|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Public Funding for the Fringe?Dateline: 27th July, 2003In an article in the Scotsman which we feature on the New Links page, William Burdett-Coutts, who runs the Assembly Rooms venue at the Edinburgh Fringe, argues cogently for public subsidy for the Fringe. The Fringe, he says, is vastly more popular than the International Festival, which does get public money, but receives no help at all. He also points out that the vast majority of Fringe productions actually lose money. What he says is true, but I do wonder how such subsidy would work. Would it go to the Fringe Society, which runs the event? If so, would they then reduce the cost of participation? Would it go to the venues? If so, would they reduce their charges to the companies? Would it go to just some of the venues? How do you choose? Would it go to the companies? If so, how would it be distributed? A further consideration would be the "best value" criteria which all publicly funded bodies have to apply to all their activities. Would this mean that there would be a kind of quality test? Would venues have to meet specific criteria over seating, temperature, accessibility? Would companies have to achieve a certain artistic standard? Who would police these standards? Who would pay for the policing? Some venues, like Mr Burdett-Coutts' Assembly, do select their shows carefully. Others will accept anyone who can pay the requisite fees. That is one of the great joys of the Fringe: you could see something world class (like the Assembly's Jerry Springer - The Opera last year) and an hour later be watching the worst piece of theatre you have ever seen in your life! The Edinburgh Fringe is the only festival in the world, as far as I am aware, which has a completely open-door policy. If you can pay the costs, you can appear. That's what gives it its excitement, that buzz you can get nowhere else. My own feeling is that, if there were to be any subsidy, it should go to reducing the costs to the companies, perhaps by giving it to the Fringe Society on condition they reduce the fee. Or perhaps to the venues on condition they reduce their hire fees. Best of all, however, would be to provide heavily subsidised accommodation for companies, for living in Edinburgh for one, two or three weeks is one of the major expenses. It would be a fascinating exercise to find out how many actors etc. spend their time at the Fringe sleeping half a dozen or more to a floor! Or perhaps it would be better if there were no subsidy. The Fringe is not the International Festival. No fees have to be paid to attract big names or major international companies. Performers come to the Fringe because they want to be there. That's how it started, and that's how it's grown to the size and importance of today. I doubt if anyone - except the tourist-orientated businesses of Edinburgh (and the pubs!) - makes money from the Fringe, but for the performer/writer/director there is always that chance of being "discovered", of ending up at the National (as did Gregory Burke's Gagarin Way and Zinnie Harris' Further than the Furthest Thing), of landing an international tour (as did Ophaboom), of gaining recognition through awards (such as Fringe Firsts or the "Stage" Awards), or, if they don't happen, there are always those fantastic memories! No, I suspect that public subsidy for the Fringe could kill it, and that would be a national disaster for the arts world. Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|