The Price of Sponsorship
written by Kevin Summers, Janusry 2003
Readers of the Age could hardly have failed to notice it the other morning. There it was on the front page - a large photo of Sigrid Thornton. In colour, too. The performer looked stunning, caught in rehearsal for the MTC's current production, The Blue Room.
Doubtless the prominence of the picture was due to the controversial nature of the play. It contains a brief nude scene and was recently performed on the London stage, amid much media interest, by Nicole Kidman. Moreover, Sigrid is a fine and popular local actress, fresh from starring in the ABC's Seachange. Her partnership with the well-regarded Marcus Graham was a major theatrical event.
So why am I a bit snaky about the placement on page one? Simply because the Age happens to be the sponsor of the production. Turn to the entertainment section, find The Blue Room and there it is: "Proudly sponsored by the Age".
It might be argued that the production deserved front page treatment, that it is an important event on the artistic calendar. But a case may also be made that this was no more than a piece of cynical promotion. Was Ms. Thornton's portrait the most newsworthy photo to cross the news desk that morning? This newspaper would have been better served by placing Ms. Thornton within the pages of the Culture section, where she surely belonged.
There's a wider matter here: should media outlets become involved in the sponsorship of certain artistic ventures? The grounds for conflicts of interest are indeed fertile. Several years ago an advertisement for a big-budget musical quoted a comment of a commercial radio station. Now that production may well have been a wondrous event but the praise was eroded by the fact that the station was a major sponsor.
Sponsorship places great strain on the role of the resident critic. Is the more sceptical reader likely to assume that the critic's positive review is based more on the need for a satisfactory financial outcome rather than the merits of the piece? These conjectures should not enter the most impure mind.
Of course, mainstream arts producers maintain that they cannot function without sponsorship. And by and large they are right, such is the wretched state of arts funding, at both Federal and state levels. Perversely, most of the theatre in Victoria relies on funding from the artists involved - they supply their labour and experience for next to nothing to engage in new and diverse work.
Given the lack of funding, producers gravitate to the safe and the "proven" to attract corporate sponsorship. If readers doubt this, then an examination of Melbourne's current offerings may disabuse them. Not much that is challenging will find the light of day and, importantly, have a reasonable life span.
So, sponsorship is a given. Some will argue that it is a benign influence; after all, the corporates are not going to demand script changes or the sacking of certain performers. But sponsorship is a capricious animal - if it doesn't feel comfortable and rewarded, it takes its wallet elsewhere. It comes at a price and all arts practitioners know this. One particular price was the placing of this newspaper in a compromising position.
Home