It is no easier to find a universally agreed definition of art than to distinguish the arts from culture or from crafts or from aesthetics. Each group in society will have a different definition of what its members perceive as "art" and individual members within groups will have their own notions of precisely what constitutes art as opposed to other cultural or vocational or even commercial pursuits. Perhaps the definition used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica will serve most purposes: "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments or experiences that can be shared with others". But, even here, the use of the word "aesthetic" will cause dispute with some who may not see art as necessarily beautiful or sensitive, while skill and imagination may well be applied to activities that may not qualify as art. From here, the proliferation of arguments on more than mere definitions can readily be imagined and will likely be undertaken with some vigour.
Likewise, the Arts Council's plan for the Arts from 1999 to 2001, published last week, is likely to be the subject of some vigorous and detailed discussion as efforts are made to implement its wide-ranging proposals. A selection of very brief reactions by some leading arts administrators was published in last Saturday's editions of this newspaper and registered a general welcome for the report with fairly predictable reservations and qualifications. Some reckoned that the Council may not have sufficient human resources to effect the plan's implementation in all respects while others expressed disquiet about the means of evaluation to be agreed in assessing various project proposals. Evaluation of art is no less controversial than its definition. There is strong reference in the plan to the idea of promoting excellence and innovation, but one person's excellence can often be another's travesty and this year's innovation may well turn out to be the old hat of a generation ago.
One important feature of the plan, worthy of whole-hearted congratulation to the Minister, Ms Sile de Valera, is that the Government has agreed to its funding target of £100 million over the three years of its duration. This continues and adds to the admirable and realistic arts policy initiated by the Minister's predecessor, Michael D Higgins, bringing this State more into line, in terms of percentage of Gross Domestic Product, with arts subsidies provided by other European governments, even if not quite to the top of that European scale. The arts thus move a little further towards the centre of social and cultural life and a little further from the impoverished periphery where they had previously languished in terms of resources and infrastructure despite some spectacular successes achieved by individual artists in various artistic disciplines. Let there be no mistake about it: the various arts must be an integral part of any healthy society and not (as some have perceived them in the past) a luxury for the more privileged classes to enjoy.
So, the funding improved and secure, let the discussions and arguments develop and intensify even to the point of controversy. Controversy has often proved to be a necessary and beneficial component of all of the creative arts. But let no one lose sight in those arguments of the fact that the primary fount of art is the artist. The ultimate purpose of the Arts Council, therefore, is to support and facilitate the artist - whether working alone or in conjunction with others in one of the necessarily collaborative arts. Paradoxically, there is relatively little mention of the individual artist in an otherwise admirable report.