For a question about what ‘small-to-medium’ sector entails, there’s a useful summary in Jackie Bailey’s research report ‘Love your Work, online here:http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/theatre/reports_and_publications/love_your_work_training,_retaining_and_connecting_artists_in_theatre

All of the ‘small-to-medium’ sector under this formulation are legally constituted organisations, mostly funded by various tiers of government. in the Ozco’s view, among the theatre s2m’s funded by them are the what they call ‘Key Organisations’, and in NSW these are Performing Lines, Playwriting Australia, Stalker, Legs on the Wall, Griffin, version 1.0, Hothouse Theatre, Urban Theatre Projects, PACT, Shopfront, ATYP, Powerhouse Youth Theatre, Monkey Baa and Theatre of Image. There might be more, but they’re the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There are plenty not funded by Ozco, including TRS, Merrigong, Darlinghurst Theatre, Milkcrate, the Ensemble, Q Theatre, etc.

When we talk about the majors, that’s specifically the companies funded by the Major Performing Arts Board. In terms of theatre in Sydney, that’s effectively Belvoir, Bell Shakespeare and STC.

The unfunded and project funded groups and companies are generally referred to in funding parlance as ‘the independent sector’ (though unsurprisingly I think the term ‘independent’ is somewhat more complex than just this, and indeed it is used to encompass different territory in various awards categories for instance. As I’ve said elswhere, independence is always in the eyes of the beholder).

So yes, following the TNV model – set up by the small-to-medium companies with support from MTC to benefit the small-to-medium and independent sector – we had proposed a model primarily oriented at the s2m companies and the independents, though the major companies were also invited. Of our initial invite list of people who’d previously indicated interest in the idea of a network at previous Arts-Minister-convened events, the split was about 50% S2M, 40% independents and 10% majors, which was pretty close to the attendance on the day (though there were a couple of last minute cancellations from some of the independent RSVPs and one major). I had very useful conversations with a number of independent producers and directors, artists and managers from S2M companies, and a rep from the majors. And its also important to note that many people wear multiple hats, working for more than one part of the sector.

Anyway, it was a useful conversation, and there’ll be much more. Stay tuned.

thanks for your response… And thanks for spear-heading this – I hope you do not take my comments as an attack on anyone – my aim was to show the ACTION of you and Nathan and the INACTION of the SAMAG panel – Apologies if my pre-coffee/morning brain did not make that clear.

but here’s my response –

1. I appreciate your defence of the key companies that voiced a concern that the money to fund such a network would somehow come out of the budget available to the artists from the Arts NSW – but it was truly my impression that some were concerned that this was money that would be taken away from them. And I may have got that wrong – but I sensed a lot of defensiveness – and a bit of a tone “we’ve tried this before, it’ll fail again, what’s the rush, and this person better be worth their money” feeling about the meeting. Perhaps I am alone in this. that’s fine. That was my impression – and I don’t mean to pull anyone down or misrepresent anyone – I am reporting my impression or the initial reaction of some of the more confident speakers of the group and in my experience there is always a “whoa, hold on a second” from the older guard at all arts meetings.

2. More than the term of “performance” versus “theatre” label -I think that it is very easy for the small and independents to get lost in the conversation when the majors (and those on triennial funding) are involved. I thought that this was addressing the SMALL-MEDIUM theatre sector (as per the discussion at NSW Parliament last year which was for the small-medium sector) – perhaps this needs to be re-defined. Is there a definition for what is “medium”? I don’t think members of the MPAG are medium – or is that too scary to admit – that perhaps people who have a company that has less than $250K turn over a year are small-medium?

3. Growing up in rural Australia as I have- and knowing that my parents have probably seen less theatre in their LIVES than I see in a year – the regional imbalance is palpable. Personally, I for one am sick of arts being inaccessible and Sydney-centric! Bring on including the regions.

4. Of course it can’t be all things to all people – but I think the people who need a network are the ones who are alone and unsheltered – the “small-medium” -(wasn’t that on the agenda and on the invitation? or perhaps I misunderstood?) not the ones who are on salaries and have affiliations to other advocacy bodies. Surely this is about empowering the voiceless and engaging the voiceless to have a voice? The ones who are not under the umbrella of the organisations who have been making “substantial and sustained contributions” – but the artists who want to be able to be sustainable enough to stick around for the next 30 years to make a contribution. To give representation to those who may be intimated by the confident voices of the medium sector – what about them?

And I hope the conversation can continue and I intend on being a part of it – at very least representing my self and those other independents and small companies that are doing it completely alone, without infrastructure, without triennial funding, without support of other organisations to provide them with a voice in discussions that shape arts practice in NSW.

4. The needs of artists and companies across NSW are diverse, and whilst inclusivity is vital, any such network can’t realistically be everything to everybody.

So it was a very useful conversation amongst a strong group of theatre professionals, but its by no means the end of the conversation. There is an opportunity to act now, and we intend to do so, but the final outcome is far from certain. it’s only just begun.

[And on the SAMAG front, the political part was a waste of time. The lib candidate basically said that there was no more money for the arts (unless you are the commercial operation that is Sculpture by the Sea), and that any future increases in arts monies would have to come from other portfolios. The Greens candidate waffled amiably. The irony over all of this election is that Virginia Judge has been an excellent minister over the last 2 years, and that more has seemed to happen over the last 2 years than over the previous 8. I worry that all the recent momentum in arts will be lost after March. Perhaps if she retains her seat she could keep the portfolio as a cross-bencher?]

I think you’re being unfair when you suggest that several people at the ‘Towards a NSW Theatre Network’ meeting were resistant to the idea because it might somehow jeopardize their future grants. I think such a comment is utterly unjust, untrue, and in no way recognises the substantial and sustained contribution that many of those present have made to the performing arts in Sydney over the last 3 decades.

The key points sticking points made at the meeting can perhaps be summarised in the following manner:

1. This idea has been tried several times before over the last 30 years, and has consistently failed. Before we leap in again we need to take stock of where we’ve been, and think carefully and collectively about where we want to go. There was a sense that the proposal Nathan and I were suggesting was too much, too quickly, and people were concerned that without further consultation, the possible network might be buggered up from the beginning.

2. The was great interest and concern about what the membership of what such a network might be. When we say ‘theatre’, what do we mean? What aesthetic practices and professional models fall in- and outside such a network? Given that non-producing venues are represented by APACA, the commercial performing arts companies by LPA, and the majors performing arts companies by AMPAG, should these companies be a part of the conversation? But if not, are we suggesting that Belvoir and STC are part of a different theatre ecology? Its a complex question, with lots of tricky nuances in which much potential danger lies. One of those present mentioned to me afterward that one previous attempt at such a network, CAPA, fell apart in 1984 due to a splitting apart of the majors and everyone else.

It was alot of talk and politics – rememebr a room of administrators asking questions – not artists… so the politics and agenda was different. I think people were there to take notes on their own job security.

Disability was mentioned – by a vision impaired staffer at Accessible Arts NSW – who asked about the vision for those with disabilities – and was directly condescended to by Dr Sherman… and patronized by all BUT Justin Macdonnell who spoke articulately and concisely and compassionately (NB- I think he should be the head of the NSW Theatre Network.)

Did anyone ask the panel about potential censorship of arts grants? Did they ask if the new government would honour the increases in arts funding made by the state government? Did they commit to continuing arts access for low-income earners, for western Sydney, for anyone disadvantaged or disabled?

The result of the election isn’t going to be interesting, but what they do to the arts portfolio will be?

Did anyone ask any of these questions or was it yet another epsiode of finger-pointing policy – “but look how much money THEY get!”…

Now, that’s boring.