Powering the Performing Arts
Wed, 16 Aug 2000, 12:08 amGrant Malcolm16 posts in thread
Powering the Performing Arts
Wed, 16 Aug 2000, 12:08 amIt's been exciting to follow the suggestions for re-developing the old East Perth Power Station and turning it into a cultural centre with performing arts facilities.
While I'm not too sure about the obsession with blindly following the lead of other capital cities in pushing for a performing arts venue situated on the water's edge - can't we come up with something original? - the Power Station represents a stunning opportunity.
The building itself is beautifully situated and the huge structure is most impressive when view from either the railway or the new tunnel bridge. The proximity to both the casino and Northbridge lend the venue a centrality that would be invaluable in attracting new audiences.
I'm not sure that i share Geoff Gibbs' enthusiasm - reported in The West - for housing two theatre venues seating 400 and 600 respectively. Only a couple of weeks ago in the same paper, Ron Banks was bemoaning the fact that our larger venues will be returning to extended periods of darkness after an unprecedented run. And Gibbs' is suggesting we need two more medium sized venues?!?!
The two busiest theatres in town - the BlueRoom and Effie Crump - each seat less than 100. Do we really need another two venues seating four times that number that will be empty nine months of the year except for when we have imported products showing?
If Geoff Gibbs and Arts Minister, Mike Board, are serious about supporting local industry, I hope the venue will house at least one much smaller studio space. The space can easily be filled by local productions on less than stellar budgets.
What does everyone else think?
Cheers
Grant
While I'm not too sure about the obsession with blindly following the lead of other capital cities in pushing for a performing arts venue situated on the water's edge - can't we come up with something original? - the Power Station represents a stunning opportunity.
The building itself is beautifully situated and the huge structure is most impressive when view from either the railway or the new tunnel bridge. The proximity to both the casino and Northbridge lend the venue a centrality that would be invaluable in attracting new audiences.
I'm not sure that i share Geoff Gibbs' enthusiasm - reported in The West - for housing two theatre venues seating 400 and 600 respectively. Only a couple of weeks ago in the same paper, Ron Banks was bemoaning the fact that our larger venues will be returning to extended periods of darkness after an unprecedented run. And Gibbs' is suggesting we need two more medium sized venues?!?!
The two busiest theatres in town - the BlueRoom and Effie Crump - each seat less than 100. Do we really need another two venues seating four times that number that will be empty nine months of the year except for when we have imported products showing?
If Geoff Gibbs and Arts Minister, Mike Board, are serious about supporting local industry, I hope the venue will house at least one much smaller studio space. The space can easily be filled by local productions on less than stellar budgets.
What does everyone else think?
Cheers
Grant
RE: Powering the Performing Arts
Fri, 18 Aug 2000, 03:27 pm-------------------------------
Grant Malcolm wrote:
What performing arts venue problem?
-------------------------------
I tend to believe that the problem lies in the management of most of these venues. We have a surplus of venues. What we do not have is an understanding by management or government of the requirements of the performance community or local audiences.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the continual strain that is placed both on audiences and the local industry by the annual PIAF. I have long thought that the Festival should be a bi-annual event (like Adelaide).
Audiences are expected to cough up ridiculous amounts of cash to go to the PIAF 'events', and let's face it, most PIAF shows are 'events' designed to make 'us' look good in the eyes of the world and to reassure the public that they aren't living in a cultural Calcutta. A lot of what is presented is high-gloss, high-cost ambivalent mediocrity which has nothing to say to us.
The amount of money available in the local individuals entertainment budget is not inconsiderable, but is sorely taxed by the PIAF. Also, consistent theatre-going is a HABIT which takes time to engender and when it is formed, hard to shake, but in the last decade audiences have had this habit broken by government policy. The only consistent habit seems to be for the PIAF.
I don't blame the venue managements for having their funding squeezed or their criteria limited. However, this process has been going on for some years now and I believe it is high time for a bit of *creative thinking* from the venue management in order to recreate the habit - in spite of the govt and 'conditions'.
The key here is to create high volume turnover and keep the theatres open, as often as possible with as much variety as possible in order to create a dynamic energy in the industry. This combined with shelving PIAF every two years might just get the audiences back into the venues on a regular basis.
How can this be done? One way might be to allow local quality groups to use the venues at 0%-20% of the current rates, with the option to negotiate out some of those 'ancilliary costs' (such as cleaning or excessive FOH - most groups can supply people to take some of these positions). This would also lead to lower ticket costs...
I understand that, in general, venue managers are still paid despite how much or little their venue is used, but perhaps it is time to start thinking in the long term rather than the band-aid solutions which have been a feature of the Lib's arts 'policy'.
After all, if the habit is recreated then everyone will benefit. Venue charges can increase once again to profitable levels because groups have a reasonable expectation of audiences interested in going to their shows.
And the quality of PIAF can improve because Doran has spent two years looking at booking quality, not trying to book every piece of crap in sight.
Regards
Jason
Grant Malcolm wrote:
What performing arts venue problem?
-------------------------------
I tend to believe that the problem lies in the management of most of these venues. We have a surplus of venues. What we do not have is an understanding by management or government of the requirements of the performance community or local audiences.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the continual strain that is placed both on audiences and the local industry by the annual PIAF. I have long thought that the Festival should be a bi-annual event (like Adelaide).
Audiences are expected to cough up ridiculous amounts of cash to go to the PIAF 'events', and let's face it, most PIAF shows are 'events' designed to make 'us' look good in the eyes of the world and to reassure the public that they aren't living in a cultural Calcutta. A lot of what is presented is high-gloss, high-cost ambivalent mediocrity which has nothing to say to us.
The amount of money available in the local individuals entertainment budget is not inconsiderable, but is sorely taxed by the PIAF. Also, consistent theatre-going is a HABIT which takes time to engender and when it is formed, hard to shake, but in the last decade audiences have had this habit broken by government policy. The only consistent habit seems to be for the PIAF.
I don't blame the venue managements for having their funding squeezed or their criteria limited. However, this process has been going on for some years now and I believe it is high time for a bit of *creative thinking* from the venue management in order to recreate the habit - in spite of the govt and 'conditions'.
The key here is to create high volume turnover and keep the theatres open, as often as possible with as much variety as possible in order to create a dynamic energy in the industry. This combined with shelving PIAF every two years might just get the audiences back into the venues on a regular basis.
How can this be done? One way might be to allow local quality groups to use the venues at 0%-20% of the current rates, with the option to negotiate out some of those 'ancilliary costs' (such as cleaning or excessive FOH - most groups can supply people to take some of these positions). This would also lead to lower ticket costs...
I understand that, in general, venue managers are still paid despite how much or little their venue is used, but perhaps it is time to start thinking in the long term rather than the band-aid solutions which have been a feature of the Lib's arts 'policy'.
After all, if the habit is recreated then everyone will benefit. Venue charges can increase once again to profitable levels because groups have a reasonable expectation of audiences interested in going to their shows.
And the quality of PIAF can improve because Doran has spent two years looking at booking quality, not trying to book every piece of crap in sight.
Regards
Jason
- ···
- ···