Extant – Pursued By A Ben

As if by magic and in the blink of an eye, that’s my 15 months over and done with. I have come to the end of my time as Trainee Artistic Director at Extant and in some ways, it feels like about five minutes since I received the very exciting news that I’ve been offered the role, yet, in other ways it feels like I’ve been part of the Extant team forever and it will be very strange when they all carry on without me.

As I leave this job, I’m reflecting once more on what it means to be an Artistic Director especially when many theatre organisations seem to be moving away from an Artistic Director led model and away from one voice at the top of the organisation steering the vision.

Over the past year I’ve been paying more attention to the behaviours of artistic leaders and leadership structures in theatre and two scandals have grabbed my attention. I’m going to avoid naming the organisations involved, but you might well be able to guess who they are and as I don’t know all the details, I don’t want to presume I understand all the nuances of what happened behind the scenes.

Recently, a theatre building who has moved away from the Artistic Director model, tied themselves in knots around the artistic content of a show and I was really surprised at how late in the day this all came to light. From the outside, and from the information I have, I fundamentally disagree with the theatre’s choices. But I was particularly shocked that they made that choice with just a few days to go before the opening night. It’s hard not to imagine a different outcome had they had a strong Artistic Director at the top of that organisation, a person who would’ve got to grips with the situation sooner, and quite possibly made a very different decision. When an organisation which no longer has art at the top of the tree puts business, funding and financial management as their foremost priority we see that they’ve made an artistically flawed choice and are now suffering the financial consequences because of it.

The second scandal that caught my eye seems to have come from an Artistic Director making an incredibly problematic decision and no one else in that organisation having the courage or power to disagree with them. Why would this organisation with a single strong voice at the top have dragged them down this problematic road? Was it because of the desires of one person?

I don’t want to be all centrist dad about this, and say on the one hand this, on the other hand that, but the honest answer to the question of whether the Artistic Director model works or not is: sometimes. There are pros and cons to lots of different models and the one thing that I am more certain about than ever is that art and artists must be at the heart of decision-making in theatre companies, venues and organisations. We are arts organisations, and we shouldn’t forget that.

Yes, those artists need to have a strong understanding of business management, fundraising, marketing, HR and so many other things, but if an organisation and leadership structure no longer has art at its centre then why are we here? That doesn’t have to be one single artist. There are lots of different models, but as soon as an organisation stops having an artistic vision at its heart then can it really and truly call itself an arts organisation?

More and more companies are moving away from making theatre and this breaks my heart. It is easier to get funding and to financially manage an organisation whose focus is not making work. This is not to undermine all the brilliant and exciting participation, artist development and community projects that are happening, these projects are essential and the heartbeat of our countries cultural tapestry. But just because these things are easy to fund now doesn’t mean we should all be doing them. There are people who are absolutely brilliant at this type of work, and they should be funded to do it.

Economically, it’s harder than ever to make art. Particularly things like small scale theatre tours and form breaking, innovative new writing. But, just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. In fact, I think we need it more than ever.

A belief I had before I started at Extant was that the theatre industry needs more disabled leaders. And specifically, more visually impaired leaders. That’s why the TAD job exists. And that belief has been strengthened within me. Disabled artists with a platform to be leaders and the power to make change are few and far between.

There are lots of disabled artists who would thrive if given leadership responsibilities. There has been brilliant work to diversify leadership in the arts industry, but it’s not enough. We need more role models; we need more ground breakers, and we need more people with lived experience defining the future of our industry. Until leadership in the theatre industry is more representative of our country then real change will not happen. Fundamental and lasting change will not happen until then. Anything else is just fiddling around the edges.

As for me, after finishing this job and previously working as Agent for Change at Sheffield Theatres for five years, I feel the need to be a freelance artist again. In my soul, that’s what I need, but also in terms of my development as a leader of the future. I need to get back to refining my artistic voice, get back to collaborating with brilliant people on exciting work. But as an actor and director I need to keep working, keep finding my voice and keep making my mark on the industry. And then when the time comes, I might be ready to step up to the plate as an Artistic Director.

Ben Wilson, October 2024