Different aesthetics with Tope Babayemi
Twitter: afinjuadaba
I was delighted to hear that George Ufot, seasoned arts and culture manager and director of culture at the Federal Ministry of Information and Culture had been seconded from the ministry and appointed acting general manager of the National Theatre of Nigeria following the disastrous tenure of the last general manager. There is no doubt in my mind about the good intentions of the honourable minister in reaching the decision and I am convinced that having been an artist himself, George has what it takes to engage effectively with the arts community to restore confidence in artists and audiences who have given up hope in the ability of government to effectively run the national edifice. However, there are challenges to surmount before we can begin to think of running the National Theatre of Nigeria to world-class.
I have a problem with the rationale behind the title ‘general manager’ considering my understanding of organisational structure and management. The title suggests that there is a managing director somewhere who is taking the real decisions. Of course we know that the general manager whose ranking in the ministry is at the level of a director general is responsible directly to the honourable minister. The challenge is that with the current structure and title of general manager as the chief executive, the potential to compromise independent and professional judgment is huge and the possibility of subverting globally accepted practice and systems in venue based promotion increased.
The correct title for the chief executive of a national theatre is ‘director’. No more, no less. With the title director, it is assumed that the buck stops on the table of the incumbent. His professional reputation is at stake and if the institution fails, he is deemed to have failed. The job of the chief executive of a national theatre is twofold. First, he must keep the physical facility and its precinct to globally acceptable standards of cleanliness, health and safety. Secondly, he must “get the bums on the seats”.
The first responsibility is fairly straightforward and has to do with facility management. The second is more technical and requires specialised skills of resource mobilisation and programming. Programming is developing an exciting yet diverse programme of activities that will get the bums on the seats; resource mobilisation is getting the resources to fund the programme and this is the crux of the matter. The National Theatre is comatose because there are no programme funds. End of Chat! If there were funds to pay artists for work done, the National Theatre would be a bustling beehive of cultural practice and would be choosier with lettings to promoters of non cultural activities like churches and wedding receptions. But first and foremost, somebody has got to find those funds and that really is the responsibility of the CEO who must divide his time between internal organisational management, external advocacy and resource mobilisation.
The National Theatre cannot continue to run like a shrine where we worship and keep paying unproductive salaries to officials lucky to be in government employment. With staff strength of over 300 people, and the low level of productivity, no prospective concessionaire would touch the institution with a 10-foot barge pole. The National Theatre must be seen to be viable and as the saying goes, “able to wash its own face”. That means it must not be seen as a liability but as a national asset delivering on its mandate and stated objectives. If the requisite skills are not there, the honourable minister should consider sending the right personnel on short three-month study leave to similar institutions abroad such as the Kennedy Center in Washington DC or the Barbican in London for them to shadow professionals programming and mobilising resources to produce their programme. Since government funds alone cannot meet the requirements, perhaps we will get better results with government initiatives in the sector if selected personnel are trained and equipped with the requisite professional skills of fundraising, resource mobilisation and partnering. At the moment, we go with the ‘begging bowl’ to corporate organisations seeking ‘sponsorship’ without a real sense of the value we can add to their corporate objectives. We get it wrong most of the time.
I was happy to hear that ITAN, the production that opened at the National Theatre last week has been given a four-week extension to run at the theatre. Brilliant, the question is, can that policy be sustained or extended to other promoters? I doubt it. The theatre management must find resources in cash and kind, to fund and promote a programme of activities recognisable to diverse audiences.
I am not representative of any interests political, professional or otherwise. I am only authoritative about what I know about cultural management and venue based promotion in my experience across continents. That is the trade I peddle. I also believe, strongly, that I owe it a duty to the common good to share that knowledge with whoever cares to listen. I therefore will not hoard information or connections when it has to with development in Culture. There is much work to do and I have always maintained that we need to continuously strengthen and build capacity of the manpower base in the sector to achieve the kind of cultural buoyancy befitting a great nation like Nigeria.
Running the National Theatre of Nigeria is not rocket science. It can be as simple as a b c if we know what we are doing. God bless Nigeria. May 2017 be a year of massively increased productivity in Nigeria’s culture sector.
