From Simon Daykin, General Manager, Pegasus Theatre, Oxford
Reading Simon Kensdale?s very personal view of arts managers (AP issue 91, 14 February), do I detect a hint of bitterness and resentment as he dismisses a whole raft of creative and inspirational arts planners, leaders and strategists at a stroke? If there is to be some form of constructive debate around some of the critical issues raised by letters from Gillian Perkins and Susan Jones on such heavy matters as the use of Arts Council resources and rates for artists, then can we as an industry please not tolerate the sort of sideswiping that characterises a polarised and narrow view of the comparative value of artists and executives.
Having carried out executive leadership roles in a total of five arts organisations I would classify myself as one of Mr Kensdale?s vilified band. In my experience the style of executive leadership now employed in the majority of arts organisations is one that gives artists the ability to create, experiment, discover and share, in an environment that supports them ? creatively, operationally, developmentally and financially. For schmoozing, read negotiation with funders or the cultivation of benefactors. For bean-counting, read ensuring that the company has enough money to employ exciting and cutting edge artists. For pen-pushing, read the daily round of correspondence with patrons, the completion of programme evaluation or statutory reporting: as well as the knowledge that organisationally, you are in the hot seat.
CEOs of arts organisations are not in those positions because they are failed or wannabe artists, or cunning manipulators of a sector that is far from cash rich. Of course we should value art at the sharp end, but every senior manager working to deliver the arts would consider themselves to be at the same sharp end. We have enough to worry about without setting artists against managers: we are all essentially aiming at the same thing. And most of us, artists and executive alike, get on with it without sighing.