Commissioning transformation

Commissioning is traditionally by governmental organisations, charitable trusts, arts councils, varying funding organisations and agencies, NGOs/NPOs, businesses, sponsorships, patrons, (to name a few) and all become the stakeholders of the work. They present diverging interests, intrapersonal conflicts, power positions, and various values which attach themselves to the projects and present challenges in achieving applied theatre’s overarching purposes.

The thesis acknowledges that the commissioning of projects is in a constant flux and exists in an ever-changing environment. Whilst some organisations (e.g. NGOs/NPOs) commission work for non-profit and with transformation at the heart of

76 their work, other organisations can often have an agenda behind why the work should be created. Agendas can be at odds with the direct needs of the community and are therefore important to interrogate. As an example, Prentki & Preston (2009, p.14) warn of governmental agendas that may make stipulations as to the content and context of the applied theatre project. They state that:

‘it is commonplace in the UK today for applied theatre projects to be undertaken directly or indirectly at the behest of the Government’s social inclusion policies but a critique of those policies or an examination of the deeper causes of exclusion typically fall outside the scope of these projects’.

Therefore, funding can be closely tied ‘to instrumentalist outcomes such as reducing youth offending rates or cutting the numbers of teenage pregnancies, in short money, is not always available to give ‘the oppressed’ an experience of finding their own voices through a theatre process’ (Prentki, 2015, p.58), but is often given to those who are able to ‘tick the boxes’ that fulfil the funder’s criteria. Therefore, it needs to be remembered that funders have agendas. Money is not for free, and many funding organisations offer money to companies, artists and organisations ‘with a track record’ who are either ‘limited companies or registered charities’ (MacManus, 2018). For example, in 2014 Red Ladder Theatre Company who focuses their work around social change and global justice were cut from the ACE funding.11_{The announcements at the}

time was that ACE was concerned with keeping a ‘status quo and that meant that buildings–particularly London buildings–continued to be funded over small organisations and the grassroots’ (Gardner, 2014). Their agenda was clear ‘the money invested by the Arts Council would only benefit those already well up the ladder. Emerging artists, young companies, new audiences and those working beyond

77 London would have to make do with the crumbs. Again’ (Gardner, 2014). This draws attention to how this work is limited by context (e.g. education, health education, prison, etc.), content (issues that are wide ranging but may include crime, teenage pregnancy, unemployment), and the people who are deciding on what exactly these aspects should be (e.g. the government, funders, stakeholders, gate-keepers etc.).

Projects are squeezed to fit the funding criteria (possibly at the expense of the community), and the starting point of a project becomes the funding and not necessarily the idea or desired outcome. The danger of being co-opted by funding agencies is a challenge for a range of applied theatre projects. It can create divisive funding politics across projects, between practitioners and participants, and across various social communities and geographical locations. The proverb ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ indicates the dangers of incentive-driven, potentially agenda- focused work. The proverb suggests the risk of manipulation and coercion for work that is delivered by someone not necessarily part of the community, who could be potentially promoting change, with little validation from the community in relation to its use or relevance. Furthermore, the area of change may have been decided because the person in power has a motive ulterior to the community’s needs and consequently the position of the practitioner becomes synonymous with power, authority and control. Participation is therefore ‘a powerful tool for change’ and simultaneously ‘capable of being harnessed as a validation of existing authority’ (Sloman, 2011, p.49) enforced in order to control groups of citizens. This demonstrates how applied theatre can be used to curtail freedom, progression and transformation as much as facilitate it. This can cause tensions between the partnerships and the communities engaged with the work, which can be due to:

78 ‘financial implications surrounding the project requiring that the myriad

ways in which humans relate to each other- the very stuff of culture are reduced to the codes of monetary exchange– what do I get out of this? How much is it worth? Can I afford it?’ (Prentki, 2015, p.56)

What this establishes is that, in a cultural climate where much public funding prioritises certain criteria, outcomes and values, applied theatre needs to question whether engagement reflects a genuine commitment to providing change. Therefore the ‘money often comes with strings attached […] and it appears as if today’s corporations are less interested in philanthropy and more interested in targeting specific demographics’ (Downs, 2013, p.36). If we are accepting our ‘roles without understanding the deeper politics of any funding agenda and/or organisational power’ (Balfour, 2009, p.6) we will be unable to provide work for the benefit of the community participating with the project. The commissioning of transformation is important to acknowledge throughout the thesis as it highlights a need to be clear about allegiances, politics of intention, funding origins, and practitioner’s aims and intentions.