It's time to give some really serious thought to peer review, those two words that kept on coming up during the recent spat with Arts Council England. On this blog and elsewhere, practitioners complained that the artists were no longer involved in the decision-making processes of the Arts Council. As a result there is little faith in those decisions. After all we would all prefer to be judged by our peers than a bunch of bureaucrats.
The McMaster report has gone some way towards recognising this with its suggestion that we need a new method of self-assessment, and that at least two artists or practitioners should sit on boards. In the current issue of Arts Professional, Jodi Myers makes some interesting points about the restrictions of charitable status and how artist board members may hinder flexibility rather than aid it.
The big question, however, is what exactly do we mean by peer review? It's crucial that the discussion about how it should operate shouldn't be just an internal Arts Council debate but a theatre community-wide conversation, and not just one conducted by management consultants. I think we must also guard against nostalgia: it is worth remembering that one of the reasons why drama panels were scrapped was because they were widely disliked by practitioners who felt they were unfair and encouraged cronyism.
It would seem to me that the first and best place for peer review to start is with artists themselves. But how often do you hear artists honestly say: "That wasn't my best piece of work"? In my experience that's very seldom - and there are good reasons for that. In the current Arts Council climate people are nervous to admit that a piece of work didn't work for fear of making themselves vulnerable. What we need is a shift from a climate that breeds frustration and resentment, to one where artists would have the real tools to be self-critical and were able to learn from their failures.
My feeling is that while there is plenty of help available to teach people how to be a director or indeed set up a tour, there is less to help individuals and companies create a culture of critical awareness. The current self-assessment system has just become part of the tick-box culture .
Perhaps the most important thing would be a greater acceptance among artists that with public money should also come greater public responsibility in nurturing future generations of artists. This could happen through mentoring, allowing people into rehearsal rooms, or the sharing of expertise and knowledge. I know that these things do happen on an informal basis, but it might be helpful to make it a more official part of the funding agenda. One of the problems with the Arts Council's recent funding decisions was the way it swept away the accumulated cultural capital and expertise gained by artists over decades - exactly the people who could help those just coming on to the funding ladders.
I think we must also encourage a funding culture where artists can develop an artistic landscape together with confident, trained officers who can communicate with practitioners in a transparent dialogue. Both funding officers and artists should be expected to see established and emergent work and report back on it on a regular basis. I am constantly amazed that artists want to make their own work but have so little interest in other's work; or that those working in one area - say live art - are experts in their own field but know nothing about what is happening in the field of new writing or circus arts.
Finally I'd like to see a situation where artists could be seconded to the Arts Council - even if for a short time - so they understand how it really works and can influence the decision-making processes.
It is easy enough to say that theatre needs peer review. But in order to work, the theatre world must be prepared to engage with the nitty-gritty of funding, training and the nurturing of tomorrow's artists. I recognise that it would be a challenge but I think it could bring about a radical change and sweep away the "them" and "us" sickness that currently infects the funding system. I don't have the answers, but I'd like to talk about it, if you would too.
