So I was surprised to find that on each of the three nights of the festival that I attended, the theatre (a modest 260 seater) wasn't even close to full. Even on the last night, tonight, when three of the best plays were recalled to be shown again, the theatre was only around half full.
Why?
The only reason I knew about the festival was that I am a member of a group who took part, but sadly weren't nominated for any of the awards. Otherwise I wouldn't have known about it. I have never heard of it before despite being a reasonably regular and local (30 years plus) theatre goer - surely indicating a major communication failure.
Following tonight's three performances, the adjudicator gave his assessment of the quality of performances he had seen throughout the two weeks of the festival.
'Was this year a vintage year for Woking Drama Festival?', he asked.
'Not Really', he said, 'Some of the groups didn't really bother to try very hard.'
It was a fairly damning indictment from someone who clearly knows his stuff.
He went on to implore the drama groups who attended the final night (not all bothered) to make use of the unusually high standard of facilities available at the theatre which has recently been gifted £300,000 by the local council for improvements.
And that £300k really got me thinking. The typical theatre goer is relatively wealthy. Why on earth should £300,000 pounds of local taxpayers money be lavished on a tiny, wealthy majority? And why is it?
An email I received earlier this week perhaps helps answer that question. It was imploring me, as someone who had bought a ticket for a previous festival night, to attend last Tuesday's festival night as the mayor was attending and given the £300k the council had spent they wanted to create the false impression that the festival was well attended and deceive the mayor into thinking that local taxpayers money had been wisely spent...
Isn't this madness?
What usually happens when you give people money for nothing? Are they incentivised to work hard and be creative?
Theatre is a unique and brilliant art form. But is government funding helping or ultimately hindering?
Does it help drive innovation and creativity when government hands out money to the arts?
Some would argue that without government money, the arts would die. But isn't it true that with government money the most creative people spend their time and energy competing for grants rather than working out how to attract audiences? - Isn't it therefore a downward spiral?
I suspect that the organisations at the top of the tree, who manage to garner national government funding and who should be telling the big story about the unique and compelling attractions of theatre are not doing as much of it as they would be, if they weren't being gifted taxpayers cash.
The UK's big-name football clubs are not subsidised yet they manage to inspire millions of people to play football at clubs around the country and further millions of others around the world. You will not find a city in the world without hundreds of Manchester United supporters..
So is government funding actually killing the arts by removing incentives and rewarding mediocrity which in turn creates a less compelling product for audiences?
If all direct and in-direct funding were suddenly withdrawn certainly some theatres would fail - the ones that produce a poorer quality product. But those that were left would succeed and perhaps out of the improved average quality, the result would be that more people would view theatre as something desirable to be involved with either as a member of an audience or as a participant.
And perhaps the major theatres and theatre production companies would do what major football clubs in this country have done and invest in creating sustainable mass audiences by effectively marketing the appeals of their product rather than making grant submissions. Not simply selling each production, but the very idea and appeal of going to the theatre.
And in turn perhaps thousands of people who attended and enjoyed this exciting well marketed medium of theatre would be tempted to join small drama and theatre groups and compete against each other in increasingly well attended, high quality festivals and competitions... thus driving standards and participation ever higher..
Does it seem like the perhaps counter-intuitive answer to the original question is yes?
