Groot Kunstefees- en Teaterindaba

Moontlik gemaak deur/Supported by:

Mike van Graan

Klik hier vir die program!

Klassieke Klanke: Chinese tenoor op CD

Mozart 'n Tourette-lyer

Skryf vir ons/ Write to us: webvoet@litnet.co.za

Talking theatre and taking a hard line

Cultural Weapon pries into Mike van Graan's* mind

Cultural Weapon: Have you attended many festivals?

Mike van Graan: Not really. Over the past 13 years I've had seven productions at the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown. I attended it for the first time in 1991, having boycotted it before. I've attended it five or six times, for two and ten days at a time. I've visited the Klein Karoo Nasionale Kunstefees three times, twice as a day visitor, and once for a couple of days. My first visit to Aardklop will take place later this year, and I've popped in and out of Arts Alive.

I organised the first Cape Town One City, Many Cultures Festival. I've been to the Oude Libertas and Spier summer festivals and the Hermanus festival. I'm still a virgin with regard to MACUFE, the Volksbladfees, the Atlantis Arts and Culture Festival, the Gariep Kunstefees and a host of other feeste that have sprung up since 1994. I'm certainly no expert on festivals.

CW: To what do you attribute this explosion of festivals in the past decade?

MvG: A recent survey by the Network for Arts and Culture South Africa (NACSA) produced a list of more than 100 "festivals", of which probably 20 cater for theatre. Some existed before 1994, although they've changed in character since then, but a large number came into existence after 1994.

CW: And do you think this was because people suddenly "discovered" the arts after 1994?

MvG: I'm not sure that the primary motivation behind some of the festivals had very much to do with the arts generally or theatre in particular. I think these festivals were vehicles to achieve broader political or cultural objectives, and the arts benefited from this.

CW: What were some of these political or cultural objectives?

MvG: Well, the Afrikaans-language festivals demonstrated concern on the part of Afrikaans speakers that their language and culture would be under threat in the "New South Africa". At least initially they were cultural laagers where the language, values and broader culture of Afrikaans speakers could be celebrated and affirmed.

The Mangaung African Cultural Festival (MACUFE) in Bloemfontein was created with the intention of nurturing African culture, with SABC2 as its initial media partner.

So, after the demise of apartheid, festivals emerged that sought to affirm ethnic identities and cultures, which is ironic and at the same time understandable: some communities sought to rediscover and redefine themselves, while others attempted to carve out a cultural space in a country where they were now a political minority. With the waning of their political power, they needed to assert their culture, and the feeste was one way of doing that.

The difference between the feeste and MACUFE, though, is that the former have access to greater experience and organisational expertise, so that they've blossomed, while MACUFE, despite its access to extensive resources, has been an organisational nightmare with huge amounts of funds going into a bottomless pit. There may be a political need for this event, but vision and expertise are needed to manage it, otherwise its effect will be completely negligible.

Then there was the Cape Town One City, Many Cultures Festival that has morphed into the Cape Town Festival. It sought to promote the concept of "unity in diversity" at a time when the city's Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities were polarised, especially owing to the activities of PAGAD. The arts were incidental to the broader political objective of promoting unity.

CW: Surely not all festivals exist only for political or broadly cultural reasons?

MvG: There are festivals that arose out of an economic or image imperative: the need to boost tourism. There are festivals that are commercial in their orientation: they exist as businesses in order to generate income for their shareholders, like the North Sea Jazz Festival.

CW: There must be some festivals that exist solely for the sake of the arts?

MvG: The Time of the Writer Festival, the Dance Umbrella, the Awesome Africa Music Festival, Poetry Africa Festival - all of these and others have the arts as their central raison d'être. Most festivals would argue that this rationale applies to them, but in reality they arose for different reasons.

CW: Why does this matter, though? As long as they're promoting the arts and supporting the creation and distribution of new creative products, shouldn't we be happy?

MvG: Festivals are complex organisms that are not just "about the arts". There're a range of interested parties - international and local donors, commercial sponsors, artists, politicians, the public, the media, the festival venue owners, etc. Even if we applaud their support of the arts - and we should - understanding the constraints under which they work, the political paradigm within which they operate and the agenda they've set, will help artists to use these festivals more effectively in the pursuit of the best interests of the arts.

Whatever the motivation for their genesis, artists need to negotiate these festivals - and the constantly changing interplay between different stakeholders and the impact of this on the festival - in order to realise their artistic ends. This requires organisation, political savvy and hard work on the part of artists.

CW: Some believe that festivals are the lifeblood of the arts today. What's your view?

MvG: I don't think it's primarily because of festivals in themselves that this is the case; I think it's largely because of the broader context of the arts where the major funding bodies like the National Arts Council and the Lottery are either in complete administrative disarray or are led by individuals with no vision, organisational expertise and strategic management ability in the arts. Then there's the government's policy of turning subsidised theatre spaces into receiving houses. This is fair enough in that they are now open to more independent theatre companies, except that government has decreed that such theatres will no longer have their own producing budgets. Therefore, theatres don't get subsidies to initiate new productions, co-produce work or buy existing work, and they need to host more conferences and weddings to generate the funds needed to support artistic work.

Festivals, on the other hand, are generally well run - particularly the bigger ones. They offer reasonable subsidies to productions so that new work can be staged, and since they have to programme works to draw audiences, they're able to provide a variety of platforms and opportunities for works to travel around the country and for artists to generate income. And, of course, unlike many theatres, festivals are attended by many people.

CW: Why do you think that's the case?

MvG: There are some theatres that achieve a consistent audience: the Baxter in Cape Town and the Johannesburg Civic Theatre (although it does more commercially-oriented productions). So it's not true that there isn't a market for theatre outside of festivals. But festivals are popular for a number of reasons. First, people are increasingly used to very wide entertainment choices. In a shopping mall context - which the average festival-goer experiences on at least a weekly basis - one's able to shop for groceries, see a movie, browse in a bookstore, eat at a restaurant, and park one's car safely, all under one roof. Similarly, at the click of a remote, one has access to variety in entertainment, through more than 50 DSTV channels.

Then there are casinos, the modern temples of multi-entertainment. Festivals are like these. One has a variety of very different experiences - seeing a show, walking through craft markets, watching free entertainment, sitting at restaurants, bumping into friends, listening to a stimulating lecture, dancing at a party, etc - every day, for a number of days at a time.

Our theatres, on the other hand, are historically quite boring, monofunctional spaces. One has to go for a meal elsewhere beforehand, drop the kids off at a babysitter, rush to the theatre and then find a place afterwards for a drink, since theatre spaces were generally geared only to staging productions, with perhaps the option of a bad meal at a restaurant that closed at ten o' clock. Theatres are now moving towards becoming sexier spaces: the Market and the Johannesburg Civic Theatre have trendy eateries, while Richard Loring and Pieter Toerien have theatre spaces "in the belly of the beast", so to speak - at casinos - so that theatre becomes one of the numerous entertainment options that people have in these spaces.

Festivals are also attractive because they're generally safe: one can walk around at night without fear. They cater for a variety of ages, and they offer a range of economic choices: see several shows at premium prices daily, or spend a whole week relaxing at free or cheap events. There's an energy at a festival that theatres find difficult to replicate - that's to say, if they even recognise it as something to which to aspire.

CW: And, of course, that's what makes it attractive to sponsors.

MvG: Sure. Sponsors want their brands to reach as many people as possible, but also specifically their target market. If a festival can deliver such a market, sponsors will follow. Festivals also provide a high media profile for a short, intense period of time: this is also attractive to sponsors - much like those who buy advertising at sports grounds to reach the spectators there, as well as those watching on television.

CW: What comes first? The sponsor, the arts or the market that the sponsor's targeting?

MvG: I think we need to accept that in the current context all three are important and that we need a greater degree of maturity on all sides to deal with the challenges and interests of each of these elements: those who create art, those who support that creation through making resources available, and those who consume the art, and in the process, the brands and products of the sponsors. The days when we could simply create art and expect support because it was "the right thing to do" are past: those who provide us with support want something in return.

There are many and ongoing debates about whether we give the market what it wants with regard to the arts, and in so doing deliver this market to the sponsor, or whether we should pursue artistic truth and beauty irrespective of the sponsor or the public. Sometimes the pendulum swings one way, and at other times the other way. We need to accept that there's tension, but also that we've much to learn from each other. But we need to talk more with each other, to understand each other better and even when we disagree, to learn to respect the paradigms in which each operates and to try to forge synergies of interests that do work for both. In all of this, we cannot forget the public, our audience: without them, neither the arts nor business have any meaning.

The problem is that too often our audiences are very small: we need to ask ourselves whether we're doing enough to get to know them - their interests, fears, and aspirations - so that our theatre can speak to these rather than be expressions of our own self-absorption as artists.

CW: Do festivals build or undermine theatre audiences?

MvG: The latter's an interesting perspective. I've heard some say that festivals are problematic in that many only attend one festival a year and see a few shows there, and don't set foot inside a theatre again. Others say a lot of the free entertainment at festivals - music stages at the KKNK and street theatre and entertainment trucks at Grahamstown - militates against people purchasing tickets to see "serious" theatre. Others argue that festivals encourage people to attend theatre, which they might not normally do at home. If the experience is good, they might attend the theatre more often on their return.

We've not done sufficient research - I think this is a problem which pervades the industry - to determine whether festivals do actually contribute to the development of new theatre audiences. I'd like to see much more research being done at festivals in order to inform their future development as well as other strategies to develop theatre beyond the festivals.

CW: What's your gut feeling?

MvG: My gut feeling is that festivals do much more good than harm in attracting, developing and sensitising audiences to theatre. Even if people see shows only at festivals, that's great - at least they're seeing them, and they may influence their friends to attend those shows when they reach their local theatre.

This brings me to the most important role that festivals could play in this area, and that is to provide a launching pad for theatre productions to travel around the country.

CW: Is that really still the case, though? Earlier, when theatres had production budgets, a festival like Grahamstown played such a role. Productions were taken to the festival in the hope that theatre managements would see them and purchase them for seasons around the country. So the festival was a hypermarket: artists didn't mind if they lost some money doing this, as long as they could recoup some of this loss through later runs.

MvG: Yes, the situation has changed, but some theatres still shop for productions at festivals. And, if a show does well at a festival, it's likely that it'll get picked up by at least one theatre afterwards, or at least theatres will be more open to co-producing it or taking the risk in producing it if it has enjoyed some success at a festival.

My own play Green Man Flashing won the Jury Award at the PANSA Festival of Reading of New Writing in November 2003, a festival geared to encouraging new writing for the stage. Some in the industry thought it was timely, but suggested it wouldn't really take off in the current theatre market and that it's too politically risky. I tried to flog the script to various theatres, but had no takers. So, at huge personal financial risk, I staged it at Grahamstown this year. Not only did it play to very good houses, but it was favourably reviewed. That's made organising a national tour much easier. Now, suddenly, theatres are less concerned about the political and financial risks.

Such hype does help to generate audiences for a piece in the longer term, not only locally, but also internationally, since international producers attend festivals in search of local work. So, I'd say festivals do help in building audiences both at the festival and beyond. It also works the other way round: shows that've done well in a city theatre before reach the festival with a reputation and momentum that helps to put the "sold out" signs up.

CW: But not all shows do well at festivals?

MvG: That's the risk of taking a show to a festival. In some ways, festivals provide a good test of the market. If one's show doesn't do reasonably well at a festival, then one needs to reflect on the reasons. Was the marketing inadequate? Was there something that set the show apart from others? Was the show simply not good enough? Sometimes the answers to these questions are hurtful, but they need to be confronted in order for one to learn and move ahead.

CW: Talking of moving ahead, how can festivals move forward?

MvG: For me, festivals are a very important part of the theatre and arts landscape, but they're only one part. I think we need to integrate them into the overall theatre picture more.

CW: Explain, please.

MvG: I'd like to see at least one annual festival in each of the nine provinces that identifies and celebrates the best that province has to offer. I'd also like to see the creation of a national festival. I know many festivals set themselves up as "national", but they're not really national: they don't draw on audiences or even on work from around the country, simply because of logistical issues like distance, the cost of accommodation and staging shows there, etc. This new national festival should rotate every two years; towns should bid for the right to host it, like the Olympics. And, for the first few years, it should be hosted in areas where there aren't yet any such festivals, like Nelspruit, Polokwane or Mafikeng.

It would be great if the best works at the provincial festivals get sponsored to be part of the national festival that then showcases these works while still providing space for other works to be performed. But a rotating national arts festival will also achieve the following: it will develop new audiences in areas where they're currently still marginal; it will help to develop new infrastructure in support of the arts; it will develop skills pertaining to management and marketing in the arts; it will encourage tourism to those areas; and after the festival departs, it will leave a legacy of skills, experience, audiences and infrastructure that can be built upon, and this could become the basis for the annual provincial festival. Once provincial festivals are in place, there could be a roster determining which one hosts the national festival each year.

CW: Some would say that it takes years to build up a festival infrastructure and that to move the venue every couple of years would be unrealistic and irresponsible.

MvG: There might be truth in that, but I'd be more inclined to accept the proposition if its loudest supporters weren't people with vested interests in existing festivals. Even a place like Grahamstown has to recreate its festival venue infrastructure annually and flies in technical equipment and expertise from elsewhere.

CW: Which seems to work against your argument?

MvG: But that's why I was saying earlier that we need to integrate festivals into the overall arts landscape and not simply see them as entities in themselves.

CW: Meaning?

MvG: At the moment, there's no vision, no cohesive strategy and no co-ordination of the development of the arts generally in our country and of theatre in particular. So there are many initiatives, but little co-operation towards the greater end of building a sustainable theatre industry where consistent markets are developed, theatres are reasonably full around the country every night, work can travel nationally and internationally, and artists have the capacity to earn a decent living within the industry and enjoy rights equivalent to those of other workers in the country. At the moment, "adhocracy" rules: some theatres have production budgets, others don't; some provinces have three theatres subsidised by national government and others don't have a single one; some theatres have marketing departments and others not.

There's also no vision with regard to what infrastructure is required nationally, what skilled human resources are required and what strategies we need to achieve these, so everyone just gets on and does their little thing without contributing to a greater picture. The idea of having a rotating national arts festival is about recognising that at the moment our theatre industry is based in a few provinces that have historically been resourced, and that it's in the interests of theatre to broaden its base nationally.

Developing theatre requires us to invest in the long term, which means encouraging schoolchildren to take a more active part in drama, and urging their parents to attend these productions. I'd like to see actors working with schools for six to nine months, on a weekly basis, conveying theatrical skills. The plays created in this way should be performed at provincial competitions. The best ones go up against one another in a national competition, with big prizes. This can be done relatively easily and cheaply, and it's a great way of developing interest in the theatre.

I'd like to see a national circuit of theatre venues, perhaps two in each province, no less than 150 kilometres apart, that would be sufficiently equipped with the human, technical, accommodation and marketing resources to be able to host tours by professional theatre companies. I'd like to see a national circuit of festivals that are timed in such a way that artists can move from festival to festival so that they work for most of the year. I'd like to see festivals forming a national co-ordinating structure through which to pool resources and ideas in the greater interests of the arts - rather than competing unnecessarily with one another to be the biggest, the best - and work out how their festivals can contribute to the growth of skills, infrastructure, marketing research information and the like.

They should also develop an accreditation process for festivals to be evaluated on the basis of a set of minimum criteria so that we don't have festivals like MACUFE consuming vast resources with little benefit to the artists. And I'd like to see a national co-ordinating structure for a national circuit of venues where they would plan - in association with the national festival co-ordinating structure - tours, co-productions, new commissions, etc, in conjunction with artists and bodies representing the interests of artists.

CW: Sounds like a lot of committees and structures and co-ordination?

MvG: Maybe. But there needs to be an overall vision and plan to develop the industry, because the current trickle-down effect - some are very resourced and it's hoped that others will at some stage follow - just isn't happening. And perhaps it needs to be reasonably co-ordinated at the start in order to ensure that the basics are in place around the country, after which things can be left to themselves.

CW: Still, that's a lot of talk about structure. What about the artists?

MvG: We have many artists with enormous talent. What we lack is effective structures and administrative systems to support their work.

Another basic requirement is theatre companies. I'd like to see a minimum of 12 to 15 professional theatre companies with an average of ten actors in each throughout the country. It's an indictment of our country that we don't even have one such company where actors can wake up in the morning and go to work in a company and know that they have a contract with a secure income for at least a year. Most companies consist of one to five people who organise projects, raise the funds and then contract artists for those projects.

CW: Why is it that we don't have theatre companies like these? After all, we have many highly successful dance companies that have generally been able to sustain themselves, like Jazzart, Moving into Dance, Siwele Sonke, and Ballet Theatre Afrikan?

MvG: With the changes in government policy after 1994 and the dissolution of the arts councils, theatre companies were the first to go, even though in terms of the White Paper, all companies attached to the councils were to receive declining subsidies over three years to help them to become independent entities like the opera, ballet, orchestra or contemporary dance companies. That was a process not particularly well-managed by the arts councils, nor, more importantly, by government which was, after all, responsible for the implementation of its own policies. But, then, for a number of years, the National Arts Council - a body particularly lacking in any kind of vision and managerial capacity - had a policy of funding projects rather than companies; each project could receive a maximum of R250 000 per year and only once. Most projects received less than half this amount and no company could be sustained on this. When the NAC eventually started allocating three-year funding to companies, it gave two to three times more funds to dance companies than to theatre companies, justifying this on the basis of having given funds for theatre to various theatres around the country to make up for the reduction in their production budgets, which the government had taken away and given to the NAC and of which the NAC was now giving a percentage back. Sigh.

But of course, neither the NAC nor the institutions receiving the funds informed the theatre community that they could apply for these funds for co-productions. Double sigh.

CW: But this still doesn't really explain why many dance companies have been able to sustain companies of eight or more full-time dancers, while theatre companies haven't been able to do the same.

MvG: I think that actors can make decent livings as individuals, not in theatre, but in film, commercials, television, voice-overs, industrial theatre, etc. While theatre may be their first, real love, economic realities drive them to seek income elsewhere and this makes it difficult to sustain a company when actors may be offered roles that would take them out of the company rehearsal and performance schedule for a while. Dancers, on the other hand, have few opportunities to make a living outside of the dance company, so that probably explains why there are more dance companies than theatre companies. And historically, dancers have for some unknown reason always been paid the least: orchestral musicians at the top of the rung, along with opera singers, then actors, and then dancers.

CW: So it's cheaper to run a dance company than a theatre company?

MvG: It seems so. But dance companies prove that if theatre practitioners wanted to form sustainable companies, then it could be done. What this also raises, though, is the need for the industry to address, as a matter of urgency, the remuneration and benefits for artists. At the moment domestic workers - and it's right that this is the case - have minimum salaries legislated. This is not the case with performing artists: the uncertainties of the industry make artists very vulnerable to exploitation. We need to come up with industry standards with regard to minimum salaries, remuneration scales, medical aid and pension scheme benefits to make full-time work within the theatre sector more attractive and sustainable. And, to bring it into line with other industries.

CW: And, in addition to the basics?

MvG: In addition to these I'd like to see student companies at each of the training institutions where the best graduates work in a company for at least a year afterwards to gain experience. Each province should support a youth theatre company for actors between 18 and 30. Also far more residencies for writers to create new work and to work with directors and theatre companies, and a band of excellent directors getting monthly stipends so they can work with companies around the country. With all of these - festivals, venues, companies, writers, directors, etc - I'd like to see a clear human resource development strategy that would ensure that new people are trained and gain experience as artists but also as marketers, managers, technicians, etc.

CW: Our brief was to talk about festivals.

MvG: I know. Sorry. But I wanted to make the point that festivals are not - or shouldn't be - islands. They should be integrated into broader strategies to develop a sustainable theatre industry: for example, there should be more co-productions between festivals, and between theatres and festivals. Not just between the Baxter and Grahamstown where a symbiotic relationship exists because Mannie Manim is a leading figure in both.

And we theatre people are going to have to do it for ourselves. Government has decided that in terms of its Cultural Industries Growth Strategy, the areas to concentrate on are film, craft, music and publishing, since they believe that investment in these are most likely to bring returns in the form of sustainable jobs, contributions to GDP, exports, etc. They don't believe that theatre can do this. Nor dance, nor the visual arts. So the creators of theatre and those interested in supporting theatre are going to have to work together to devise strategies to ensure the growth of the sector. And festivals can help because they fit into government economic-speak more readily since they generate wealth for the towns where they take place; they do provide work, albeit it seasonal.

CW: Which is why government is investing in festivals?

MvG: That's certainly so with the KKNK, which receives a grant from the Western Cape government, the Cape Town Festival which is supported by the city, and Grahamstown, that's funded by the Eastern Cape government. Also, the Lottery has identified festivals as a key area for funding.

CW: That's a good thing?

MvG: Government funding for the arts is always a good thing. But, with government funding come many challenges.

CW: Like what?

MvG: Governments aren't in the business of festivals and the arts. They've particular concerns relevant to their constituencies; they must be seen to be implementing government priorities. So, there's a danger that festivals will be panel-beaten to conform to some political imperative that has little to do with the arts and might even work against the arts, but which satisfies the politicians. With festivals struggling to survive without commercial sponsorship there's a danger, too, that increased government funding may lead to festivals becoming safe, politically anaemic events where challenging the status quo is discouraged. Festival boards are increasingly representing their sponsors, amongst them government, and managers of festivals have an interest in keeping these sponsors happy. There may, therefore, be overt or unarticulated pressure not to alienate them with troublesome, upsetting theatre. This is probably one of the greatest dangers of government sponsorship: the potential for self-censorship and for victimisation of those who speak out, thereby ironically compromising the hard-won constitutional right to freedom of creative expression.

CW: PANSA recently hosted forums about the Grahamstown festival in Johannesburg and Cape Town. Why?

MvG: This year, artists expressed much unhappiness - particularly those on the Fringe. We thought PANSA needed to provide a space for these issues to be aired, and for further follow-up to take place if necessary.

CW: What were the issues?

MvG: They were broad-ranging. There was concern that the subsidised Main festival shows were competing with Fringe shows by charging prices that hugely undercut the latter. As playwright Greig Coetzee noted, tickets for his one-person show cost R50, while a ballet on the Main cost R35. The ballet was in a more comfortable venue with a coffee shop; Fringe venues are often unpleasant spaces. Some felt that their audiences were declining.

CW: Despite ticket sales being up?

MvG: I'm not sure if Enron's auditors now hang out in Grahamstown, but the feeling on the Fringe is that audiences are not large enough to support all the shows.

Then, there's still a racial divide: audiences might be more integrated than before, but white audiences still largely attend "white" shows, and black audiences make up the primary market for "black" shows.

CW: That's not the fault of the Festival, surely?

MvG: I'm just raising the issues. But one can see that some of them confirm what I said earlier about the need for festivals to be integrated into broader strategies to develop the theatre industry.

Other issues were that the festival wasn't marketed properly and that people get to know about Fringe shows only shortly before it opens. The management needs to be more innovative and visionary, since it seems they're getting a bit stale.

The festival newspaper Cue also came in for criticism for not covering Fringe shows as widely as Main shows.

Also, it was argued that it's too expensive to be at the festival with a show of more than two or three cast members, so economics is determining the aesthetics of theatre.

The booking kit is very complicated. Productions compete for poster space: some shows plastered their posters everywhere, not giving anyone else much space. Some shows on the Main are politically correct rather than artistically meritorious.

CW: And were there any constructive recommendations?

MvG: Quite a few. Like, that Fringe artists should form a committee to represent their interests …

CW: Another committee?

MvG: Things change only through organisation and struggle. … Other recommendations were that venues should be run by artists themselves, that artists be trained in marketing and how to deal with the festival beforehand. An alternative newspaper was suggested that concentrates on the Fringe, to be launched with only professional writers. Also, it was suggested that the festival revert to the old ticketing system as Computicket is too expensive and inefficient.

CW: And how will these be taken further?

MvG: PANSA will summarise these recommendations and make representations to the festival committee in order to set a dialogue in motion around them, and it will share responsibility for implementing whatever is decided. PANSA believes that the festival is very important and needs to be improved.

CW: PANSA has its own Festival of Reading of New Writing?

MvG: We launched this festival two years ago to boost the morale of our members involved in theatre since theatre and the performing arts generally were in the doldrums after 2000, an annus horribilis for the arts: the State Theatre closed; hundreds of jobs were lost; the Market retrenched half its staff. The aim was to encourage writers to produce new work in the absence of national playwriting competitions (although there are a number in the Afrikaans theatre community that have produced excellent scripts) with a view to these being produced.

A call goes out for scripts and a judging panel is appointed. They read the scripts anonymously and select the five best ones, which are given a rehearsed reading by professional actors, during a weekend long festival. After each reading the audience engages with the writer; the audience selects one for an Audience Award and the judges award a Jury Award. The first was at Spier, and they produced both the Jury and Audience Award winners. Last year PANSA hosted the festival with UCT's drama school. The Baxter staged the Audience Prize winner and I did my own thing with Green Man Flashing. This year we've had 39 entries - a 40 percent improvement on last year's submissions. We'd like to have a relationship with a major theatre or festival where the best script - certainly the Jury Prize winner - is produced. This will serve as an incentive to enter the competition.

CW: Do you see the festival growing into something bigger?

MvG: Absolutely. The current festival is funded by the Royal Netherlands Embassy. But we've submitted a proposal to the Lottery for an international theatre festival focusing solely on the creation of new work, and the marketing and distribution of these pieces, so that they have the maximum stage life possible.

CW: How would the festival work?

MvG: Each year we'd invite six cities from different continents to select their best theatre company and send it to the festival; this would provide us with an idea of what's happening in theatre internationally and serve as a benchmark to evaluate our own work. In the preceding year, by commissioning writers and directors and through playwriting competitions, we'd have selected 10 or 12 pieces; these would be produced fully, along with the international works, to comprise the festival.

It would be a highly competitive festival pursuing goals such as innovation, originality and excellence. In the mornings there'd be master classes and seminars for the actors and directors. Shows would be performed in the afternoons and evenings, with actors being able to attend shows for free or at a reduced price, so that they can be exposed to the work of others.

Performers wouldn't be marketing their own work; they could spend their time theatregoing themselves and networking with colleagues. There'd be an agreement with theatres around the country to host one of the works for a season lasting at least three weeks. We plan significant prizes: entry into an international theatre festival; a three-month residency to write a new play; and the winning director would get to work with a theatre company abroad.

In the case of pieces with real potential that don't quite make the grade, we'd like the writers to work with mentors and directors to improve their pieces for submission the next year. And by having companies from abroad present, organic relationships and networks would develop to enable more of our theatre professionals and productions to travel abroad, thereby both influencing and being influenced by international trends in Europe and America, and in the developing world.

CW: You've raised many interesting ideas. How do you see them coming into effect?

MvG: If we get funding, PANSA plans to host a national indaba for theatre stakeholders in late November to coincide with our third Festival of Reading of New Writing, over a period of three to four days, to evaluate where we are, what we have, what has been gained and lost over the past decade, and to set out goals and ways of attaining them over the next five to ten years. It's time for the industry to take collective responsibility for itself rather than hoping constantly that government, or others, will eventually see the light.

CW: And do you think the industry can change things?

MvG: We don't have an alternative but to try. It may be small and require even harder work, but we think that a national indaba that helps us set new visions with regard to festivals, companies, funding, administration, theatre infrastructure, awards, education and training, would provide us at least with some kind of road map with which to approach the future. At the moment, we don't have anything like this.

CW: Are you optimistic?

MvG: I agree with Gramsci. I believe our lot is to dwell within the paradox of the optimism of the will and the pessimism of the intellect. With our minds we might reflect on why there's little to be optimistic about, but with our hearts - because we live and breathe and have passion - we'll struggle to change our conditions. I'm optimistic because I believe in the power of organisation and struggle and human beings, not because I believe in government and funding structures.







*Mike van Graan serves as the General Secretary of the Performing Arts Network of South Africa (PANSA), a national lobby of companies, institutions, service providers and individuals involved in the performing arts. He also serves as an executive member of the Network for Arts and Culture South Africa (NACSA), an umbrella body representing national and provincial formations in heritage, music, visual arts, community art, performing arts, etc.

He was elected as the General Secretary of the National Arts Coalition in the early nineties, a national body that heavily influenced current cultural policies, and was appointed as an advisor to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology after the elections in 1994. He left this position in 1996, having become increasingly disillusioned with the manner in which sound policy was being undermined through poor management and implementation.

He now runs a micro-enterprise, Article 27 Arts and Culture Consultants, which takes its name from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in its Article 27 that "everyone shall have the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community and to enjoy the arts …" Through this consultancy he offers a range of services and is currently contracted by Pro Helvetia, the Swiss Arts Council, to evaluate projects that it funds in South Africa, and he serves as the Cape Town representative for Business and Arts South Africa (BASA). He also writes a regular column, "Artwit", for the Mail and Guardian newspaper.

As a playwright, he was awarded the Fleur du Cap prize for Best New Script for Dinner Talk, in 1998, and his most recent play, Green Man Flashing, premiered at the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown in July 2004 and played to critical acclaim.

Cultural Weapon is a vehicle through which Mike van Graan provides commentary on contemporary developments in South African arts and culture, particularly with respect to the performing arts.



LitNet: 9 September 2004

Have your say! To comment on this piece write to webvoet@litnet.co.za, and become a part of our interactive opinion page.

Wil jy reageer op hierdie artikel? Stuur kommentaar na webvoet@litnet.co.za om die gesprek verder te voer op SêNet, ons interaktiewe meningsruimte.

boontoe / to the top

© Kopiereg in die ontwerp en inhoud van hierdie webruimte behoort aan LitNet, uitgesluit die kopiereg in bydraes wat berus by die outeurs wat sodanige bydraes verskaf. LitNet streef na die plasing van oorspronklike materiaal en na die oop en onbeperkte uitruil van idees en menings. Die menings van bydraers tot hierdie werftuiste is dus hul eie en weerspieël nie noodwendig die mening van die redaksie en bestuur van LitNet nie. LitNet kan ongelukkig ook nie waarborg dat hierdie diens ononderbroke of foutloos sal wees nie en gebruikers wat steun op inligting wat hier verskaf word, doen dit op hul eie risiko. Media24, M-Web, Ligitprops 3042 BK en die bestuur en redaksie van LitNet aanvaar derhalwe geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige regstreekse of onregstreekse verlies of skade wat uit sodanige bydraes of die verskaffing van hierdie diens spruit nie. LitNet is ’n onafhanklike joernaal op die Internet, en word as gesamentlike onderneming deur Ligitprops 3042 BK en Media24 bedryf.