NEWS FEATURES:ARE THREE of Ireland's premier arts institutions sleep-walking their way into a re-structuring process that will set back many years of hard work, undermine their autonomy, and see their status downgraded? asks AIDAN DUNNE
Last year, at a brainstorming session on cost-cutting, an official at the Department of Finance suggested that the National Gallery of Ireland, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Crawford Art Gallery Cork might be amalgamated. To many of those involved in the arts, and in the institutions themselves, the idea seemed like a non-starter. The prevailing view was that while it wasn’t clear how such a move would cut costs, it would almost certainly undermine the autonomy, effectiveness and reputations of the galleries.
Then the amalgamation was included in Budget 2009, and it became Government policy. Still there were informal indications from within Government that the amalgamation would not happen, but now a draft of Heads of a Bill, the National Cultural Institutions Bill (No 2), has been circulated to the boards of the three institutions by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. It will do little to allay the fears of those who questioned the logic of amalgamation as a way forward.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a new body, the National Galleries of Ireland (a working title), to “consist of the (former) National Gallery of Ireland, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Crawford Art Gallery Cork”. If the Bill were passed, the institutions as currently structured and governed would be disbanded and reconstituted under the auspices of a new entity. The current boards of the three institutions would be replaced by a single board of 13 members, including a chairperson, a departmental representative, the chairperson of the OPW, the president of the RDS and a representative from Northern Ireland.
CRUCIALLY, A NEWposition of chief executive of the National Galleries of Ireland, described as the director general, would be created. Whatever way you look at it, the director general would become the overall head of what had been three separate institutions. But, as detailed in the draft Bill, and despite the grand title, the director general remains something of an éminence grise, a behind-the-scenes, all-pervasive presence who "shall carry on, manage and control generally the administration of the National Galleries of Ireland", sitting in on and contributing to meetings of the board and its sub-committees at will, as the galleries go on about their business.
The director general would be mandated, though, to sit on the vital artistic direction and programming committee. Where, one might ask, would that leave the directors of the three galleries as they presently exist? There had been speculation that they would be demoted to managerial or curatorial status. Last year, Imma director Enrique Juncosa pointed out that in an international context the head of any art institution would be operating at a severe disadvantage if they didn’t enjoy the title of director. While it is slightly evasive on the issue the draft, as it currently reads, implies that the three directorships would be maintained. But inevitably their status and autonomy would be greatly diminished. Furthermore, the vital question of the dynamic that governs relations between the directors and their director general is left unexplained.
Each director would have a seat on the single, centralised artistic direction and programming committee. The decision-making process and, essentially, the power, would be removed from the core of activity in each case and located elsewhere, and that would have profound implications for the functioning of the galleries, not only in broad policy terms but even in day-to-day ways. Effectively, a new bureaucratic layer would be introduced into the operation of the galleries, and additional bureaucracy does not generally foster either efficiency or, more to the point, savings, which is the reason amalgamation came up in the first place.
SOMEWHERE ALONGthe line, though, the rationale for amalgamation underwent something of a transformation. Speaking in the Seanad last December, Fine Gael's Paschal Donohoe asked Minister of State Martin Mansergh what savings would result from the amalgamation, and suddenly savings were no longer the issue. "There are potential savings here," Mansergh replied, "but that is not a purely cost-driven economic process, rather it is something that makes sense in its own right."
In response to a question from Labour TD Mary Upton in the Dáil last January, Arts Minister Martin Cullen completed the retreat from savings. “This is not about cost savings though if it throws up cost savings, we welcome them.” Rather the aim, he said, was to “enhance the quality and ability of the three products (the galleries)”.
Debate on the issue has been muted by virtue of the fact that, as one gallery staff member put it, the job of boards and staff is to act in accordance with Government policy. Nor has the wider artistic community been particularly vocal (though Aosdána did express its concern). Recently, speaking on the proposed amalgamation in the Seanad, Donohoe argued for obtaining “the consent and support of the relevant stakeholders.” But, he added: “On reflection, this could prove to be a tall order because some stakeholders will always resist change and the integration of tasks.”
Talk privately to virtually any- one from the galleries and they say they are open to innovation. They are all for the “synergies” that have been cited by the Minister as desirable. They recognise that boards could be streamlined, that there is scope for sharing and co-operating on facilities and services. But they also have grave misgivings about amalgamation as a means of achieving these aims.
Indeed, they see it as potentially detrimental to individual identities that have been developed over many years, and to the smooth functioning of the galleries as integral entities.
In response to Donohoe’s plea for caution, Cullen said: “I do not want to rush down this road for the sake of doing so . . . While we can get coherence and back-up administration, we must be careful not to undermine the primacy of the various institutions . . . ” But that seems to be exactly what is happening at the moment. As Upton observed in the Dáil last January, the amalgamation of the three institutions “appears, in many ways, a little odd”.
