Reverberations across Small-Scale British Theatre: Politics, Aesthetics and Forms
Between 1960 and 2010, a new generation of British avant-garde theatre companies, directors, designers, and performers emerged. Some of these companies and individuals have endured to become part of theatre history while others have disappeared from the scene, mutated into new forms, or become part of the establishment. Reverberations across Small-Scale British Theatre at long last puts these small-scale British theatre companies and personalities in the scholarly spotlight. By questioning what 'Britishness' meant in relation to the small-scale work of these practitioners, contributors articulate how it is reflected in the goals, manifestos, and aesthetics of these companies.
Steering a review: some reflections on a gig
This article both reports and reflects upon the author’s experience as part of the Steering Group on a project which attempted to map the main issues facing the music industries in Scotland. Through analysis of both the research and my role within it, the article seeks to address bigger questions about the role of academics in shaping music policy and suggests that the case study raises questions which resonate far beyond Scotland’s borders.
Expertise, the academy and the governance of cultural policy
My research into British cultural policy-making and the so-called creative economy has led me to consider the role of experts in producing the discourse of creativity (Schlesinger, 2007, 2009a).1 To date, the efforts of critics to deconstruct the creative economy have had little effect on its salience as a focus of policy-making (Bustamante, 2011). Moreover, research on the topic is growing and it is increasingly institutionalized in learning and teaching. One long-standing advocate of the cause, Stuart Cunningham (2009: 375), sees the depth of opposition to the creative economy among critical scholars as ‘a textbook case of the disabling gap between policy and critique’. However, rather than academics constituting two opposed camps – those of ‘policy’ and ‘critique’ – in reality, a much more nuanced situation prevails. The polemical context that dogs the creative economy makes it a particularly apt case for a discussion of the role of academics in ‘cultural governance’. Tony Bennett (2007: 12) has characterized one key feature of this practice as that of ‘producing work that might have an impact on actually existing cultural policies’. Although favouring such interventions by academics, Bennett emphasizes that they not should cease ‘to be critical of such policies’ where criticism is merited. To be a critic as well as a kind of insider raises hard questions about whether one can actually ride two horses at once. Contemporaneous criticism may be limited by the rules of the game into which one has entered – for instance, by observing official secrecy laws or confidentiality agreements. Or – much more subtly – by accepting the trade-offs that arise between obtaining access and exercising the discretion that keeps the field open.