A comment we, here in TheLab™ and you, our dear readers, probably hear or read quite often is "we encourage healthy debate on (insert you're own topic here)". The comment is usually made by the individual/group/organisation that is being debated but more often than not they would, if it's all right with you, rather you actually did the exact opposite and didn't debate them at all, healthily or otherwise.

Also, the end of the "healthy debate" comment is almost always followed by the mightiest tool in the PR handbook, the word "but".

Our recent piece on the integration of dancer's with disabilities, 'An Inconvenient Truth', provoked, somewhat unexpectedly, a lot of comments some of which were quite angry about the fact that we had even dared to raise the issue to begin with.

One commenter, not published on Article19 but on a protest group on Facebook (and that's not a joke), even suggested that Article19 was behaving in a "fascist" like manner and how dare we "interrogate" dance companies with our impertinent questions?

Article19 has also been criticised for not doing enough "real" dance writing or covering "what's right" in the dance profession instead of what's wrong in the dance profession. All conveniently unquantifiable.

For the record, Article19 considers its "positive" material to be the video featuring. The actual illustration of the wok being created and performed by companies large and small across the UK and beyond.

Some may disagree and there are certainly many more positive aspects to the dance profession than creation and performance but that's one aspect we choose to focus on and one aspect that we can successfully highlight.

Reflection

Upon reflection and looking around the rest of the dance/arts media it's not hard to understand why some readers get a bit ruffled with some of the things this publication chooses to write about.

Cheerleading is standard operating procedure for pretty much every website/print publication or blog that covers the wide world of dance. No matter what particular element of the art form they cover the tone is almost always relentlessly upbeat. The mainstream press follows the same mantra. The end of year or the coming year reviews/previews from the broadsheets read like press releases from the Dance Profession is Holier than Though Coalition.

There's nothing wrong with being upbeat or positive but there is danger in choosing to blinker yourself to the multitude of problems faced by this profession.

It's asking for trouble if you choose to ignore the fact that dance, especially in the, so-called, higher echelons of the profession, is run by people, people with egos, agendas and personal issues that may cloud their judgement and steer their decision making process in somewhat puzzling directions.

We all do it but personal decisions rarely affect large numbers of people in a professional context. Simply because someone wears a suit or has the title "Artistic Director" or "CEO" doesn't make them immune to the human condition.

It is for those reasons that Article19 is required to get on the phone and ask questions, often times over and over again. Nobody is being "interrogated" however, they are being asked straightforward questions and the answers we get (or not) are the things that will save them or sink them.

Irony

There was a hefty dose of irony from one particular comment on 'An Inconvenient Truth' citing Janet Smith's response to that piece asking why we couldn't write something like that instead? Completely overlooking the fact that without Article19's piece and without us contacting Scottish Dance Theatre seeking answers to our questions Ms Smith's response simply would not exist.

Healthy debate can only exist if all those taking part in that debate speak openly and honestly about the issues that affect them. It's only healthy if organisations or individuals respond openly and honestly when questions are put to them not only by us but by anybody with an enquiring mind looking for answers.

As is so often the case somebody will be on the receiving end of bit of harsh commentary. But if you really believe what you're doing is right then it should be fairly easy for you to defend yourself. Article19 isn't coming at you with swords and shields, just some pointed words.

If you have screwed up, own up, say sorry and try to do better the next time. Don't try and play the political communications game because the world and its' dog got wise to that a long time ago, we all know spin when we hear it and read it.

Just in case you haven't noticed there is no debate, discussion or much of anything going on in dance right now. Discussion is happening, it has to be going on somewhere surely, but it must be happening behind closed doors because we can't find it.

The British Dance Edition in Birmingham, coming up in February, has no real debates or alternative presentations to counter the cheerleading culture when that type of gathering would be the ideal place for some honest back and forth.

There are no discussions about pay for dancers, healthcare, job creation, contracts, funding, touring, integration or anything of any real importance. Just John Ashford and meaningless chit chat about the previous nights shows. Nothing for anybody to get upset or feel uncomfortable about, because why would we want that?

Article19 is going to continue doing what it does for as long as possible, nothing lasts forever after all, so for 2010 why not tell us what questions you would like to ask and of whom you would like to ask those questions. Maybe you can even ask them yourself!

by Neil Nisbet

"It's always impossible to legislate for talent. There are successful younger women out there - Maresa von Stockert, Cathy Marston, Jasmin Vardimon, Kate Prince - but they are not in the same league as McGregor, Bourne et al. Something has to change if the next great female choreographer, whoever she may be, is to make it to the top - and stay there."

In the paragraph above Judith Mackrell, writer for the Guardian newspaper, unwittingly sums up the entire mess that is the dance profession in the UK, and probably in a lot of other places. Her words were prompted by the communications disaster that usually follows whenever Alistair Spalding, AD of Sadler's Wells in London, opens his mouth.

If you're a sports fan imagine that your annual league championship was decided not on one team beating another by scoring more points/touch-downs/runs or whatever but by the pundits waxing lyrical about which team was the best.

No matter how good your players or how profoundly they destroyed their competition it would make not one bit of difference because, ultimately, victory would be decided by retired players and lecherous, perma-tanned TV hosts. Imagine just how frustrating that would be.

Critics, theatre directors, producers, promoters and, to a certain degree, the minions at ACE (Arts Council England), are what we have in place of pundits and lecherous TV presenters. They will all tell you that "they" and "they" alone understand what really makes a good piece of dance tick and the rest of us just don't get it.

If Wayne McGregor and Random Dance Company, for example, are funded, programmed by a large theatre, reviewed positively by Ms Mackrell and the odd punter puts in a nice comment card or three then Mr McGregor is a member of the elite, no? Even better if you add some international touring to the mix.

Surely all these people can't be wrong?

Of course, they're not wrong. But they're not right either which I'm pretty sure is a paradox so the universe should implode any second now......................... Good, we're still here.

Elevation

Dance makers are elevated to their respective positions, in Ms Mackrell's imaginary League of Extraordinary Dance Makers, by the decisions of other people. If you think it's all about talent and skill then it's time to wake up and smell the strong black coffee. The mantra "you're good because we say you are" is alive and well and probably living in London.

Dance companies need to create work and they need to perform work. To create work they need money so, in this country at least, they have to turn primarily to ACE and to get programmed they have to turn to venues. In a perfect world these bureaucratic bodies would be staffed with open minded, free thinking individuals willing to take a chance on good ideas presented by smart people.

OK, you can stop laughing now, let's move on!

Taken to extremes it's easy to spot the difference between a hardened professional and a first year dance student dipping their toe in the wacky world of dance making. Spotting the difference between Jasmin Vardimon and Akram Khan, in terms of professional quality, is a much harder, if not completely impossible task.

The Sadler's Wells debacle has served to highlight that, on the one hand, Mr Spalding is an out of touch jackass with a penchant for saying and doing stupid things (YouTube contest anyone?) On the other hand it has highlighted the fact that the upper echelons of the dance world (meaning large scale venues) are nothing more than an exercise in back scratching and pandering.

It's not hard to imagine long conversations over dinner between Mr Spalding and Mr Khan (or whomever) where cosy agreements are made along the lines of "sure you can bring your solo to the Wells next year, don't worry about it". Sounds a bit theatrical? Well this is show business dahling!

Mathew Bourne's 'Swan Lake' is being programmed, again, at Sadler's Wells because it appeals directly to the "ladies that lunch" crowd who flock to that theatre to see any young male, bare chested and in feathered trousers flapping about the stage (seriously, what the hell goes on in Middle-England?)

It is suitably ironic that the front cover of Ms Mackrell's book 'Dictionary of Dance' (co-written by Debra Craine) features a still image from that particular show.

Here in TheLab™ we think Mr Bourne's 'Swan Lake' is a load of crap. A stagnant, poorly constructed mess that sullies the good name of an ancient classic. That's just our view of course and you may feel differently but I challenge you to prove that 'Swan Lake' is not a load of crap. It would be just as difficult for Article19 to prove that it is a load of crap though.

It's that whole "subjective opinion" thing again!

Big Players

What the "big players" (as one of our readers recently described them) don't want people to realise is that they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. It's all guess work and pre-fabricated friendships wrapped up in 500 word press releases.

Female dance makers can no more break through this particular glass ceiling than our in-house cat can become President of The United States, no matter how much will power the bedraggled moggy can summon up through his arthritic paws.

They can't break through because there are no quantifiable steps they can take (pardon the pun) to shift the perspective of people like Mr Spalding. They could of course become more "assertive" which in my mind conjures up images of Ms Vardimon dangling Mr Spalding out the window of a very high building and threatening to drop him on his head unless he offers her a commission. I've probably seen too many episodes of 24 though.

Let's be very clear however. There is no league, there is no metric, no formula, nothing that can be applied by Ms Mackrell, Mr Spalding or anyone else (including Article19) to determine whether or not one persons work is better than another irrespective of the assertive qualities of the choreographer.

You could at least respect people for saying; "we gave it a shot but that didn't work so we're going to try something else". Instead it comes back to the same old red herrings that women aren't making it and it's all their own fault. The powers that be seem unable to explain what assertiveness, babies, child-care or anything else has to do with someone's skill as a dance maker.

Solutions

What's the solution to this mess? Well personally I'm all for Mr Spalding being dangled from a window by his feet just for the hell of it (don't drop him though, that would be mean!) but I've got the feeling that won't achieve much.

ACE could intervene and demand a more eclectic mix of programming at theatres like Sadler's Wells but it's hard to do that when you're permanently inert and programming female dance makers "just because" is not the way to move forward.

It may sound a bit revolutionary and all but if the problem stems from the people in charge then maybe we should replace the people in charge? Replace them with people that are not narrow minded purveyors of risible drivel.

People that neither seek nor care for the favours of others and look at the world with a wider perspective. People that look beyond ticket sales, statistics, dance mapping studies and the never ending stream of un-quantifiable gibberish that pours out of large institutions on a daily basis.

Where are these people? My personal feeling is their currently creating work in dance studios and tick the "Miss" box on application forms.

[ The Jackass ]
[ The Guardian ]

by Neil Nisbet

"We did ask a lot of women to apply but there aren't that many who want to take on that job and I think that because it is such a male dominated world. Women are insecure about doing it because we [women] have always been led by men. So there you go!"

Those words were spoken, out loud, by Assis Carreiro, the Artistic Director/CEO of Dance East, in response to questions from Article19 about why only one of seven participants in the agency's "leadership" programme was a woman.

Ms Carreiro also said during the interview;

"Because that seems to be the case around the world. I'm a woman, I think it's a big issue but [in] most companies around the world, women, at that age are getting married, having babies, when it's time to think about being a leader and so men take those posts."

Numbers like those are surprising because women out number men in dance by a considerable amount. Dance UK's best estimate was 80% in favour of women. If presidential elections were determined by female dancers voting for Democrats and male dancers voting for the Republicans then Barack Obama could be President of Planet Earth if he so desired!

A quick check of the calendar reveals that it is, in fact, 2008 this year. It's not 1908 or 1808 but 2008. A year of amazing advancements in technology, politics and, one hopes, thinking! Sadly there does not appear to be a lot of thinking going on at Dance East.

In trying to defend the imbalance Ms Carriero pointed out that only two women applied to be on the programme in the first place. However, applications were restricted to those taking part in the organisation's much maligned 'Rural Retreats' project. Reading through the documentation for those projects, past and present, reveals 18 female participants to 72 male participants. Hardly surprising then that few women bothered to apply, or could apply to take part in the "leadership" project.

Ms Carriero protested that "[Dance East] did ask a lot of women to apply" but at least one experienced dance maker we have spoken to, and no shrinking violet at that, told Article19 that she approached Dance East about the project but was rebuffed.

That so many men took part in the retreats project emphasises their focus on classical ballet and classical ballet companies. Ms Carriero denied that with a curt "no they are not". When over 90% of attendees are representatives of ballet companies or from a classical background you have to call that comment exactly what it is, a patent, deliberate falsehood!

Troubling Arguments

More problematic and worrying than the numbers or the arguments about ballet versus contemporary, or other forms, of dance are the arguments used by Ms Carreiro to justify those numbers.

Throughout Article19's short interview with her, Ms Carreiro brought up the greatest hits that every woman in the world, not just in dance, should be infuriated to hear.

Women don't want leadership because they have "babies", because they get "married", because they are "insecure" and so much other outmoded, risible drivel it's difficult to know where to start when rebutting because your eyes are rolling so much it makes your head hurt!

Yes women have children, they get married and, shocking I know, some women might even be ever so slightly insecure. But here's the scoop Ms Carriero, men do all of those things too! They also feel insecurity, perhaps more so, than their female counterparts!

It might be trivial to point out, but let's do it anyway, that the National Director of Dance Strategy, Janet Archer, is a woman, directors of several NDA's are women, the Speaker of The House in the United States House of Representatives, the third most powerful position in the US Government is not only a mother but a grandmother! A woman, Hilary Clinton, came within a whisker of being the nominee for the Democratic party for President of the United States. Oh the humanity!

Article19 has covered several superb dance festivals this year. Urban Moves: run by a woman, Big Mission: run by a woman, British Dance Edition: run by a woman, Forbidden: run by a woman, the list goes on and on and on!

To further add insult to injury when it was pointed out, as an example, that Jasmin Vardimon has both a family and a successful dance company, that has been ten years in the making, Ms Carriero appeared to disparage that achievement because Ms Vardimon's company was not sufficiently large enough to merit acknowledgment!

Javier Du Frutos, by comparison, lasted just two years when entrusted with the reigns of Phoenix Dance Theatre, a company of comparable size.

Heavy Irony

It is ironic that the project which prompted questions from this publication was entitled "International Placements for Artistic Leaders of the Future". What is obvious here is the complete lack of leadership on the part of Dance East.

Article19 would suggest that if your projects are not encouraging enough women to apply to participate then there is something fundamentally wrong with your projects. If your "Rural Retreats" programme is, irrefutably, heavily skewed towards ballet companies and leading ballet companies (four of the seven placement are with ballet companies) then it will follow that few women will be interested in taking part.

There is no doubt, evidenced by Dance East's own published information, that classical companies don't like having women in charge. Whatever the reasons for that (it's hard not to yell "sexism" very loudly) there is no need for a National Dance Agency to perpetuate the problem with projects that are hopelessly skewed towards men.

When, as a women, you are facing competition from hundreds of others for each job that competition makes you try ten times as hard and work ten times as hard because you have to be ten times as good just to be in the same place as a male counterpart.

Within the dance profession, especially in big companies, there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed with regard to hiring female dance makers to the top jobs. That issue is diminished and trivialised when those in positions of influence make stupid comments about babies, marriage and insecurity that paint women as teen movie cliches unable to cope with the harsh realities of the world.

Were this the political arena such comments would undoubtedly lead to calls for Ms Carriero to be ousted from her position. This isn't politics however. Article19 would suggest that Dance East takes a long hard look at the fundamentals of their in-house projects.

They should attempt to discover the real reasons as to why more women are not in top jobs within dance companies and take steps to correct that imbalance.

Should it become obvious that the out of date views mentioned in this commentary persist then it might become prudent for Article19 and many others to ask the National Director of Dance Strategy if it is at all appropriate for Ms Carriero to remain in her job!

[ News: Dance East and Women ]

by Neil Nisbet

It was suitably ironic that during the largest showcase of the strength and quality of UK based dance making at British Dance Edition in Liverpool, Arts Council England was finalising the funding decisions that would see some companies continue to develop and grow as others get left behind to fend for themselves.

Putting the confusion as to why some dance organisations and companies are deemed more worthy than others to one side for the moment, with every new funding announcement the arguments for and against government subsidy of the arts are rekindled.

There are many people in politics, in the media, in the general population and in the arts who take the view that the government has no place providing money to the creative sector. They cite the free market, other funding priorities like education and health care and a decision making process within ACE that is fundamentally flawed and quite possibly corrupt on some levels.

The Free Market

Let's take a look at the free market first. The argument goes that if something is good then people will want to see it and therefore it will be successful and financially viable. TV shows, movies, musicals and record labels do it all the time. They put money into things, publicise them and some of them are successful and some of them aren't. The market takes care of the difficult decision making process because only the really good work will be successful in both commercial and artistic terms. Right?

Spending money on other priorities is the next most common argument for removing government subsidy. Everything else in this country is failing, or appears to be failing. Education, health care, local government, infrastructure, etc are all terrible and the only way to fix those things is by spending more money on them. The arts cost money and what does it matter if we take money away from them to pay for more important things. Right?

The third argument is that Arts Council England is nothing more than a government policy shill with little or no grasp of reality. They're over bureaucratic, spend too much money on themselves, secretive, slow, and spend more time dodging phone calls than they do actually communicating with people. Right?

Point by Point

All of the above would be good points if any of those things were true but they aren't. Well, some of the points about ACE might be true but I'll get to them in a bit.

The "let the market decide" argument overlooks one of the fundamental flaws in letting the public at large decide what should and should not be created. A quick glance at the ratings for the most popular television shows in the UK reveals a litany of soap operas, light entertainment programmes and poorly written drama productions. Many musicians would say the same about the music charts, and many film makers would concur that the popularity of many movies is in no way connected how good they actually are.

Popularity and financial viability are poor indicators of quality. 'Eastenders' a popular UK soap from the BBC is broadcast 4 times per week in prime time. There are no seasons it just runs and runs (and has been for decades). You have to ask yourself just how good the writing and acting on a show can be when they make 208 of them every year?

The music business is the same. Hugely popular television shows are driving the market towards pre-packaged pretty boys and pretty girls that have little actual skill or creative ability. Multi-million pound karaoke competitions feeding the music charts with an ever expanding list of people who's only desire is to be famous and nothing else.

If we move closer to the arts world we have Matthew Bourne and Adventures in Motion Pictures/New Adventures and his omnipresent productions of 'Swan Lake', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'The Car Man' (it's really 'Carmen' geddit?) and so on. Yes, the shows are popular and any arguments about their respective qualities are subjective and a matter of personal taste. But, Adventures in Motion Pictures started out with Arts Council Funding!

Popularity is not necessarily a bad thing of course. There are lots of productions that are popular and are also well made by people with lots of skill and lots of talent but market forces often tip the balance in favour of the fatuous and everything else takes a back seat.

The subsidised culture sector is also more resistant to keeping touring productions running for decades simply to keep bringing in the money. Contemporary dance makers, for example, are making new work on a yearly basis (for their own companies) and there is little after market enterprise to generate financial support, like DVD sales, soundtrack sales or the sale of TV rights. Why? because DVD distributors and TV companies don't want to invest money in things that require their audiences to pay too much attention.

Taxing Questions

Many tax payers don't like it when their money is spent on something that doesn't directly benefit them. If you don't engage with publicly funded art at all then by default that person will probably resent their money being used to fund it. People with sons and daughters in the military care about military funding but they probably don't care about farming subsidies because they don't realise how farming subsidies help reduce food costs.

For too many people if there is no obvious benefit then spending money on it must be a waste of time. The real problem here is selfish, linear thinking. Grasping the concept that the world doesn't just revolve around you and your family is a problem that is very hard to fix.

Also, the annual budget for the UK hovers around £587Billion per year. The amount spent on the arts makes up less than 1% of that amount. Re-directing money from the arts towards anything else would have little or no impact and the catastrophic damage done to the creative sector would be immeasurable.

ACE

Arts Council England's recent bungling of the new funding announcements has done little to deflect growing criticism that the government quango should be axed and funding decisions moved directly into the hands of the Treasury. Setting aside the fact that this would be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, ACE needs to be fixed not phased out.

Making the funding body completely transparent would be a good place to start. No more cosy meetings behind closed doors where personal relationships and long held friendships are used to leverage funding. We all know it happens, lets not pretend any more that it doesn't.

Transparency is only the start, but it's the right place to start.

Defending Subsidy

Governments are often derided, especially by conservatives/republicans who want nothing more than to look out for themselves and to hell with everybody else. The problem of course is not government in and of itself but bad government, badly run by incompetent people with little connection to reality.

A self serving politician will do just that, serve him/herself and spoil the fun for the rest of us.

The truth of the matter is that governments and public subsidy can and do, when used properly, correct the problems created by a free market hopelessly skewed towards dumbed down commercialism. The free market demands Stomp and Dancing with the Stars? That's fine. The subsidised sector fights back with Hofesh Shechter, Jasmin Vardimon and hundreds more to correct the balance.

Of the twelve video features we have running from British Dance Edition, just how many of those works would have been made if there was no public subsidy for the arts? I'll wager not one would either exist or, if it did exist, would ever have the opportunity to be seen by anybody.

If a talented musician can obtain a grant to develop new work instead of stacking shelves in Sainsburys then that is to the benefit of us all. He or she may or may not be the next Puccini but we have to at least give them a chance. Should we leave that talented musician to the one in a million shot they can get past Simon Cowell and the other airbrushed puppets on the X-Factor? I think not!

Subsidy is littered with problems but the solution is not to remove the subsidy, the solution is to fix the problems. It's a lot harder to accomplish but I think we're smart enough to find a way!

[ Top Image by Thomas Weißenfels ]

by Article19

The end of the year is always a jarring moment for us, here in TheLab™, because we realise that in spite of all the practical, financial and logistical data saying we shouldn't still exist here we are, lurking around like a black hole looking for a galaxy to swallow. As we approach year nine of our existence, six in the form of Article19, we undertake, as usual, our end of year review which will involve, as always, going over the stories of the year and poking fun at Judith Mackrell.

It all got off to a very strange start when it was revealed in January that Simone Clarke, a principal dancer with the English National Ballet, was a member of the British National Party (BNP), a far right political group here in the UK. Not since the audience got their knickers in a twist over Nijinsky's 'Rite of Spring' in 1913 have there been audience protests during a ballet performance. The Guardian, which broke the story, had a hissy fit, Ms Clarke had a lie down and the ENB's press office had kittens.

To further compound the issue Ms Clarke recently announced that she is marrying one of the leaders of the BNP _____________ , (his name escapes us but feel free to add your own in the space provided). We would helpfully suggest that Ms Clarke watches her step (har har Ed!) the next time she goes into the ENB press office!

Barmy Ballet

February rolled into view with another ballet company getting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Scottish Ballet, being a bit strapped for cash, decided to auction off some dinner dates with their dancers to raise money. To further emphasise just how classy this operation was the auction was run on eBay alongside used house bricks and other bits of useless tat. Many in the ballet world thought this was ok, many in the contemporary world wondered why Scottish Ballet was acting like a high priced escort service. The operation raised very little actual money, so no PR damage there then!

Also in February Article19 opened, and then closed some months later, The Film Room. It's was our attempt to have a place on the web for high quality, in technical terms, dance video. After receiving a tiny number of submissions (including two films which had nothing at all to do with dance) we decided to close it, sometimes things just don't work out!

Hilarity made its way into the arts in March when Arts Council England (ACE) decided to start asking people about their sexual orientation on their application forms. Our own EvilImp conjured up images of the conservatives hauling swathes of artists in for questioning as soon as the "pink" map of the UK was complete.

April brought the first gut punch of the year when ACE announced that Grants for the Arts (GFA) were being cut by 35%, or £29Million in real money, thanks to the Olympics. GFA covers one off grants mostly to small companies and new artists. ACE offered a range of excuses, none of which was very convincing, and declined to admit they were in any way responsible.

ACE continued along a path of obstructive behaviour when they refused to release evaluation reports, following a Freedom of Information request made by Article19, on the National Dance Agency Network in England. What were they trying to hide? Maybe one day we'll find out. If anybody at ACE has a grudge against their employer and access to a photocopier please feel free to get in touch.

The big boys in the subsidised arts sector were also getting in a muddle over money, this time it was the BBC and The Royal Opera House. In May the BBC ran a story mentioning a new £10Million donation from somebody with large sums of cash to give away. They decided to conveniently omit the reason they needed the money was because the previous donor, Alberto Vilar, is under indictment in the USA on charges of fraud. If convicted he faces over 100 years in prison (yikes, Ed!). We can't imagine why the ROH wouldn't wan that information in their press release. As for the BBC, it was just sloppy journalism.

Sad Day for Dance

August brought the very sad news that Tanja Liedtke, the newly named artistic director of Sydney Dance Company, died following a traffic accident in the early hours of the morning whilst out walking in Sydney, Australia. Ms Leidtke would have started working for the company in October, she was 30 years old.

Christopher Wheeldon and his new company Morphoses showed up in September to either take over the world or begin a whole new era of ballet, whichever came first. The reviews were mixed but Mr Wheeldon covered his butt by saying that whole "revolutionary ballet" thing would take several years to accomplish so if we wouldn't all mind backing off a little because he's a bit busy. Most of the folks we spoke to in the contemporary world had never heard of him and said they "wouldn't speak to him if they did". Ok, we said that but you get the idea.

We would normally throw in a sarcastic comment about Judith Mackrell here but I think we used them all up, any ideas?

The year has come to an end with ACE spoiling everybody's fun by announcing that 194 companies, count em', will be losing their funding from next year despite ACE itself not having its government funding cut at all. They have adopted a new mantra of "thrive not survive" (stop giggling at the back) which basically means they want to give fewer companies more money, sort of! You can understand the sentiment but you have to wonder why it took them 60 years to figure out that arts organsisations need a lot more that just "tick over" money to get things done. Perhaps they were too busy counting the number of gay people making funding applications!

The Important Stuff

If we were going to give this year a rating out of ten we would give it a very firm five! There has been some fantastic work being made but.........

The cuts to Grants for the Arts and the loss of funding to 194 organisations, 12 of them dance related, are without any doubt a body blow. Yes, 80 new companies will receive regular funding, 8 of them in dance, but these organisations are not interchangeable. Whatever your personal views of their work each company brings something unique to the mix and when they cease to exist, we're all worse off.

Over the last twelve months we have seen some stunning work from Jasmin Vardimon, Hofesh Shechter, Phoenix, Scottish Dance Theatre, Vincent Dance Theatre and from the new comers like All Play, Wired Aerial and the dancers from Verve were outstanding. The community performance sector (if you can call it that) was given a loud wake up call by the dancers taking part in MK RAW 2007. They proved that with a little time, commitment and a lot skill you can put out a fantastic show that is in no way patronising.

In these modern times dance and the arts in general are still burdened with overbearing language and an infrastructure that is responding to new technology and the internet at too slow a pace. Here in TheLab™ we genuinely believe that dance has the skills, imagination and strength to make other art forms lay down and cry like a baby, if the message is delivered in an effective way.

The mantra for 2008 should be; This is who we are and this is what we do!

Keeping it simple and not taking it too seriously is the way to go. Have a nice holiday, then get back to work!

by Article19

This coming November the Government will announce their, so-called, comprehensive spending review. This review will determine just how much money goes where from the national budget of approximately £500Billion.

Arts Council England has been fretting about this review to such an extent they have been slashing budgets and sounding the death throes of the arts for over a year now. Their primary cause for concern is the London Olympics in 2012. Just how much money the Government is going to divert from, among other things, the arts has been cause for much speculation.

Spending cuts, if they happen, will almost certainly lead to job losses and a reduction in opportunities for new artists to make work and build a career.

Let's just say the worst comes to the worst and the funding cuts are deep and long lasting. If that happens then a number of companies may well be pushed out of regular funding support and into the never ending, form filling, black hole of Grants For The arts applications. The number of job opportunities for dancers will slow to a trickle (at least less of a trickle than at present) and if we're not very much mistaken, the world will refrain from turning!

What would the reaction be from this particular profession were all that to happen?

It's hard to imagine the reaction would be anything more than muted disapproval followed by a fair amount of head shaking. Beyond that you really cannot visualise anything more biting and, dare we say, militant coming from the dance profession.

Despite the level of commitment, diligence, energy, intelligence and strength (both mental and physical) needed to keep it together in this business, fighting the bureaucratic machine is not something that comes easy to professional dancers.

It really is very difficult to understand why.

Gnawing Doubt

Of course it's easy for us, Article19, to get away with criticising, berating and even humiliating those that cause so many problems for the dance profession. They can't do anything to us, there is no revenge they can enact, we have no table for them to thump their collective fist upon.

We don't receive any funding from anybody, there is no board of directors to satisfy and no patronage to guarantee. We are the proverbial "loose cannon" and we don't have to answer to anybody except our readers. It really is rather good fun when you think about it.

Yes, there are rats gnawing on the power cables around our crumbling Lab™ and eating baked beans on toast is getting a little old but at least we have our freedom.

Dancers face many of the same issues. They have very little in the way of real support, they are very poorly paid, have no health insurance, no job security and are treated like a commodity by more than a few dance makers. Short of eating beans on toast all the time and sharing a residence with big furry rodents, dancers are pretty much in the same boat we are.

All of which begs the question; Why are they being so polite?

Get Mad, Get Even

Here in TheLab™ we struggle to imagine what more this profession could possibly do to so comprehensively piss-off the very people who are required to make the thing work properly.

We're not talking about dishing dirt on dance companies or choreographers, unless that dirt happens to be something unethical or illegal. What we're talking about is openly voicing your concerns, frustration and well founded points that all too often this business is run with all the professionalism of a Butlin's talent competition.

When your local National Dance Agency is ignoring you for no other reason than the Artistic Director is acting like a buffoon then kick up a fuss. If Arts Council England, or any other funding bureaucracy for that matter, is asking you to supply the same information over and over again, simply to justify their existence, then raise hell about it.

If you actually have a job and the teaching programme is a piece of worthless, condescending trash, then politely point out the situation and suggest that those responsible change their strategy.

When a dance company is holding secret auditions in secret places and then fails to let you know whether or not you actually got that low paid job in their particularly crap piece of work then do tell. Don't just tell us, tell them, tell their funding providers, tell other dancers.

There are a thousand more issues we could point out, but you get the picture.

You're not causing a ruckus out of spite, you're causing a ruckus because the problems mentioned above are all too real and chip away at the resilience you need to keep doing the job. Allowing the cretins who make your life a misery to get away with the crime scot free is only going to make things, wait for it, worse!

Repercussions

Apparently, as Article19 has learned, nobody likes a "complainer". Being liked however is slightly overrated and is not a reliable indicator of respect or having any actual skill or talent.

Raising your voice may well bring you some unwanted attention and there might be some repercussions from the subject of you ire. But what you have to ask yourself is this; What can "they" really do to you?

The arts is not a spy novel. You're not going to get "rubbed out" by some faceless henchman from ACE and there probably isn't a wide reaching conspiracy to keep the little guy down and mess up the career of anybody who dares to voice an opposing opinion.

We know this because to do so would require a level of operational sophistication that is simply beyond Arts Council England, Scottish Arts Council or the others. We did it again, we just called them stupid and the world keeps on turning.

Sure, calling out a dance company for their shortcomings will almost certainly mean you won't ever work for them again. But why would you want to?

We also shouldn't think of raising issues as nothing more than a road to confrontation. Organisations and individuals alike do not enjoy being told they are wrong or have problems but most of the time a little tough love is the only way to make them listen.

Real debate and discussion go hand in hand with practical problem solving and the arts has more than its fair share of practical problems to solve.

The people in charge need to be pulled out of their comfort zone and the only way that is going to happen is if dancers make them really, really uncomfortable.

[ top image by Paul Morley ]

by Neil Nisbet

If the press hacks are to be believed dance is, once again, undergoing a resurgence of popularity with the advent of numerous 'reality' television shows featuring dance as their premise that have appeared on a number of networks, worldwide over the last few years.

We have dance shows featuring famous people, dance shows featuring hopeless people, we even have dance shows on ice, with famous and hopeless people. If the hacks are to be believed, these shows are causing an upswing in the popularity of dance across the world. Finally, this art form is getting some global attention!

It's not really the kind of attention you want though, is it?

You Think You Can Dance?

Two of the most popular shows, in the USA at least, are 'Dancing with the Stars' and 'So You Think You Can Dance?' For this particular editorial let's focus on 'So You Think You Can Dance?' and see just how much these shows are actually about, you know, dance!

If you have never seen this particular cultural revolution then allow me to enlighten you. The basic premise is this. Thousands of dancers, both amateur and professional, attend open auditions in various US states. They perform a one minute solo, choreographed by the dancer, followed by a short discussion with the three judges (Nigel Lythgoe, Mary Murphy and a random "Guest Judge").

The judges will either wax lyrical about the abilities of the dancer or go into "cruel bastard" mode and humiliate the poor unfortunate who was ill advised enough to put themselves through this particular meat grinder.

Within these two minute "audition" segments we have the first real problem with the show. It is inevitable that if you put trained, professional dancers alongside an obviously overweight young woman with no experience whatsoever, as was the case for one segment, the results will be, to put it mildly, catastrophic.

At no point does anyone connected to the programme make a reasoned judgment and say "no" when it will be blatantly obvious from reading their application information that they have little to no experience in the field and shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the stage or the cameras.

Of course; the reason they are allowed onto the stage is to create cannon fodder for the television audience to laugh at and nothing more. These particular contestants also provide easy prey for the judges, many of whom appear to have created "choreography" for Britney Spears.

Every single scene of the show is edited to within an inch of its life to maximise the emotional pain being inflicted upon the unwary victims.

Even after they leave the stage the participants are not left alone. One girl, following an on stage confrontation with the judges where she was, metaphorically, beaten to a pulp, was followed into an elevator, as she cried her eyes out, by a camera operator to further compound her pain and humiliation.

Further Down The Line

Following the audition stage the show moves to Las Vegas, of all places, where the ranks of dancers are put through another round of auditions under the guise of a call back process where they are whittled down to the final twenty performers.

This entire process takes about four episodes to complete, each episode is one hour long. The remaining twenty episodes of the show are used to reduce the number of dancers as slowly as possible, using a combination of judges decisions and phone voting. The eventual winner receives a $250,000 cash prize (before taxes) and a 200 word mention on the news.

The exploitative antics in evidence with this programme should come as no surprise when you look at who the creators are.

Nigel Lythgoe is a judge/producer who worked his way up through the ranks of television after a stint as the choreographer on the Muppet Show (I'm not making this up!) He is also a former producer of such television highlights as Gladiators, Pop Idol and Blind Date along with the British version of Survivor.

Simon Fuller, another Executive Producer, is the man behind making the Spice Girls and S Club 7 popular and more recently brokered deals for football "star" David Beckham. There have been many accusations over the years that Mr Fuller raked in millions from his music endeavours while the actual protagonists received relatively little in the way of financial reward. Accusations that he has denied.

Together they are the co-creators of an entire genre of reality fame, including the most popular of them all 'American Idol'.

The prize money on offer to the winner of 'So You Think You Can Dance' and the meager production cost associated with making the show, and others like it, are nothing compared to the millions in advertising, endorsement and phone-in revenue generated for the broadcaster (in this case Fox Television) and the production companies.

Over the last six years American Idol alone has generated revenues estimated to be in the region of (US)$2.5Billion. The ultimate prize for those taking part, if they win, is a small price to pay for producers.

No matter the source material of the show, the same mantra applies. Big money for the producers, small reward for the participants.

What About The Dance?

Supporters of these programmes argue that they place dance front and center in the minds of those who watch and also encourage them to go out and participate in dance classes. There is little evidence to support these claims however.

What about the on screen quality of the choreography and dancing you say?

In the latter stages of the season, viewers are often treated to some of the most ham fisted attempts at dance making you could possibly imagine. While it is obvious that the dancers have a great deal of skill the limitations of the format and the desire to show off big moves often leaves artistic integrity in the gutter.

Someone really needs to point out to these guys that grasping your heart, flinging your head back and pumping your fists into the air does not equate to an illustration of emotion!

Not a piece of dance gets on the stage without split jumps, box splits, developpe's or jazz pirouettes being thrown in, irrespective of the theme. The girls are usually in nothing but hot pants and bras and everybody has bright white teeth and shiny lip balm, even the judges. We breathlessly await the first instance of "jazz hands"!

This show is a primary school dance competition in High Definition with all the artistic sophistication of YouTube, Big Brother and the Crazy Frog ring tone combined.

'So You Think You Can Dance?' and its ilk are exercises, initially, in humiliation for those clearly deluded enough to go on national television in the mistaken belief they stand a chance of progressing. The viewing public look on as if rubber necking a pile up on the motorway.

Later in the season the show degenerates further into pantomime as the judges play the bad guy to the dancer's Lone Ranger. The television audience, just as culpable as everybody else in this sham, respond by jeering at the bad guys and voting for their favourite for no other reason than to prove the judges wrong. As we all know, when it comes to a coherent "group think" television audiences that make phone votes really do know what's best!

Overall, a genre of television has created the desire to obtain fame and fortune, and perhaps notoriety, over excelling in your chosen profession with integrity, diligence and a bit of class.

Trash!

Such programming should not be held up as a shining beacon of hope for this profession because it allegedly gets people to attend dance classes. These shows should be treated with contempt and mocked for being the exploitative, ill conceived trash that they are.

By allowing professional and untrained dancers to audition the producers of this programme are universally deriding the entire profession as one that doesn't require years to master and more years to hone to a fine point. You can just show up, do some moves and hey presto you're in! Except you're not because the professionals will make you look stupid.

Using the reasoning of this programme, if a job opens up for a specialist in rocket propulsion at NASA then I should feel free to apply. I know nothing about jet propulsion of course and any rocket I designed would explode immediately and many would be killed in the fireball. That hardly matters though because the interview would be hilarious as I mangled my way through an explanation of rocket fuel and how it will go boom when it's mixed with matches.

Why not make that into a TV show? They could call it 'So You Think You Know Astrophysics' and it would encourage countless thousands of people to go to university and study rocket science. Except it wouldn't, would it?

Dance is not just something you can show up and "do". You can if you're going to a wedding but not if you're going to do it in front of other people and ask them to pay money for the privilege of watching you. So why do we let it go when Fox or the BBC say it's ok?

The producers, viewers and participants share the blame in equal measure but ultimately the viewers have the power.

If you don't watch they will stop making them in a heart beat. If you want good dance goto the theatre. If you want this profession to have some integrity stop selling it down the river because Messrs. Fuller and Lythgoe wave a dollar bill in front of your face.

[ Photo by Andy Brown ]

by Neil Nisbet

"If a professional dancer makes just one wrong move in class, in rehearsal or on stage it could, literally, be the end of their career." That was the opening line to a feature piece written back in April within this very tome. Just last week this became all too real as our cameras caught just such an incident taking place during a live performance.

The resulting injury, a broken bone in the dancers right foot, is not too serious and the National Health Service(NHS), on this occasion, has risen to the challenge and administered relatively speedy treatment. Unfortunately, the dancer in question will be out of action for the next month or two as the break heals and the physiotherapy begins. Whether or not the required physiotherapy will be available on the NHS remains uncertain.

Incidents like this bring into sharp focus the complete lack of specialists health care available to dancers without private health insurance. Dancers expect to get injured. Some of the time those injuries are minor and some of the time those injuries are major and need immediate attention and, in some instances, long term specialized care to ensure a full recovery for the dancer.

Uncertainty comes in the form of hours waiting around in NHS hospitals hoping that the person who is treating you is sympathetic to the nature of a dancers profession and will take appropriate action with regard to treatment. Further questions about recuperation and physiotherapy come later.

Special or Not?

Some may ask what makes professional dancers so special that they require advanced medical care either on the NHS or through private medical care providers? The answer is simple! Professional dancers are special. They are special because the very nature of what they do puts them at risk of serious injury almost every day. Unlike, for example, a bank teller they cannot continue working with their leg in plaster.

When dancers are injured the complexities involved in fixing their particular physiological problem are also very different from that required by the bank teller. Unless injuries are healed properly and the balance restored to the dancers body an injured body part can lead to over compensation in other body parts, which in turn, leads to further injuries. A domino effect of physical issues can stem from the most minor of problems.

Even if someone working in a "normal job" requires time off work for medical reasons the chances are they will have access to sick pay for the time they miss. Most dancers will have no such luxury, if they don't work they don't make money, end of story.

It is suitably ironic that dancers are so badly paid that just 7% of them, in the contemporary profession, cannot afford private medical care to cover them in times of injury.

These issues make the speedy and effective recovery of the dancer from injury of paramount importance.

Inert NDA

A quick glance around the websites of the National Dance Agency Network will show a complete absence of any information with regard to professional dancers health issues. There is some information, of course, concerning using dance as a method of improving the health of those in the "community". Government funded organisations would be nothing without their hollow claims about "community" involvement.

There is just one organisation that seems to take this issue seriously and that is Dance UK. As we reported in April they are attempting to establish "The National Centre for Dance Health and Performance" to provide health care to professional dancers.

DanceUK's plan is to treat dancers the same way we treat elite athletes, recognising that they are working within a unique profession that requires specialist attention when things go wrong. Attention that is, for the most part, lacking via the traditional GP/NHS combination in this country.

Using DanceUK's own figures it would cost just £400,000 per year to provide medical insurance for more than 800 professional dancers, granting them access to the British Olympic Association's "Athlete Medical Scheme". That's just 1/20th of the cost of building a new NDA building or the annual salaries of 10 National Dance Agency directors.

DanceUK is attempting to raise money to run a pilot project covering 100 dancers along with extensive research on the treatment and recovery patterns of dancers who are injured during the research period. The hope is that after the pilot project is complete the full programme will develop to cover hundreds more professional dancers in the UK.

Arts Council England's new Director of National Strategy, Janet Archer, should make this project a priority for full funding. Doing so would do much to deflect criticism of ACE that all they care about are ticking boxes.

It is a disgrace that in 2007 there is no practical recognition that professional dancers require specialist health care. Treating them like bricklayers or shopkeepers is an insult to the very nature of the profession. They don't deserve health care more than anyone else in this country they just deserve a different type of health care. One that recognises that they are different, that they are unique.

Professional dancers being cast aside like broken toys when they are injured needs to stop and sufficient resources and money need to be put in place to make that happen. Dancers are not interchangeable machines that can simply be ripped out of the mechanism when they no longer work properly.

[ Top Image by SGame ]