OPINION:Greater participation in the arts will only come if the departments of education and finance support more time and money being devoted to the area, writes Tania Banotti.
LAST MONTH Minister for Arts Séamus Brennan published an arts and culture plan. Given that we're currently halfway through a plan published (and agreed with Government) by the Arts Council, this struck many in the arts community as curious.
On closer examination, the Minister's document is not so much a plan as an extended statement on the current artistic landscape, and the activities of the national cultural institutions (such as the Abbey, the National Concert Hall, National Library, National Gallery and Imma) in particular.
One big question it raises is how much his department, and by extension the State, values the arts for their intrinsic worth, and how much they see the arts as a social tool or a plank of cultural tourism.
The arts are an important economic contributor and they can - and do - play an important role in terms of social inclusion. However, the arts are not primarily an instrument of economic or social policy. This can't be allowed to become their primary function or the only basis on which they are funded.
There is a lot of welcome emphasis in the Minister's plan on access and the need to widen participation. He proposes the introduction of extended evening opening hours and a National Culture Day where admission charges will be waived for a day. Such ideas can play an important role in capturing people's imaginations.
However, if they are not to be merely symbolic and if we are collectively committed to wider and better access, then we have to be honest in the debate.
In the UK, the impact of free entry to museums was to stimulate an increase in visitor numbers. However, the greatest growth appeared among groups that have been traditional attenders. A recent report from the National Economic and Social Forum showed that people from less well-off backgrounds are many times less likely to attend arts events. Education is the single strongest determining factor in this area.
For decades there been a lack of joined-up thinking between the Department of Arts and the Department of Education. Gordon Brown plans to offer every child in the UK five hours of arts and culture a week within and outside the school day. We have no plans like this in Ireland.
If the Minister is serious about increasing access, this is an area that requires immediate, concrete initiatives supported wholeheartedly by the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Finance.
Access is not only about education and social class; it is also a geographical issue. Apart from a brief and welcome spike last year, thanks to the Arts Council's Touring Experiment, the quantity and calibre of touring theatre productions has declined steadily since 1999. The Department of Arts has funded the construction of dozens of new arts centres around the country in the last 10 years. If these new buildings, rightly celebrated by the Minister, are not to become painfully visible white elephants, then touring needs to be properly resourced and on longer-term funding cycles.
We welcome many things in the Minister's statement, including a proposal to extend the three-year funding arrangement enjoyed by the Abbey Theatre to a limited number of other organisations; the announcement of a third round of arts capital grants; and the continuing investment in Culture Ireland, which has become a key player in the Irish cultural landscape.
By contrast, we cannot welcome the level of funding given to the Arts Council. The National Cultural Institutions - which are directly funded by the Minister's department - all received significant increases in their grants for 2008. The Arts Council did not.
At €82.1 million, Government funding for the council falls considerably short of the €100 million identified by the council and the department itself as necessary. It is a sad fact that, after a period of unprecedented economic prosperity, Ireland ranks in the bottom third in Europe in terms of the amount of public funding for the arts.
The Arts Council is the primary source of funding and development of the arts in Ireland, and is therefore responsible for the greatest source of employment in the arts. Every conceivable activity has to be funded by this €82 million: the traditional arts, visual arts, literature of all kinds, theatre, music, contemporary dance and ballet, opera, film, circus, street theatre, architecture and arts festivals large and small. The arts community is calling on the Minister to honour previous Government commitments of €100 million for the Arts Council. To do so would, finally, after years of underfunding, put the sector on a stable footing.
Such an investment - very small in terms of overall Government funding but a hugely significant intervention in the arts - would go a long way to ensuring the Arts Council's ability to respond in a more meaningful way to the plans and ambitions of arts organisations the length and breadth of the country.
There's one other thing that gives cause for concern. The relationship between Government and the Arts Council has always been defined by the arm's-length principle. This means that Government does not seek to influence Arts Council decisions.
How does this sit with the Minister's declaration that he intends to issue a "policy instruction" to the council that it should place a strong emphasis on certain areas when carrying out a mid-term review of its own plan, Partnership for the Arts 2006-2010?
For those who work in the performing arts, reviews are an occupational hazard. They can be good or bad. But often - as with the arts community's reaction to the Minister's plan - they are mixed.
Tania Banotti is chief executive of Theatre Forum, the representative association for theatre and the performing arts