English publicly funded theatre in the twenty-first century, in which Shakespeare plays a considerable role, is becoming increasingly focused on the processes and products of innovation. The term ‘innovation’ has developed into something of a buzzword amongst cultural economists, policymakers and practitioners. Yet, notwithstanding the proliferation of cultural policy and think-tank documents discussing its merits, it is not always clear what form such innovation should take or even what constitutes innovation in the first place. In aesthetic terms innovation is not the same as ‘novelty for its own sake’. Instead, as defined by the OED, it is ‘the alteration of what is established by the introduction of new elements or forms’. Idealized cultural innovation within publicly funded theatre thus operates as an alteration of established modes of production and the subsequent reinvigoration of resulting products. This understanding of innovation – as opposed to the alternative ‘introduction of novelties’ – is what permeates the policy work of John Holden (researcher for think-tank Demos), Brian McMaster (former artistic director of the Edinburgh Festival) and Arts Council England (the arms-length funding body for the arts). The process of innovation is assumed to be radical and risky, but, most importantly, value-generative. It is thus part of an idealized process of production which ensures both aesthetic excellence and cultural value creation.

Cultural economists remind us that innovation is not the same thing as variety or diversity of work. If a theatre simply produces a multitude of plays by different playwrights they are not necessarily innovating. However, if the Royal Shakespeare Company only produces plays by Shakespeare but constantly reworks and redevelops the form and presentation of those plays it has the potential to be innovative. Innovation can thus occur within the performance of an established cultural product: