Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Apr 1951

Vol. 125 No. 9

Arts Bill, 1951—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The general aim of the Bill is expressed very shortly in its title. It is an Act to stimulate public interest in, and to promote the knowledge, appreciation, and practice of the arts and, for these purposes, to establish an arts council. The expression "the arts" is given a specific definition in Section 1 of the Bill. It means painting, sculpture, architecture, music, the drama, literature, design in industry and the fine arts and applied arts generally.

In Section 3 the functions of the council which is to be set up under this Bill are set out as being to stimulate public interest in the arts, to promote the knowledge, appreciation and practice of the arts, to assist in improving the standards of the arts, to organise or assist in the organising of exhibitions, within or without the State, of works of art and artistic craftsmanship. Speaking in the Dáil on the 20th July, 1949, I announced the desire and the intention of the Government to take steps as soon as possible for the promotion and encouragement of art, the application of art to industry, and the spread of a knowledge and appreciation of art amongst the people, and to bring, so far as possible, to the people a knowledge and appreciation of the art treasures which we possess.

The Bill which I now submit to the Dáil is a modest, not to say a meagre, contribution to the practical giving effect of the intention and desires of the Government which I announced at that time. On the same occasion I announced that Professor Thomas Bodkin, Professor of Fine Arts in the Barber Institute in Birmingham, had been asked to undertake an examination of the position of the fine arts in Ireland. His terms of reference were, I think, then stated by me and can bear repetition to-day. He was asked to examine and report:—

1. Upon the constitution and working of institutions concerned with the arts in Ireland, in particular the National Museum and the National Gallery.

2. Upon the facilities available in Ireland for education in the arts, both from the historical and the practical aspects, at elementary to professional levels, with particular reference to the teaching of art and art history in the schools, the universities, the National College of Arts and the Provincial Art Schools.

3. Upon the existing relations between the arts and industry in Ireland, including such activities as technical training in craftsmanship, the provision of industrial designs and of appropriate advertisements for tourist development, and upon the steps that might be taken to arouse the public interest and the interest of manufacturing industries in the importance of design in industry.

4. Upon the advisability of establishing an organisation or organisations for the purpose of encouraging and spreading a knowledge of the arts in Ireland and of Irish culture in foreign countries.

5. Upon the advisability of establishing an organisation or organisations concerned with the preservation and acquisition by the State of sites and buildings of national importance and with the maintenance of aesthetic amenities in future building projects.

6. Upon the advisability or otherwise of extending such services as those referred to above and of coordinating their administration.

Dr. Bodkin made his report in the month of September, 1949, and it has been in the hands of Deputies for some considerable time. I should like, at this point, to pay a tribute to Dr. Bodkin for the masterly way in which he summarised his views and put before us, in his report, the infirmities which exist in our institutions and made his suggestions for their betterment. The thanks of the Dáil and the public are due to Dr. Bodkin for bringing to this task his unrivalled experience, his vast knowledge of art and of the history of art, and his profound knowledge of Irish art and for his desire to bring home to the Irish people the importance of art to Ireland and a knowledge and an appreciation of the great treasures of art they have in our institutions and in our museums. I was determined, as were my colleagues, that that report should not be consigned, as so many previous reports were, to the oblivion of forgotten things.

This Bill, I am keenly aware, does not go as far as I would like it to go, but nevertheless it is a beginning. I think it is a good beginning, and I hope it will have the support of all sections of the House. Although during the past 27 or 28 years we have made very creditable progress in many fields of endeavour—social, financial and economic—unfortunately, since the State was established, successive Governments have been so fully preoccupied with other matters that they have had little opportunity of adopting any kind of policy in regard to the arts. Indeed, it is difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that there was something in the nature of a deliberate policy to obstruct anybody who evinced any desire or inclination to do anything for the furtherance of art in Ireland or for the furtherance of the application of art to industry in Ireland.

Dr. Bodkin summarises the position as it existed since 1922 in the following paragraph which appears on page 9 of his report:—

"Measures which might have been taken effectively in 1922 to foster the fine arts and rehabilitate the art institutions of the country are no longer likely to prove sufficient. In the intervening 27 years the resources of such institutions, and the status and power of those who administered them, have been steadily curtailed rather than augmented. We have not merely failed to go forward in policies concerning the arts, we have in fact, regressed to arrive, many years ago, at a condition of apathy about them in which it had become justifiable to say of Ireland that no other country of Western Europe cared less, or gave less for the cultivation of the arts. It might also have been assumed that any sense of responsibility for the welfare of art had faded from our national tradition."

In an earlier part of his report he directed attention to the fact that we had in the bright era of our history shown some indications of artistic genius which might have in time advanced to the highest attainments in painting. For historical reasons that was not to be. Then he summarised the position during the 18th and 19th centuries as follows:—

"Thomas Davis alone among the patriots who struggled for Irish freedom expressed concern about the future of the arts but his was a voice crying in the wilderness; and during the 19th century the Irish artist was almost inevitably driven into exile to seek adequate opportunities to use his talents. Davis was well aware that the cultivation of art is an essential duty for the statesman, and that art has its preferred environment and depends for its progress, if not for its existence, on the preservation of those oases in life where it is welcomed with understanding gratitude. The good citizen will never claim to be indifferent to art. There are only two classes who can do so; despicable men who are content to be sub-human or those whom, because they aspire to transcend humanity, we may revere but can seldom understand. The good citizen will spur his rulers to foster art, remembering that it cannot rise without encouragement nor thrive without understanding support, and that we depend upon the work of artists for almost every impulse to high thought and noble action which is not offered to us by patriotism or religion."

To that I might add the statement of Cardinal Newman, that "the fine arts are to be encouraged if only because of their strong tendency to divert mankind from the pursuit of more brutish pleasures."

This Bill, as I have said, is a modest effort to do something for the promotion of our art in Ireland, for the encouragement of the latent artistic talent in our own people, for the development of a distinctive national art, and the revival of our national traditions in craftsmanship. I think it may be reasonably assumed, in spite of the very difficult times in which we live and in spite of the fact that there are many present pressing matters of economic, financial and social policy which confront us, that people on all sides of this House must agree that a sense of responsibility for our national art should not fade from our national tradition.

We have, as I said on the occasion I was speaking about in 1949, many great treasures of art in this country. We have, I believe, an artistic tradition, and we have much latent talent, if not genius, in the country; but we have had very little in the way of artistic achievement, and we have had little or nothing in the way of encouragement or in the way of creating those conditions and that atmosphere in which the talent of our people can find its proper flower and expression. Take the architecture of Dublin, for example, which is a source of pride and glory, and is so well known throughout the world. The architecture of Dublin is known for the Custom House, for the Four Courts and for the Bank of Ireland. For nearly two centuries, we have achieved nothing, or created nothing, to match these architectural triumphs. But, we feel, that if our people get their opportunity, if our people are given the chance of knowing the history of art and of architecture and of appreciating the treasures which they have, these talents and, possibly, the genius which may exist amongst our young people, will find adequate expression in a real distinctive national culture.

Unfortunately, we do not live in times when private individuals are in a position financially to give the encouragement which is so necessary for the widespread cultivation of the arts. There are still few people, and still very few who are able and willing in modern circumstances and under modern conditions, to give generously of their art treasures for the benefit of the public. I think it would not be irrelevant here, in passing, again to express our thanks to Mr. Chester Beatty for his munificent donation of pictures to the National Gallery a short time ago. I feel that if we show in the future more interest in art, more interest in the visual arts and in the applied arts generally, it may be that people like him will feel that we are deserving of encouragement and support, and that we may get more voluntary gifts of that kind further to enrich our artistic heritage here in Ireland. But the fact is, that there are so very few of those people now left. The fact that there are so few who, unselfishly and disinterestedly, do patronise the arts with financial encouragement or gifts emphasises the extent of the work that remains to be done if the arts, generally, are to be cultivated, and if the artistic traditions of the nation are to be fostered.

I think no one can accuse me of being a devotee of State interference in the life of the community or of being a firm believer in the effectiveness of State action; but, in a matter of this kind, where our arts and our art institutions have been for so long neglected, where we have so few, if any, people of our own here in Ireland who are able, out of their own resources, to endow our institutions or to provide for the education of people who have artistic leanings or talent, I am afraid it is the duty of the State to step in and give the necessary encouragement and financial support. In the past, over the centuries and in different countries of the world, either the State or statesmen in their private capacity, have been patrons of the arts, and have enabled some of the best painters to do their best work. State patronage in many countries, and in many ages, has contributed greatly to the advancement of the arts. It has, of course, produced good results and it has also produced bad results, but, nevertheless, in countries in which art has received patronage neither from private nor from State sources, the result has been an impoverishment of the arts.

Doctor Bodkin draws attention to the effect which the bleak age of the 19th century in Great Britain had upon the minds of the people of that time, when neither the State nor private persons who, at that time were richly endowed with the world's goods, provided to any extent patronage of the drama. Those words of his at page eight reveal the damaging effects on the cultural life of apathy of that kind.

The measure of support which the State gives in this Bill is comparatively trifling. When compared with the amount of money that is spent in small countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Portugal, the figure that is in this Bill is really of insignificant dimensions. It represents only about 1½d. per head of the population of this country, but it is a beginning, and if it succeeds, as I firmly believe it will succeed with the support of all Parties in this House and all sections of the community who, I believe, wish for an encouragement and lead of this kind, then we may hope that it will lead to higher things. For those who think that I am talking in perhaps too high a vein, there is in the proposals envisaged in this Bill and the work which it is hoped will be carried out by the arts council when established under the Bill not only a spiritual enrichment but very much material advancement as well.

Nobody, of course, could suggest for one moment that the passing of any Bill or the expenditure even of considerable sums of money can by itself produce the artist, the craftsman or the designer which is so necessary if successful achievement is to accrue. What the council to be set up under this Bill can do is to endeavour to create the conditions under which artists and craftsmen may emerge, latent talent may appear, and both talent and genius be developed both for the spiritual and material development of the country. Patronage of the arts, whether by the State or by private individuals, can and should aim only at stimulating the creative faculty of artists and the appreciative faculties of the public. One of the purposes for the creation of this arts council, one of the things which I hope they will soon do, is to bring right down to every part of the country, throughout the length and breadth of the country, some of the pictures which we have in Dublin and which many of our citizens never had an opportunity of seeing. We cannot, of course, do anything more than educate our people and encourage our artists, give them some hope and some prospect of creative achievement. We must rely upon them to look to depend upon their own initiative when they get the necessary encouragement and proper conditions are created, and not to create the belief in their minds that everything will be done for them in the way that some people think it is the duty of the State to interfere in all activities of human affairs in modern circumstances. We can foster and encourage their individualism and their talent and their possible genius, but unless we can find ways and means of encouraging people themselves to acquire a knowledge and an appreciation of art and unless we can bring them the means of learning to know about art and to understand and appreciate the difference between good and bad art, we will never achieve anything either in the way of our spiritual betterment or the development of craftsmanship or design in industry which will bring material benefit to our industrial activity in this country.

In modern circumstances, in this country it is particularly relevant for us to remember that real art has to compete with all the shoddy meretricious products of modern entertainment industry which in films and periodicals achieve such success in corrupting aesthetic taste and warping artistic perception.

We hear a lot of talk about keeping pictures and books out of this country, about the necessity for putting bans upon books and periodicals. But mere proposals for banning imported printed matter of that kind or for extended censorship, however well intended, are not a constructive approach to the problem, but a mere negative approach, and the only way in which you can deal with matters of that kind is by raising the standard of taste of the people and by giving them a knowledge and appreciation which will enable them to differentiate easily between the true and the false. This Bill is—I hope I am entitled to say it—a constructive approach to the problem, at all events something which it is hoped can and will achieve something of real worth to the country.

Dr. Bodkin, in the course of his report, has drawn attention to the amount of money that is spent upon art and upon design and industry in France, England, Sweden and elsewhere. When we look at the amount of money that is spent here, Deputies will really appreciate the extent of the neglect which there has been in the cultural sphere in this country. The amount of money that is given to do everything in the National Gallery is only about what is provided by one city in England for its municipal museum and art gallery for the purpose of pictures and, as I have already indicated, countries like Denmark, Sweden, Portugal and Norway devote a very considerable amount of money for the benefit of their art and their craftsmanship in industry. Dr. Bodkin has drawn attention to the amount of money that is spent in France and in England by the British Council and by the council that looks after industrial design. That we should spend the small amount of money proposed in this Bill is, I hope, merely a beginning. That probably will be a great shock to the officials of the Department of Finance.

The proposals for the arts council embodied in this Bill are very modest and very tentative, but at least they aim at providing statutory authority for a body assisted in a small way from State funds which, representative of artistic endeavour generally, may tend to do something for our cultural heritage which has not been done before. The aim is to secure the establishment of a small autonomous organisation which will act in an advisory and consultative capacity with the Government and with such members of the Government as might from time to time require its services and also undertake work towards developing a greater knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts, increasing the accessibility of the arts to the public, improving the standard of execution of the arts and fostering the application of art to industry.

Deputies who have read Dr. Bodkin's report will recall that he recommended the setting up not of a separate Ministry of Fine Arts but of a sub-department of an existing Ministry and, as a sub-suggestion of that suggestion of his, he stated that perhaps it might be better, if certain difficulty existed, that a less ambitious approach might be made to the solution of the problem by the setting up of a small autonomous body such as is envisaged in the present Bill. He suggested the formation of a less formal body, which might be entitled the arts commission, the institute of arts, or the arts council of Ireland and that it should be empowered to plan a scheme for the application of the arts in all the various directions covered by his report. The scheme of this Bill departs slightly from his recommendation. The object is to set up a small body which will be as far as possible autonomous, which will be entitled to work on its own free from the trammels of Civil Service procedure. It is envisaged in the Bill that it will be subject merely to the Government. It is not intended that it should be under the authority of any particular Minister, except to the extent that it reports through the Taoiseach to the Government. This scheme is designed to give this body, as far as possible, freedom of action and freedom from bureaucratic control. Our National Gallery has been crippled and hampered for want of money for many years and from the interference with its activities by the financial machine. We wish now to have this body working in such a way that every Department of State which requires its advice will be able to go to it and get from it advice and assistance and direction. I may say, in passing, that it is rather a pity that this body was not in existence in the last few months. It might possibly have been in a position to advise whoever was responsible for the present atrocity on top of Nelson's Pillar, an atrocity which completely destroys the line and beauty of that monument.

This body in addition to encouraging art and the application of art to industry might deal also with matters such as ancient monuments, design in advertisements in furtherance of the tourist traffic, official publications, State buildings, coins, medals, postage stamps, State ceremonies, art exhibitions and might play an effective part in carrying on the fight for the recovery of the Lane pictures.

Hitherto, I have dealt with the functions of the arts council largely from the point of view of the visual arts. I would like to say a few words now on a matter to which Dr. Bodkin gives considerable attention in his report; he gives that attention advisedly because of its importance to our industrial activity and progress. I would like to say a few words, too, on the topic of applied arts or, to use the phrase I have already used, the application of art to industry. Again, in this respect Dr. Bodkin directs attention to the neglect of that particular artistic activity here. At page 44 of his report he says:—

"... no civilised nation of modern times has neglected art to the extent that we have done during the past 50 years, with consequent injury to our national industries."

We have undertaken the task and the duty of building up manufacturing industries here. Little, or no, attention has been given to the enormous scope that exists for artistic design in these industries. In Part VIII of his report Dr. Bodkin does really valuable service to this country in pointing out what can be done and what should be done. May I trespass now upon the time and patience of Deputies to quote one or two passages from that part of his report because, while I personally feel the importance from the spiritual point of view and from the point of view of the development of our character and our separate individuality of developing individual arts as such, I do feel almost most strongly that there is tremendous scope here for the application of art to industry?

I do feel that we can, if we go the right way about it, create here a kind of artistic craftsmanship and produce goods which will sell on the export market by reason of their artistic value as distinct from their utilitarian purpose. I do think that it should be possible, by the development of ideas of that kind, to get industries started in those parts of the country which are at present so backward, particularly in the Gaeltacht and along the western seaboard, which would give employment to our people there of a kind suitable to their environment and which would, in addition to giving employment and bringing all the consequent amenities of that employment to that part of the country, probably produce a fruitful export trade. Dr. Bodkin refers in his report to a matter in relation to which I think we must all feel a certain sense of shame, that is, the extraordinary rubbish that is turned out either here or in England as souvenirs from Ireland. Many of these souvenirs, the blackthorn stick, the bog-oak pig, the jaunting car and all the rest of them, are sometimes not made here at all; wherever they are made, they are a disgrace to our modern civilisation and they ought to be banned.

Dr. Bodkin directs attention to the extraordinary success that attended the establishment of the glass industry in Sweden, all due to the fact that there they were able to get first-class designers, which enabled them to produce artistic glassware which, in turn, brought about the creation of a vast export trade. He points out that the modern development in Swedish industry was dependent upon good design and that:—

"Such efforts to achieve the development of artistic industries can only be made successful in an environment where great art is adequately admired and displayed. Picture galleries and museums, well furnished and equipped, are valuable to the community as sources inspiring craftsmen of all kinds to undertake fruitful experiment in design and technique. It is only in museums and galleries that the young workman can measure his own ambitions and compare his own productions with the best achievements of the past."

Here then can be seen the close connection between the two parts of these objects which I put forward as the principal objects of the arts council to be set up under this Bill. It promotes the visual arts for the spiritual value that can be achieved therefrom; but, in promoting a knowledge and appreciation of the fine arts, you thereby create an environment in which art is adequately admired and displayed, and from that you create the conditions in which artistic craftsmanship can be developed and design in industry brought to a successful conclusion. Dr. Bodkin points out that:—

"In a country where the fine arts flourish we always find graceful furniture, elegant china, rich carpets and becoming costumes. When Watteau and Fragonard were painting for France, Cressent and Riesener were making superb secrétaires and canapés, the tapestry manufactories of Beauvais and the Gobelins, the porcelain manufactory of Sevres were astonishing the world with the beauty and technical excellence of their wares. When Gainsborough and Reynolds were painting the portraits of eighteenth-century English aristocrats, Thomas Chippendale was making them chairs of comparable excellence. People who like to live with good pictures will not tolerate work of any description which is ill-designed or carelessly executed."

We have to a very large extent here inherited the industrial tradition of the nineteenth-century industrialisation of our neighbour. From that time and to a very great extent here to-day, it is regarded as a truism that industry or industrial production is quite outside the orbit of art and that skill and craftsmanship are something to be despised, something to be regarded as out of place in an era of mass production. In most countries at the moment that attitude of mind is passing. I think it is true to say that it has not passed here: our industrialists have little or no appreciation of the necessity for good design and the necessity for producing something of the highest artistic value and of the urgent desirability of marrying art to industry.

This Bill comprises within the scope of the objects of the arts council and of the purpose for which it is set up, matters other than are generally comprised in the term "visual arts". It comprises design in industry, applied art and also includes drama and literature. As far as I am personally concerned, what I would urge is that, in the first instance at all events and in view of the small amount of money available, concentration should be directed to the development of appreciation of the fine arts in the popular sense of the term and, in the applied arts, the application of art to industry. Music and the drama may come later, when the council has developed its activities, when it has spread its light and when there is greater public interest in matters connected with pictorial art and architecture and the application of art to industry. Then it may be that further moneys will be available and further activities open to this new arts council.

I suppose it is true to say that there are very few of us in this country who can read Homer in the original Greek, Dante in the original Italian or Cervantes in the original Spanish; but a great number, even though not very well versed in art or the history of art, are really appreciative of the fine qualities of art and can derive intense pleasure and satisfaction from the contemplation of Greek sculpture, Italian painting or Spanish architecture. We can arrive at the conclusion that the fine arts are the language in which a nation can speak most effectively to other nations about the things of the spirit, the achievements they honour and the ideals they cherish. The reputation of the great civilisations of the past depends more upon the remnants of their art which are preserved to-day than upon anything else, and those States of distant past which have left no monument of art are dead indeed in the memory of mankind. We have permanent records of the days of Egypt's greatness: we have little records of its decline.

I would commend this Bill to the House and hope it will receive universal commendation. It is an effort to do something that I believe firmly ought to have been done very many years ago. If the provisions of the Bill are put into active operation at an early date, it will do something to enrich the spirit of the nation and advance the material prosperity of the country.

May I ask the Taoiseach why it has been found necessary to put down the Minister for Finance as the Minister? The question I had intended to ask before I heard the Taoiseach was why the Minister for Education did not occupy the position he held in the original Bill; but if the decision is that there is a new arrangement and that a Minister will fulfil the functions under the Bill, it seems to me that it is the Minister for Finance who is being specifically charged with whatever obligations are envisaged under the Bill.

I think the Deputy has misread the Bill. If he looks at it, he will find that the Minister for Finance is defined more or less for the purpose of preventing its repetition on two or three occasions. He only comes in where there is money involved. He is not the Minister to whom this body is responsible. If the Deputy has any doubts, I can undertake to change it and knock it out.

Mr. de Valera

I think it would be better.

Very well. Section 5 is the first place where he comes in:—

"There shall be paid to the council annually out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas a grant of such amount (not exceeding £20,000) as the Minister shall determine."

That shall be the Minister for Finance. I would be prepared to put that in. In so far as there is ministerial responsibility for this measure, it will fall on the Taoiseach or the Government.

Mr. de Valera

Would it not be well to have that in?

Certainly, I will undertake to have that done.

Usually, it is a certain Minister "in consultation with the Minister for Finance".

I think the Deputy fully realises the significance of that phrase, or the lack of significance.

I am glad the Taoiseach has elucidated the point about fine arts to some extent. Fine arts generally connotes architecture—which is regarded as the queen of the arts— painting and sculpture. In the definition here, we have also mentioned music, the drama, literature, design in industry and the fine arts and applied arts generally. Obviously, if we go outside the strict meaning of the term fine arts, the field will be very large indeed.

Since there has been reference to the Irish language—it is no harm to have these matters cleared up—I take it that if provision is not made for the Irish language specifically in this matter, it can be made and will be made in some other way. That is a matter which, perhaps, the Taoiseach will explain more fully later on. I realise the difficulty of having a body that will devote its attention almost wholly, if not completely, to the stimulation of interest in the fine arts and public appreciation of them. Most people would consider that that in itself is such an important aim and requires such an amount of effort that the members of the council would be fairly fully occupied in carrying out that aim, and if they succeeded it would be a tribute to herculean work on their part, having regard to our history and the amount of leeway that has been made up.

The Taoiseach, in censuring all of us who may have been concerned in this matter to some extent by a reference to some deliberate policy which prevented the people from doing what they could have done in the interests of art in this country, was, perhaps, not fair to any particular Government. The position was that Governments were so occupied with other matters that they were not, perhaps, able to get this question of the encouragement of the fine arts into that perspective which is, in fact, already in existence in countries like France or Switzerland where there was thriving art over a period of centuries. We have been in the position, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, that we have had gaps of centuries in our history, when there had been very little effort, not alone intellectual or artistic, but when the people were hard put to it even to find an existence. During that time, these continental States had their own fairly strong Governments. All things considered, I think their Governments were fairly strong. They were able to maintain that civic order and civic prosperity that were necessary for the encouragement of art in Flanders and elsewhere over hundreds of years.

In instituting comparisons then, we have to bear in mind the historical background in the respective cases, our own particular case and that of these continental States. Moreover, the Irish people were not in charge of their own affairs and during the periods immediately preceding Grattan's Parliament and up to the time when an Irish Government came into existence, it might be said that Dublin was really the capital of a mongrel kind of State which was neither Irish nor English and which has been described as Anglo-Irish.

Those of us who have been associated with the movement that has brought about Irish independence have a right to be annoyed when we frequently see denigrations of Irish culture and a pretence that there was, in fact, no culture ever there; that there was no background to which we could look back; that we had no traditions of our own and that we were entirely thrown upon the resources of this Anglo-Irish school. Surely that has not been the position, as the distinguished lecturer on Christian art in the National University has pointed out.

Back in the eighth century we were able to give a lead, an example, which is still regarded as a headline of Christian art in Europe and the world generally. So, we have something to look back to. If our people were serfs during a greater part of the 19th century, and if we had an ascendancy class in Dublin exercising patronage and so on, we have to remember that they do not represent the ordinary Irish people. I am not endeavouring to belittle their efforts or achievements in any way, but I think, since we are the representatives of the Irish people in a free Irish Parliament, that we have to get down to bedrock in this matter and realise that, as the Taoiseach has said, repeating Dr. Bodkin, we are really only starting on the foundations and it is very difficult work, having regard to the position our people were in for such a long period. It must be said with regard to that particular Parliament and Government that they certainly did great work for the City of Dublin and that the architectural monuments they have left after them are an example and should be an encouragement to us. They are certainly an attraction to foreigners, whether scholars or cultured people or ordinary visitors who come and visit this city. I only wish that in our time we would have been able to put monuments beside these monuments of the 18th century and that the time will come when an Irish Government, in the real sense, will have its own monuments and buildings that will bear comparison with what Beresford and the others left behind them in the days of the Wide Streets Commissioners.

It was the Church that first brought art into the lives of the people. We are told that, in the Renaissance period, art was the concern of the people as a whole and that issues with regard to pictures, statues and plans of churches were popular issues among the people; that the people took an active part in the artistic life of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. Perhaps, we are reaching a period also when, in a different way, the people, through the Government who represent them, will be the patrons as they were not very largely the patrons because they partook in these artistic movements from a feeling of religious and civic enthusiasm. We, I am sure, would all be glad to try and revive a similar spirit in our day. We may not be entirely successful in recapturing it, but if we had the enthusiasm of those who have given their lives to studying the arts and practising them in this country, we certainly might be able to recall some of that spirit.

A reference has been made by the Taoiseach to the number of craftsmen and the important place that craftsmanship holds in the economy of France, for example. I have always felt that it would be a very valuable investment, indeed, if we could devote more attention to encouraging craftsmanship, for example, in the religious sphere, with regard to religious objects, with regard to—as the Taoiseach mentioned—souvenirs, with regard to fancy goods and smaller articles for export, and if we are not able to export them on a sufficiently large scale to have them, at any rate, made available to visitors who come to this country.

The people of Anglo-Saxon stock, who come from the United States of America, will go to Stratford-on-Avon and visit the Shakespearian Memorial Theatre, the cathedrals of England and the notable places there. We ought to try and provide, as far as possible, as it has been suggested, similar facilities for our own people because I do not think that our people in America were ever more influential, ever more prosperous and, I hope, ever more interested in their native country than they are at the present time. If we want to bring them here in large numbers, we certainly ought to do everything possible to persuade them that they will find in the cultural and artistic sphere something in Ireland that will bear comparison with what is to be found elsewhere.

The Taoiseach has mentioned and I think we can all agree—all who favour, at any rate, spending some more money on the encouragement of art—that the private patron has largely disappeared. The wealthy patron, as he was known in these islands, has very largely disappeared. I am not aware that his place has been taken by those wealthy industrialists or institutions that we now have in our midst. Perhaps, to some extent, they will become patrons in the time to come. The artists who give their lives to pursuing the achievement of beauty, either visually or in some other way, deserve the encouragement of the community, and deserve that the State should come in, where necessary, to act as patron. Artists have a more difficult time in the present age. They are not getting the same recommendation as they received in past times and it is only through the State either encouraging them by purchasing their works or by taking steps to exhibit these works, or call public attention to them by sending them abroad, for example, to enable the artist to do what he cannot easily do for himself, secure a market for his products, that that recognition can be secured.

In that connection, the Taoiseach might let us know, if he can, whether any further steps will be taken in regard to the plans for the statue of Thomas Davis. The position when we left office was that it was the intention to consult a number of sculptors—two in the United States of America, one in Great Britain and two at home-to ask them to submit sketch plans and models and then to appoint a committee of assessors to select what they considered to be the best plan. If there had been difficulties in carrying out the plan, we would have proceeded to that point. From the point of view of public education in the visual arts, buildings and statues obviously constitute one of the greatest sources of knowledge and appreciation, as well as being a great attraction to people who visit our city and whatever Irish Government may be in office ought in its time try to add to these monuments.

The second way in which public interest in the arts has been stimulated in the past, and of course, will continue to be stimulated in the future, is through our public institutions, our institutions of science and art, and, as I had the responsibility for a long period of years for these institutions, and as the matter has come up here in the form in which it has come up, I think I am justified in calling attention to the fact that, if money is being made available, there seems to be scope for providing additional aids for these institutions. The National Gallery, which the Taoiseach indicated had not at any time received sufficient financial aid, receives about £3,000 grant-in-aid per year. That sum of £3,000 would not buy one picture of the first class, though it might buy a picture or two pictures of the second class. Whether it is possible to provide the finances which would enable us to add worthy works to the schools which are fairly well represented already, or to get proper representation for the French impressionist school for example, is a question.

One of the points that arises in this regard is the connection between the Municipal Gallery and the National Gallery. The Municipal Gallery is under the control of the municipality and a decision must be taken—and perhaps should have been taken before this—as to whether the State could not do something more to ensure that the municipality would secure accessions to the present-day schools for the gallery in Parnell Square. In Paris, the idea is—and I think the same was the belief here—that the acknowledged masterpieces of the older schools would go into the National Gallery proper and the modern pictures, the pictures of present-day masters, would rest, for some time at any rate, in the Municipal Gallery.

The question of accommodation is a very big problem and Dr. Bodkin in his report makes frequent references to it. A tentative decision was taken before we left office that a new site would have to be found for the National Library and the House will bear with me while I call attention to Dr. Bodkin's remarks on this question of accommodation. He refers on page 11 to the fact that, in 1927, a report was sent in by a committee of which he was a member and which made certain recommendations which had not been adopted.

"For instance," he says, "we advised that considerable and specified alterations to the museum buildings should be undertaken in order to provide increased exhibition and storage room, having in mind that, in consequence of the establishment of the Oireachtas in Leinster House, the museum had been deprived of nine rooms previously devoted to the Director and his staff."

He says later on that no attempt had been made to carry these into effect. On page 16, he goes on to say:—

"It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the museum is housed in a building quite unsuitable for its purpose according to present-day ideas."

He gives the details and then says:—

"To mitigate the existing state of affairs I recommend, as an immediate measure, that the structural alterations proposed in the report of 1927 be reconsidered and, if possible, carried out; and that a policy of dispersing a great deal of the museum's contents into subsidiary establishments be adopted."

The question that arises in that respect is whether it is not high time for the Government, before the new council starts its activity, to decide even tentatively, as we did, whether they intend to make these alterations or whether they foresee that new buildings will be necessary. If the new buildings are considered to be necessary, with the position in the city at present, it is obviously highly desirable that alternative sites should be procured as soon as possible.

On page 19, Dr. Bodkin refers to the solution which seems to be the nature of that which we had in mind. He says:—

"The identical design of the National Museum and the National Library buildings suggests one final point. If the solution of the pressing problem of the library's congestion is to be solved by the erection of a new library on another site, the museum might solve the majority of its own problems by taking over the vacated library, in which the existing collections could be expanded, and the lecture rooms, students' rooms children's rooms and refreshment rooms, without which no museum can function fully, could be provided."

I should like, therefore, to press the Taoiseach to give us some definite information, when he is replying, as to whether this specific question of accommodation has been considered by the Government and whether he can make any statement on the matter.

Dr. Bodkin also said, in connection with this question of accommodation-page 14 of his report:—

"I have advocated in the past the establishment of separate museums for particular services; and in this connection I venture to reiterate my view that it might be well to remove the botanic exhibits to the Royal Albert College, the Botanic Gardens or the departments of botany in the universities."

Later, on page 17, he suggests that as part of the reorganisation and improved accommodation for the museum a new natural history museum might be erected closer to the Zoological Gardens. My experience is that the question of distance is very important. If yon have a director in charge of the National Museum—and I suppose the same would apply to the National Gallery—who is anxious to make the very most of the institution under his care, for the purpose of further education and for the general cultural advancement of the public, he will like to have the institution situated where it is likely to secure the largest possible attendance. If the institution is changed to an appropriate place—as, for instance, the botanic exhibits to the Botanic Gardens—it may work out satisfactorily—since people will be going to the Botanic Gardens already.

With regard to the question of folk art—to the extent to which it is represented in our museum—nothing definite had been done, but we had been wondering whether it would not have been possible to take an amount of that material to a building in another part of the city. The antiquities section of the National Museum, however, is regarded as by far the most valuable and the most worthy, and it is felt that whatever may be changed the antiquities ought not to be changed. Whether, therefore, with the small amount of folk material that would be left—if you confine yourself absolutely to the folk side—you would be able to establish a museum that would attract attention and secure visitors, is another question. However, if a building were available adjacent to a public park it might attract sufficient attendance to justify it.

Dr. Bodkin also refers to the Easter Week collection which has grown up over a period of years, perhaps in a somewhat haphazard way. I think that we can all agree that, having regard to the shortage of accommodation in the museum, the housing of that collection is not satisfactory. Dr. Bodkin has mentioned that a suitable Georgian house should be acquired. The question whether that Georgian house should be used for an exhibition of material dealing with the City of Dublin, historical and otherwise, and made a museum for the city, or else that it should be made a modern historical side of the National Museum, and a separate branch of the museum established there, is one which I think it would be well to have considered.

Dr. Bodkin referred to the matter of the shortage of staff in connection with the museum. Of course, one of the difficulties in all these matters is that, apart from the very heavy cost of providing fresh accommodation or even of the reconstruction of existing buildings, the staffing and the upkeep of the premises are pretty costly. However, we must not lose sight of public interest and appreciation in the matter, which I think has been evidenced by them.

I think nothing has been more popular in the museum than the Easter Week collection. If it is argued that the items in that collection do not always fall in with museum items proper, as understood in the old sense, I think we have to have regard to the fact that we want the juvenile and the not so highly educated people to come to the museums also. We have to have popular sides to the museum. Whether we are having the lord mayor's coach or bayonets which were used in 1798, or something of that nature, we have to provide for the ordinary person who is not particularly interested in Waterford glass or the very special treasures which the museum may have.

Dr. Bodkin referred also to the financial provision made in Britain and the number of committees and councils that have been established there for the encouragement of art— the fine arts, art as applied to industry, and various other activities connected with artistic development. The question for Ministers for Finance and for the Government who control them is how far they are prepared to go in that matter. In my time, Mespil House was mentioned. I think there was a felling that, whether it was suitable or not for a museum, it was not at all certain that its location was of the best. I have the feeling that if we were going to have a museum— an historical or an Easter Week or a Dublin City Museum—it should be situated in the older part of the city, if possible. But wherever this Georgian house may be, I suppose that if it is suitable in other ways, and if the public have easy access to it, it would not matter so much in what part of the city it may be located.

I was interested also, as I am sure a great many Deputies were, in Dr. Bodkin's observations about the preservation of national monuments and sites. We already have a body in that connection—the National Monuments Advisory Council. I wonder whether the functions of that body could not be enlarged, if that were necessary. Having regard to the very limited finances which were available to them, the officers of that body, and the council itself, have done splendid work over a period of years. It may be that in certain cases more should have been done. However, I think a great deal was done and that if it were being done now it would cost very much more. In fact, it is probably difficult to get the work done in existing conditions. I think that more could be done by the Tourist Association or by the local authorities to mark these ancient monuments and sites and to provide direction signs so that visitors might be easily able to get to them. I read somewhere a year ago that it was noted that when American tourists came to Great Britain they did not always, as locals sometimes seemed to think they ought, go to the seaside; often they went to inland places, historic places. I always believed that from the tourist point of view we had not made nearly enough of our inland places where the archaeological sites or Christian monuments were. If the provision for publicity is improved it may help to secure more attention for these places.

It may not be a proper duty to put upon the National Monuments Council but somebody should be entrusted with the duty of clearing up derelict sites and old buildings throughout the country; although a Bill was passed enabling local authorities to do it they never did so successfully, I do not know why. Somebody should definitely be charged with clearing those unsightly ruins which give an entirely wrong impression throughout the country.

Generally, I think, I may say— although different people will have different opinions about the value of the arts—that this Party will welcome any steps to ensure a more genuine appreciation of the arts in this country. I think that those interested in national culture or education will agree that part of the legacy of every boy and girl in the country should, as well as a knowledge of their own language, literature and history, contain a knowledge of the art of their own country and of the world in general, particularly Christian art.

The first medium, I think, of public appreciation is the monuments and buildings of our city; and, secondly, those institutions to which I have referred; thirdly, we have the schools which give instruction in art or craftsmanship. It would certainly be valuable if, as well as exhibitions of fine art, paintings and sculpture, we had also occasional exhibitions of industrial art. An English publication dealing with this matter—Dr. Bodkin has referred to them and I think this was one of them—said that the schools should try to do in respect of art for the mass of the children what the cultured home does for the few, and that post-primary schools which gave special attention to art, drawing or even appreciation of proper values in these matters should try to give the pupils a proper judgment and a proper idea of ordinary style and good taste in things of everyday life.

The National College of Art has, as far as I know, done very well. I could wish, as I am sure all those interested in this institution would wish, for a newer and large building, a bigger staff and more students, but even in its present restricted circumstances very good work is being done and credit is due to the head of the school and the staff.

I should like to endorse what the Taoiseach said, that as well as cultivating the good, one of the most important points is to try to discourage the bad. When the Government were getting Dr. Bodkin to give his views, which he has given so well and so interestingly about every branch of activity in the artistic sphere, it is a great pity that they did not ask him to say a word about the radio, the pictures, the newspapers and the other elements which very often, instead of cultivating better standards and values, are, unfortunately, debasing the standards we have. They may not have been as high from the artistic point of view as those of other countries, but they were old and they were our own. There was nothing to be ashamed of in them; they were honest and decent, perhaps simple and homely; they may not have pleased intellectuals and critics at all times, but what are we getting now? We are losing the old things we cherished and are getting only celluloid and television instead. It is high time to get our people to realise that if they lose their traditions, if they do not take them while they are still there and build upon them something individual and distinctive, something worthy of our nation, something which can be regarded as typically and worthily Irish, there is the danger that we will not be known in the world for what we are but simply as a small people carrying on the civilisation of other countries.

Nuair a d'fhógair an Taoiseach go raibh ar intinn aige Bille den tsaghas seo a thabhairt isteach caithfidh mé a admháil go raibh mé ag feitheamh leis agus mé beagáinín aimhreasach mar gheall air; ní dócha anois go raibh gá leis an aimhreas sin.

Tá smaoineamh fánach nó dhó im cheann agus ní haon díobháil iad a nochtadh. Ar an gcéad dul síos ceapaim gur gá aon iarracht mar atá sa mBille seo a cheangal leis an móraidhm náisiúnta—saol Gaelach a bhaint amach. Fé mar adúirt an Taoiseach, an Teachta Ó Deirg agus Dáibhís agus an Piarsach, ní cóir go mbeimis sásta Éire a bheith saor gan í a bheith Gaelach freisin. Aon rud a dhéanaimid tríd an mBille seo feachaimis chuige nach gcuirfidh sé isteach ar an obair atá á dhéanamh againn leis an aidhm sin a bhaint amach.

An dara rud ba mhaith liom a chur in a luí ar an Taoiseach agus ar an Dáil ná go mbraithfidh mo mheas-sa agus meas mór-chuid daoine eile ar an iarracht seo ar an saghas comhairle a bunófar fé údaras Ailt 3 den mBille. Caithfidh an Rialtas agus an Taoiseach féachaint chuige go mbeidh ar an Ard-Chomhairle sin daoine a thuigfidh gur náisiún sin, náisiún ársa sean go bhfuil traidisiún is modh smaointe dár gcuid féin againn, daoine a thuigfidh gur b'í aidhm an náisiúin seo saoirse iomlán a bhaint amach agus ár dteanga féin a chur á labhairt mar ghnáth-theangain na ndaoine athuair. Mura bhféachann an Taoiseach chuige sin, mura ndéanann sé deimhin de sin, beidh daoine ann agus ní bheidh siad sásta leis an Ard-Chomhairle agus ní bheidh siad sásta leis an iarracht atá á déanamh leis an mBille seo.

I must admit that from the time the Taoiseach announced in 1949 that a Bill of this nature was contemplated I was, I think subconsciously at any rate, harbouring doubts as to what it was proposed to do by the Bill. I will not say that I was lying in wait for it, but I was prepared to be highly critical.

In the first place, I want to congratulate the Taoiseach on the fact that, in spite of many other matters which must of necessity preoccupy him and his colleagues in the Cabinet, he saw fit to implement, within a reasonably short space of time, the undertaking he gave to introduce this Bill. Having heard the Taoiseach's remarks, any doubts I had are to a large extent allayed. It is clear from the manner in which the Taoiseach approached it—and perhaps it was inevitable that he should so approach it— his main concern in relation to this Bill was to deal with the visual arts, the delineative arts, and with architecture. I think he used the phrase that attention to drama and the theatre may come later. I suppose in all the circumstances it is inevitable that he should take that approach. It would be unreasonable to expect that everything should be done at once.

I think it is well, however, that I should say this, that in so far as we have distinct ability as a nation in the arts, it is more marked in so far as the dramatic and histrionic arts are concerned than in any other. If I am right in interpreting his remarks, I think the Taoiseach considered a certain priority of endeavour would be expected from the arts council in respect of the architectural and delineative arts and, when he says drama and dramatic and musical arts may come later, I hope that it will not be too much later.

The Taoiseach is quite right when he says that in the world as we know it to-day, there are very few nations prepared to encourage and support artists. Possibly, as a result, it is inevitable in a small country like this that most of our great artists, in the past at any rate, should have been ex-patriots. In so far as this Bill will contribute to ending that position and will contribute to encouragement being given to our painters and sculptors to remain at home to derive their inspiration from native sources, the Bill must be welcomed. It is true to say, no matter what we do here, that we live in a world where utilitarian values take precedence over spiritual values and, in so far as we as a small country can contribute in any way to restore a proper balance and give due importance to the spiritual values, then I think for that reason, too, this House will generally welcome the Bill. But it is idle for us to delude ourselves that in the world we live in to-day vulgarity is the norm. Nothing we can do will, I suppose, alter that.

The Taoiseach referred very properly to the desirability of improving industrial design and of allying art and industry. He referred to the possibility of a marriage of art and industry. I hope I do not express too gloomy a view or too cynical a view of the vast majority of our industrialists if I say to the Taoiseach that I am afraid it will probably have to be a forced marriage. But many a made match was successful before and, if the Taoiseach can force such a union. I think it is all to the good.

One difficulty that any arts council will encounter—and I think it is one they will encounter at the outset—will be the difficulty of making a decision as to whether the future development of fine arts in this country will be based on the conception of an urban culture, an urban civilisation, in contradistinction to a folk culture and a folk civilisation. In so far as we have in the past given expression to this in art form, those art forms have in the main grown from a folk culture and a folk civilisation. I am not suggesting a solution of that difficulty; I am not attempting to supply an answer; I merely suggest it is a difficulty that the arts council will be faced with.

When I was listening to Deputy Derrig, I think his mind was to a certain extent running on somewhat similar lines. I do not know to what extent it is possible to develop native art forms in music—not so much in painting or sculpture—but to the extent that we had art forms in embyro in the craftsmanship of our people, particularly of our rural population.

In spite of what the Taoiseach said, I do subscribe to the view that it would be a good thing if we could prevent the taste of our people being vitiated week after week by cheap and vulgar newspapers and periodicals and trashy entertainment. Possibly, to interfere to that extent with the liberty and freedom of the individual is something that it is desirable to avoid. Nevertheless, I believe I am right in stating that I am not alone in the view that the taste of our people, the very outlook of our people, is being vitiated and denationalised week by week, Sunday by Sunday, by the imported trash which is bought by them, I am sorry to say, in such large quantities.

I do not know whether it will be possible under the Bill for the arts council to assist in any way in the provision of a proper home for a national theatre. In that connection, I would suggest to the Taoiseach that the provisions of Section 5 of the Bill would bear re-examination. The ceiling of £20,000 placed by sub-section (1) of Section 5 is, in my opinion, very, very low. It should be left free to the Oireachtas, to this Dáil or succeeding Dála, to determine from time to time and from year to year what that ceiling should be. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that he should again examine Section 5 and consider whether he would be disposed to dispense with the ceiling of £20,000 envisaged in sub-section (1) of that section. Perhaps, if the Taoiseach does not do so, he will give me an opportunity to do so and I will move an amendment to that effect.

I can well imagine that the office and secretariat of the director will involve an expenditure of anywhere between £7,000 and £10,000 per annum. Certainly, it would strike me as being difficult of establishment under that figure. I am open to correction on that and perhaps the Taoiseach would deal with it when he is replying. If that be so, the annual amount left at the disposal of the arts council is, to my mind, small, if one is to consider all contingencies. Admittedly, there might be many years in which even 50 per cent. of that amount would not need to be expended but it is rather a pity, when the Taoiseach is introducing a Bill of this nature, that he should limit, and limit for all time, the amount of money available. I do not know what the attitude of the Party opposite is but I imagine the view of Deputies generally would be that it would be wise to dispense with that limitation.

Another matter which I would suggest for the consideration of the Taoiseach and of the House is that it would be disastrous were this arts council to be set up without some directive being given to them that Ireland does not mean Dublin and that their energies and activities should be directed to raising the standard of appreciation of our people all over the country. There is no necessity for me to suggest the details of organisation and approach whereby that desirable result can be achieved, but do not let us have concentration on exhibitions of painting in Dublin, exhibitions of sculpture in Dublin, to the extent that there is a complete disregard of the fact that there are people in Cork, Waterford, Limerick and throughout rural Ireland who have the latent ability and intelligence wherefrom appreciation of the fine arts could be developed.

I do not want to harp on a matter that I have often referred to in this House but, again to the extent that it is possible, the arts council should pursue a policy of decentralisation of their activities. I do not know whether it would be possible that such a council should have a function of advising the Government in connection with the production and merchandise of articles such as the bog oak pigs to which the Taoiseach referred, which are harmful to our national dignity and derogatory of our prestige as a cultured people. If possible, they should have some function in advising the Government on matters of that nature, and the Government, when so advised, should take whatever steps would be necessary to end abuses of the kind referred to.

We are not alone as a nation in suffering from this kind of misrepresentation. We may have to put up with bog oak pigs manufactured in Putney. I understand that in the bazaars of Cairo and Bagdad the Oriental curio and objet d'art is usually a product of Birmingham or Manchester. But, inasmuch as the Taoiseach made reference to that, some means should be devised to prevent our being held up to ridicule in that fashion.

In conclusion, I want to make an appeal to the Taoiseach, that the setting up of this body and its functions should be viewed against the background of the broad national picture, should be viewed against the background of the fact that we have not yet completely succeeded in undoing the cultural and political conquest, should be viewed against the background of the fact that it is one of the national aims to restore the Irish language as the spoken language of our people. In saying that, I do not wish to leave the Taoiseach or the House under the impression that I am urging any narrow, restricted or sectional approach to the setting up of the arts council. All I ask is that when it comes to the time to nominate personnel to that council, the Taoiseach and the Government will assure themselves that the persons they nominate will be people who realise that we are an old and ancient nation with our own traditions, that we are engaged in the task of attempting to undo a three-fold conquest—cultural, political and economic—and that the people nominated by him will be people who will so act that their work on the arts council will help, not hinder, the undoing of the cultural conquest.

Art appreciation in this House is depicted very well by the number of people who are here to discuss the question of art. The Dáil at present reminds me of a room in the National Gallery any day in the week. I think one reason for that, and one objection I would have to the setting up of an arts council, is that art appreciation in this country is in a great measure associated with social snobbishness and anything that is based on pretence will have very little success in this country.

I was interested in hearing the Taoiseach's concern for Nelson's Pillar. Of course, when Governments and men go into high places, and do not keep their heads common-sense people, no matter how inartistic they may be, must not neglect to take the precautions which common sense would suggest. A rough-neck like me, representing the general view throughout the countryside, is prone to picture in his mind, in approaching this question of art appreciation, a bareheaded young man with a beard and a young lady in slacks breathless in their appreciation of Picasso, particularly if the picture is hung upside down. Of course I have heard that universities are places where under-graduates may talk nonsense and I have heard the National College of Art described as a stamping ground between Alexandra College and marriage. I think there is a good deal of pretence associated with the National College of Art and with art appreciation. If this council puts its foot on it, I would be very much in favour of having the council. But are we not multiplying councils and directors? We have a director of the National Gallery, a director of the National Museum, I presume, and directors of the Abbey Theatre. Could not these, while holding their present positions, be welded into some body such as the Taoiseach is recommending to us now? My own view is that there is more real teaching of art in the vocational schools than there is in the College of Art. Maybe that is as it should be. Maybe a position in the National College of Art given to an artist should be given to him in appreciation of his work and with a view to giving him an opportunity of freeing himself from his financial difficulties and enabling him to carry on his art unhindered by financial worries.

When the Taoiseach spoke about Spanish architecture and Don Quixote the thought occurred to me that Spanish architecture may be largely concerned with windmills. Perhaps the Taoiseach is tilting at one of them. I think the Government has a very bad way of showing its appreciation of architecture. I have in mind the Store Street building which is a beautiful piece of architecture, yet the Government seem to have no very great appreciation of it. If you want to encourage music and to encourage the theatre, what we require is a national theatre. We have not got it. The Gate inside is architecturally a disgrace, no matter how magnificent the productions there may be. The Abbey is a poor, entirely unsuitable building. This question of building a national theatre has been mooted for a long time. The intelligent Deputy who is in charge of the Board of Works has been making public speeches about the tremendous extravagance of Fianna Fáil in proposing to erect public buildings of this sort. What I am afraid of is that the setting up of a council of the sort suggested by the Taoiseach might mean the shifting of a responsibility that should surely rest on the Government—the provision of a concert hall or of a national theatre. I agree with Deputy Lehane that there should be more exhibitions throughout the country. It would not cost a tremendous amount and there are sufficient pictures in the cellars of the National Gallery and of the metropolitan gallery to enable several of these exhibitions to be run at the same time.

I come back to the question of architecture. One of the things that the Taoiseach might ask his council to deal with is the condition of the National Gallery. The National Gallery might be called a hall of mirrors rather than a picture gallery. I think something should be done in relation to that. It is not easy to develop an appreciation of art. Pictures even sent out by way of exhibition to country towns will not develop any definite taste, and I would suggest that the Government might usefully spend some money, either through the council or directly, in the production of prints of well-known pictures that would sell cheaply and which might take the place of the dreadful oleographs that one sometimes sees in country houses. I remember in 1920 if you had a gun when you came to a house you were generally invited to go up to the sitting-room. The windows, perhaps, had not been opened for years. Generally over the fireplace there was an oleograph of the Pope and on the opposite wall one of Robert Emmet in a beautiful uniform. Possibly there was an enlarged photograph of a dead grandfather on the other wall. The whole thing was intended to raise your national spirit and your belief in the hereafter, but it certainly did nothing to develop your artistic appreciation. I think the Government would do well if it took steps to have produced a number of prints of good pictures.

Deputy C. Lehane said that our art is associated with materialism. It must be. The artists must live, and all our good literary men, in order to live, have to become muck-rakers, attacking their own country in foreign journals. Since they have to live, would it not be a good idea if, instead of spending money on an arts council, we provided something in the way of a Nobel Prize of literature in this country for the encouragement of those people so that they would not be obliged to be, like Joxer, derogatory and of their own country? I was surprised, in view of all the protests that were made last week about the expert advice given to the Taoiseach, that there has not been a furore about the expert advice from Dr. Bodkin. I would be very much against extending the ambit of Dr. Bodkin's recommendations. I think it was Deputy Derrig who mentioned that he should be asked for advice about the radio and pictures. I think that if you were to confine him to the things he knows something about you would be doing much better. I agree with the creation of an arts council, but I want to be very mundane about it. I want to divorce any such proposal from social snobbishness and pretence. That is the one object I have.

In some ways I welcome this Bill very much, because I think it is a step in a direction which a number of our people have been waiting a long time to see taken. From that point of view, I welcome the Bill. At the same time, I want to say that I think we have not gone half far enough. I agree with the Deputy who said that the £20,000 mentioned in the Bill is too small a sum.

If we are going to set up an arts council—I am sure an arts council will do good—I think it is going to have a very difficult task unless it is prepared to start slowly, to start at the bottom and educate our children. I think that is where we, in common with the peoples of many other countries, find ourselves at the moment. We are living in a materialistic age, and our only hope really of getting appreciation for the fine arts is by training our people to appreciate the fine arts because just as a country gets the Government which it deserves—at least that is what is said anyway—I think that a nation will also get the fine arts it deserves. If we have a population which is not anxious to support artists, and anxious in every way to further the cause of artistic endeavour, then I think we will not be able to say that the country has an artistic sense.

We, in common with a number of other countries in Western Europe, cannot really say that amongst our people there exists this wild desire for things artistic. I think that has come about through the paralysing and materialistic effect of the 19th century. I was just thinking of that while some of the Deputies were speaking earlier. At least one of them mentioned the 19th century in relation to art in industry. I have a theory in regard to the 19th century, with its emphasis on heavy industry, its tremendous advance in railway construction and in the various big industries which resulted in the making of an enormous amount of money and the creation of great power and wealth in the country where they were developed, that there was nothing artistic about all that. It was not necessary to have any particular artistic design. Eventually, as a matter of fact, I think these various industries evolved a function and a design which brought a type of beauty to their own products, but that was entirely accidental. Therefore, in that century there grew up the idea that industry was something quite detached and apart from artistic design—in fact of design of any sort.

There is then the case of the smaller countries. Deputy Derrig, I think, mentioned Swedish glass. These smaller countries have come along and have opened our eyes in regard to what design, and especially artistic design, can do. If, in that respect, our new arts council can help our industries it will, of course, be doing a very great thing. We must remember that, eventually, any industry will give the people what the people want. Unless the people happen to be artistically minded, even an arts council will not be able to make industry produce artistic things for the people.

I have, from time to time, been very much struck by the artistic excellence of the things one sees produced in certain continental countries, and by the high artistic excellence that exists amongst their people. I remember on one occasion in Switzerland—I was interested in metals—I noticed in various cafés and restaurants a very high standard of design in the case of things like ashtrays. As I say, I was there on business connected with metals, and so my eyes were opened to that. I noticed in café after café, and in hotel after hotel, the excellent quality and the first-class design of the ashtrays.

Now, I just give that as one example. What struck me was that these hotel and café proprietors were prepared to pay for these things. They were not cheap, and they were not mass-produced articles sold by any chain store or firm, and still less were they handed out as free advertisements for various brands of cigarettes. I would ask Deputies how often have they seen here at home an ashtray of any kind but the humblest and most ordinary design? These hotel and café proprietors must have been prepared to pay shillings for these articles where we and peoples in other western countries would only be prepared to pay pence.

That is one of the fundamental difficulties which I see any arts council will be up against. I hope that the arts council here will try to do something in that respect. I suggest that the only way it really and effectively can do that is through a long-term policy of helping and creating an appreciation of art amongst our children. In my opinion, the National Gallery, our Municipal Gallery of Art and the museum will have a big part to play in that respect. We should encourage schools to visit them and, above all, we in this House should make a national contribution worthy of these institutions. It is quite absurd to keep the National Gallery of Ireland starved for money in the way we do and also to keep the National Museum starved for money. I do not think the ordinary public realise what three very fine institutions we have in the National Gallery, the Municipal Gallery and the National Museum.

Our Municipal Gallery in Charlemont House has been described as one of the finest, if not the finest, gallery of modern art outside Paris. That is a big claim, but that claim has been put forward. Certainly it is a small gallery which can hold its own with any big gallery in Europe. The National Gallery also is a very fine institution. Many Irish people do not realise that the National Museum has the finest collection of gold ornaments in Europe. A lot of people do not realise that we have there some of the great treasures of Western Europe. These are things we ought to put before our people.

We also ought to show our appreciation of this very beautiful city we live in by taking over, as suggested by Dr. Bodkin, one of the Georgian houses and perhaps furnishing it in the style of an eighteenth century house. That would be something we would all be proud of and would prove of very great attraction to this city. Mespil House was mentioned. I wonder has any Deputy gone past Mespil House recently, because Mespil House in my opinion has been ruined. The beautiful trees which were there have all been cut down and there is not one left. That is just symptomatic of the way in which some of our really lovely treasures are treated. In my opinion, that house and the lovely old trees surrounding it were a treasure that belonged mainly to the citizens of Dublin and yet there is not a tree left there.

All these things could be helped by a greater appreciation of art and things artistic. One of the difficulties which we suffer from is that artistic people will say to you: "You talk about appreciation of art, but our Government does very little for it and individual persons do a great deal." We live in a materialistic age. Artists must live and lack of financial aid by the Government sets a headline to other people. The small sums given show the unimportant place in the national economy which artistic endeavour is allotted. That forms a sort of climate for the people and it is very hard for artistic things to flourish in that atmosphere of chilliness and lack of appreciation. For that reason, this Bill is a step forward. Although not a very great sum is involved in it —in fact not half the money needed— still it does show that the State has thought enough of artistic matters to spend some money.

There was one phrase in the Taoiseach's speech that I most say shocked me to the core, that music and drama may come later. We should have started off with music and drama, especially music. Here in Ireland we have an amazing heritage of music. We have some of the most beautiful folk music in the world, really exquisite music. We also have a musical people. Our musicians are really first class. The musical standard, both vocally and instrumentally, is very high. All foreign musicians who come here pay tribute to that. We have two teaching establishments here, the Academy of Music and the Municipal School of Music. The Academy of Music should be treated as a national conservatoire. Down through the years, it has kept the national music alive. From it have come forward many distinguished and some great Irish musicians who have shed lustre on music and particularly on Irish music. We make a minute grant to that institution, a grant which the national Parliament really should be ashamed to offer. Now, with a radio symphony orchestra, we have an opportunity of giving the students who come from that institution employment in an orchestra.

Up to recently there was nowhere for them to earn a living except on the concert platform, which in this country, with our small population, was a very hazardous livelihood. In fact it was quite impossible for a concert artiste to earn his or her living in Ireland. There is an opportunity there now for these instrumental artistes to earn a living in the radio orchestra. If we do not maintain our teaching schools they will not be able to feed this orchestra with the musicians which it requires. I, therefore, earnestly ask the Taoiseach to include musical people on this arts council and I should like to see music placed in the forefront of any fine arts efforts made in this country because we have here musicians who are second to none. It must be remembered, of course, that music is a type of artistic endeavour which requires a very long preparation and a build up around it of schools of harmony, the study of vocal music and of different types of music before one can get a true musical background out of which worth-while artistes will emerge. We have the opportunity now to do that and I hope we will avail of that opportunity.

In conclusion, I would like to see this Bill go further and, above all, I would like to see it place more emphasis on music as one of the arts. I certainly welcome the Bill and I hope it will achieve the results and do the work here in Ireland and for Ireland which we would all like to see it do.

First of all, I welcome the change of heart or, shall I say, change of policy on the part of the present Government as shown by the introduction of this measure. There was a time when statements were made by members of the present Government and their supporters attacking us for what they described as our "extravagances". When they came into power they took very effective step to put an end to our scheme with regard to a concert hall. However, I do not want to dwell on that aspect of the position. If I might put it maliciously, we welcome this death-bed repentance.

Not so much of the death-bed.

I think that the Government is spreading its net rather too wide. I think this measure should be confined to the plastic arts and to the pictorial arts—architecture, painting, sculpture, and so on—because it is in relation to those arts that they will achieve the greatest measure of success. I am very enthusiastic, too, about some other things allied to art, but I think they might be better dealt with elsewhere.

I think that music, for instance, could more easily be dealt with outside the framework of this Bill. I would prefer to see the line of policy adopted, the line which was taken on the advice of men like Hamilton Harty and Adrian Boult and poor Mæran, God rest him. That line was first of all to develop the orchestra and the summer school of music. When both of those are developed the people should be encouraged then to improve and we would pass on to a national school of music, a conservatoire, which is a teaching academy for the purpose of taking those who have reached a very high standard of proficiency a little further. I think that could be dealt with more satisfactorily outside the scope of this Bill.

With regard to the drama, we are very well advanced in that respect owing to the development of the Abbey school of actors and the Gate Theatre. The Abbey was the first and it goes back a long way. At the present time we have all over the country magnificent acting by local people. I do not think the present Bill should deal with drama at the moment. I think the Government should return to our proposals when we were in office. They should build a theatre. That would be a much more practical approach.

With regard to literature, if the Bill includes literature then I am afraid we may reach a position of real difficulty because of misunderstanding between those people who are enthusiastic about Gaelic literature and those who are enthusiastic about English literature. A quarrel between English and Gaelic literature will start. I think it would be better and fairer to the Gaelic movement to deal with literature separately. It is perhaps the most important aspect of all and we should concentrate on it from a different point of approach.

That would leave us then with only the plastic and visual arts to consider. The sum which is being allocated is a small one; wisely so, because in the beginning we want to use it to encourage a taste for art, which is really the development of judgment in order to enable people to acquire the proper standards so that they will be competent to compare. What they are taught in that direction will ultimately become an instinct so that they will reach the stage when they will be able to judge instinctively what is good and what is not good.

I am not so pessimistic as some of the speakers about the possibility of people coming along as patrons of art. I think there are unlimited possibilities there. In England, for instance, there are several patrons of art. For instance Courtauld, a cotton manufacturer, and Keynes, who was a great financier, were both patrons of the arts. In America there are numbers of people who go in for art. Indeed, there are actually millionaires who boast of the amount of money they have lost on the production of opera. I do not believe human nature has changed from mediaeval times when one had the great merchant princes of Italy being extremely proud of the fact that they were patrons of art. I believe that will develop again if we give people an opportunity of seeing that we are sincerely interested in art ourselves and that we have latent possibilities in our people. Some people are discouraged because we are a small nation. Nearly all great art in the past emanated from small nations. I was very impressed on one occasion when I met a very distinguished musician some years ago. He complained to me because he was British. He said:—

"If I did not belong to an industrialised empire I would be far better off from the point of view of the development of my music."

To me that was an extraordinary reaction. I believe that the small countries have been the biggest producers of great art. Germany was not a great country at the time she produced the best of her music. She was split up into small principalities.

I think we have been too apologetic here in approaching the public in relation to our cultural activities. Apart from the ideals in the backs of our minds, the non-material considerations, there are quite a number of material considerations. The Taoiseach has put some of them very clearly already. But there are others. He referred to the development of industry and design in industry. Dr. Bodkin in his report shows how the tradition created by people like Richelieu and Colbert in developing the fine arts led to their nation's subsequent capacity to apply those fine arts to industry so that they became outstanding for their china and tapestries and everything else they produced. Their productions had the quality of beauty and captured an enormous market.

Then there is the important question of tourism. In one year the tourist traffic brought in more than the cattle trade. It ran to something like £35,000,000. I do not know what it is to-day, but I do believe that that is an aspect of national life to which we should give great attention since that trade is not a passing thing if we only try to develop it. There are immense possibilities there. The American experts who have come to this country take the point of view that Ireland has scenery but so have other countries, that Ireland also has some things common to other countries, but that what we have in particular are our traditions and our cultural assets, which are not exploited enough. Dr. Bodkin points out in his report the absence of post cards, the absence of an accumulation of photographs— things which are attended to tremendously in other countries. We have Britain going all out now on a campaign to try to balance imports and exports by her Festival of Britain. France goes out upon attracting the enormous tourist trade they have and the enormous sales they have especially with people in South America and North America. We can easily regard the development of our cultural activities as possibly ultimately the biggest dollar earning asset that we have.

Again, from the point of view of employment, there are a number of people with that kind of temperament in Ireland. I imagine there is a bigger percentage in this country than in many other countries who have artistic possibilities in them. Obviously, the attitude of the State should be to bring out all the qualities in the citizens and not have that awful dark, barren type of attitude that makes it necessary for everybody to become a clerk or a workman or go into commerce and be that type of hard-headed business person who scorns all the finer qualities there are in human nature. I believe that we have those qualities in us which have been characteristic in other countries and that the children of the most humble workers on the land are sometimes the most gifted people, if they get the proper kind of artistic education. One could name several in other countries but I do not wish to delay the House, as I am sure Deputies understand it as well as I.

Then again, it is strictly according to the ideals of those associated with the liberation of this country. Davis was the outstanding figure mentioned by Dr. Bodkin but Mitchel also refers to this point. Then there are Pearse, McDonagh, Plunkett and Casement, all enthusiastic from the cultural point of view. I believe we are acting according to the ideals of those people if we pursue that line and I believe the Irish people will accept it from that point of view. From 1918 to 1922 we had that inspiration overshadowing the creation of the arts and crafts movement, which died out in 1922. It did a good deal of work at that time. I feel it is due partly to a servile spirit in the past, and to the lack of Sinn Féin consciousness, that we seemed to think we were good for nothing. The mental attitude in the old days was: "What is the good?" It is that sort of thing we need to shake off in this particular activity in national development.

There is another attitude which has a very bad effect. The people who are in favour of artistic things are often very sensitive and if the superiority-minded cynic comes along he can easily destroy the activities of people, destroy their interest in these things. The working classes of Dublin long ago were always immensely interested in the very best of Italian opera and Shakespearian plays and things of that sort. I do not believe they have changed a bit. If they get the best they are quite capable of enjoying the best. The Russians understand that and have done all they can to develop cultural activities for the people, as they know their value.

There are other arguments, too. Two of the Ministers recently have deplored the amount of money spent on drink and gambling. Deputy Derrig referred to the unfortunate effect of a great many films and of the radio. As the Taoiseach himself said, there is no use in denouncing people, attacking them for certain things: the thing is to give them something better. For that reason, it is a very urgent duty and responsibility of the Government to make sure that they do get better things, and especially that our younger people get an opportunity to develop that taste early, so that they may be able to reject what is evil and make the best of what is good. Some people say it is due to our tradition of puritanism that we are sometimes so hostile to the arts. It may be due to the fact that the many wars we have been through give us a sort of mental background like that of the Frenchman who said that "war was his native country", and that therefore it is only in terms of conflict that we can really develop an intense interest. From that point of view, it is no harm that our people should get something of a more peaceful kind and an opportunity to develop more the arts of peace.

There is also a remarkable development in America, where you have distinguished ecclesiastics organising pilgrimages to Ireland. We have a number of ecclesiastical monuments. They are, I suppose, in the debatable area between archæology and architecture. Certainly they should be a great source of interest to the Irish race all over the world. Whether through this body or through other Government activity, they should be properly looked after and an interest in them fostered, by giving special attention from the Oireachtas and exploiting to the full the immense interest both from the point of view of history and of religion. Very great attention should be given to them. Perhaps, it sounds a little bit cynical to say that we should do it from the point of view of merely gaining dollars but there is a great deal more in it than that because these traditions are the things which, if anything, will give Ireland strength, backed up by the Irish all over the world. Even from a defence point of view, we have had the experience in the last war of certain places not being destroyed because they were the source of civilisation. Because of their beauty or because of their great historic interest, these places happened to escape dreadful destruction. If Ireland had the reputation of having something that is worth preserving it would be a factor in her favour. It may not be a big one but it is a factor that will help to preserve her when other things are destroyed.

In conclusion, I would like to say a word in praise of Dr. Bodkin's report. It is full of facts and views with some of which some would probably differ, but, on the whole, it is very informative and very helpful. I hope that the Taoiseach will exclude everything in the Bill except the rather limited area of the problems dealing with the plastic and visual arts.

I rise to welcome this Bill and to urge very much the opposite view to Deputy Little. I think that it would be fatal in principle and fatal in conception were the Taoiseach to narrow down this Bill to any narrow designed limits. If the Bill is to have any real benefit for the re-establishment or rehabilitation of certain artistic characteristics of the Irish people, it must, in its initial stage, be very much of an exploratory nature. There are many particular characteristic industries which we had in this country to find the remnants of which would be difficult and in respect of which an explanation as to whether or not there is any line of heritage or peculiar skill would be difficult.

This Bill may do a good deal more than is envisaged by its sponsors at the moment. I feel that too long have we neglected a concerted effort to revive some of the most extraordinary industries we had in this country. I cannot say that I have read Dr. Bodkin's report. I understand it is a very informative document. I am looking at the problem of fine arts from such knowledge of art as we can glean in our historic past or in our immediate present.

Representing the area I do and having some of its earlier type of glasswork in my possession, I want to see explored the possibility of reviving in Ireland something of the inherent skill, the extraordinary intrinsic beauty and wonderful quality glasswork which was once the characteristic of Cork or Waterford. I feel that, with encouragement, with a reasonable approach by the Government, it will be possible to find somewhere successors to those who have gone before. This cannot be looked upon purely as something fundamentally commercial. The quality of the glass that has survived through the ages is intrinsically infinitely more beautiful than ordinary commerce might produce. I feel that this Bill may be able, within its scope, to revive throughout this country many of the old characteristic cottage weaving or cottage lace industries that we had before. The type of excellent lacework that you can get in little cottages around tourist spots like Glengarriff is of immense artistic quality, and has been a heritage of the people and of families. This is something that could be encouraged and developed so as to make available things of beauty and quality instead of the awfully loud, garish and unfortunate souvenirs that are plastered around this country and which are meant to be representative of something typically Irish or something produced in Ireland.

I want to see this Bill eliminate, if it can, some of the gross misrepresentations of Celtic design and some of the gross misrepresentations of some of our characteristic national symbols. I want this Bill to be wide enough to ensure that there will be some kind of a standard developed in this country that will enable us to produce, as we must, characteristic souvenirs for tourists to take away, souvenirs that will be of some inherent artistic quality and not some of the appalling things that are produced outside Ireland, rapidly changed into something else and sold to tourists as something peculiar to the area in which they were bought.

I want to see an effort made to revive many of the old characteristic, beautiful products that were typical of Irish life. We once had a beautiful home industry in rugs, producing a type of article that was typical in its symbolism and Irish in its symbol and sign. The article was of excellent quality in itself. It is true that there were developed in a small way various types of delph production of a hand-painted nature which were a credit to this country. I want to see encouraged again—I hope that is the intention of the Taoiseach and the Government under this Bill—the old art of the handpainting of various types of delph and china which was once so popular in this country. I feel that we have sufficient artistic quality within our people to produce something worthy of ourselves and of our heritage, instead of allowing souvenirs of Ireland, mass-produced monstrosities, produced in the main by people who are not Irish in nationality, sympathy or outlook, to be displayed here. I want to see this Bill giving a fair chance to the development of the wide range of artistic instinct which I believe exists in our people.

There is one particular facet of modern development to which I want to refer in particular. I hope the Bill is wide enough to allow the encouragement of proper scenic photography, because if there is one thing we suffer from in relation to the development of tourism, it is a lack of appreciation of many of our own beauty spots and a tremendous lack in the matter of displaying them to the world.

It occurred to me when driving over the weekend from Castletownbere around by Bantry Bay and back into Gougane Barra how very little of the extraordinarily beautiful scenic vistas in that area had been photographed in any realistic way for display to the world. If we are in earnest about the development of tourism, we will have to try to develop the art of proper scenic photography. There are some places of extraordinary beauty, not only in South-West Cork and Kerry, but in other parts of the country, which have never been properly photographed or put on display, and if the Bill is not wide enough to cover that aspect, I urge the Taoiseach very earnestly, in relation to this drive to develop an artistic instinct at home, to widen the measure so as to include such a development within its scope.

It is an excellent thing for the Government to take upon itself the job of trying to develop artistic quality in our people. I wish that I could have the hope that Deputy Little has as to patrons of the arts being forthcoming, but unfortunately, in a cruel and materialistic modern world, that type of hope is rather futile, because the number of people who might, in days gone by, have been in a position to become patrons of the arts are becoming more and more restricted as modern Governments replace each other. The Government in this matter will have to be the kindly father and I think I am gauging the opinion of the House correctly when I say to the Taoiseach that a unanimous House will not cheesepare in relation to the money needed if it serves a really worthwhile national aim.

There are many features of Irish life and many artistic qualities in the people which have died, because, as Deputy Little put it, in the modern struggle for existence, there is no room for the person who tries to give expression to something beautiful and unusual. I think the Government should encourage that type of person because he has an immense cultural contribution to make to our national background. I urge the Taoiseach to keep this Bill as wide as possible, because, if this council does its work properly, it may be able to re-develop many of the long forgotten arts which were once synomymous with Ireland. I wish a hearty God-speed and good luck to the Bill.

I should like to see a more positive approach to this Bill. The speeches to which I have listened have travelled over a very wide canvas indeed and the first observation I have to make is that I do not think a sum of £20,000 is anything like sufficient. If there were a sum of £200,000 set out in the Bill, I would still say, in the light of the things I have had in mind for a long time and which I mentioned here and elsewhere from time to time, that it would not be enough. The prime consideration of this arts council should be the creative artist rather than the stimulation of an appreciation of the arts. Let us have first things first. We have the theatre, music, painting and writing. If the Bill, as Deputy Moylan said, is merely to be an instrument for the creation of more and more poseurs, if it is merely to give us exhibitions and exhibitions and exhibitions, with more and more blasé people smoking long cigarettes and passing remarks from strange angles, people who must take a play and dissect it, operate on it, take its insides out and explain it to the playwright, I have no time for it.

O'Casey, when asked: "How do you write a play"? once, said: "I write it". I want to see this positive approach, this realistic approach to this business. I hoped fervently that at last someone was going to come to the aid of the people engaged in the theatre, in the musical profession, in painting and in writing, because the theatre here is fast dying and the Taoiseach, as well as everybody interested in it, knows that it is fast dying. The national theatre which we knew, the Abbey Theatre, is no more. You cannot possibly get actors to give their full time to the acting profession if they are not being paid as well as tradesmen. If there is to be additional subvention to the theatre, this is a very good Bill, if the arts council will be in a position to look after the actors and to give additional subventions to a national theatre. If the State or somebody else will build a decent national theatre we will have artists who can give their full time to their art, and not people who, perforce, when qualified or semi-qualified, must go across the water to get a decent living out of their profession. If we are going to talk about the theatre, let us talk about it in all its facets. Let us bear in mind the necessity for a proper theatre, for the payment to actors and actresses of a salary on which they can live in a decent modicum of comfort, and for some fund which will be there to assist them when they have finished their labours— I have in mind some very fine actors such as the late F.J. McCormick—and which will avoid the necessity of having to have a public subscription for relatives. I understand that the theatre is to be put on the long finger. I hope not. Mention has been made in this House of the good set of stock companies touring the country. The trouble is that they have not proper halls down the country in which to stage their shows.

I am glad that the Taoiseach is here. I like to speak to the fountain head. In this city we have a school of music. In the past few years two of our pupils have reached such a high standard that European musicians think that they are very good indeed. One of the pupils of the Dublin Municipal School of Music has recently entered the French Conservatoire—the first Irish girl ever to have entered it. We hope that the second pupil will do the same. These two pupils have come from our own little school of music in Chatham Row. As I have often said before, the building was previously a fire brigade station and it still resembles a fire brigade station. When I hear people talking about art and when I hear a lot of the nonsense that is spoken about it and see all the poseurs, I think it is a crying shame that people who are in a position to help the creative arts do not do so. What is the use of all this nonsense of sending our exhibits here or there, abroad or elsewhere, when our creative artists at home are next door to the bread line? For years I was president of the Irish Actors', Artists' and Musicians' Association. I know the difficulties. I hope that the council which is to be set up will have an appreciation of the things that matter. The first person to be considered is the creative artist. You can help the painter by buying his pictures. That is the only way, that I am aware of, by which you can help the painter. By doing so, you will encourage him to continue in his art. You will stimulate him and, in addition, you will encourage other people to paint because, apart from their desire to paint, they will see that they will be able to get a living out of their art. A man or woman must be able to get a living out of his or her art. If they are not able to do so, they will become discouraged and the art will die in the individual. Make no mistake about that. The idea of art in a garret is all nonsense. It thrives best in comfort, when people have nothing on their minds but the desire to create, to appreciate beautiful things, to compose a piece of music or to write a drama or a comedy. Give the artist a free and untrammelled mind. Free him of all these petty worries of everyday existence. Remember that he works very hard for many hours every day. If you help him in that way you will be doing something towards the appreciation of art.

However, first things first. Encourage the creative artist. Encourage the painter to paint pictures that can be sold. I believe that at the moment practically nothing is being done in that respect. I think a proper exhibition of paintings could be held if we had suitable halls or even in the school rooms down the country. I think the works of the masters and of our modern painters could then be on show, constantly, in various parts of the country. I believe that that should be continued the whole year round. I believe you should have a travelling exhibition, particularly of the works of contemporary artists. That is the way to stimulate art and an interest in art. An exhibition could be held in a hall, school room or the local library in small towns—the smaller the better as far as I am concerned.

I should like the Taoiseach to take a personal interest in the provision of a proper school of music in this city. These different proposals were on the stocks when the Fianna Fáil Government left office. We were to have had our concert hall: the plans and everything were ready. We were looking tor a site for a music school in this city. These different projects had to be shelved because of the exigencies of the hour. I am glad that this Government has at last come to an appreciation of some of the finer things.

If you want to encourage writing I believe there is only one way to do so and that is to put up prizes for competition in this country. I do not believe that any writer in this country will be able to exist on the books which he sells in Ireland—not for a great many years to come. I believe that it is necessary to stimulate writing in this country by encouragement and by competition so that more and more people will be interested. Books will be written but the main income of the authors will come from abroad. We must not forget that the United States came to know more about us and the conditions in this country as a result of the work of the Abbey Theatre than they learned from our journals or anything else.

I desire to conclude on a realistic note. A writer may take a year or two years or more to write a certain book. For the purposes of income-tax, however, when the royalties begin to come in on that particular book, whatever the author earns in that particular year from the book which it has taken a year or two years or maybe more to write will be assessed against him. He will have to pay in that year income-tax on the particular sum which he earns as royalties, as if he earned them in that particular year. I do not think that a sum of £20,000 is any good in this connection but, in the first instance, for goodness sake spend whatever money you may have for the benefit of the creative artist.

Mr. de Valera

This tête-a-tête we are having now enables us to say to the Taoiseach that we are very glad indeed that he has shown an interest in this matter of art and that the Government are prepared to indicate their interest in it generally. I do not know what will come from the Bill. As the Taoiseach said, it is a modest Bill but very often from small beginnings great things come. It is not the first time Dáil Éireann has had to deal with the question of fine arts. In the old Republican Dáil we had actually a Ministry of Fine Arts. It is a rather interesting thing historically to note that the first time we here got an intimation that the Treaty had been signed was at a meeting in the Mansion House, a commemoration of Dante which was arranged under the auspices of the Minister of Fine Arts.

I think that the Government is right in not attempting, at this stage any-way, to re-create that Ministry. It is much better to proceed quietly and to try to get results by stimulating the endeavour of private individuals and organisations. Deputy McCann has anticipated me by saying what I most wanted to say, that is, that you will encourage art best by making it possible for good artists to live. To produce their work they have to secure a livelihood like other people and the more they are removed from anxiety about where they are to get their daily bread the better for their work. This Bill, of course, does not propose to do anything, directly at any rate, in that way and I find it difficult to see how a Government could do anything immediately and directly in that way. The market for the artist's work in a State like ours must be, first of all, the private individuals who are wealthy enough to buy good work. A good piece of work requires time and if we are to have really good work, we will have to pay for the time that has to be devoted to it and to enable the artist to live and maintain his family while it is being produced. We have not in this country very many people, I think, who can afford to pay sums that would be an adequate return to the artist for his work. There are some and I hope that these will be stimulated to purchase the work of these artists.

Besides private individuals, there are municipal authorities, and when municipal authorities want to beautify their buildings, whether they want statuary or paintings—I am going to keep to these for the moment—they must try to get the best; they should not be satisfied with anything that is poor. The question of expense comes in at once. Our buildings to-day are made of concrete, most of our houses, for instance. I have seen many concrete buildings all over the world and I have never seen one that could compare in beauty to good work in stone or marble. We cannot afford to have these, at least, not generally, and, therefore, the question of cost comes in just as it does in the case of furniture and a number of other articles which we commonly use.

It is difficult to get over the question of cost. It is difficult to get a municipal authority or even the State, the highest public authority, to face the expense necessary to reward those who do good work. That is our trouble, and the only solution I can see is that the State and public authorities should be prepared to pay the extra amount for really good work. To do that we must have general appreciation of it and if the Dáil passes this Bill unanimously it will set some sort of headline in that regard. We have got to pay for these things. We must be prepared to pay if we want them and what we have to develop is the will to be prepared to pay and not to be satisfied with things that are shoddy.

Good design helps to give a beauty to things which are produced cheaply and it should be possible to have the cheaper articles when we have to use them properly designed. That will happen if people are inclined to reject the thing which is not beautiful and to select the thing that is. It seems to me that most people are able to appreciate beauty just as most people are able to reason. It is true, of course, that both reasoning power and the power of appreciation of beauty can be trained and developed; coming in contact with beautiful things enables one to appreciate them all the more and, therefore, it is possible that by means of the activities of a council like this there will be a wider and more genuine appreciation of what is beautiful and less of the attitude referred to by Deputy Moylan.

The debate ranged over a very wide field necessarily and one of the matters discussed was whether the Bill should include all of these subjects mentioned, not merely painting and sculpture, but music, drama and literature. I am inclined to side with the Taoiseach; I think it is very much better that there should be concentration for a time on the things that most deserve attention. To a certain extent, attention is already being given to music; a certain amount of attention is being given to drama; a certain amount of attention is being given to literature, but there is hardly any doubt that painting and sculpture have been neglected. As to architecture, I must say that I have seen some public works that I have not been at all satisfied with myself. But I am leaving architecture out for the moment. I think that the Taoiseach is right in saying that we ought, to begin with, concentrate particularly on painting and sculpture and design, because these are the things that need immediate attention.

Now, as to the sum that should be provided, the work that is set out for this particular council is of a limited character. There is no suggestion in it of doing what Deputy McCann asked for—encouragement by having pensions available for artists who had done good work. If that is to be done, it will have to be done otherwise. The whole purpose of this Bill, as I see it, is of an educational character.

With regard to the mechanism of the Bill, I am wondering if it is to take in the wide field set out, whether the number on the council is not too small. I know it is suggested very often that a small committee would do very much more work than a large committee; a large one is inclined to spend too much time in deliberation before decisions are arrived at leaving little time for putting these decisions into effect. I think it would be wiser to enlarge the council. There is I know provision for co-option, but even with the co-opted members it will not be large enough for the field that has to be covered. It seems to me it will not be representative enough. It is not sufficient to have one individual as an adviser from any one of these groups. You should have at least two. Two are safer. Two people are not likely to think identically. In a consultative body it is desirable to have at least two from a particular group, so that you might be able to get some balance of view. So far as the mechanism is concerned then in my opinion the number of the council is too small.

I am very glad that the Taoiseach is taking to his own Department the cause of this enterprise. I have always felt, in the Department of Education as it is, a certain amount of the neglect with regard to the museum, the school of art and so on, is due to the fact that Ministers in charge of the Department have more than their work cut out for them in dealing with the various branches of education. To deal with the primary schools, the secondary schools, the vocational schools and all the administrative problems that arise is, in my opinion, sufficient for the Minister, and these other activities or responsibilities ought not to be added on. I was very glad, therefore, to see this extra responsibiliy was not added to the Department of Education.

The question of the national approach, so to speak, has been mentioned here. My own view is that if we are to have any place in the world we will get it only through the intellectual and, for want of a better word, the spiritual line. It is in that realm we can hope to have some pre-eminence, and everything that is proposed here to help to make us more outstanding along that line should get support from the House.

There is one thing the Government can always be satisfied with, and that is that when they bring in measures of this sort they will not be met, as we were met formerly, by that sort of mean attack which suggests we are interesting ourselves in providing silk hats for the barefooted. That sort of attack is very easy on Bills of this sort, and very discouraging. The State has to be the patron and, when I say the patron, I mean not merely should it give this encouragement that is intended in this Bill, but that it should in its own public works, when there is a question of beautifying any public building, see that care is taken to get the best, and that means spending money to get the best. It is better not to spend at all on second-rate things; you are not encouraging the best if you spend public money on the second-rate and the third-rate.

There is another matter which does not quite come under this Bill—I do not know whether it would be possible for the council to deal with it—and that is to give scholarships. Deputy McCann spoke of young ladies being sent abroad to continue their musical studies. I think there should be some State provision so that when outstanding artists appear they should be helped to get to the top of the tree. But, having got them there, the trouble then would be to keep them here. It may be said that the home market is not large enough for their talents and that they have to go abroad; but even abroad they bring credit to our country and, in so far as they advance either in the arts or the sciences, they are building up our prestige and reputation abroad. Having helped to get these artists trained so that they become outstanding in their own line, even then if we should lose them they will still, if they are outstanding, bring fame to our country.

I do not want to cover the portions of the field already covered by other Deputies with regard to accommodation here. I will choose another occasion if I want to talk about some of the expenditure, or the projected expenditure that was attacked by the present Government when they came into office. There was the question of a national theatre, its site, and the preparing of plans for building. The time of building was to be regulated in accordance with the scheme of priorities of constructive work and in keeping with national needs. It was to be done strictly in accordance with its importance. It was suggested that this building would cut in, as it were, and get priority over housing. That was not so.

With regard to this area around here, it is a congested area. This Parliament is sitting in a place which was never designed for that purpose. It was designed for a theatre for the Royal Dublin Society. This particular House cut off portions of the museum. There is congestion. The present library was overcrowded. Certain plans were contemplated and were being brought to a head for the building of a new library when the conditions would warrant. You had to get a site and I do not know whether the site proposed at that time is now gone. If you do not get sites for things like that at a particular time, you may find it very hard to get proper sites afterwards. If you want a site for a national library it must be in a central place and if the National Library was given a suitable building for itself there would be space here for the development of the museum. It would take me too far afield to pursue that but I want to point out that, if you wish to encourage the arts, if you are to give facilities, you must plan generally and it is not sufficient to have a Bill of this particular sort to enable a council to have exhibitions and to help the appreciation of art. You want to do very much more than that. You want to have a determined attitude of mind with regard to the spending of public money for example in beautifying buildings that you will accept and reward only the best and that, therefore, good work will pay the artists and that inferior work will not get recognition. That is the only way I can see in which you will really develop a high standard.

I see the time is up. I hope I have not prevented the Taoiseach from speaking.

I do not know if there is anybody else who wishes to speak. I would like to get the Second Reading at once.

Perhaps we could agree on the Second Reading now.

There has been a considerable measure of agreement on the Bill and perhaps we could get the Second Reading now.

Mr. de Valera

We do not object.

Would the House allow the debate to proceed so that the Taoiseach could say something in reply?

Mr. de Valera

If the Taoiseach wants to.

Is it agreed to give the Taoiseach a quarter of an hour to conclude?

Agreed.

I am in very close agreement with what Deputy de Valera has said on the Bill and I think numbers of the matters that have been referred to by Deputy Little and Deputy Derrig would be very useful as pointers towards the creation and framing of policy in all these matters that may be referred to hereafter by my Government or any Government that comes after. The debate has been very informative and of a type that is very gratifying. I must admit that it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I brought forward this Bill.

Mr. de Valera

That was quite clear from the Taoiseach's speech.

I have been something like 21 years hoping to see this Bill coming into the Irish Parliament. There are a number of matters that I hope will be achieved by the Bill which have been very dear to me, but which I never thought would come to realisation. The fact that we have had such a debate to-day, in which there is not merely a measure of agreement, but even a measure of disagreement of a hopeful character, showing different points of view, bringing out the kind of thing that people want to have ventilated in public and to have a calm atmosphere in which to discuss them makes me think that we could discuss in a very much calmer atmosphere now the question of a national theatre and a national concert hall and other matters of that kind.

I fully appreciate that £20,000 is a very small sum, a very insignificant sum, but at least it is some sum and up to date nothing has been got for these matters which we have in mind. If we have, as I hope we will have, the same measure of unanimous support outside the House as we have had inside the House for what it is hoped to be achieved by this arts council, then I think the public will be ready, and probably very willing, to see the expenditure of very much greater sums on matters of art, matters of drama and matters of literature.

I was very anxious to get consideration first given to the visual arts, as Deputy de Valera has said. I know that Deputy Little is very interested in music and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in literature, and it might have been a disappointment to him that the small sum we have available might be first disposed of in connection with the visual arts.

Not the least. I think you are quite right.

The reason why I agreed to the putting in of music, literature and the arts was that it was better that this council should have the power to do these things so that it could be done at some time rather than have another Bill brought in. Once you have enabling power there, at least there will be the hope that at some time or another it will be done.

Deputy Dockrell and Deputy McCann, I think, were disappointed that more was not being done for music, literature and creative artists. Let us hope it will be done some time —to use an old cliché—in the not too far distant future.

Some Deputies—both Deputy Lehane and Deputy McCann—emphasised the necessity for not confining the activity of the arts council to Dublin. I think in the course of the remarks I made I said that one of the objects in mind was to bring our art treasury right down throughout the length and breadth of the country, and the discussion that has taken place on this Bill will certainly be a directive and an encouragement to the director of the arts council, when he is appointed, and to his colleagues on the council, when that council is properly set up.

Deputy Derrig spoke about the National Gallery, the National Museum and the National Library and other matters of that kind. I hope that the setting up of this arts council will lead to some directive and some co-ordinated effort and some drive towards doing what Dr. Bodkin suggested in the report and what Deputy Derrig and Deputy Little have in view in connection with the library, the National Gallery, the museum, and other institutions of that kind. I was convinced that, unless something like this council was set up, nothing would be done, just as nothing has ever been done, since 1922, on the various reports that were made and, if we get a council of this kind drawing public attention to the necessity for doing all the things that Dr. Bodkin says should be done and that Deputy Derrig and Deputy Little want done, you will create the atmosphere and the demand and formulate an insistence on these things being done.

Deputy Moylan and Deputy McCann gave us a rather lurid description of some exotic sort of persons who, apparently, frequent the exhibitions to which they go. I do not know what they were talking about. They must have had an interesting experience, because they were quite afraid that this arts council was going to encourage these exotic people who wear the slacks and sport—I say it in the presence of my friend, the Minister for Agriculture, with some trepidation —these long cigarette holders. The Deputies need have no fear that the arts council will indulge in any snobbishness and Dr. Bodkin, from my knowledge of him, would be the very first to lead an active campaign against associating in any way snobbishness or anything like poseur with the objects which he has in view in his report and which, I think, the arts council would also desire to achieve.

I hope the Taoiseach does not think that my cigarette holder is an indication of either of these personalities—snobbishness or poseur.

Deputy Derrig asked me what was the position as regards the Davis statue. The position was that the last Government set up a sub-committee to deal with the matter and also had an advisory sub-committee dealing with the procuring of models. Five sculptors of Irish origin or extraction were selected on the recommendation of that advisory sub-committee and of some of our Irish representatives abroad. One of these artists was from Cork; one from Dublin; one from London and two from New York. The competition was set on foot and the terms of that competition required each sculptor to submit before the 1st December, 1947, a plaster model. Only two of the selected sculptors sent in models; one of them died and two subsequently stated that they had no interest in the project. Shortly after the present Government was formed this matter came before them and they directed that the models which had been submitted by the two sculptors should be examined by the advisory sub-committee. Both models were unanimously rejected by the advisory sub-committee. We were then in the position that there was nobody to provide a statue of Thomas Davis. Accordingly, we decided that an effort should be made to get two of the sculptors who had not sent in models to submit scale models. The effort failed and neither of them did submit any models. We then decided that perhaps an open competition could be held, not limited to Irish artists, or that perhaps work by younger artists could be considered, but the arrangement that ultimately, to our mind, offered the best possible solution was that a bronze cast of Hogan's statue of Davis in the City Hall, Dublin, could be made and erected in College Green. We asked, in fact, that some consideration should be given to the question of whether the statue itself could not be brought out, without damage to the marble, to College Green, but it was thought that that was not a feasible proposition. Certainly a bronze cast of the statue could be made—it is a very famous statue—if that were acceptable.

Mr. de Valera

Is it feasible to make the cast?

I am told it is feasible and we are still having it examined. Up to date, so far as we know, it is feasible. We thought that was the best solution of the difficulty. The matter is still under consideration and we shall have a decision in due course. With regard to Deputy Lehane's suggestion that the ceiling in Section 5 should be lifted, it is one with which I am in entire sympathy and I shall endeavour to see that that ceiling is lifted. The Department of Finance will undoubtedly insist on some control being maintained. Perhaps the section could be amended by the deletion of the words "not exceeding twenty thousand pounds" and substituting words such as "as the Taoiseach, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may determine".

Mr. de Valera

I do not think that that would be the right sort of thing to do.

The Deputy will understand that I have to move cautiously in this matter but now, perhaps, that we have secured unanimous consent of the House to the Bill, we may move a little further.

Mr. de Valera

We do not want to have the Ministry of Finance superior to the Government. The Taoiseach speaks for the Government.

I should like to conclude by thanking Deputies who have spoken for their very generous reception of the Bill. It is very gratifying indeed that this Bill should be received in the spirit and in the manner in which it was received, and I am grateful for the constructive way in which every Deputy spoke and put forward his point of view. With a continuance of that spirit, I think we may hope that something will at last be done for the creative arts and for creative artists.

Mr. de Valera

There are a number of people who are anxious about this Bill from the point of view of the Irish language. Can the Taoiseach say whether there is any project in mind with regard to helping and promoting Irish drama?

The position in regard to that is that under the definition as it stands, legally the word "art" and the words "music and drama" would of course include Irish and Irish literature and the encouragement of Irish drama and Irish music would be a function of the arts council. So far as any particular project about Irish drama is concerned, in my view that is a function of the Department of Education and could be best carried out by the Department of Education but it will be given every kind of encouragement under this Bill.

May I ask if it is the intention of the council to consider the crafts and arts referred to by Deputy Collins, such as lace making? I am particularly interested in Carrickmacross lace which was a very beautiful type of lace. The old people who made that lace are dying out and, should that particular craft die out with them, it would be a great loss to the country and a great pity.

I think Deputy Mrs. Rice was not here when I was introducing the Bill. One of the aspects of the measure in which I am particularly interested is what is known as applied art — the application of art to industry and the revival of the old crafts. I would envisage certainly that this council should direct its attention specifically to that particular aspect.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1st May.

Mr. de Valera

If it should happen that anybody wants to put in amendments, I hope ample opportunity will be given to do so.

Certainly, I shall meet Deputies in any way.

Top
Share