Temple Bar tends to be particularly thronged with visitors at the weekend. But in Project last Saturday lunchtime, there were precisely four people, two of them members of staff. That anyone should cross the arts centre's threshold could be considered extraordinary, as it seems to make no overt effort to attract the public. On Saturday, for example, some tourists paused outside the entrance, then moved along, not least because of a scarcity of information about what the building is and does.
Despite a cheery expanse of electric-blue wall, Project looks relatively inaccessible, its large blank facade broken on the ground floor only by a small door and window with a metal grille to one side. The centre's appearance should be held partly responsible for any problems there. Prior to its opening last year, its architect, Shay Cleary, said that "the building can't be read from the street - it has to be discovered".
But why should this be so? Why should an arts facility in receipt of substantial public funding have to be discovered? Surely, Project should be doing its best to discover an audience, not waiting to be found out by intrepid cultural explorers?
Inside, the scenario is no better. The foyer, for example, boasts a wealth of bits of paper, reading No Entry or Push, tacked on to almost every available surface. The centre cost £3.5 million, yet little money seems to have been found for proper signs.
The reason is not hard to find: the bulk of the budget went on fitting out a series of spaces variously described as flexible, multipurpose and adaptable. They may be all those things and more for artists; they are none of them for audiences. Externally and internally, the design and decoration of the centre show little evidence of serving the needs of the public. There are probably practitioners of all artistic disciplines delighted at the opportunity Project has given them to reinterpret traditional forms. Their audiences will continue to require old-fashioned features, however, such as a comfortable and welcoming environment. Regrettably, this is not on offer at Project, where steel and concrete are the dominant materials. Even glass has been used sparingly, making the entrance lobby - the potential audience's first point of contact with the building - distinctly gloomy.
More extraordinary, the exhibition space, while "fully equipped with projection and recording technology to present sound, video and installation art", does not come with that most elementary of provisions: natural light.
Problems of audience-unfriendly design are not exclusive to Project - indeed, they are common to many new facilities around the Republic. However erroneous, the impression given by such scant attention to attractive decor and basic comfort must be that the audience is of minor importance. It is telling that the only chairs ever found in the foyers of new arts centres seem to be occupied by members of staff, seated behind desks.
In matters of basic design, Project and its fellow centres need to give greater thought to the requirements of their audience. The latter, after all, perform a double service. First, as taxpayers, they provide the subsidy that sustains the buildings. Second, they are also usually required to pay to attend individual events.
Much contemporary art has great difficulty finding an audience, and every means should be used to encourage that process. It is therefore absurd to expect the public to "discover" the venues at which they may witness and participate in art they have already paid for.
