Too Much
Wednesday, 16 May, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
Akram Khan thinks that the arts have been "fed" too much money according to an interview he did with the Daily Telegraph back in February, an article lost in the murky depths of random arts coverage in the newspapers.
The full quote is;
"Khan says he has noticed, in his conversations with arts commissioners around the world, that economic confidence is seeping away; people are cautious in committing money to the arts. He describes this as unnerving, but not necessarily bad. "It's really tricky now but it is also a good time because I think the arts have been fed too much money. It is important to start from restrictions again. I think there needs to be a tension and that tension was getting less and less."
Curiously Mr Khan disagrees, in the same article, that spending £27Million on the opening ceremony for the Olympic Games is too much money. Perhaps that's because he's involved in that ceremony and almost certainly being paid quite well into the bargain.
Perhaps Mr Khan is speaking from his relatively privileged position of being well supported by ACE (£225,000 per annum), Sadler's Wells Theatre and lot's of international promoters and, of course, LOCOG.
The venerable dance maker may also be aware of some hitherto undiscovered world where all professional dancers and in full time employment, where jobs are plentiful and free, instantaneous health care abounds. DanceUK has probably just been exaggerating about all that injury stuff for years now.
As for all those choreographers and dance companies squeezing the last ounce of worth from every penny they can get, they're probably just crying wolf all the time, they've obviously had it too easy for too long.
For now though let's look beyond the somewhat ill-advised comments and think about the virtues of struggle for a moment. That is after all what Mr Khan appears to be talking about here, it's good to struggle, because when you make things hard, then you make things good. Right?
In some ways that is probably true. If everything comes too easily then you can, perhaps, become complacent, lazy and just expect everything to be given to you without question. Ask the Royal Opera House, they know all about that.
But for professional dancers and dance companies the "struggle" is already there and it always has been, especially for the dancers. Getting through the training is the first big hurdle that dancers have to overcome, a struggle, in this country at least, that just got a whole lot harder thanks to large increases in tuition fees and the subsequent debt problems that will bring.
Once you graduate you're dealing with a freelance career, few jobs, poor pay and the ever present risk of injury.
Putting funding to one side, there are plenty of struggles to be had. If we're comparing resilience, the ability to cope with stress and mental strength between a professional dancer and an average "joe public" we think we know which one would come out on top.
There are barriers aplenty, we don't need to add more to the mix. Things might be easy for some, but they are the exception, not the rule. The main issue with public funding of the arts is not about "too much" money but the fact that what money there is is far too narrowly focused on large scale organisations.
Large scale organisation like The Curve in Leicester, co-sponsors of Mr Khan's work 'Desh', that needed more than £1Million in Sustain funding from ACE to support a potentially failing organisation. Sadler's Wells, also co-sponsors of 'Desh' needed £720,000 in Sustain funding to support, ironically, the commisioning of new work on top of the more that £2Million per year they already receive from ACE.
We wonder if Mr Khan was referring to those organisations with regard to his "fed too much money" comment.
At no point in the Telegraph piece does either the journalist or Mr Khan detail his plans to repay the more than £1Million of public money invested thus far in his company.
ACE Doesn't Get It
Monday, 23 April, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
On March 29 Arts Council England (ACE) announced provisional approval for some grants for "capital development" to be awarded to organisations all over England to improve or modify their apparently ramshackle facilities.
At the very top of the list,as you would expect, were the big organisations. The National Theatre with £17.5Million, The Southbank Centre at £20Million, The Royal Opera House for £10Million and perpetual purveyors of low pay for dancers at the English National Opera for a cool £2.1Million.
Other "regional theatres" will be given proposed amounts of, for example, £12Million at the Chichester Festival Theatre.
At the other end of the scale we have folks like South East Dance being awarded £925,000 so they can build "a purpose built internationally significant dance facility in Brighton". We feel sure that they mean building a dance studio, the "internationally significant" part is what you put in an application form to get money.
Vermin
The reaction to these awards from some quarters was, as you would expect, vicious to the point of being extreme, even by our standards.
Theatre director Max Stafford-Clark described Arts Council via the Guardian, as "absolute vermin". He went on;
"I feel extremely bitter about the Arts Council," he said. "They produced an expensive pamphlet called Excellence for All in late 2010 and then instituted a policy which means excellence only for London and a few rich bastards in the country."
Viscous it may be but his point has a great deal of merit, the numbers don't lie after all.
Alan Davey, ACE CEO and an individual dubbed "the man of a thousand excuses", trotted out the usual explanations in defence of the funding monoliths latest PR calamity. He told The Guardian;
"The capital programme is about refurbishment or adding things to existing buildings - it was always a different kind of money, if you like. You can't use lottery money for continuing investments - it's got to be for projects or one-off payments, so it's not a direct comparison."
Beyond the numbers though there is a larger point to be made and it is a simple point, ACE just doesn't get it.
Changing The Rules
Mr Davey is correct in stating that lottery money cannot be used in the same way as money received via the government. The only thing stopping them from using the money differently however are the rules. So why not change the rules?
We asked ACE that very simple question, have they asked the DCMS to change the rules, to which they responded;
"With our lottery income predicted to rise we have developed more flexible ways of using our Lottery income which sit within the existing guidelines.This includes our Strategic funds, such as our Capital, Catalyst, or our Audience Focused fund. We can also use lottery funds within the National Portfolio for very specific strands of work such as touring and work with children and young people.
We haven't to date sought a change because we are broadly content with the legislative and directions that currently exist. We, with the other lottery distributors, are in regular dialogue with DCMS officials and ministers on matters relating to the lottery."
In his statement to the Guardian Mr Davey opined that the rules on lottery funding have tied his hands, but then the press flacks claim that ACE are very much "content" with the way things are.
The funding monolith continues to bleat about the lack of money, how they are struggling through hard times like everybody else and trying the best they can. However, all this struggling doesn't appear to be stopping them from handing out huge sums of money, just shy of £50Million for four organisations in London, if they all make it through the second round of applications.
Over the next three years ACE is expected to grant over £440Million for capital funding.
Such lavish spending comes as the new financial year kicks in and hundreds of small arts organisations face a struggle to survive after their regular funding was cut because of a "lack of money".
Rudderless
During a conversation with a dance company director the subject of Rambert Dance Company's new building came up. Funded to the tune of £7million, the company director suggested the funding in the current climate was happening because the decision to award the money was made before the global financial crisis took hold.
A financial crisis that gave our delightful government the political cover to enact their calamitous funding cuts.
Whether or not that is the case it perhaps encapsulates the fundamental problem with ACE very neatly indeed. This lumbering beast of an organisation simply cannot or will not react to current issues quickly enough or smartly enough to be considered fit for the purpose for which it is intended.
Remember, ACE is "content" with the way lottery money can be used. Apparently because it provides them with sufficient cover to look after their friends in shiny places and also furnishes them with a convenient excuse when the masses cry foul.
Simply requesting a change of the rules so they can fund organisations on a regular basis if the amount requested is below £100,000 or even £50,000, a National Portfolio Lite if you will, is apparently beyond the group think at ACE central.
A funding programme like that would have saved a lot of hurt for small scale organisations and would have, perhaps, provided a path way for even more versatile small groups to get some financial stability.
Instead what we have is Tony Hall, CEO of the Royal Opera House and recipient of a £400,000 annual pay packet, bleating in the press about how ROH either gets the money or the sky will fall. Or some such nonsense.
In a further statement, ACE denied being completely useless, or at least they would if we asked them because who would admit to such a thing?
No Pulse
Monday, 26 March, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
At the moment Arts Council England, along with many others with a vested interest, are talking up all things "digital" in the search for mass popularity of the arts and culture.
One programme, run by ACE in conjuction with the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) (holy acronym pile up Batman! Ed!) has spawned the "Pulse" application from the London Symphony Orchestra.
What?
"Pulse" is the LSO's outreach programme for students, offering discounted tickets for a range of performances by the orchestra, all for £6.
As well as buying tickets you can also leave feedback about the shows you have seen, listen to a short excerpt from a show you might want to see and earn "reward" points. These points can be traded in for certain gifts and like all such "reward" schemes, the more points you have the better your free gift.
When you actually purchase a ticket what you get, instead of a piece of paper, is a "QR" code saved to your phone with complete details of your seat and the date and time of the show.
Presumably when you rock up to the theatre on the night the hapless usher will have to scan your phone to let you in.
The "Pulse" programme itself is available universally, not just through this mobile application.
So Far So What?
That's all there is to it. You can buy tickets, leave feedback and get some free stuff. Apparently this is, for reasons past understanding, innovative!
All is not well however if you dig a little deeper. Nobody here in TheLab™ is a student, and hasn't been for a very long time. That didn't stop us signing up for "Pulse" and getting full access to the app itself.
To get an access code all you have to do is fill in a form, state the name of your university or college and that's it. When you show up to the theatre they may ask to check your ID but that's an old world solution to a new world problem.
The ticket prices for a show in London are very good, but if you want to buy one via this app then you need a PayPal account. You can't just plug your credit card details in and get your ticket.
As far as we could determine there was no way to sign up for a PayPal account from within the app, even if you wanted to.
Rewarding
If you do actually manage to buy a ticket you will be given reward points, 25 for each ticket. Build up enough of these and you can have a range of free gifts for your efforts.
The starter gift is a free month of Spotify, the online music service. 100 points, or 4 tickets, gets you 4 weeks of "Spotify Unlimited", worth an eye watering £4.99.
At the time of writing however there are only 3 shows available to book, one shy of your free gift, so you might be waiting a while.
For the most dedicated ticket buyer a trip to Paris (for one) awaits for 2000 points which will only take 80 tickets or £480 to acquire. Which is great if you want to go to Paris all on your own and let us not forget the "Pulse" project is for students, the guys spending £9000 per year on tuition.
Call Me A Conclusion
Over all this app feels like half an idea, if that. It's exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a large arts organisation where everything is about selling tickets and nothing is about the actual art.
The convenience of using a native application to book tickets is lost because you can't use a regular credit card, you have to go through PayPal to use your regular credit card. If an application is a hassle, then it has failed the user and will, in all probability, be deleted.
We also have an issue with incentivising buying tickets by giving away free stuff, however nondescript that free stuff may be. When you buy a ticket to a show the "reward" is getting to see the show, not some cheap trinket or money off vouchers. You're selling art here, not multi-packs of toilet roll.
If the LSO doesn't feel like attending a performance is good enough to entice people through the doors for just £6 a ticket they might as well pack away their violins and go home.
This native application offers nothing you can't do through the LSO's website where we presume you can just use your credit card to buy tickets and also collect your points.
The only thing that ACE, NESTA and the AHRC have achieved here is to spend money for the effect, the effect of making it look like something "digital" is helping the arts.
Rating this app out of 10 we give it an Epic Fail!
LSO Pulse is available for iPhone, Android, Blackberry and Windows Phone 7, we tested the iPhone version.
Please!
Wednesday, 21 March, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
Throughout the day yesterday (Tuesday 20th March) Article19, as is our want, was commenting on the latest Digital Capacity building seminar hosted by The Big Bad (Arts Council England).
As we're not invited to such things (previous press access requests have been turned down) all we can do is comment from afar using Twitter alongside the "hashtag" #digicaparts. The sum total of our "tweets" on the subject was 9.
At about 10pm yesterday evening the following tweet dropped on us from Marcus Romer, the AD of Pilot Theatre, speaker for #digicaparts and a recipient of funding for ACE's new "digital" project 'The Space'.
.@Article19 are you just a troll or as (sic) cyberbully? http://t.co/ckawNcbp interested to hear from your real name btw :)
First, a small explanation of Twitter tech. The prefix "." in front of our Twitter name means the tweet is visible to all of Mr Romer's followers. If the tweet starts with the "@" symbol then only we would see it.
The "t.co" link is just a web link shortener used by Twitter to save space, 140 characters doesn't leave a whole lot of room for detail.
As for the link itself? Well, that led us to a page on the BBC's iPlayer and a programme called "The Anti Social Network". The BBC describes the programme thus;
"Richard Bacon attempts to track down and confront three cyberbullies, one of whom has targeted him with an obsessive tirade of anonymous online abuse over the previous two years."
Wait, what? 9 tweets on a digital capacity building seminar and suddenly we're "obsessive" and mounting a "tirade of anonymous online abuse?", say it 'aint so.
One of the messages we posted was as follows;
reading the posts about #digicaparts makes your brain melt, it's all buzzwords and nothing else!
Shortly after we posted that message a Twitter user, presumably at the event, posted this message;
"#digicaparts Permission, Purpose, Passion, Platforms, Piracy - rock that boat, PLAY! The new 5p's of #digitalarts"
When Article19, somewhat sarcastically, pointed out that the "new 5P's" was actually 6 the user in question mentioned that they were simply repeating what Mr Romer had said at the conference.
So, when we pointed out to Mr Romer that @Article19 was not a personal account and no names would be forthcoming he doubled down;
".@Article19 people tweet so fess up who is tweeting now #trolls http://t.co/ckawNcbp"
and
"@Article19 so give the name of the person tweeting from your account then? #troll"
We provided both our telephone number and email address and linked to our about page which names the people who write for or have written for Article19 in the past, along with the name of our editor. Mr Romer was encouraged to call us if he wished to speak to us about our Twitter account. He declined to do so.
The conversation rattled along, never raising in volume above a gentle roar, until eventually all was silent. Mr Romer has since deleted most of his tweets to us from his timeline.
Bigger Issues
We mention all of this because there are some important points to make.
First of all Article19 is not anonymous, we are right here, right in front of you. We have a phone number that you can call so you can speak to us in person if you choose to do so. We have email accounts, a Facebook page, a forum, comments and of course our Twitter account.
If Article19 writes something about your work, your company, your project or a nonsensical "digital capacity" seminar then you have an absolute right to reply. You can do it right on our own website if you choose to do so and we will even allow you to do it anonymously.
We do not and we will not hide from anybody. Article19 will say the same things to you in person that we say to you online. We will listen to your position and we will defend our position and we will also defend our right to speak out on any issue that we choose on any and all mediums available to us.
Yes, we are sarcastic, we are satirical, we do poke fun at people and organisations and we absolutely call into question the methods and motivations of people who spend public money on things that have, for want of a better word, dubious merits.
That's our job though, it's what we are supposed to do. It's what sets us apart from The Dancing Times, Dance Europe and all the others, it's why a lot of people visit Article19 and follow us on Twitter and Facebook, because they want something different, they want something that is about something.
What our readers don't want are puff pieces on petulant ballet dancers quitting their job because they don't like getting out of bed in the morning.
Article19 is a lot of things, but a "bully" and a "troll", say it with us dear readers ".......PLEASE!"
Notes To The Account
Tuesday, 21 February, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
A wise man once said you never really know an organisation until you know their numbers. We can't remember who that was but we promise you, that is not something we just made up because we couldn't think of an intro for this piece!
With that in mind we took a stroll through the accounts of several well known dance organisations, much like we did a year ago just before the NPO announcements were made, to bring you, our dear readers, just a small insight into where all the money goes.
These numbers all relate to the end of the financial year for 2011, March 31st last year to be precise. The actual accounts don't become available, via the Charities Commission, until much later however. In some cases the accounts were not filed until January of this year.
Big Company Big Numbers
Let's start with the big companies shall we. Birmingham Royal Ballet (BRB) spent £14.2Million on productions, touring and education with £8.1Milliion of that money coming from the big bad ACE. Along with funding from Birmingham City Council, their core public funding made up 66% of their total income down from 71% the year before.
They also raised £270,000 from trusts and foundations with their most generous benefactor being the Garfield Weston Foundation who handed over £150,000 in cold hard cash.
BRB spent £7.3Million on staff costs with a total permanent staff number of 175, they brought in £2.6Million at the box office and ended the year with an accumulated surplus of just under £1.5Million. 20 of their staff members earn more that £60,000 per year with two lucky souls earning more than £100,000 per year.
Rambert Dance Company, using a slightly more modest £2.2Million from ACE, sold 46,000 tickets to their shows for the year and ended up with a nice little surplus of £194,851. The tickets numbers are impressive, which they should be because they spent nearly £400,000 on marketing. They also spent £95,000 on fundraising and nobody at the company earns more than £60,000 per year.
The other big touring ballet company English National Ballet performed to 239,000 people during the year with a foundation built on £6.8Million from ACE. To achieve those numbers they spent a staggering £1Million on marketing the company which is an awful lot of Nutcracker posters!
They do have a rather healthy surplus of over £4Million but this didn't stop ACE giving them a Sustain grant of £350,000 to alleviate their alleged financial hardship. The company has 6 employees earning more than £60,000 per year with just one on more than £100,000. That's down from 2 the previous year, so somebody took a pay cut.
Agencies
In the wacky world of the dance agency we looked at DanceXchange, Dance City and Dance East.
DX spent £838,035 producing the International Dance Festival Birmingham. They brought in £42,000 from hiring out their studios and £16,000 hiring out the Patrick Centre (their in-house theatre). They spent £142,000 on performances and workshops and £518,000 on wages and salaries.
They like to talk because they handed over £22,482 on "communications and information technology" which we think is a long way of saying the phone bill and the internet bill.
It cost them £74,000 to light and heat their building, up slightly on the year before, but they cut their costs on printing and postage spending just £4,252 instead of £7,980 from the previous year. Marketing costs went up though from £32,000 to £36,967.
Travel also got more expensive with a £7,000 increase from £12,000 to £19,000. DX spent £7,000 on repairing things.
Dance City, the NDA based in Newcastle upon Tyne, spent more than £45,000 fixing and replacing parts of their broken building. They spent just shy of £50,000 the year before fixing things, their building is apparently made out of cardboard.
The NDA brought in £25,000 from their box office and £196,461 from classes and workshops. £36,000 was expended on advertising and £10,800 on travel and accommodation. Cleaning their fragile home cost £37,000 and wages and salaries £304,513.
Dance City did save a lot on postage and printing this time around though with £12,683 finding its way to the Royal Mail and various print shops down from a staggering £42,783 the year before.
Providing light and heat cost the agency just over £35,000.
Dance East, when they are not running rural retreats, are spending £145,000 on "artists fees" and £80,000 on accommodation and travel. They brought in £75,000 from ticket sales and £97,000 from classes and workshops.
Just like Dance City they managed to cut their postage and printing costs dramatically by more than £70,000 from the year before to £27,000 for printing and £18,000 for postage. Phone and internet cost them £21,000.
Either email is catching on or we're running out of trees!
Paying their teachers cost them £142,000 up by approximately £40,000 from the year before.
The agency's in house cafeteria, Dance Eats (geddit!) made a trading loss of £63,155. Notes in the accounts state that changes have been made to the running of this facility though and a small profit is now being made, no numbers are specified.
None of the agencies pay any of their employees more than £60,00 per year, apart from ThePlace that still has two earning more than that amount.
Notes To The Account
We present these numbers to you because, more often than not, most people are completely unaware of just how much money is flowing through these organisations over the course of a year.
The accounts are freely available via the Charities Commission website for any company that is a registered charity, which is all of them.
We encourage you to download and study the numbers because you never know just how useful they might be the next time Company A tells you they don't have any money to pay you properly which might be down to their very expensive phone bills.
Priorities
Monday, 13 February, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
As you may or may not know State of the Arts kicks off tomorrow in Manchester with the great and the not so good gathering for a good old wagging of the chin and not much else.
Just in-case any of those in attendance grow a conscience and are looking for a talking point then may we suggest this, welcome to poster Mondays.
If you are not looking for a talking point then please print out and keep the alternate poster below, because you're worth it.
Compliance
Tuesday, 31 January, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
click image to enlarge
'State of the Arts', the annual Arts Council England bun fight that seeks to achieve absolutely nothing and does so admirably and with enthusiasm is back.
We, here in TheLab™, have not been invited, we might get argumentative juices on the carpet, so we made a poster instead.
Welcome, to poster Wednesdays.
Second Class
Tuesday, 24 January, 2012 | Comment | Make A Comment
It's cold outside, it's raining, the holidays are over and the global economy is sinking into the mud. So it must be time for the National Dance Awards, held annually in London by the Critics Circle, a group of people who have nothing to do with the Magic Circle, which is a shame. (that joke is never going away is it? Ed!)
We won't bother taking you through the runners and riders. Safe to say that the people you think were nominated for these things and the people who won these things are exactly the people you would expect to be both nominated and to win these things.
Except for one! This particular award was presented to Protein Dance in the category of "Best Independent Company". Now, the question that most naturally springs to mind for you, our dear readers, and for us, here in TheLab™, is "what the hell is an independent dance company?"
So we asked the magic circle Critics Circle (CC) that very question. A spokesperson told us that classifying this particular award gave them much pause for thought. The CC don't think the name is very good and it might change but the name of the award has nothing to do with the size of the company, or how much funding they get.
The award is also not about the size of venues the company performs in or whether or not they have their own "home" venue.
We know this for certain because at least two of the nominees in the "Outstanding Company" category (English National Ballet and Richard Alston Dance Company) don't have their own venue.
You might argue that The Robin Howard Theatre, at ThePlace, is the home of RADC but that would be foolish because they almost certainly think of themselves as a mid to large scale venue kind of company and the Robin Howard is most definitely a small-scale venue.
The next question that springs to mind is why are there two awards for "best" company at all? Yes, one award uses the word "outstanding" but that's just a posh way of saying "best". Isn't a dance company just "a dance company"?
Once again the CC struggled to differentiate between the two categories. There was some discussion about the, now defunct, "foreign company" category but that didn't really make a lot of sense since Protein, and all the other nominees in the "best" category are UK based.
Not Making Sense
So what are we to make of this strange categorisation? We can only surmise that the CC considers the companies in the "best" category to be, somehow, less than the companies in the "outstanding" category. As far as they are concerned the "best independent company" is more than the scruffy lot at Resolution but not as good as the ENB or RADC, dancing in pyjamas lot (and we say that with love, honest!)
The thought of moving the four companies from the "best" category into the upper echelons of the "outstanding" category was simply too much to bear for the CC. You can't put the street urchins from Protein or Tilted up there with the tutus and tiara mob so we'll just invent a fictitious category of dance company to keep them happy.
Many dancing folk inside the wacky world of dance would find it completely hilarious that the work of Protein and Maresa Von Stockert could't compete with RADC never mind the cartoonish antics at ENB or the Mariinsky.
What is it For?
Another point of contention with this award category comes down to why it is awarded in the first place. Protein did not win for a particular piece of work. That award went to Akram Khan for 'Vertical Road'. Since Protein don't make cars or computer software then, presumably, the award is being given for the work they make.
Surely if the company is the "best" at something, independent or not, then they should also be nominated and win for "best modern choreography", no?
Bizarrely, Protein did get a nomination for 'LOL' in the "best modern choreography" category but Akram Khan was not nominated in the "best independent company" category.
Are we to believe that Protein won for the quality of their administration, their ability with get-ins or the post show talks perhaps? If not then give them their bloody award for best choreography and be done with it!
Perhaps the problem is that Akram Khan might be good at making work but he drops the ball completely when it comes to filing the paperwork.
We can only speculate.
Those Women
Finally, we note that women only won in categories that specifically stated the recipient had to be female. No female dance makers were nominated in either best modern or best classical categories. Make of that what you will but considering the above, is it really that much of a surprise to learn that the Critics Circle and its rusty old members are completely out of touch with reality?
Dance™
Thursday, 12 January, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
A long time ago, in a piece of writing far far away we, here in TheLab™, made a lot of fun of the Rural Retreats project being run by Dance East, one of the UK's National Dance Agencies.
In defiance of all logical reasoning the project is still running and the latest "retreat" wrapped up on January 8th after 3 days of hard talking.
This time the collective brain trust of dance "leaders" have come to the conclusion that dance needs to be re-branded in order to free itself, so they say, from "dance form fragmentation".
Let's be clear from the offset, we have no ******* idea what that means!
Dance East themselves were unable to comment on the whole re-branding idea either since the report from the retreat is not yet available. Also, some of the participants don't want their particular views on this matter released to the public.
We bet they don't!
The press release does say this much; "the group of future leaders agreed collectively that dance needs to re-brand under one umbrella, 'Brand Dance'"
Sans any firm answers all we can do for now is speculate. Presumably this "branding" exercise is all about, what we will call, the Ballet Boyz Virus.
It's simple, all you do is take everything and boil it down to the most basic, generic level. It's not about work, style, content or substance it's about marketing, shirtless photos, sound bites, bad tv programmes and buzz words. It's about screaming girls and big smiles.
No more contemporary, hip-hop, breaking, ballet, kathak, tap, fusion, etc it's all going to be just Dance™
Subtlety and variety is out, black and white is in, you're either Dance™ or you're not. You're either Dance™ or you're "little people". (nice-one on the Bladerunner reference. Ed!)
This is Snow Joke
None of this nonsense is at all surprising given that one of the speakers at the "retreat" was a man called "Sir" John Hegarty. Mr Hegarty works for an advertising agency (the improbably monikered Bartle Bogle and Hegarty) and, as we all know, advertising agencies really enjoy the substance of things, don't they?
In the press release Mr Hegarty is credited with coming up with the advertising campaign from years ago for Levi jeans. The one where Nick Kamen strips down to his underwear in a launderette because he was too poor to own more than one pair of trousers or something.
Maybe that's part of the plan. Dancers stripping down to their underwear for photo shoots in FHM and Heat with the tag line; "It's So Hot In The Studio".
You're laughing now dancers, but just you wait!
Another one of the other speakers was a former rowing coach. A person who teaches other people how to row, you know, people sitting in a boat going backwards. If ever there was a metaphor for the people gathered at this meeting.
The Rub
We can only surmise that as a group this lot are just one step removed from the current crop of Republican politicians vying for the presidential nomination for their party in 2012.
They're saying a lot of words out loud in the vain hope that the people paying attention to them won't realise that none of it makes any sense.
The issues facing the dance profession as a whole have nothing to do with branding. They have everything to do with massive funding imbalances, lack of job creation, insecurity, rudderless marketing strategies and arts organisations run by petulant five year olds more concerned with being "in the huff" instead of engaging in substantive communication.
At present the dance profession is lacking strong leadership. People willing to speak, on the record, in the strongest possible terms about the problems faced by dancers, dance companies and the profession in general.
If this lot are the future of that leadership, if they really do think that dance has a "branding" problem that can be solved by ad agencies and tag lines, then, once again, we really are screwed.
Jingle Boyz
Monday, 2 January, 2012 | Comments | Make A Comment
For some reason the christmas holidays have become the time for dance programmes that, for reasons past understanding, make it onto television.
Apart from the usual classical ballet re-treads, this year brought us a couple of "documentaries" one of which was 'Ballet Boyz, The Next Generation' broadcast on More4 (part of Channel4) on christmas day.
The film is, ostensibly, about the next generation of the Ballet Boyz, the London based dance company of former ballet dancers William Trevitt and Michael Nunn, who also made the film.
The press blurb for the programme tells us that it was "two years" in the making which is odd because over the 45 minute running time nothing much at all seems to happen.
It starts, predictably enough, with an audition but before you can take a breath we have moved on through the dancers being chosen, having their hair cut for a photo-op, a few weeks prep work, some rehearsals, some more rehearsals, a premiere, another audition and another premiere.
There is no surface which is not skimmed throughout the entire programme. No background depth on why these particular dancers were chosen and, ultimately, why some of them were replaced. Nothing about why relatively un-trained dancers were used instead of some of the many hundreds of unemployed, fully trained dancers or why they are all male.
No interviews with the dancers detailing their experiences, or their issues with learning the new work. In fact we get to know so little about the dancers that you don't even notice which ones get replaced.
What we do get are numerous shots of Mr Nunn and Mr Trevitt mugging to camera telling us how hard everything is and how exciting everything is. We didn't time it but you appear to see more of the [old] Boyz than you do of the work the company is creating and performing.
When they are on camera the [old] Boyz don't come across very sympathetically at all. At one stage, whilst choosing a new choreographer to work with, Mr Nunn tells us how they are going to pay this particular individual a "shed load of money" to create a piece.
As if the arts didn't have a hard enough time as it is convincing the general public, who pay for this stuff (Ballet Boyz are funded by Arts Council England), that funding culture is a good idea we have this buffoon acting like a tone deaf dilettante, apparently throwing other people's money around like confetti.
Downhill in Africa
The second half of the programme is where the wheels really come off the wagon as the company heads, en-masse, to Ethiopia, for reasons that are never fully explained.
For the opening skirmish the [old] Boyz (one of whom has taken the time to put on a full Steadicam rig*) are at the airport in Addis Ababa looking for the [new] Boyz who have managed to disappear into the vacuum cleaner like security apparatus.
They discover their proteges sitting on the floor in arrivals looking somewhat dejected because their luggage is still in London.
What follows is several minutes of the entire company, camera gear in tow, wondering around Addis Ababa trying to buy some temporary clothes for the [new] Boyz.
At one stage Mr Nunn claims that the local retailers want to charge them "£5,000" for "socks and pants" a state of affairs he is evidently disgusted with.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) describes the Ethiopian economy as "poverty-stricken" where "per capita income is among the lowest in the world".
Ethiopia's population is approximately 91 Million, the population in the UK is 62 Million. The UK government spent $1.06Trillion(USD) looking after its citizens in 2010, the Ethiopian government had just over $5Billion(USD) to spend on their citizens.
So yes, if they see westerners wondering around, especially one with £20,000(GBP) worth of camera gear strapped to his chest, they are going to try it on a little but you don't act like a petulant jackass who just got overcharged in a Soho restaurant.
You exercise a little cool headed judgement and move on because the Ethiopians have some real issues to deal with, you have lost luggage to deal with.
Also, given the [old] Boyz travel experience it might have been a good idea for them to suggest to the [new] Boyz that they pack a couple of changes of clothes in their carry on bags. Most people do that no matter where they are travelling. Farcical market shenanigans avoided.
At this stage we're not sure the [old] Boyz should be left in charge of a lost kitten, much less a dance company.
More Tone Deaf
The pace of the "documenting" continues much as it did in London with various bits and pieces of footage thrown together of the [new] Boyz working with a group of Ethiopian dancers, from a local dance company, to put together a show.
The voice over, provided by the [old] Boyz, grinds on with some hysterics about lights (they don't have any) and various minor injuries and afflictions befalling the dancers at one stage or another.
Again, taking their location into account, this all sounds completely ridiculous. If you don't have any lights why didn't you FedEx some across with you (it can be done, we checked) or do the show outside. Such things are mind numbing minutia that should't be in a documentary when there are bigger stories to be told.
The final slap in the face comes with another voice-over, this time from Mr Trevitt, saying that the show has raised £600 that will enable the local dance company to keep going for another year.
It would be a heart warming moment were it not for the fact that we know that ACE funded this little film to the tune of £40,000 and Channel 4 threw in another £40,000.
We don't know what they spent the money on but £80,000 to put this nonsense onto a digital memory card was £79,950 too much (the £50 was for the memory card). ACE could have just given the money to the company in Addis Ababa and a whole lot more could have been achieved.
Division
The entire documentary comes across as nothing more than a photo-op. It's all empty packaging with nothing inside the box, the film doesn't scratch the surface because surface is all there is.
In the wacky world of dance the Ballet Boyz are a divisive company. The Middle England Ladies That Lunch club seem to love them and what they do. The wider dance profession looks upon them slightly puzzled by all the support and attention they get. Here in TheLab™ we're running out of reasons not to have the [old] Boyz thrown in a North Korean Prison for a very long time.
The main reason being we don't have the power to throw people in prison. If only wishing made it so!
[ 'Ballet Boyz - The Next Generation' on 4OD ]
*Steadicam is a brand name for a camera stabilisation device comprising a body harness, spring loaded arm and a "sled" that holds the camera and other gear so the operator can create smooth tracking shots.
![[ 300DPI 'Priorities' ]](http://article19.co.uk/12/poster%20one.jpg){kind=link}
![[ 300DPI 'Schedule' ]](http://article19.co.uk/12/poster%20TWO.jpg){kind=link}