Despondency, frustration, fear, anger and despair

Artists shouldn't be second-class citizens. It's time for the Government to get its act together, argues the painter Robert Ballagh, in response to the 'Irish Times' series Arts at the Crossroads.

The key issue facing the arts is the mood of depression that manifests itself across the cultural sector. Having worked in the arts for 35 years, building up contacts in many disciplines - the visual arts, design, theatre, music, dance, film and book publishing - I have never experienced such despair, despondency, frustration, fear and anger as I encounter when talking to my colleagues today.

I believe this mood was not reflected in Arts at the Crossroads, The Irish Times's recent series on the future of the arts. Most of the contributors write regularly for the paper. Consequently, what we had was an in-house affair: The Irish Times talking to The Irish Times.

Also, sadly, there was no contribution from an arts practitioner. Once again, artists were being spoken for rather than being given a voice. As a result, by omission, it failed to support an essential demand of artists: representation. People without a voice are rendered both powerless and dependent.

The question must be asked about the depression and frustration: how has it come to this? The State has never paid more than lip service to the arts, and over many years artists have learned to live with neglect and lack of support. In the course of the past decade, however, things seemed to have improved, and artists began to feel that perhaps, at last, their time had come. Sadly, recent events have dashed that optimism.

The primary responsibility for this depressing situation must rest with the Government. It was the Government, after all, that imposed draconian cuts on an already fragile sector. Looking back, I suppose the omens were not good, for when the Government was formed the arts portfolio was emasculated, with the arts coming in a slow third behind sports and tourism. All references to a wider cultural dimension simply disappeared.

Yet in spite of all the talk of cuts, the Government has been able to dodge the flak over unpopular decisions. The funding decisions of the Arts Council have caused the greatest public outcry, even though the budgetary shortfall is a result of the Government's economic policies.

It is worth examining the relationship between the Government and its Arts Council agency, a relationship that, in my opinion, creates a total lack of accountability. It is based on the "arm's length principle", where, in theory, decisions on cultural matters are insulated from political interference. Many believe this to be a good thing, but they should be aware of a downside.

Under this system the Government can dodge its responsibility, because people's attention becomes focused on the organisation that makes most of the decisions: the Arts Council. Amazingly, the council, in turn, can avoid scrutiny because of the same arm's-length principle: there never has been a parliamentary debate on Arts Council decisions, for example. Nor has the Public Accounts Committee ever questioned the Arts Council about the disbursement of public money. It is also worth noting that there is no ombudsman with responsibility for the arts.

One has to admit that this situation has the potential for a democratic deficit; certainly, there is a manifest lack of accountability, which can lead only to powerlessness and dependency.

Many on the receiving end of the Arts Council cuts feel betrayed, unable to understand why they were singled out for such negative treatment. The Arts Council is quite clear about how it made its decisions, however. Patrick Murphy, its chairman, said in a recent radio interview that the council could have imposed an across-the-board cut of 8 per cent but decided to prioritise its decisions in accordance with the council's Arts Plan 2002-2006.

So the council is quite clear in what it is doing. I believe we in the arts community should be clear in our response. I believe the Arts Plan is fundamentally flawed. In the main it is full of aspirational flimflam, with few practical suggestions about how to improve the lot of artists. Its chief thrust is to argue with the Government for increased funding, which it will then disburse according to its own aims and objectives.

It is my view that these aims and objectives have changed quite radically in recent times, and the nature of that change is to be found in the Arts Plan. Without discussion or debate, the Arts Council has decided it is no longer a funding body but a development agency that in the future will offer support only on the basis of "excellence and innovation".

To some this change might seem innocuous. In my opinion, however, it is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the artist and the State. The council now wishes to dictate the nature and direction of artistic work. I believe this represents the slippery slope to authoritarianism. The council is on this path because of the mistaken belief that the State or an agency of the State can grant-aid great art into existence. This is folly. If it could be done, then Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia would have produced the greatest art of the 20th century.

Great art happens according to its own rules and circumstances, not according to governmental prescription. Anyway, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that establishments always get it wrong when attempting to select the great artists of the future.

I believe the State and the Arts Council should abandon the notion that they are in the business of creating the great artists of the future and instead set in train a process that might begin to chip away at the second-class status that is life for most of our artists. And, by the way, if they were to be successful they would inevitably help the as yet unknown genius as well as all other cultural workers.

Is it reasonable for something like a wage approaching the national industrial average to be merely aspirational for most of our performing artists?

Is it fair that many possessions taken for granted by most people in Ireland lie outside the range of most cultural workers?

Why do so many of those with careers in the arts have to deal with unfair and discriminatory practices in the areas of social welfare and taxation?

Many working in the cultural sector are of the opinion that, in spite of the recent economic boom, they are going backwards in real terms. I have personal experience of this. Last year, when working in the theatre, I received a fee that was considerably less than the amount I received for similar work 10 years ago. It is simply unacceptable for society to continue to expect artists to subsidise the arts through bad working conditions and insufficient remuneration.

If the arts are to flourish, rather than increasing the number of bureaucrats and administrators we should redirect resources to support the primary producers - the artists - so they can break out of the cycle of powerlessness and dependency.

Patricia Quinn, the director of the Arts Council, rather curiously suggested in The Irish Times recently that dialogue within the arts community should follow the example of Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting For Godot rather than that of Punch and Judy. I would like to suggest an alternative and possibly more relevant dialogue: that between Laurel and Hardy. "That's another fine mess you've gotten us into."