Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1966 - 9

in law to the Government of the day: to table its annual
report to Parliament through a designated Minister. In
the words of the Act of 1957 "the Canada Council is
not an agency of Her Majesty". With laudable wisdom
and restraint, Parliament did its best to make the Council
independent of potential political pressures. This is the
first thing you should understand about the Council, since
it is rare for any governmental institution to have this
degree of freedom.
The Federal Government does, of course, appoint the
twenty-one Council members, headed by a Chairman and
Vice-Chairman. They must actually decide on the distribution of funds. These members are drawn from the ranks
of the community at large and do not represent any particular organization or Institution, though they often have
special competence in one of the fields within the jurisdiction of the Council. At the outset some people seemed
to think this might make the Council quite a wishywashy and uninformed body. The first Chairman, the
Hon. Brooke Claxton, was a former Minister of National
Defence, and a reporter asked him on his appointment
to state his qualifications for his new job. Mr. Claxton's deadpan reply was, "My sister-in-law paints" .. And
indeed his sister-in-law, Anne Savage, was one of our
beller-known painters at one time.
Mr. Claxton and his colleagues, however, had good
credentials - in particular, a sound instinct for policy. They
had at their disposal the income from a fifty million dollar
endowment fund, which would have to cover administration costs, scholarships and grants to organizations. They
knew very well that three million dollars a year was a
small enough sum to spend effectively and they studied
carefully the institutions in other countries whose experience would be useful.
They discovered that the Canada Council had no exact
parallel abroad. The European Ministries of Culture are
government departments concerned mainly with operating
state-owned institutions. The Arts Council of Great Britain, though also a grant-giving body aiding private institutions, had access to annual appropriations and could
reasonably expect these to grow with the needs. In many
ways, the Canada Council - though government-financed resembled the great American Foundations, which also
rely on endowment income. With a bank balance which
could not be counted upon to rise In annual leaps and
bounds, the Council knew it would have to tread carefully if it was gOing to make the best possible use of
its funds. The policies of these Foundations were therefore of particular interest.
I would not like you to think however, that the Council
looked only abroad for Ideas. On the contrary, it took
pains to seek advice from leading Canadian artists and
others knowledgable in the arts. ThiS is, in fact, probably
an Important law of subsidy and the arts: Remember
that the money belongs to the artists, and that they are
the people best eqUipped to tell you how to spend it.
If the Canada Council has won, by and large, the confidence of much of the drtlstic cOrlllllUnity of this country,
I think it is precisely because it has tried to learn from
the artists what their needs are, and then to meet them
as best it can.
I think you might agree with me that thiS IS also an
important Iflgredlent In successful theatre technology. Some
of you may have heard the story of how Tyrone Guthrie
chose the architect who had to reconcile a circus tent
with a Shakespearean theatre. I don't want you to think
that nepotism is rampant in Canada but it may be that
Robert Fairfield could have paraphrased Mr. Claxton and
said, "My father-Ill-law knew Tyrone Guthrie."

OCTOBER 1966

The story goes that Guthrie interviewed several leading
Canadian architects, especially those who were supposed
to understand theatres. Whenever he was told something
like; "Of course I know about theatre architecture, I designed the new Odeon cinema", Guthrie's answer was a
polite, "Don't call me, I'll call you." Finally a friend of
the unborn Festival suggested that Guthrie might like to
meet his new son-in-law, who happened to be an architect. A social occasion was arranged and an hour or so
passed in general and rather strained conversation. Then
the young Mr. Fairfield suggested that they get to the
point. "I don't know why you wanted to see me, sir, I
don't know anything about theatres." "You're hired"
said Guthrie .. And you all know what a fruitful collaboration that proved to be.
To get back to the problems of subsidy, I can assure you
that they looked even more perilous in 1957 than they
do today. The Stratford Festival was indeed flourishing.
We had a few professional orchestras and more semiprofessional ones. We had, astonishingly, three professional
ballet companies, struggling to stay together for at least
half the year. We had a young opera company in Toronto,
an outgrowth of the Royal Conservatory. We had a vital
group of French-language theatres in Montreal which
worked to professional standards, even though the actors
sometimes could not count on pay cheques. We had one
professional resident theatre in Engl ish Canada, which had
cost its founders much of their personal fortune, and one
touring company of barnstorming Stratford actors. Most
of our performing artists - musicians, actors and singers depended heavily on radio and television for an income
which they could not win in the live theatre. In addition, we had many amateur organizations with a long and
honourable history of serving an otherwise neglected public and feeding the limited professional mainstream. In
these conditions, many of our artists were buying oneway tickets to London, Paris and New York.
It required a good deal of courage and discretion on
the part of the Council to reconcile these competing
needs, to help effectively In the development of existing institutions and to recognize the most promising
among the new ones. At the same time, the Council
had to win and hold the confidence of the general public, which regarded it with bemused good will, but which
still felt perhaps that genuine artists should starve in
garrets. Universities, public libraries and museums were
accepted as proper objects of subsidy, but here were
still doubts about theatres. After all, Broadway was big
business - why couldn't our theatres pay their way?
The Council decided immediately that ItS assistance should
be concentrated on outstanding organizations - (and I
quote from an early formulation of pol icy) - organizations
whose standards and excellent achievemeills may serve
as an example and inspiration to all the country and provide a goal towards which not only local groups but
individuals may be encouraged to press." The countless
local groups which served the arts, humanities and social
sciences should properly be served by local funds. In
this way, the Council hoped to avoid diSSipating ItS resources. It hoped to serve the broad national Interest
through support of those Institutions which demonstrated
the highest standards.
Not surprisingly, the profeSSional companies could most
readily meet these conditions, and the Council has tended
to confine its assistance to amateurs to a few strong
national organizations. Naturally enough too, professional
organizations are concentrated in the larger metropolitan
centres which have the resources to sustain them. But
the Council has also been mindful of the needs of other

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1966