Madam, – Stuart McLaughlin of Business to Arts makes one valid point (Arts, September 17th): the arts community needs to work harder to clarify its position and correct certain assumptions. It is a pity that he does not refer to the many initiatives currently being taken to do just that, including the National Campaign for the Arts and the Arts Workers movement. Working at both high-profile and grassroots constituency levels, these organisations are attempting to put the case for investment into the only sector in which this country is undeniably a world leader.
The only thing unique to us is our culture. It is what we are famous for; and we sustain this creative force in conditions which most of our European partners would laugh at. Far from being an inefficient and badly run sector we manage our industry with a lean and committed workforce, that could teach many private and public institutions something about living productively within very tight margins.
Crucial to this delivery is the Arts Council, which for all its imperfections operates with transparency and integrity, and strives constantly to ensure that the comparatively small funding it receives from government goes directly to the making of art. To compare the Arts Council, which has to service all strata of the arts, to Culture Ireland whose excellent work can only service what has already been supported by the Arts Council, shows a failure to grasp the structure of the industry. As to the notion that the arts community is failing to provide evidence of the economic benefit of arts investment, surely it is the job of Business to Arts to spearhead that initiative using the considerable data provided by Theatre Forum, the Touring Experiment and so on?
We can certainly focus on private sponsorship; but it is our experience (in Rough Magic’s fruitful partnership with AIB) that the private sector is directly influenced by State recognition.
The argument goes beyond economics. Evaluation cannot be confined to profit. Just as investment in health must be judged on the wellbeing of the citizen, investment in the arts must be judged on the quality of life it affords. That it can also demonstrate value in terms of national profile and commercial clout is a bonus. From major companies such as Druid to individual artists like Dorothy Cross, our sector is producing a remarkable body of work which is internationally envied. This is made possible by the unseen subsidy of artists, many of whom work on minimal wages and few of whom can take advantage of existing tax exemptions. Potentially we can create many more jobs and the vast majority of us are workers who pay tax.
Mr McLoughlin should take this as his starting point. Why do so many people work in the arts for such comparatively low remuneration? Perhaps it is because they realise that there is more to life than the acquisition of virtual profit, and because they may adhere to something called idealism.
Put this together with the rational arguments for investment in arts and culture, enshrined in the constitutions of enlightened nations such as Sweden, and key to the anti-recession strategy of enlightened politicians such as FD Roosevelt, and you begin to see a more coherent vision for the future than that being promoted by some of our current decision-makers. – Yours, etc,