The Guardian‘s Lyn Gardner offers a humble suggestion for a proposed levy on tickets to support London’s West End theater infrastructure: such money should support the contents before it supports the box. Says Gardner:
In recent years, far too much public money has gone on capital projects and keeping the lavatories working in subsidised theatres, and far too little into the work that actually goes on stage. An empty theatre is just a building and nothing more, and if that building is not fit for 21st century theatrical purpose, then why not turn it into something else?….
If we have to make choices between putting public money into bricks and mortar or into making art and nurturing the next generation of artists, I know where I want it to go.
The challenge, of course, is that both sides are right. The contents (at least in their current form) need a box. And the box needs content. The trick is finding a resource balance — from earned, contributed, and public funds — that grows the two together.
Wow, those Brits. I wish we could view theatre bathrooms as overfunded here in the US, but when last I checked, most patrons weren’t clamoring for naming opportunities for toilets or plumbing. While the invocation of toilets may have been intended for sardonic metaphorical effect, perhaps it directly speaks to the “chicken/egg” issue later raised with the question of facility versus program development.
Personally, I feel the way a theatre chooses to manage its bathrooms speaks a great deal about how it chooses to serve its public (or, conversely, how it expects its public to serve it). I’ve also seen this issue arise architecturally when weighing the concept of absolute historical preservation against “impure” adaptive reuse. Does the institution exist to meet public demand, or should the public recognize some institutions should be supported as a form of civic service?
In the theatre world, often the most exciting programming appears to come from companies with the most woefully inadequate bathroom facilities (consider bathroom availability at any fringe festival or storefront theatre). Does this mean ample facilities hamper creative programming? I suppose one could argue smaller organizations simply don’t have the luxury of trying to balance capital campaigns against operational expenses…
Perhaps a possible solution is to allow naming rights for set pieces or actors. For instance, you could have the Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so Q. Goodfellow Trust stage right parapet, or an announcement that this evening, the role of Laertes is generously underwritten by Bank of America. Imagine the possibilities if you could secure a sponsorship of Romeo by a corporation considering a hostile merger with the underwriters of Juliette!