agenda.
It leaves me breathless and oh-so-slightly annoyed that BSharp, Darlinghurst Theatre Company, the Old Fitzroy, Griffin Stablemates, the Storeroom and countless other vulnerable independent organisations around the country, still haven't united under some banner with shared values.
The fact that a campaign is being launched to promote the needs of the performing arts sector and they don't have an organised representation is quite unbelievable.
It just beggar's belief that these organisations haven't come together with some lobbying, fundraising, sponsorship and marketing union to create a powerful voice for what would represent an enormous amount of artists.
So that some media might attend on Wednesday, the launch has a line-up of talent that will be there to endorse the campaign including Brendan Cowell, Don Spencer, Leah Purcell, Tara Morice, John Bell AM, Michael Gow, Richard Evans, William Barton, Craig Pearce and Brett Sheehy.
Not particularly diverse is it.
Monday, 31 March 2008
Are independent artists left out... again?
Posted by Nicholas Pickard at 1:20 pm
Labels: Arts Funding, Independent Theatre, Local Culture, Theatre, Youth Arts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Perhaps you could define "independent" for me? True independence is the very antithesis of the organisation of independent creative thought and action you seem to be advocating for in this post. Once everyone unites for the greater good, one surely compromises the essence of their independence. As an 'independent theatre maker' the very thought of what you are prescribing here make me feel sick.
What is missing is someone at the funding level(s) who actually sources, sees, visits and interrogates the truely independent scene, and then facilitates their unconditional access to someone's cheque book. The rest is subsidised art. Frankly, subscriber-driven crap.
FWIW.
Anonymous - as I mentioned in my post - "lobbying, fundraising, sponsorship and marketing union".
This would mean -
Sponsorship/Fundraising: the theatres could create an attractive alliance for shared sponsorship deals that would assist all the independent groups. Much more attractive than some poor sod going up to a business and saying "Hi! We have this play and...."
Marketing: Shared purchase power to buy in bulk web design, marketing collatoral and advertising space. More money saved.
Lobbying: making political representation with concerns to guarantee of space and protection from local government and state government, with the ability to make suggestions about legislation for performance etc.
You could also include environmental: sharing a warehouse space to reuse old sets, costumes and materials.
I apologise if this type of alliance makes you sick... but no one is trying to smother your creative excellence.
Post a Comment