C102
Article
Getting what we deserve
How do we think about regions
and arts centres, their role and their history? CIRCA
asked Damien Coyle to oversee a series of contributions
on that topic. Here he sets the scene.
Winston
Churchill once said that "We shape our buildings: thereafter
they shape us." If this be true then, if we shape our
art buildings, thereafter what is to be the shape of our
art?
The following
comments are not centred on statistics of population sizes
and locations and per-capita spend but on the ethics of
arts provision for the population, the wheres and hows
and by what means we make that provision. This contributing
editor's statement looks at the theme of regions and arts
centres from the perspective of the suitability of the
infrastructure that we have created to house, influence
and support contemporary arts. My arguments do not look
favourably upon the infrastructure that has been created
on the island of Ireland over recent years. I would argue
that the buildings we have now to house arts are a compromise
of aesthetic, due to financial restraints - which has
a negative impact on the functionality of the spaces.
My view
is that the primary motivation behind the decision to
build a specific type of arts facility is a financial
one; the powers that be (and we'll leave them at that),
believing that the arts have no real importance in our
society, believe that they are not worth investing in
to an appropriate level, and so we are given second- and
third-rate facilities. Sometimes I feel that we are given
only enough to build an arts centre that "will do rightly"
in order to dispel discontent or debate. The do rightly
approach means that serious compromises are made in terms
of the facility. Artists and performers are still asked
to deal with sub-standard resources, whilst the centres
themselves are seriously underfunded in terms of ongoing
revenue needs.
A few
years ago I was involved in discussions with a local authority
about a new arts centre and I was astounded that they
intended to spend more money on an orchestra pit than
the art gallery, that the gallery was an extension of
the bar and that the bar would be used for both public
and private functions, thus reducing its use as a visual-arts
facility. Oh, and they put the dressing rooms beside the
generator plant and the educational facilities in an airless,
windowless basement - because that was the only place
they would fit, after "the important elements." I found
the spend on the pit particularly odd as it was planned
that the orchestra would only perform twice a year. Thank
God for value for money!
One only
needs travel to other capitals or minor cities in Europe
to see that the local burghers give greater precedence
to the arts and seem to understand the social, cultural,
economic and educational significance of the arts in a
truthful and authentic facility. Government in Ireland,
both central and local, invests too little in contemporary
arts and even less in its infrastructure. For example,
central government in Northern Ireland has reneged on
all its responsibilities for capital infrastructure and
the emphasis has now been placed on the National Lottery
funds for capital building projects. Yet this same department
is giving "due consideration" to a £40 million capital
build project for a soccer stadium, whilst ignoring the
needs of an £8 million multipurpose flagship arts centre
in Belfast. In fact it appears that it has given more
credence to a £30 million extension to a museum facility
than to the above-mentioned arts centre that would have
a community focus. Maybe soccer is less challenging than
the arts; then again I can't remember the last time I
heard a sectarian slogan chanted at an arts event.
Local
government does invest in arts infrastructure in Ireland,
as can be seen in the increase in arts facilities, since
the introduction of Lottery/Lotto funding. ("To build
many houses is the readiest road to poverty" - anon; Greek
anthology.) Some are good - none are great and they are
not the arts centres that we deserve. We deserve better.
So do the artists who produce work displayed or performed
in these centres. Ireland is a mature nation/s (I have
to be careful here) and its arts are also mature and progressively
of international standing. Why should the people of Ireland
have to settle for a compromise because of funding? Why
have a Celtic tiger if it's only allowed to purr? Why
not put more milk in its bowl? (no pun intended, Bertie).
We also
have to consider the issue of who these arts centres serve.
Is it the people employed in the cultural industry (industry
of culture) or do they serve the public? One could argue
that they serve the people. I would argue that yes, they
do, but by default. The default is a good one, in that
these arts centres do serve people/communities because
of the dedication and industry of the people who work
in them. Their employers aim to provide a service at a
minimum of cost and quality is not really an issue. Despite
this the employees, on the other hand, want to produce
a wide range of good-quality work. This is because they
want to create audiences; they are not merely complying
with a statutory remit and their futures and their reputations
depend on the quality of the programmes they produce.
All this is framed against a context in which their counterparts
in the private sector are paid more for less experience,
dedication and qualifications. Government seems to have
reached a stage where they look upon the arts as a low-cost
and glorified employment scheme. Not serving any real
purpose but keeping thousands of people off the streets
and off the dole.
Equally,
I believe that there are architects out there who want
to design the best that can be achieved in the art of
architecture for arts centres. I also believe that what
we get is a chimera, made of many parts serving many purposes,
but not serving any of them well. I would also tend to
argue that the focus on these multifunctional resources
is the performing arts.
I would
ask how many dedicated, purpose-built, contemporary visual-arts
venues there are in Ireland. There are dedicated visual-arts
spaces like the Douglas Hyde and the Ormeau Baths Gallery,
built around the structure of a former swimming pool.
But the majority of arts venues are theatres/ performing-art
spaces with galleries added as an after- thought, if at
all.
I can't
lay the blame for this at the door of the architects,
as they are only responding to a brief and most try to
be inventive within the restrictions. I would blame the
commissioners who will not give proper investment, will
not take art seriously and are in the majority of cases
either scarcely meeting a statutory requirement or building
what Bacon called a "monument to themselves." Isn't it
time to think outside the white box and create an arts
centre that is functional, serves needs correctly, represents
the best in aesthetics and pays due respect to the artists?
Remember the Hindu proverb "the arch never sleeps"?
Where
architects and commissioners both fail is in their consultation
with artists. Artists tend to have an input into new buildings
only as part of a percent-for-art or integrated-artworks-scheme
commission. I can't remember when an artist was consulted
on the functional merits of a visual-arts space within
a new building. It seems that their role is there with
the electrician, or plumber, a supplier of goods rather
than a potential user of the space - despite being an
important part of the constituency nominally addressed.
I once
stated and was quoted as describing the Ormeau Baths Gallery
as a really good space in which to exhibit and this is
true for the type of work that I produce. However I don't
believe it is true for all types of contemporary art practice.
I wonder if there is such a thing as a generic superior
space to meet the aesthetic needs of the diversity of
current visual-arts practice. Perhaps we should consult
artist and audience. If we are going to build these places
- let's build them properly for the purpose. If not, we
should not insult the audience and the artists by giving
them something that is second- or third-rate. If not investing
in building then we need investment in programmes. Let's
look at providing arts activities in a diversity of venues
across the island of Ireland, where government can own
up to the fact that we may not really need all these monuments
but we need the ongoing financial means to provide genuine
access to the arts in a wholly different nonexclusive
framework. The regional Assembly in Northern Ireland underspent
by £365 million last year. Imagine the impact that 1%
of this underspend would have had on arts programming.
Do arts organisations and artists in the Republic of Ireland
feel that they have had full benefit from the financial
success of the Celtic tiger? Your answers on a postcard
to Mr Charles McCreevy and Mr Michael McGimpsey. I have
not even explored the whole issue of the impact of the
arts facility on arts and creativity, so I will leave
you with an appropriate quote.
