By common consent, the Edinburgh Festival Fringe can be counted a success. Ticket sales are up 20% on 2007, the previous record year. Anyone can put on a show at what is recognised as the world's biggest arts festival, provided they have the venue and the funding. Its purity as an arts festival (it is not funded and most performers participate not expecting to make a profit but focus on securing good reviews and a reputation) and the element of anarchy (as it is not curated, no-one is in overall charge) are two of the Fringe's defining characteristics.
But is it sustainable in its present shape and size? Michael Russell, the Scottish Culture Minister, has become the latest figure in the arts world to turn the spotlight on the Fringe. He tells The Herald today that the Fringe needs to examine whether the event has become too big, whether the programme is too large, whether cost has become prohibitive when staging a show, and what part promoters and producers play (and should play). His intervention comes after Tomek Borkowy, a leading Fringe producer, warned the Fringe Society, which runs the event, that it needed to modernise or face the prospect of a split.
According to Mr Borkowy, schism will be the outcome unless the Fringe is treated by the society as mainly market-led, performing arts trade fair.
Mr Russell has steered clear of warnings or a big stick approach. He would, perhaps, have a case to do so if the Scottish Government were strong on state intervention, backed by funding beyond the Expo schemes. Fortunately, Mr Russell favours a "light touch" approach, befitting the government's limited involvement. As Culture Minister, it is right that he asks the questions he poses. The Fringe should be prepared to face up to the questions about its future. It is a mark of any confident, successful organisation that it can stand back and have a good look at itself.
The Fringe should be no different. Care must be taken to ensure that the end product of any substantive review secures an event that is strengthened and keeps its vitality.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article