Background
Three Baltic States after the collapse of
the Soviet Union have gained their independence in the beginning of
90-ies and have passed the transition period with considerable
inflation, crucial political, economical and social changes, which have
also affected cultural institutions.
During the Soviet time cultural policy
along with other public policies was ideologically shaped and carried
out by the Ministry of Culture and by the state owned and financed
cultural institutions.
After the collapse of the regime cultural
organisations were forced to change and adapt to the new situation.
Substantial changes resulted in reduction of subsidies, which caused the
necessity of attracting support from business sponsors and reducing the
amount of employees. This generated uncertainty about the future and a
strange mingle of the Soviet and market management running cultural
institutions (commercial shows and business sponsors on one side;
improvident, inefficient management on the other). New initiatives and
non-governmental sector gradually emerged to a great extent thanks to
funding and encouragement by the Open Society Institutes in the region.
However, cultural policy and organisation
of cultural life generally remained unchanged for a while. Lack of
adequate legislation was the first issue that was addressed. The main
cultural policy guidelines were adopted in Latvia (1995) and in Estonia
(1998). Both in policy and practice general shift was towards
recognition of national heritage and national artistic values. Names of
streets and organisations were changed. Other practical steps or policy
instruments followed with rare exceptions, however in the cultural
policy were introduced debates about the national identity and the role
of national culture and arts in maintaining and supporting national
identity. Emphasis was also put on the international prestige and image
of the national state.
Presently, a decade after the collapse of
the Soviet regime, some changes in cultural policy and performing arts
policy in Baltic countries have occurred. However, changes have been
proceeding on quite different levels: in Estonia there, new cultural
policy documents and new laws have been adopted, even a funding system
of performing arts field has been reorganised; Latvia is in the process
of developing planning documents in order to carry out cultural policy
guidelines and to change the existing legislation; Lithuania
demonstrates sharp discrepancies between reality and level of cultural
policy, hardly any change on the policy level has been carried out.
Aims and Methodology
The objective of the paper is to develop
a comparative analysis of a performing arts policy in Baltic countries
identifying the obstacles and defining a minimum set of standards in
order to facilitate changes and development of diverse and innovative
performing arts field. Although the development of performing arts
policies in three Baltic countries is at different stages, there are
several reasons to carry out a comparative analysis:
First, Baltic countries can be considered
as a common region because of historical similarities, common cultural
background, geographical area and joint co-operation strategies on
diverse levels;
Secondly, all three countries have
regained their independence at the beginning of 90-ies and have passed
through a similar process of transition;
Thirdly, performing arts field has
obvious similarities in all three countries;
Fourthly, the pattern of change of
cultural policy and performing arts policy is similar in Lithuania,
Estonia and Latvia.
The comparative analysis has been
developed on the basis of common methodology addressing the same
questions in each country separately. Information has been obtained via
research visits to Estonia and Lithuania, numerous interviews at the
Ministries of Culture, discussions with performing arts professionals,
on the basis of documents.
Where life is better and why?
1. Artistic diversity in
performing arts
Lithuania has been for years considered
to be the front-runner in theatre as the names of Eimuntas Nekrosius and
Oskaras Korshunovas have been marked on the map of European theatre.
These two directors have gained more recognition in European theatre
festivals than any other Baltic stage director has. Judging by the
international fame, the names of Peeter Jallakas (Estonia), Alvis
Hermanis and Viesturs Kairiss (Latvia) have to be mentioned as well.
Artistically, one can observe traditional
uniformity of performances. Text based, narrative, psychological
theatre is still dominant. Though it is often presented on a very high
professional level. Lithuanian theatre is characteristic by metaphorical
visual approach represented by Eimuntas Nekrosius and Oskaras
Korshunovas. This trend is followed by Viesturs Kairiss in Latvia and
Elmo Nuganen in Estonia to some extent. However, in the context of
prevailing psychological school distinctive approaches should be
appreciated. Peeter Jallakas (Van Krahl Theatre, Estonia)
consequently introduces multimedia elements in theatre and diminishes
the role of an actor putting him/her on the same line together with
video pictures, installations or other objects. Lembit Peterson (Theatrum,
Estonia) with a group of young actors finds new approach to a theatre
history in his performances. Visual artist and director Vega Vaiciunaite
(Miraclis, Lithuania) produces visual site-specific performances.
Contemporary dance field
is more developed in Estonia and Lithuania mainly because of the
activities carried out by two independent organisations – contemporary
dance centres – TIKE in Estonia (headed by Priit Raud) and
Contemporary Dance Centre of Lithuania (directed by Audronis Imbrassas).
Regular guest performances, international festivals, participation in
European dance festivals and competitions, organised workshops for
dancers in Lithuania and Estonia have notably raised interest in a
broader public, they have attracted new audience groups, and animated
the contemporary dance field. In Latvia only the Baltic Ballet
Festival-Riga presents some of the international contemporary dance
productions. Choreographer Olga Zitluhina with her group has gained some
recognition at international festivals. However, there is no permanent
partner for Estonian and Lithuanian dance centres, which could develop
diverse projects in Latvia. In 1999 the Academy of Culture of Latvia has
admitted a group of dancers who would obtain professional training in
contemporary dance. This could bring some positive change in the future.
International festivals
take place in all three countries. Among numerous initiatives the
following festivals should be mentioned: LIFE and the New Drama
Action in Lithuania; the Homo Novus Festival in Latvia, Baltoscandal
in Estonia. Having different objectives each of them has contributed to
the broadening standard patterns of consuming and understanding
performing arts, each of them has presented diverse forms of theatre to
broad range of audiences, and has developed international co-operation
and information exchange.
Information processing
is regularly carried out only by the New Theatre Institute of Latvia,
which has developed several strategies to inform theatre professionals
in Latvia about the opportunities and tendencies in the foreign theatre
and to serve as a mediator between the interested parties of European
festivals, theatres and Latvian theatre professionals. A smilar
organisation in Lithuania – Information Centre of Theatre and
Education of Lithuania (Director Audronis Liuga) – is more focusing on
organisation of single projects (a theatre magazine, a festival).
Estonian Production Centre has its focus on carrying out international
collaboration projects. The centre is affiliated to Van Krahl
Theatre. The Information Centre at the Estonian Theatre Union in
collaboration with ITI Centre (International Theatre Institute) will be
launched in 2001. Besides the New Theatre Institute of Latvia is the
only one performing arts organisation being involved in cultural policy
debate and reflection.
Training
of actors, directors and stage designers is provided in all the three
countries. At the Academy of Culture of Latvia, from a combined course
of actors and stage directors in 1997 graduated professionals who are
forming the most innovative artistic generation in Latvian performing
arts.
Cultural management is taught at the
Academy of Culture of Latvia (Master programme since 1997), Academy of
Music of Lithuania (since 1999). One cannot study cultural management as
a separate subject in Estonia. There have been some short additional
courses at the Estonian Academy of Arts or at the Music Academy and
Tallinn Pedagogical University. College of Culture in Viljandi (Estonia)
gets regular commission from the Ministry of Culture (via Ministry of
Education, which is supervising arts education) for the training of
theatre administrators, lighting technicians, sound technicians, prop
masters and other theatre related professionals.
Training of professionals in
the performing arts field is provided in the form of short courses,
seminars and workshops organised by the Estonian Theatre Union and the
New Theatre Institute of Latvia. TIKE in Estonia and the Contemporary
Dance Centre of Lithuania carry out training in the field of
contemporary dance. Other initiatives are on ad-hoc basis.
There are 7 state theatres and 1
state supported municipal theatre in Latvia (3 of them situated
outside the capital), 10 state theatres in Lithuania (5 – outside
Vilnius), 8 state theatres and 1 city theatre in Estonia (4 – outside
Tallinn). Two pilots – Linna Theatre (City Theatre) in Tallinn
(Estonia) and Liepaja Theatre (Latvia) have been handed over to the
municipalities. Both – the city and the Ministry of Culture fund both
of the theatres.
There are about 10 non-governmental
theatres in Latvia; 13 in Lithuania; 9 in Estonia.
Non-governmental theatres in Estonia are
set as institutions and have gained a respected position in performing
arts scene: Van Krahl, VAT, Theatrum are obviously a part of the
theatre field in Estonia. Independent theatres in Lithuania have no
manifested institutional or financial background, however they have
strong artistic arguments as O.Korshunovas and E.Nekrosius have left
state theatres to establish their own independent companies.
Non-governmental theatres in Latvia do not have a strong position
because of a lack of efficient management and outstanding artistic
achievements. However, some of them play significant role responding to
the needs and filling gaps in the performing arts field (Skatuve
serves as a venue for young directors and actors; several theatres tour
to schools and remote villages).
In all three countries the notion company
is bound to a theatre building. There are very few exceptions
among independent theatres. State theatres are representing a repertory
theatre model, presenting each night a different production and
having a permanent company. Independent theatres are disposed to this
ideal as well. Very few theatres in the region have introduced changes
in the repertory theatre model, often returning to the old system
afterwards. The New Riga Theatre in Latvia has come back to permanent
company of actors and presentation of different production each night as
it is hardly possible to introduce the changes in a single theatre while
the rest of the theatres have permanent companies. Van Krahl Theatre
in Tallinn recently has employed a group of 5 actors because of the same
reason. However, it is one of the very rare theatres in Baltic countries
presenting productions in blocks. This practice is used in the repertory
theatres only when musicals are presented or when guest actors are
involved in the show (planning and substantially higher expense forces
general managers of theatres to
change the regular system).
Non-governmental sector is mainly
responding to the lack of diversity in the state supported and
established institutional framework: international projects, festivals,
contemporary dance, information centres, small theatre companies have
been founded as non-governmental organisations during the last 10 years.
One can notice a stagnation to certain
degree at the state repertory theatres, especially in Estonia and
Lithuania. Lithuanian theatres have a life-long contract system, which
leads to the situation where actors and directors are employed having
miserable salaries, no means for staging new productions and no
obligations and regular duties which, when taken all together enables
them and forces them to work in the advertisement field or in
non-governmental theatres. The statistical data shows that 7,1% of the
total theatre funding in Lithuania is directed toward the maintenance of
buildings and only 4,6% towards new productions. As much as 78,8% goes
for the salaries of the staff. While in Estonia reasonably high state
subsidy allows to keep large staff (e.g. the Estonian Drama Theatre has
5 permanently employed stage directors while in Latvia stage directors
are mainly employed as free lancers except the artistic director of a
theatre) and concentrate more on internal process instead of
audience-focused developments.
2. Co-operation
The Effective co-operation of artists and
performing arts organisations is directly linked to the capacity of the
field to defend its rights, to lobby for a change of cultural policy, to
improve legislation.
During the Soviet times the Theatre
Unions as professional associations existed to fulfil the role of
ideological supervisor, a mediator between the power and the individual
artists and theatres. After the fall of the regime the Theatre Unions in
most of the cases inherited their estate – buildings, summer cottages.
During the first years, these institutions still served as contact
organisations for regional and international co-operation. The ageing of
their members, the loss of influence in the field, the loss of clear
objectives, the necessity of redefining their role and improving the
management, according to the changing requirements, were common problems
of these organisations. Usually the role of a Theatre Union was
diminished to a preoccupation with retired actors, dancers and other
older generation members. These issues have become top priorities of
Theatre Unions mainly because the welfare and the social security of the
older generation inhabitants are not ensured by the state. Moreover the
change from a permanent employment to a contract based/free-lance
employment in some of the performing arts professions (designers,
directors) was not followed by a corresponding legislation that could
secure retiring allowances, the social security of artists.
In Baltic countries none of the Theatre
Unions was closed down. The Estonian Theatre Union serves as an umbrella
organisation for several smaller professional associations (one can
become a member of the Theatre Union by joining one of the 12 smaller
organisations like the Estonian Actors' Association, the Estonian Stage
Directors' Association, the Estonian Theatre Technicians' Association
etc.). The Estonian Theatre Union represents the theatrical professions
collectively in negotiations with the government about wages, social
securities etc. A small effective management team organises an annual
theatre award competition, various training courses, it publishes books,
takes care of the theatre people graves etc. Seminars in particular
field are partly organised by the small associations. The Estonian
Theatre Union has found its role in the contemporary theatre process in
Estonia, which is proved by members representing approximately 80% of
the employees of the state theatres. The future developments will show
whether the representatives of the non-governmental organisations would
integrate the Estonian Theatre Union.
Both Lithuanian Theatre Union and Latvian
Theatre Union have not redefined their mission and the role in a
contemporary theatre process until now. Having similar aims like the
Estonian Theatre Union they do not follow putting the aims into practice
productively enough. The Theatre Union of Latvia has survived an
unskilful management, loosing part of their estate. The present
President Mrs. Lolita Cauka and the newly approved board are ready for
the change, following Estonian experience and serving as a roof
organisation for associations of particular professions in the theatre
field. Though artists and professionals from different fields have not
established strong and powerful associations in Latvia.
There has not been formed any other
effective association or a lobby group in the field in none of the three
Baltic States. Loose boards of general managers exist in Estonia and
Latvia with no explicit objectives associating mainly the state theatre
representatives.
Alhough the independent theatre in
Lithuania has visible front-runners (O.Korshunovas and E.Nekrosius), the
non-governmental sector has not found ability to combine efforts in
order to change the system of financing theatres in Lithuania because of
a lack of co-operation on the level of individual artists.
3. Performing arts policy / cultural policy
Quality of purpose
The development of an articulated
cultural policy has reached different stages in Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia. Lithuania has no documents, which could be considered as an
officially adopted cultural policy; debates on cultural policy have been
reflected in the government programmes that do not address performing
arts particularly. The document "The Postulates of Lithuanian
Cultural Policy" presented during the Congress of Lithuanian
Culture in 1996 was not adopted. The elaboration of an action plan
"Provisions, the Lithuanian Culture Development Programme
2001-2006" comprising all fields of culture will be launched in the
fall 2000. "Main Cultural Policy Postulates of Latvia" were
adopted by the Parliament in 1995. The action plan 2000-2010 called
"National Programme Culture" has to be approved by the
government at the end of the year 2000 (chapter on theatre is to be
modified, therefore it cannot be yet considered as the document to refer
to). Estonia approved its "Fundamental of state cultural policy of
Estonia" and "Action plan of government of the republic on the
implementation of state cultural policy in the forthcoming years"
in 1998.
The evaluation of the Council of Europe
of the cultural policies has been completed in 1995 for Estonia, 1997
for Lithuania, 1998 for Latvia.
The cultural policy documents of Latvia
do not offer clear definition of what is understood by the notion
"theatre". However, potentially attention and support of the
state are envisaged for a broad range of activities: performances,
education, publications, youth theatre, regional touring, individual
artists, and international events. The policy definition includes both
state theatres (as privileged ones with secure funding) and independent
groups and initiatives (supported on project basis). While Estonian
cultural policy gives the first priority "on the content,
innovation and national-cultural significance of an activity, and not on
the individual's adherence to any particular cultural institution,
whatever its ownership or patronage." In the action plan one can
find that the "stagecraft" in Estonia is interpreted as
theatres (state repertory theatres; private theatres and municipal
theatres registered on the basis of the Performance Establishments Act)
and drama clubs, school theatres, amateur troupes. The Estonian Drama
Agency as a mediator between plays and theatre companies is registered
separately.
Latvian policy stresses that theatre
traditions should be maintained while the key words for Estonian
cultural policy are "innovation" and "content". A
particular attention is paid to national playwriting as a significant
part of theatre.
There does not exist a performing arts
policy either in Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. On the policy level
dance and music is described separately. Though when it comes to the
budget, both in Latvia and Lithuania there is a common budget line for
the concert institutions and the theatres.
The orientation of a theatre policy
is towards the theatre buildings, companies and productions as a joint
concept. Concept, which dwells in state repertory theatre model. This
means that the support and preoccupation of the Ministry of Culture
address all three elements together with no clear distinction. With no
doubt the sustainability of state repertory companies is the top
priority in all three countries. The first change has been made in
Estonia in the year of 2000 introducing new principles of how state
funding is distributed to theatres: calculation is based on the
spectators attending theatre. The Ministry of Culture is demonstrating
its will to subsidise spectators instead of theatres (in pure market
conditions spectators should be forced to buy much more expensive
tickets). Though in the first year this principle has not yet
demonstrated substantial shift from building&company&production
unit to spectator, this has allowed to allocate funds for
non-governmental theatres along with a support for the state and
municipal theatres.
Theatre policy in Baltic countries does
not stimulate the performing arts field in its diversity. On the level
of policy "Main Cultural Policy Postulates of Latvia" are
demonstrating the most liberal approach; although corresponding
instruments do not follow. On the contrary, while the notion
"theatre" is very narrow in the documented cultural policy of
Estonia, in reality instruments provided and approach are much broader
comprising quite a lot of diverse forms and institutions in the field of
performing arts.
Quality of process
The minister of culture is a political
figure, while administrative apparatus of the Ministry of Culture
secures continuity of decisions and adopted action plans. However, in
reality every new government presents its government programme for
approval in front of the Parliament and the Minister can change the
course of events, priorities, and actions. All three countries have
survived frequent changes of the Minister of Culture (5 to 7 ministers
have changed over the last decade). Not only the priorities can change,
the change of government can affect the budget allocations for culture
in general; the process of adjusting legislation can slow down or speed
up in particular areas.
In this context well-defined cultural
policy and set of instruments along with the advisory boards,
arm's-length principle and transparency are of crucial significance.
Both in Latvia and Estonia arm's length
principal in distributing project grants for cultural projects was
introduced. The cultural Endowment of Estonia was re-established in
1994. It operates as a legal person governed by public law and run by
Supervisory Board headed by the Minister of Culture as a chairman.
Grants are distributed for specific purposes (8 branches including
sports), independently from the Ministry of Culture. The revenues of
Cultural Endowment of Estonia recover according to laws from the excise
of alcohol and tobacco products, from gambling tax; lottery incomes,
donations and bequests and from economical affairs. The Culture Capital
Foundation of Latvia (1998) in many aspects took over the experience
from Estonia. It is a non-profit state share company receiving financing
from the state budget and benefit from tax exemptions. It has 7 Branch
Councils each of them consisting of 7 experts (two of them appointed by
the Minister of Culture). Grants are distributed 4 times per year in
openly announced competitions.
The Fund of Support for Culture and
Sports was established in Lithuania in 1998, the first allocations made
in 1999. Though due to serious budget cuts less money was allocated than
expected; besides out of 50%, which were to be channelled to culture, it
received only 34,8% of the funds (the rest went to sports activities).
In 2000 the Fund is not distributing project grants but is covering
debts of the previous year. A support is awarded only once per year by
the board. In comparison the effectiveness of the procedure of Cultural
Endowment in Latvia and Estonia is higher. The operation of the
Lithuanian Fund has to be ensured by the law.
Still, a regular public support for
cultural institutions and investments is granted directly from the
Ministries without transparent criteria. The majority of funding goes to
the state established institutions. Hardly any set of evaluation
mechanisms and criteria has been introduced. Estonia has introduced a
change in granting public support in the field of theatre since 2000.
Operation of a theatre has to be evaluated by the Department of Economy
(efficiency) and theatre critics (quality). Both reports are distributed
to the interested parties and are available at Internet. Evaluation
potentially can influence a decrease or an increase of subsidy. The
Ministry of Culture has signed contracts with non-governmental theatres
receiving subsidies regulating mutual obligations.
Estonia is the first country where the
performing arts policy halfway accepts and provides instruments for the
diversity in performing arts. This concerns state funding for both state
and non-governmental theatres based on similar criteria; support for
main international events and the Drama Agency through the budget of the
Ministry of Culture; project funding for diverse activities through
Cultural Endowment.
Decentralisation of power has taken place
in all three countries. The ministry of Culture announces an open
competition for a General Manager of a state theatre and signs a
contract for a definite period of time. There is no pressure or control
on programming. The same refers to the two city theatres (Liepaja and
Tallinn).
Territorial decentralisation of theatres
has not taken place on significant extent. It is also bound to the fact
that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are small countries. Besides tax
system is too centralised, not leaving extra means for funding the
culture on the municipal level. Regional reform in Latvia has not been
yet completed, that could facilitate decentralisation of theatres in
Valmiera and Daugavpils, which are supposed to be transformed into
regional theatres. So far only Liepaja Theatre has been transformed into
the city theatre (with 50% state share and funding). A similar situation
is in Estonia where Tallinn City Theatre (Linna Theatre) has been passed
over to the city municipality (with state funding remained). Though the
viewpoint that municipalities should take care of amateur art and the
state responsibility is professional art is still vivid in all
countries.
Mobility within the country is rather
limited because of lack of infrastructure (technically equipped theatre
halls in towns) and costs for touring. In country touring is stimulated
in Estonia by extra funding to the performances presented outside the
cities where permanent theatre company resides. However, according to
the opinion of general managers of theatres, the subsidy is not covering
the costs. Still in Estonia open-air productions in summer period gains
more and more attention of broad audiences.
Quality of instruments
A vision of where performing arts field
would develop in future is missing in all countries.
Planning as an instrument is exercised in
Estonia (long-term programme; one-year planning). The Ministry of
Culture of Latvia has started to develop the programme for the years of
2000-2010. It is supposed to be amended each year. Up to this moment,
one year of planning has been executed. The Ministry of Culture of
Lithuania is going to launch a development of long-term programme at the
end of 2000.
The Performance Establishment Act,
comprising also private sector, has adjusted legislation regarding
theatres only in Estonia. Legal form of theatres in Latvia is in
transition: most part of state theatres are registered as state
institutions though earned income are in conflict with such a status.
Legal status "non-profit state organisation" is seen as a
solution. Question of Theatre Law has been discussed as well. Theatre
Law is a priority in Lithuania. Though the draft project of the law does
not solve the most crucial problem of Lithuanian theatres: life-long
contracts.
The main financial instrument is the
annual budget allocation to state theatres. During the last years it has
not been reduced during the course of the year. The exact amount of
subsidy is announced around February. This causes insecurity and
impossibility to introduce long-term or even mid-term planning as
theatre season does not correspond to a fiscal year.
Financial criteria for distributing
public subsidies have been set only in Estonia for the year 2000.
Subsidy of 100 EEK/per spectator (120 EEK/per spectator in the
countryside or for children plays) is granted to both state and
non-governmental theatres. The criteria of how many spectators
Ministry of Culture "buys" from each theatre are rather vague:
evaluation is based on a review written by a theatre critic and analysis
made by the economical department. Though, it was admitted as a problem
to be elaborated in future. However, state investments go only for state
theatres.
As to Latvia and Lithuania the
development of transparent criteria for distributing public money is a
key problem. So far
the relation between the Ministry and a theatre is undefined and loose.
The Ministry has not clearly stated any requirement that theatres should
meet.
Non-governmental theatres in Lithuania
have got some support from the Ministry of Culture, though nobody could
enlighten how, on the basis of what criteria and from which budget line.
Non-governmental sector in Latvia can receive funding only from Cultural
Capital Foundation.
Estonia is the only country which has
managed to introduce criteria breaking-through the traditional
distribution of state subsidies: despite of the fact that budget for
performing arts has remained on the same level for the last two years,
the Ministry of Culture has re-distributed part of the funding to
non-governmental theatres. Latvian and Lithuanian Ministries of Culture
are looking forward to the moment when budget for performing arts will
increase. Though there is no strategy about distributing any extra
support to non-governmental theatres.
All three countries have got arm's-length
foundations: it has been operating more efficiently in Latvia and
Estonia (see Quality of Process).
Indirect support for performing arts
field the most efficiently goes through copyright holdbacks. Tax
deductions do not effectively involve sponsors in funding culture in
none of the countries although the law on charity and sponsorship has
been adopted in all Baltic States. Probably it is related to the fact
that in-kind sponsorship is the most popular way of support. Then comes
sponsorship in exchange for the publicity.
4. Conclusions
Joint concept of
building-company-production brings along difficulties to define clearly
the outcome state is supporting and to raise either management
effectiveness or artistic quality.
Traditionally theatre
buildings are bound to permanent companies in all Baltic countries. This
means that a company permanently resides in a particular building (most
often the building is owned by the state, in some occasions – by a
municipality or a private owner from whom the state is renting the
building). Theatre company has rights to rent out the premises and a
theatre hall. So building can become both a significant part of
expenditure and income. Though Ministry has to invest in the building
repairing its roof or fire extinguisher, the final responsibility has to
be taken by the management team of a theatre as its everyday work could
be destroyed because of miserable technical conditions in the house. On
the other hand, theatre is profiting renting out premises at high rents
as much as possible as it contributes to the budget. This causes the
situation where premises necessary for theatre sometimes are rented out
to commercial entities. This also creates situation where theatre is not
interested to become a partner or producer presenting guest
performances, festival productions, and performances by other theatres
(either regional or independent). Theatre keeps from being involved in
the projects that actually fit the mission of theatre and in another
situation could become an important marketing tool, audience development
instrument or strategy for the development of international relations.
The majority of theatres in
Baltic countries are repertory companies: theatre has in its repertory
several productions, which are presented at times changing the title
every night. From the point of view of management it is ineffective way
of planning, managing and marketing. A repertory company has permanently
employed actors, sometimes also stage directors, a set designer, and a
composer. It is rather closed system excluding possibilities for actors
to acquire new experiences working with different actors, stage
directors and to change a theatre company. Though it has its advantages
when speaking about company as an ensemble and its artistic
developments.
Ministry of Culture is
dealing with theatre as the totality including all three elements: a
permanent company, a building and range of productions. This means that
it is hardly possible to define the strength and weakness of a theatre
and to improve quality in the weakest area either it is a management, or
a building and technical equipment, or artistic quality of performances.
This also causes situation where a theatre management team can easily
manipulate with argumentation analysing the reasons of a failure: as a
reason for artistic mediocrity can be indicated insufficient investment
in a building or too low salaries. While economical benefits and
effectiveness of correlation between artistic product and amount of the
permanent staff is not analysed at all.
Options to consider:
a) Support for the
infrastructure and activities should be separated and balanced when
assigning state subsidy to a theatre company.
b) Joint efforts of a
theatre and the Ministry could be contributed to the search for separate
sponsors for the programming (Ministry of Culture and foundations) and
the building (city municipality).
c) Separation of legal
bodies responsible for the artistic programming (theatre) and the
building (building administration); both sides are bound together with a
contract.
Concerns:
None of the options can be executed in a short-term. Any of the options
requires significant strategic changes in distribution of subsidies,
re-arranging contracts with theatres and owners of buildings that could
cause protests within the artistic community. State (Ministry of
Culture) could be more interested in breaking concept
"building-company-production" than theatres themselves.
Negotiation between the
Ministry of Culture and City Councils to pass over the responsibility
and funding of buildings and infrastructure costs to the municipality
could let ministry to avoid revolutionary changes.
3. Issue:
Criteria for distributing of state subsidies
While extra funding of
artistic projects are available through arm's length foundations with
set objectives and application rules, the basic subsidies to performing
arts organisations are granted as direct budget allocations from the
Ministry of Culture escaping open competition and clear set of criteria
and evaluation mechanisms. In Estonia the calculations per spectator is
only the first step orientating funding towards theatre visitors.
There are external
mechanisms that assist theatres to go through the period of artistic
mediocrity if necessary: pressure from mass media and theatre critics,
decrease of audience, difficulties in fundraising. Still there could be
added instruments and mechanisms how the state as a
major funder of a theatre could stimulate its
artistic quality, diversity, set standards, influence the fields where
is market failure, develop innovation and invest in the process.
Criteria for distributing state subsidies; evaluation of quality and
effectiveness; introduction of transparency in the process are the
necessary mechanisms to be introduced.
Options to consider:
1) The amount of subsidy has
to be decided combining:
purely mathematical
calculation (e.g. calculation per seat in a venue (subsidy could be
calculated allocating definite amount of money per each seat in a venue:
this bounds subsidy to a particular building), OR: calculation per
spectator like in Estonia where Ministry is "buying" definite
amount of visitors);
definite % of subsidy or
additional bonus after the evaluation of the artistic quality of a
theatre (how theatre has reached its goal? / the range of audience
groups addressed / evaluation by theatre critics and professionals /
international activities / internal process oriented experiments etc.);
bonus for in-country
touring;
bonus for performances
presented to children and youth audiences;
evaluation of administrative
effectiveness.
2) Programme oriented
funding:
productions: year /two year
programme;
productions for children and
youth;
experimental, process
oriented productions;
professional development;
in-country touring;
international touring/
participation in festivals.
Subsidy has to be decided by
a board of professionals openly announcing funding criteria.
Any professional theatre
could apply for the funding apart from it legal status.
Concerns:
Introduction of criteria for
distribution of state subsidies to performing arts organisations
requires substantial changes in the existing system, which is
traditionally oriented on state theatres inserted in their buildings.
Even if the budget for theatre field significantly increases there would
be necessary considerable changes in the system
On the one hand changes have
to be discussed in the artistic community. On the other hand the
majority of community is formed by state cultural institutions, which
would resist any changes. Compromise between consultation with artistic
community and unpopular decision has to be found if the Ministry of
Culture assumes the responsibility. Or if the Board or working group of
professionals are invited by the Ministry of Culture to elaborate
options.