It’s time to have an honest conversation about how artist development does and doesn’t work. Paul Warwick kicks things off.
There has been a huge proliferation of artist development initiatives in theatre over the last decade. It’s a shift that has been criticised, sometimes rightly, for clogging up theatre-makers, scripts and ideas in endless cycles of development with little hope of anyone committing to full production. Why are we all so keen on artist development and why has it become so widespread?
Is it because development schemes with catchy names appeal to funders? Is it because it’s a cheap way for venues to demonstrate their “commitment” to “emerging” or “regional” artists or to “new writing” while directing the bulk of their resources towards plays written by dead writers and companies that already have large subsidies to make work? Both these things are sometimes true and it’s good to have honest conversations around how artist development does and doesn’t work. Oval House is doing just that in May... Keep reading on The Guardian
There has been a huge proliferation of artist development initiatives in theatre over the last decade. It’s a shift that has been criticised, sometimes rightly, for clogging up theatre-makers, scripts and ideas in endless cycles of development with little hope of anyone committing to full production. Why are we all so keen on artist development and why has it become so widespread?
Is it because development schemes with catchy names appeal to funders? Is it because it’s a cheap way for venues to demonstrate their “commitment” to “emerging” or “regional” artists or to “new writing” while directing the bulk of their resources towards plays written by dead writers and companies that already have large subsidies to make work? Both these things are sometimes true and it’s good to have honest conversations around how artist development does and doesn’t work. Oval House is doing just that in May... Keep reading on The Guardian