Theatre Director Phelim McDermott offers his take on intelligent funding.
I agree with Dawn Austwick when she says that intelligent funding should look to the whole ecology and not just our little bit of it. One of the things we expect the arts to do is to inhabit the space of creativity and the creation of new forms, ideas, and perspectives. This is because progress is not about staying within what we already know. We have to step across two or three mistakes to get to a new idea like stepping stones to a new riverbank. On the way to the other side, some of those stepping stones might be decidedly wobbly. It is a combination of really staying in the moment and not focusing too much on the other side which will actually get us across. However, this awareness should also be present in our funding creativity.
For me a problem lies with the term intelligent; it feels limited. Intelligence is very good at telling us in retrospect how we got to a new idea and then sneakily persuading us it was present at the start of the process and had the idea in the first place just like those intelligent advertisers do with their advertising campaigns stolen from artists. I long for a situation where the aware funder knew when to keep intelligence out of the room and when to let it in.
It is not an intelligent idea to create a building, one hundred feet high, made entirely out of sticky tape (see image) or to fund artists to do it. It is intelligent to make sure that the 100-foot building you make from sticky tape has been load tested to make sure the crane doesnt drop it on someone or that your budget covers the cost of the event. The intelligence did not create the idea in the first place and watch out for its jealousy!
Using your intelligence is contextual to the stage of the process. It has a place but should never dominate the decision equations. Intelligence tends to look back at what happened and try and extrapolate the future. Wisdom remembers what happened and knows if it uses its experience to make a rigid plan something new will happen that was unpredicted. Indeed, wisdom knows that if it isnt being surprised nothing new will be created.
Although intelligence has never played a dominant part in my creative process, it has often sabotaged the process in its search for reassurance. I have cast a show intelligently and missed the opportunity to work with some extraordinary actors. The same could surely be said with funding decisions.
I like what business guru, Tom Peters, says, Reward failure, punish mediocre success! It is not a right to fail, its a necessary part of the process a given. I think in relationship to artists as risk takers, funders can get polarised into playing the sensible role because the art steals that energy. I really dont think that we should be drawn into the argument that the artistic bit is where the innovation happens and intelligence should be around when dealing with the finances. Lets not get polarised into the artistic element hogging all the creativity kudos. The funding discussion should be as innovative as the artistic exploration and the artistic work should be as excitingly honest as good business practice. Each field should be modelling good creativity practice for the other, not getting stuck in fixed roles.
What would courageous intelligence advise us to do with our money. Lets get intelligent about intelligence and move towards wisdom. Wise funding will, of course, look like intelligence after the event but very often foolhardy beforehand. It will also understand the difference between knowledge and knowing.
Phelim McDermott is an Artistic Director of Improbable.
w: http://www.improbable.co.uk