Speaking from USA I just returned from the 11th annual Pittsburgh New
Works Festival, one month of totally new, experimental theater.
Check it out at
http://www.pittsburghnewworks.org.




>I think the situation in the UK is going down the same lines as Aus, it's
>taking longer 'cos of the historical core of Brit culture, plus it being a
>more populous, if physically smaller place, but monopolisation is becoming
>the name of the game over here too.
>
>I was recently trying to get some contacts on non-mainstream plays being
>performed, not by me I hasten to add, and after talking to people in admin
>at various theatres I found the advice was 'well, for anything like that
>you'll have to try the MAC'
>
>The MAC is the Midlands Arts Centre in Cannon Hill Park in Birmingham.
>Basically I was being told that anything unconventional had only one
>possible performance venue in the whole of the English Midlands.
>
>In the meantime tRAce continues to prosper, small firms go to the wall, and
>our Chancellor propounds the US as the economic model for British society.
>
>Our Labour Chancellor.
>
>Best
>
>Davo
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 10:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Trevor's book
>
>
>> Mark wrote:
>>
>> >> But things are probably worse in Australia.
>> >>
>> The reason things are worse here in that aspect is that we have such heavy
>> monopolisation of the mainstream media - only three major media companies,
>> and only two (New Ltd and Fairfax) in newspapers. None of the newspapers
>> take anything like a serious attitude to arts reporting/reviewing, and
>> whatever one thinks of those who do it, they are battling against the tide
>> to get any but the most basic coverage in the pages at all. There is very
>> little status/money to be had from the arts, except in their more
>corporate
>> forms.
>>
>> The coverage is events/celebrity led, and nowt to be done about it. A few
>> brave and reckless individuals might make a difference, but the
>proprietors
>> are on the whole careful not to employ such people - consequently, one
>gets
>> to read reviews, say, of the latest Rimbaud biography by someone who had
>> clearly never heard of Rimbaud before reading the book. (It was a low
>> point). The effect, which is not I think entirely deliberate but more by
>> default, is a kind of cultural totalitarianism, the creation of an
>> "official culture" (by culture I'm meaning the mediation between artist
>and
>> public). It is not on the whole ill-meaning, but it is generally worse
>> than useless - it insulates "the arts" in a kind of vacuum which has
>little
>> to do with the general culture of ideas in say, science or politics, mere
>> consumables. When people complain about elitism in the arts, what they
> > mean is generally its Saatchi and Saatchi presentation (which is where a
> > large part of Australia Council budget is going). Given that, people can
>> be forgiven for thinking that the arts for the rich and leisured, and how
>> many have the time or inclination to find out otherwise?
>>
>> On the other hand... there is a kind of freedom in this situation. Free
>of
>> expectations of any kind, artists can do what they like. And that can be
>> interesting. But I can't say I feel especially sanguine about the
>cultural
>> atmosphere in this country at the moment - and not just in the "arts
>> industry" -
>>
>> Best
>>
>> A
>>


--