As Fishamble's hit production Heaven arrives in the UK, the company's artistic director writes about what it is like to make theatre in Ireland at the moment. Plus: three shows to see next week.
I'm not an expert on theatre at all, so the situation could well be different within the context of producing a play or show, but it strikes me that Ireland and the UK have proportionally small subsidies from their respective governments because they already punch above their weight in the arts, rather than vice versa. There's a global demand for British and Irish actors, musicians, writers, filmmakers and so on – mostly, I think, because we speak English – and we have massive private sector investment in the arts which means we don't *need* the government to fund our artists. There's a huge market for them already.
Compare that to Hungary and Iceland, as mentioned above: can you name a single contemporary Hugarian actor, musician, author, artist, filmmaker who has household name recognition? Iceland is a different case; they regularly produce well-known performers, writers, musicians etc. But it's an extremely homogenous country of less than half a million people; of course they can spend all their money on the arts, because their economy is vastly different to that of larger nations. It has very different needs in terms of infrastructure, healthcare, defence (Iceland literally doesn't have an army). In fact, they probably have to spend more on the arts – they have a much larger public sector workforce proportionally than the UK or Ireland, which is reliant on state spending.
All that said, I am ready to be told that theatre is uniquely reliant on arts funding. If that's the case, then fair enough – spend away. I just don't know that proportion of GDP spend on arts subsidies is a good measure of the cultural health of a nation, necessarily?
I take your point about percentage spend on culture not being a particularly good metric...
...but I think there are a few leaps here. Demand for British work/artists does not necessarily translate into private investment. Private investment comes with all sorts of thorny strings attached, too. Nor does it provide scope for experimentation in the same way as public subsidy.
Also, I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day about how, when it comes to global power, the UK has neither the economic clout or natural resources or industrial might whatever to possibly compete with the US/China/Russia. In that context, investment in the only stuff we are really unique in - our culture - seems sensible,
And no, I can't name a Hungarian actor. I think I could name a few Icelandic artists, though, because their government has previously sponsored an annual showcase at the Fringe!
I'm not an expert on theatre at all, so the situation could well be different within the context of producing a play or show, but it strikes me that Ireland and the UK have proportionally small subsidies from their respective governments because they already punch above their weight in the arts, rather than vice versa. There's a global demand for British and Irish actors, musicians, writers, filmmakers and so on – mostly, I think, because we speak English – and we have massive private sector investment in the arts which means we don't *need* the government to fund our artists. There's a huge market for them already.
Compare that to Hungary and Iceland, as mentioned above: can you name a single contemporary Hugarian actor, musician, author, artist, filmmaker who has household name recognition? Iceland is a different case; they regularly produce well-known performers, writers, musicians etc. But it's an extremely homogenous country of less than half a million people; of course they can spend all their money on the arts, because their economy is vastly different to that of larger nations. It has very different needs in terms of infrastructure, healthcare, defence (Iceland literally doesn't have an army). In fact, they probably have to spend more on the arts – they have a much larger public sector workforce proportionally than the UK or Ireland, which is reliant on state spending.
All that said, I am ready to be told that theatre is uniquely reliant on arts funding. If that's the case, then fair enough – spend away. I just don't know that proportion of GDP spend on arts subsidies is a good measure of the cultural health of a nation, necessarily?
I take your point about percentage spend on culture not being a particularly good metric...
...but I think there are a few leaps here. Demand for British work/artists does not necessarily translate into private investment. Private investment comes with all sorts of thorny strings attached, too. Nor does it provide scope for experimentation in the same way as public subsidy.
Also, I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day about how, when it comes to global power, the UK has neither the economic clout or natural resources or industrial might whatever to possibly compete with the US/China/Russia. In that context, investment in the only stuff we are really unique in - our culture - seems sensible,
And no, I can't name a Hungarian actor. I think I could name a few Icelandic artists, though, because their government has previously sponsored an annual showcase at the Fringe!