Madam, – Stuart McLaughlin, chief executive of Business to Arts, writes (Arts, September 17th), “In my view, the only plausible case to be made for arts funding is for the sector to calculate the correct level of funding for itself and base a case on this which is fundamentally supported by fact.” I think I see what he thinks he means. Insofar as I do understand him, I regret to say his article strikes me as both misleading and largely redundant.
I served on the Arts Council 2003-2008, in a period which saw the most extensive consultation ever with the arts community, makers and audiences, a period in which the council, following exhaustive analysis and discussion, established a base figure of €100 million as the target for adequate funding of arts practice in this country.
That council, in discharge of its statutory duty, formed a very effective and persuasive partnership with Government, achieving a near 50 per cent increase in year-on-year funding during its term in office.
More importantly, it succeeded in having the target figure of €100 million adopted in principle. Is it possible that Mr McLaughlin is not aware of this? Should he trouble himself to approach the present council on this matter he will be given, I’m sure, copies of the exhaustive documentation establishing precisely that which he seeks, a thoroughgoing, bullet-proof case for the economic value of the arts.
Why he should be so entirely unaware that this case has been pressed with considerable urgency for some years now, I cannot imagine. That he should be unaware that this case continues to be vigorously made by the present council is difficult to credit.
On a parallel track, the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism has considerable data on the synergy between tourism and culture, and has been feeding this data into the ongoing process of budget formulation. I am equally sure the department could furnish Mr McLaughlin with this data. I know, because I checked with it, that the department is very concerned that Government as a whole should be made aware of the enormous and constantly growing economic value of the arts.
Mr McLaughlin suggests that there is no “substantive assessment of the effectiveness of the council, [nor] any realistic accountability or transparency in its approach to funding.” On the contrary, the Arts Council maintains a website, www.artscouncil.ie, where every funding decision of the council is recorded. The council publishes a detailed annual report. The criteria by which awards are assessed are explicit, public and clear, and all determinations are made on foot of a rigorous application of these criteria. The council is audited annually by the Controller and Auditor General, and its documents are freely available under the Freedom of Information Act.
All arts organisations applying for a grant are informed of the reasons for whatever decision the council makes in their individual cases. All individual bursary awards are made by means of peer assessment panels. If Mr McLaughlin would care to suggest that I, when a council member, engaged in practices that were neither transparent nor accountable I would be only too delighted to meet him on the steps of the Four Courts: I have three books in hand, and would welcome a substantial cash boost to my research fund. Now that would be a tangible contribution, business to arts, and, who knows, he might even win an award for sponsorship at the annual extravaganza. – Yours, etc.,