No chairs were flung, no tantrums were thrown and no impromptu bra-burning symbolic protests were witnessed yesterday afternoon. Handwringing and nail-biting in private? Probably on the way to Goodman Arts Centre. The event, after all, was about The Future.

If there was going to be one. (Tan-dan-dan.)

Okay, it wasn’t so dramatic, but yes, the third edition of the National Arts Council’s Let’s Talk series (a rather impressive full-house turnout, I might add) was all about sustainability in the arts.

It is, as NAC CEO Benson Puah pointed out in his opener, a hot topic worldwide, what with arts funding cuts in Europe, for instance.

But his take is that it’s a different case in Singapore, where state funding for the arts has actually grown (although I’ll just sneak in here the the huge focus on community arts, for more context).

Instead, Puah highlighted another kind of sustainability issue — artistic sustainability.

Which, actually, seems rather linked to financial sustainability, anyway, which was evident in the interesting data he brought up.

TICKETING WOES

From 2007 to 2010, annual ticket sales for arts performances stayed at around 800,000 despite the number of shows going up (that’s even minus the pop/rock shows). The stagnation became obvious with the spike to 1.2m in 2011, which was when the IRs went up and the musicals rolled into town.

(So were people going “meh” for four years despite more shows on offer, then stampeding to MBS and RWS when the shows opened? Or were they all tourists?)

Also, from 2009 to 2012, shows (local and international) sold only an average of 40% of their tickets.

(Erm, and the Singapore Arts Festival gets flak for lacklustre sales?)

For an added perspective, non-traditional arts groups get majority of their funding from ticket sales rather than government funding, which is the complete opposite of orchestras.

Another one: Last year, you had 4,500 students taking up tertiary arts courses, up 40% from five years ago. Around a thousand of them graduate, ready to get into the arts.

Okay, I’m still figuring out the exact connections of all these, but obviously, there’s the “too little” bits and, in that context, a “too much” bit.

And other questions: Should financially successful groups “graduate” from state funding? Should government “prop up” unsustainable groups? What does “unsustainable group” mean anyway?

Mind you, these were just stuff to mull over. The whole thing hadn’t actually started yet.

MONEY MATTERS, DREAM ON

But these were pretty interesting nuggets of info before the speakers presented even more interesting points on arts sustainability.

The short talks, moderated by Arts NMP Janice Koh, were bookended by more practical, money matters.

Despite the encouragement to go and look for more private funding, Singapore Symphony Orchestra chairman Goh Yew Lin pointed out it’s not as easy as it seams for the arts. Especially when you compare it to the health and education sectors, who have got their act together when they come knocking on corporate doors.

Too many arts groups, too, knock on the same doors bringing more or less the same kind of letters (like a bunch of people offering the same credit card promo all lined up in a corridor?).

The “Corporate Social Responsibility” trend, despite sounding really responsible and social, has also been a problem for the arts. Orphanage or naughty play? Hmmm.

(Coincidentally, there’s a news report that just came out today about trends in tax-deductible donations by sector. Education, Health, and Social & Welfare are tops compared to Arts & Heritage — although Sports is super measly)

Given all that, Goh pointed out some suggestions: A “stronger support structure” for arts groups — say, collectives based primarily on getting private funding — with help from NAC perhaps. Also, a more positive image/message beyond the “poor artist” when knocking on doors.

Basically, artists banding together with their collective heads held up high.

NTU Associate Provost Kwok Kian Woon later highlighted four private sector clusters that could do a bit more to support the arts: Finance, gaming , property and media.

NAC deputy CEO Yvonne Tham brought up another angle in the sustainability issue — while “arts industry” and “professionalisation” have been popular terms, there are other groups beyond the pro sector that should also be factored in, the “serious amateurs”, the community groups.

And then you had three artists: Ian Woo, Chong Tze Chien and Huzir Sulaiman.

On sustainability, painter/LASALLE educator Woo (I have to say a bit of the odd man out in what turned out to be primarily about performing arts) cited John Cage and the idea of artists just trudging along and not stopping no matter what. (But yeah, you might have to get a teaching job to pay the bills.)

Sustainability in the scene, too, requires developing other players like art critics, curators and historians, galleries, etc.

The dreamer-approach to artistic sustainability is somewhat similar to Checkpoint Theatre’s Huzir Sulaiman’s own challenge to artists to see themselves as “divinely inspired” (“very, very close to arrogance”) but of course, tempered by “incredible humility”.

However, he also had a challenge to NAC. He recently visited Italy and had his own flash of insight while standing at the ancient theatre in Syracuse where Aeschylus premiered his stuff. The ancient Greek playwright’s works can still be read today, the venue is still being used, and people are still coming.

If you want that kind of sustainability, goes his nudge-wink, build us theatres, fund lavish productions, and, essentially, give us lots of money.

Which actually happened to Chong for a while — before someone took it all away.

The Finger Players company director related his experience as an artist for The Necessary Stage during that brief period in the early 2000s when it was sort of wallowing in money and many people were encouraged to do crazy, interesting stuff, including him. Then the funding was cut. He described it as a “romantic but financially unsustainable” experience.

Chong was able to pick himself up and continue the experience at TFP, but it’s sort of a cautionary tale in terms of sustaining the next generation. He had a chance to go wild and make mistakes as all young artists do, but many funding opportunities, private and public, come with strings attached, checklists, KPIs. Where is the space to fail-in-order-to-thrive in all of these? The founders of many of the established groups like TNS and TheatreWorks began in this kind of environment — but what happens when the next generation of artists doesn’t get the breaks for being financially unsustainable?

(Then again, you’ve got three perfectly good examples, in Woo, Huzir and Chong, of people who just do.)

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT

The audience eventually broke up into two huge groups for more talking. Koh facilitated one on performing arts, where issues like the need for mid-sized venues, the previously reported Centre For Text-Based Works for developing playwrights and the possibilities of more programmes for independent artists.

I actually don’t know much about what happened because I was at the other one on audience development.

Facilitated by Singapore Repertory Theatre AD Gaurav Kripalani and NAC Director for Arts and Youth, Kenneth Kwok, there were some interesting suggestions on developing audiences. Mostly to do with rojak-ness. One suggested more cross-disciplinary productions, another suggested events that had “variety” both of which point to the same end result: Audiences get to choose or are introduced to new things. Buffet-ish style.

Still others suggested things that somehow echo the earlier comment about the need to for a more positive image of an artist when looking for private funding. The use of “Singaporean” instead of “local” in media reports, for instance, or just get rid of “extra-curricular” and make arts a norm and a given in schools. I guess it’s true in a way, an artist is convincing one to invest in him/her/them, whether it’s a big bank, a school or one person.

Was a tad disappointed though that the focus was mostly on the youth (with a quick shout out to the seniors). Have the groups given up on the PMEBs? What about developing current audiences — and developing those for more experimental, non-mainstream stuff? After Shakespeare In The Park or W!ld Rice pantos, for instance, how do we develop audiences for more mind-boggling ones? Or should we be content to consider them niche?