There is a persistent misconception about what makes a cultural programme interesting. The misconception is that quality depends above all on available resources. That more money produces better programming, and that without it you make do. There is truth in this, but it is a partial truth that conceals what really matters.
The most coherent programmes I know are not necessarily the best funded. They are the ones with a clear idea of what they are doing and why. That clarity cannot be bought. It is built. And it is the only asset a programmer with limited resources always has available.
The coherence of a programme does not come from the sum of its parts. It comes from the relationship between them. A small festival presenting five performances with a clear thread communicates more than a large festival presenting twenty without any. Audiences feel this difference, even when they cannot name it. They enter a programme and understand, or do not understand, that there is someone thinking on the other side.
The first task of a programmer with a limited budget is therefore definition. Not “what can I present?” but “what do I want to say with what I present?” These are different questions, and the second is far harder. It demands a position: aesthetic, political, contextual. It demands knowing who you are speaking to and what you want that conversation to produce.
From that definition, the budget ceases to be the central problem and becomes a management variable. It does not disappear. It continues to limit options, force choices, demand creativity in negotiation and partnerships. But it no longer determines the identity of the programme. That identity precedes the money.
There is a practical consequence of this that is rarely discussed: coherence allows you to do less with greater impact. A programmer who knows exactly what they are looking for does not need to see everything. They need to see what serves their project. That selectivity, which can appear to be a limitation, is in practice an advantage. It creates focus, builds recognition, generates loyalty. The audience of a coherent programme is not necessarily larger, but it is more committed.
An unlimited budget, when it exists, carries its own danger: the temptation to include. To say yes to many things because you can, to build a programme so broad it loses definition. I have seen programmes rich in resources and poor in point of view. Abundance does not protect against incoherence. Sometimes it even encourages it.
The question a programmer should ask regularly is not “what can I add?” but “what can I remove without the programme losing its meaning?” What remains after that operation is the essential. That is where the voice lives.
Building a coherent programme without an unlimited budget is, at its core, an exercise in honesty. About what you know how to do, about what you want to say, about who you want in the room. That honesty has a cost. It demands refusal, choice, defending positions that are not always popular. But it is what transforms a list of performances into a programme with meaning.
Photo: © Smitty
Leave a Reply