The chairman of the Arts Council, Mr Pat Murphy, has accused the leaders of nine major arts organisations of "calculatedly undermining confidence in the Arts Council's decisions", writes Michael Dervan, Music Critic.
He made the accusation in a letter, which has been seen by The Irish Times, which he sent to the chairmen of the boards of nine organisations, executives or artistic directors of which had signed a letter to the Editor published in The Irish Times on March 26th.
The signatories of that letter have variously described themselves as "shocked" and "absolutely livid" at Mr Murphy's intervention, finding it "just appalling," "outrageous" and the evidence of very weak leadership.
"If the CEOs of major arts organisations aren't in a position to articulate a public view," asked one, "who is?" adding that it was "regrettable and inappropriate" for the Arts Council chairman to have written a letter that could be read as "a veiled threat".
When contacted about the issue, Mr Murphy said it was not his intention to quell public criticism of the Arts Council. Asked why he chose not to write directly to the signatories of the letter, he replied: "Why should I? I'm chairman of the Arts Council. Chairman writes to chairman. It's my call. They didn't write to me before they wrote to The Irish Times, did they?"
He was, he said, "obliged to have a regard for the welfare of the council, and in pursuit of that responsibility I wrote the letter."
He was expressing his disappointment at what had been printed in The Irish Times. "I stand over what I wrote," he said, "I've no problems with it."
The letter was written in the context of the new Arts Bill, which will reduce the membership of the Arts Council from 17 to nine. The writers called on the Minister for Arts, Mr O'Donoghue, "to take the opportunity to appoint an all-new council which avoids the traditional charge of political or geographical influences on appointments and which enjoys the confidence of the arts community, the Government and the public".
The letter was signed by representatives of the Gate Theatre, Galway Arts Festival, the Improvised Music Company, Druid Theatre Company, Wexford Festival Opera, the Irish Chamber Orchestra, the Dublin Theatre Festival, the Film Institute of Ireland and Team Educational Theatre Company.
Mr Murphy, who interpreted the joint letter as an attack on the Arts Council, responded privately, his letter explained, "because I think the arts are weakened by the spectacle of their self-styled leaders and support agency bickering in public".
His letter was not to be taken as an indication that "we do not understand the gravity of the issues at stake or that we would want to constrain anybody in commenting publicly about the importance of adequate funding for the arts".
However, the letter has been perceived by the individuals and organisations concerned as a confirmation of the existence of a "climate of fear" which has been spoken of in arts circles for years.
The fact that Mr Murphy addressed his letter to the organisations' chairmen rather than the signatories of the letter is being read as a flicking of the whip.
"I would urge you," he wrote, "to find ways to bring the considerable weight of your organisation, with others, to join with us in making a case to Government."
He added: "If we fail to make common cause on this question, I fear that the view of some in Government . . . that people involved in the arts are unable to work with each other may prove to have been confirmed."
The Arts Council, which is undergoing a major restructuring, has been experiencing an erosion of confidence within the arts community. That erosion has been exacerbated by grant decisions made after the Government cut the council's own funding from €48m to €44 million this year.
A number of the signatories have confirmed to The Irish Times their intention to continue with their efforts to lobby the Government. They have meetings planned with the Minister as well as the director of the Arts Council, Ms Patricia Quinn, from whom they will seek clarification on what they see as the freedom of speech implications of the chairman's letter.