Planning the only show in town

What the arts need is not more management but better management, argues Marian Fitzgibbon

'This isle is full of noises." The current discomfiture in the formal arts sector has been put down to tensions surrounding managing and planning in the arts. We all know the story: new Arts Council; accusations of an overly bureaucratic approach and poor communication in the past; abandonment of Arts Plan; change of director; and declaration by the council of its intent to publish new plan.

The Arts Council's announcement that it is to follow on with a new plan is to be welcomed. Like it or not, this is the only show in town. The vital link between the plan, funding for the arts and public accountability and transparency is well established: people may have forgotten that the adoption by government of the first arts plan in 1995 resulted in an immediate doubling of funds to the sector. The plan has since become the basis for the relationship with government. That there may be occasional blips in this relationship in no way undermines the rationale for a long-term approach.

The reinstatement of the agreed level of grant aid in 2004 after last year's cuts is proof of this and is to the credit of the council and its director, showing their ability to keep an eye on the ball. This focus must not be lost. Anyway, what is the alternative? A return to clientelism is a real danger in a sector that is adept at manipulating reputations, especially in this age of celebrity.

But the council has difficulties embarking on a new plan. Above all, there is a need for clarity on the shortcomings of the last one, the Arts Plan 2002-2006. Unless the new process is based on a credible analysis of these shortcomings, it is likely to founder on the same rocks. Remarkably, no criticism has been levelled publicly at the strategies in the shelved document; nobody has said that this or that is a flawed objective or that such a way to go about it is misguided. Nor did anyone openly question its political orientation. There would have been scope to debate the plan on a number of grounds, but this did not happen. Somewhat curiously, the commentary to date would seem to have skirted the main issues, settling instead on some aspects that would be better laid to rest.

First, the sectoral aversion to planning per se should be put in context. Reservations about the fit between the arts and planning/management have always been around. These have their roots in the Renaissance understanding of the arts as having to do primarily with the talented individual who is not amenable to the processes or systems that are commonplace in the world beyond the arts - a perspective that was reinforced by Romanticism. Although it established the enduring importance of artistic independence, such a viewpoint is anachronistic in its failure to acknowledge the social context and role of artists and in its devaluing of the vital interplay and political dimension of the artistic endeavour.

The other side of the societal contract that justifies taxpayers' funding of the arts is the requirement for a high degree of accountability and transparency, the governance of which can be overseen by an independent Arts Council. An arts plan is indispensable to this accountability. In her public statements, the Arts Council chair, Olive Braiden, has properly shown a strong awareness of the imperative to deliver to the taxpayer.

Second, the sector has reservations about the Arts Council as a development agency, seeing it as being excessively directional. Again there is nothing wildly new in the development agency concept, other than its more cogent or frequent articulation. Even in the impecunious 1980s, when the council debated grants of 50 quid, efforts were made to place funds where they were likely to have the greatest long-term benefit. Then, as now, unpopular council decisions were characterised as constituting artistic interference - so plus ça change. The last council took the development agency concept a step further in securing a commitment to multi-annual funding, an initiative that was widely welcomed by the sector. That this collapsed may be a blip or not; in any case, its reinstatement will surely be a priority for the new council.

Finally, concerns have been voiced about the language of the last plan, which was accused of impenetrability and amorphousness. Again this does not hold up. It would be surprising if any new arts plan were to remove the focus from the need to support artists, encourage audiences, improve the arts in education, make overseas links, bring the arts closer to local communities and develop the different art forms. These words are mainly those of the plan itself and rarely exceed two syllables. In fact, the document is notable for its limpid language, and one has to wonder what it is that the arts sector cannot understand. Which simpler words could a new arts plan find?

Yet herein possibly lies the crux of the matter: the failure of the arts community to understand and engage with the plan. The new Arts Council is committed to wider consultation and "quality dialogue", and while this is certainly important, is it enough? Previous plans have also been based on wide consultation and evaluation, so do the reasons for past failure lie elsewhere? Is the arts sector geared to deliver an agenda that requires sophisticated engagement with the wider environment? Can it achieve the vision of a "creative" Ireland postulated by the Arts Plan 2002-2006? And if not, why not?

The answer is in the document itself. First, the 2003 plan articulates the need to "raise standards in arts leadership and management". Second, it assumes the existence of high levels of expertise in these dimensions to grasp, interrogate and achieve the objectives of the plan.

The arts sector, public and private, has developed considerably over the past decade both institutionally and in terms of infrastructure. As the technological revolution throws up new means of production and diffusion, this growth seems likely to continue. Adept arts advocates and activists are needed to respond to a considerable agenda: the exigencies of the knowledge society; the increasingly obvious shortcomings of policies that rely too much on the economic, to the exclusion of the social and cultural; the dissolving of traditional boundaries, geographical and other; spatial strategy implementation; and collaborative modes of action and delivery.

Such challenges require high-level integrated thinking, a repertoire of skills and a wide register of understanding and approaches. Equally, the contextual changes in culture in Ireland, especially institutionalisation and the new planning frameworks at national and local level, demand a higher-quality response from the arts community. The increasing maturity of the arts, as manifest in the Arts Act 2003, demands enhanced professionalisation. Only if investment is made as a matter of urgency in the appropriate high-level training will the sector adapt itself to a more diverse environment while harnessing a multiplicity of resources.

The best of Irish arts managers demonstrate energy, enthusiasm and enterprise in their response to the cultural environment. But is their expertise up to realising the role of the arts in the global knowledge society and sufficient for the necessary integrated approach to cultural policy and provision?

A lack of leadership expertise is widely acknowledged within the sector itself. Training and managerial deficiencies are discernible in the public crises that have beset arts organisations. There is the high personnel turnover and the resulting waste of expertise and money; the difficulty in making key appointments; the unimaginative programming; and the under-exploitation of public resources and potential. This same deficit also explains the inability of the sector to engage effectively with the 2002-2006 plan.

For this failure the Arts Council, especially as a self-styled development agency, and one that has touted the benefits of managerialism and partnership, must take much of the blame. The professionalisation of the sector, for which the Arts Council can claim the bulk of the credit, is now held back by the council's failure to foster what it has begun. The developments of the past decade have created a whole new cadre of arts activists, leading arts policy development and running important public facilities. Yet, in that time, the council has made no notable effort to equip these people to take on the leadership, communication and management roles assigned to them.

Here, for once, money is not the main problem. The quality dialogue that the new council wishes to encourage demands a common language. This must be established if the sector is to meet the challenges of its own policies and plans.

The situation is retrievable. It can be effectively addressed by the present Arts Council in concert with a range of agencies. After all, now that the first phase of the physical building work is done, capacity-building can move centre-stage. The council has an interest in taking on this agenda in order to restore the integrity of the planning process and achieve the vision of a creative Ireland, something on which all arts councils, past and present, can surely agree.

Dr Marian Fitzgibbon works in the School of Humanities at Athlone Institute of Technology