Sir, - It seems odd that The Irish Times should devote so much space to a meeting in prospect and then not bother to report on the result. For the information of your readers, at its meeting on March 29th Aosdana unanimously "welcomed the publication of the Arts Plan with its emphasis on the centrality of the individual artist and the necessity of making provision in all aspects of arts planning for individual as well as institutional needs". Robert O'Byrne's criticisms of Aosdana's procedures (Arts, March 29th) were on the whole rather vague and whimsical, but two specific points did eventually seem to emerge. Unfortunately they were in opposition to each other.
The decisions of a large number of practising artists as to who among their kind should be eligible for support led to "an inherent unfairness in the disbursement of Council funds" and the whole matter would be best left to the Arts council. Yet these Aosdana decisions were somehow tainted because the first 89 members "were chosen by the Arts Council". So which does your correspondent prefer, decisions made behind closed doors by the Arts Council or open elections by fellow practitioners?
Incidentally, the original 89 were said to be "more than half the current total", the implication being that votes for membership were heavily distorted by their presence. For what the point is worth - and it isn't worth much - in fact there are only 64 of these original members, or about one-third of the present total, left. The other 25 are dead. - Yours, etc., Anthony Cronin,(Chairperson, Aosdana),
Merrion Square, Dublin 2.