Dance Now The excellent magazine where this posting first appeared Cruel Garden - Ross Stretton’s troubled year at the Royal Ballet BIG on Ballet.co BIG website

The following is as it appeared on our Ballet.co Postings Pages

I am going to apaologise straight away for what will be a very long posting, but in the light of the long thread discussing Ross Stretton and his policies ( and the on-going situation of Scottish Ballet) I thought that posting an article that Jennifer Jackson and I wrote for Dance Now this spring on the role of the artistic director might contribute usefully to debate. It drew on a BIG Forum held in January which was extremely lively and thought provoking, and although the article came out in the spring, the issues discussed seem to be as pertinent as ever. I am very grateful to David Leonard of Dance Now for allowing the posting of this - for your information you can find the Dance Now web page at:
www.dancebooks.co.uk/now.shtml

BIG Discussion Forum discusses The Role of the Artistic Director

Big changes sweep through ballet companies in Britain this year. Of the four major companies in England, three will see a change in artistic director and, in some cases, executive director. The new blood augurs fresh thought and it is vitally needed. Of the appointees, all have experience of directing – abroad; only one has substantial experience of ballet in the UK. What is the context in which they will find themselves? What is expected of them, and will they be afforded the resources and licence to fulfil those expectations? Do they have the right qualities and experience for the job - is a director ideally a choreographer?

To consider what it means to direct a ballet company in Britain today, the BIG Discussion Forum invited three distinguished speakers with particular perspectives on ballet and experiences of leadership. Reflecting on the changes of the last century and challenges of the current one for the art form and those leading its institutions were Lynn Seymour – dancer, choreographer, former Artistic Director of the Ballet at the Bavarian State Opera, Munich, Judith Weir – composer, former Artistic Director of Spitalfields Festival, and Sir John Drummond CBE – formerly Director of the Proms and the Edinburgh Festival and Controller of Radio 3, member of BRB Board, author of Speaking of Diaghilev. BIG expands on some of the issues raised.

Currently major ballet companies are complex institutions whose aims spread wider than forging ahead with the making of art. Artistically such companies have a double duty, to look back as well as forward, acting as curators for the best of the past and as architects of the future. State patronage brings obligations - political, social and educational. Yet in the absence of sufficient public money companies are potentially at the mercy of individual or corporate sponsors - to say nothing of the demands of public taste as expressed in box office receipts. The voice of artistic priority can be drowned amidst a clamour of conflicting interests. Charitable status entails the placing of ultimate power, with financial accountability, in the hands of a board of directors. In USA the boards of dance companies are primarily there to bring in funds, individuals qualifying themselves for membership through generous personal contributions. In the UK fundraising is but one aspect of their contribution; board members are appointed to bring a range of experience, not necessarily artistic, to the governance of a complex organisation. Crucially they are responsible for the appointment of artistic directors.

The work of two great women, de Valois and Rambert, themselves influenced by Diaghilev, whose Ballets Russes set society alight with new dances at the beginning of the twentieth century, laid the foundations for the infrastructure that supports current professional dance practice and informs our understanding of the role of an artistic director. But the breeding ground was very different from the established territory of today. Those pioneering days perhaps had more in common with the vibrant independent scene in which companies and projects are born of artistic imperative - to disappear or metamorphose a few years down the line. Artistic directors in such an environment are not appointed but emerge through individual conviction and a fortuitous combination of circumstances. Would their unique qualities and aptitudes, their being in the right place at the right time, be recognised by today’s boards and headhunters?

Potential hazards arise in the relationship of board and artistic or executive director, from a lack of definition of their respective powers and responsibilities. At their best, boards can give selfless support and valuable assistance guided by sympathy and informed enthusiasm. Drummond cited as examples the boards of some of the major museums and galleries. At their worst they are perceived by frustrated artists as arrogant, ignorant and interfering, using artistic organisations as tools for business and political power brokering, more interested in the social cachet and opportunities for corporate entertainment conferred by starry galas, than attending to the wider or long-term needs of an art form. Do board members have the requisite knowledge and understanding of the field to carry out their primary tasks of appointing and supporting the artistic director? What power should they have to circumscribe the director’s ability to take artistic decisions? Who holds responsibility for the health and development of the organisation? These were all questions that Seymour felt any candidate should address and attempt to answer before taking on a directorship, voicing the need for some kind of written artistic policy and contractual definition of responsibilities, to which both board and artistic director would adhere.

Reliance on state funding now limits the artistic director's freedom of movement. Drummond highlighted the changed situation resulting from an expansion of interest in dance in all its forms since he joined the Arts Council dance panel in the 60s. Then there were only seven dance companies between whom to share the funding cake. Now numerous companies vie for inadequate provision, and decisions on allocation are dependent on politically influenced funding criteria demanding compliance with mantras of financial accountability, accessibility and social inclusivity. The "arm's length" funding policy that protected the rights of subsidised companies to pursue their artistic concerns has been successively eroded by governments either reluctant to recognise the role of the arts in society or wishing to control and use them: "The overt government demand on the arts is that they serve everyone and foster shared values in the name of social inclusion. The covert effect is to demote not just dissenting culture but also aesthetic integrity". Drummond saw this as a serious danger to the risk-taking which is essential to creativity.

The division of artistic and administrative responsibilities into two roles - Artistic and Executive Director - can, given a complementary partnership, engender fruitful collaboration. Recent successful examples cited in discussion were Matthew Bourne and Katharine Doré at AMP and Derek Deane and Carole MacPhee at ENB. However it was noted that such successful teams were more likely to arise organically from smaller shared beginnings and mutual sympathy and interest. Drummond also drew attention to the problems for a ballet company functioning in a shared house. It does not bode well that the ROH's newly appointed Executive Director Tony Hall has so little demonstrable interest in or experience of ballet that he could apparently complete his first press conference without referring to the Royal Ballet once.

It is not enough therefore, for a ballet director to have artistic vision and drive - although as Drummond maintained, "energy is the best card in your hand". In present circumstances, the challenge lies not in launching but in maintaining, in interfacing with existing structures, in protecting the generation of artistic activity from being crushed by a "mountain of bureaucracy" and resulting strategic manoeuvring that seems to eat up an artistic director's time. Weir's experience programming Spitalfields Festival taught her the value of arts administrators with the ability to handle the financial complexities of a sizeable modern arts organisation, and to devise the structures which filter managerial pressures and enable the artistic director to function artistically. But she did not wish to be totally protected from administrative matters, the result of a mistaken assumption that as a creative artist she would not be interested in the “practical”; such "kid gloves" treatment was in reality a withholding of power. Seymour had first hand experience of the problems of such powerlessness in her two years as Artistic Director of the Ballet of the Bavarian State Opera in Munich, where she was not given the administrative authority to take practical actions to forward her artistic policies, and was dependent on the decisions of a General or Executive Director.

Fundamental to the whole, is internal and external balance – consideration of the needs and desires of both artists and audience. Increasingly in a consumer-led culture, the audience leans towards an homogeneity of taste – fed a limited diet and then craving what it knows in a field in which it is not expert. Drummond commented that everyone has opinions about the arts in the way that they don’t about business. As Brian Hunt recently observed of today’s generation, “we have little incentive to know much about art, but every opportunity to decide what we like. …The rise of the public could precipitate the decline of art”. In this scenario elitism, in the sense of expertise and excellence, is victim.

If it is the artistic director who is to steer a course through these complexities and, far from retreating into a ballet ivory tower, interact with the real world, what qualities are required? A potentially useful list of attributes and definitions of leadership emerged from the discussion - facilitator, knowledge, motivator, unselfish, innovator, mentor, generous, editor, developer and preserver, strength in the face of bureaucracy ...

Sonia Arova (in an article written in 1969 that has remarkable relevance today) cites “authority and responsibility” as essentials. She also says “I believe that a good director must have, or cultivate, an enquiring, receptive mind … and be open to discoveries”. The descriptive ‘Artistic’ must surely hold a key to the responsibilities of the post and how they link to the notion of enquiry and discovery. Where ‘Director’ implies authority, what shape is that authority today?

The notion that power is ‘personally’ ascribed is dangerous. Arova says “It is not me, Sonia Arova, but my position – the Director – which has authority” . This is analogous with Harry Truman’s assertion that he occupied the “Office of the Presidency”. Distinguished by his decisiveness and willingness to accept responsibility for difficult decisions, Truman refused to stand for re-election in 1952; likewise Weir felt strongly that an artistic director’s term should be a limited and prescribed one. She stood down as Spitalfields Festival's Director after six years, during which time she wholeheartedly brought her personal stamp and opinion to the post – arguably liberated by the knowledge that the festival is guaranteed a fresh eye and evolution within a rolling programme.

Looking to the history of Britain’s great Royal Ballet institution, it is interesting to note that after de Valois (whose vision and energy facilitated its establishment) Ashton and MacMillan’s tenures each lasted about 7 years. Both artists perhaps knew when to go and went. By contrast, has Dowell stayed for too long – suspended in the institutional inertia of a series of boards, and a flabby management? Drummond provocatively observed that “people who sit on boards aren’t short of a penny or two”, a cushion that perhaps stifles the kind of hunger needed to change the status quo. Heretically, we suggest that de Valois’ legacy of ‘the hierarchical figure who issues orders from on high and stays forever’ has become a negative one. It is salutary for those in power to be reminded of what puts and keeps them there – just as the poor dancer feels him/herself to be the most dispensable crumb in the cake, so may directors and boards muse on their dispensability. Paradoxically de Valois was a great champion of dancers' working conditions. Art is not a democracy!

So today, what does a ballet company “workforce” need from its leaders? Ballet’s survival appears to hang in the balance, its pool of creativity dried up, suffocating in an environment where as Seymour lamented, “Art is being treated as business, politicised or institutionalised. It’s seen merely as entertainment, its perpetrators as hardware, software and flesh” - the stuff of video games and mass produced machine entertainment. She suggested the artistic director’s role carries “moral responsibility for spiritual edification”. Ballet after all is an art that is premised on human endeavour in the realm of the body, but demands the absolute engagement of the whole being.

Creativity must be at the heart of artistic activity. How is it manifest in a ballet company? Most obviously, and reductively, with its choreographers, but this is to put the choreographer on a pedestal. By assigning to an individual a god-like responsibility, the rest are effectively disempowered - at the expense of recognising creative input at all levels of company practice. A company even when unified by schooling, a distinct style and repertoire, comprises individuals, each of whom has singular creative gifts that will flower at different times. Leading outwards, the individual spark informs the strength and vibrancy, literally the life, of the company which, leading inwards, is the structure that supports each person’s growth, giving it shape. As Roger Tully reminded attendees at the previous BIG Forum when he quoted Shantanand Saraswati, “Make men and they will make art” .

Creative development is clearly central to the director's role, but need not necessarily manifest itself in choreographic output. Rambert, "midwife" to Ashton’s and Tudor's choreographic talents, was described by William Chappell as "a very special kind of creator; a creator of creativity" . Diaghilev was no choreographer, nor even a dancer, but showed inspired creativity in his ability to bring together the right team of artistic collaborators to generate an unrivalled succession of innovative works. Echoing this was Weir’s call for the artistic director as mentor and editor – to provide an outside but knowledgeable layer of leadership for a collaborative team.

Some choreographers do make successful artistic directors; building on the achievements of Peter Wright, David Bintley thrives. Birmingham Royal Ballet has established a distinct repertoire of new and old work, and looks to the future through adding a school and providing opportunities for higher education for its dancers. However, it can be argued that directors should not make work on their own repertoire companies. Requirements for creation are sometimes best met where the choreographer is not also the person responsible for the overall health of the organisation. MacMillan felt frustrated by the administrative duties of heading a repertory ballet company. De Valois and Norman Morrice ultimately sacrificed their choreographic careers in order to concentrate on the creative task of artistic direction.

Seymour asked: Who is it that defines what expectations individuals (not just the Young) can realistically have within a ballet company? Who sets the standards and programmes for the development of the dancers, choreographers, repetiteurs, teachers and coaches from within? Even in a post with limited tenure, the artistic director, in the role of appointed expert and visionary, must have the managerial authority to put into practice policies to nurture the depth of enquiry and curiosity that breed creativity. Imaginative structures are needed, for instance to: embrace Weir’s practice of canvassing opinion; inspire creative classes; encourage ever greater yield from the distinct resource of ballet language; revitalise re-productions, availing dancers and repetiteurs of sophisticated technological aids and research into repertoire happening in educational establishments; programme fewer casts and more performances to allow for deep engagement with the canon. S/he is responsible for developing an environment where the individual flourishes thus ensuring the health of the whole.

The debate brought out the complexities and contradictions inherent in trying to define the role. Balancing the long and short term needs of both art form and practitioners provides a major challenge for any artistic director. The notion that the artist and art works are vessels through which passes the tradition, is a reminder of both the conservatorial and the creative function of artistic direction. Principles need to be safeguarded and enshrined in policy which enables the transmission of the tradition, its transformation with each generation and thus, the creative freedom of artists. Our discussion could only scratch the surface. Choreographer Steven Whinnery brought us back to people, who he said do jobs – but must be allowed to be people. His vision is of the artistic director as thinker, philosopher, artistic fool.

Jennifer Jackson and Susan Crow
February 2001

Ballet Independents' Group Discussion Forum events for 2001 are supported by London Arts. For information about the Forum and other BIG activities please call 0208 682 1385, or email susiecrow@easynet.co.uk or jenjackma@aol.com.

i Andrew Brighton, Towards a Command Culture, quoted by George Walden in The New Elites, Allen Lane 2000
ii Daily Telegraph, 13/01/01
iii Arova with Olga Maynard in Dance Magazine, May 1969. (Dame Sonia Arova died 4/02/01)
iv Ibid.
v Shantanand Saraswati, The Man who wanted to meet God, Element Books 1996
vi quoted in Secret Muses - The Life of Frederick Ashton, Julie Kavanagh, Faber and Faber 1996