To what extent are funding structures complicit in defining excellence, and are these useful? How can they apply those criteria in such a subjective environment?

Critics and value judgements. Are the bigger nationals the arbiters of taste, and where is their risk taking for smaller companies venues? Is more value and weight given to these larger spaces, thus maintaining their position and discouraging others from growing?

What place does local criticism have in that?

Does this foster elitism?

Who determines excellence? Does this require structural change? Should we reward 'vision' rather than 'excellence'?

Whose views matter? Audiences? Peers? Critics? Industry? ACE?

Does having a higher 'profile' give undue weight to those people with it?

Alongside a National Theatre, do we need a National Arts Centre to support non-traditional, independent work?

Can we burn it down and start again? If not, how do we proceed while we agitate for change? And if we burn it down, do we lose some valuable and important critical models for assessing work?

How do we model a structure of value vs taste?

To what extent is context/resource important when judging 'excellence'?

Is excellence judged by comparison?

Can we be smarter about the ways in which we evaluate our work, and set achievable choices? Should we apply more critical thought to that process earlier in our artistic process?

And we need to better understand who it is for!