Collision course

Following the sacking of Opera Australia’s Music Director, Simone Young, last week, the conflict between artistic directors and their boards has been touted as a global phenomenon.

Young’s sacking runs parallel to a number of occurrences in Europe earlier this year, in which business sensibilities have collided with artistic vision – prompting the arts community to question to what extent business is driving artistic decisions, and is this at the expense of forward-thinking creativity?

An article in the Financial Times commented last week: ‘Non–executive directors of arts organisations have turned interventionist, dampening the artistic side of their companies’ mandate in favour of business-oriented policies and “accountability”’.

‘Critics see these as part of a wider cultural tide, transforming publicly-funded arts organisations into consumer-oriented performance factories,’ it continued.

However, this is not the opinion held by Tony Davis, Professional Development Programme Manager for Arts & Business South East. Davis, who co-ordinates separate seminars for board members and arts executives, warns performances with generic appeal risk alienating audiences.

‘The product of making conservative cultural choices is that you lose audiences,’ Davis comments. ‘For example, orchestras have to be more adventurous now to appeal to a changing audience demographic… Interestingly, it is frequently recognised this is what commercial sponsors will move towards – the radical, the avant-garde.

‘Business sensibilities are not necessarily the same thing as business conservatism. I think that’s an environmental constraint of the arts and business. The successful business will be distinctive. What counts is the artistic push of an organisation.’

When asked if he thinks the arts are being compromised due to business-oriented perspectives, Davis replies: ‘There are financial constraints affecting the majority of activities in cultural production, because these are small to medium business enterprises. There are business constraints when you act as an employer. So it isn’t necessarily the introduction of business people on boards that creates conflict, but it’s in the nature of such organisations.’

In Young’s case, she was informed her contract would not be renewed for 2003 because the board could not sustain the expense of her artistic vision.

‘Unfortunately, it is clear that her future visions for the artistic growth of the company are not sustainable by Opera Australia in its current financial position,’ Chief Executive Adrian Collette said.

But similar situations have plagued European arts organisations.

July saw the departure of General Director Nicholas Payne from the English National Opera, following the board’s decision that his artistic vision was too risky.

Meanwhile, in Zurich, the Intendent of venue Zurich Schauspielhaus, Christoph Marthaler, also had his contract terminated. The reason given for his departure was that he was too adventurous.

However, it’s not only artistic directors who have been asked to step down.

A board member of a London art gallery was forced to resign earlier this year when his scathing comments on Brit art incited anger in the artistic community.

Ivan Massow, former Chairman of the Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA), resigned amid a blaze of controversy, following his comments in an article for New Statesman magazine that Brit art was ‘pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat.’

His comments challenged the work of Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst, two of Britain’s most prolific artists whose unconventional artistic approaches have sparked much debate.

Emin, famous for her unmade, stained bed installation, called for Massow’s resignation after he commented she ‘couldn’t think her way out of a paper bag.’ The comments also prompted Gallery Director Philip Dodd to call for the businessman to step down, while Massow had lost the support of the entire board.

According to Davis, the responsibilities of boards are changing, and difficulties arise because there has never been a benchmark for how boards should conduct themselves.

‘There’s no subject or object of what a board might be. It’s not clear how it should conduct itself or how often it should meet. What are defined are burdens of responsibilities, legal burdens, responsibilities as an employer,’ he explains.

‘Nor is the difference straightforward between operating at a strategic level and being involved operationally… Historically, to be involved operationally would be deemed inappropriate. Now it’s becoming a very attractive way of boards moving forward.’

Arts and Business South West runs two courses – one for executives, managers and directors, and another for board members. However, the questions addressed at both are deliberately similar, says Davis.

The courses discuss issues such as: should the board be responsible for the artistic programme, what are the responsibilities of the board, and how can the board perform best for the particular arts organisation.

According to Davis, the courses could possibly be a precursor to creating a benchmark for board practice. ‘It’s not just business people on boards that create problems, the world as it is does now, and business acumen can help solve them rather than make them worse.’

‘I’m not sure there’s any “crisis”,’ he concludes, ‘I think the historical difficulty has been that there’s no route map of how a board should conduct itself, therefore conduct will vary. Benchmarking is something that is emerging at the moment.

‘These seminars we are running are possibly moving towards benchmarking what that best practice can be.’

Arts and Business South East have developed two courses: