I have huge sympathy with most of the arguments being put forward. As somebody who did a commerce degree in Galway and went home to a pub in Connemara and told my father I was going to become an actor in the late 1980s, I understand exactly where the witnesses are coming from. Thankfully, I went on to become series producer with "Ros na Rún" for four years, so I have covered the gamut of working with artists in theatre and across the board. There is a huge lack of ambition in the document. Possibly the most ambitious element is the Irish language title, which is Éire Ildánach, because in the middle of the word ildánach is the word dána, which means bold, which is what artists are supposed to be.
When speaking to people working in the arts, most of the issues involve allowing them the space to do what they want to do. Normally they find they must pigeonhole themselves into a funding stream to do what they want to or they receive a grant and are told they can do their visual arts project but they will have to teach for several hours in the local school because we cannot be seen to give out money to artists for the sake of it.
It goes back to the initial statement about the artist not being recognised as an artist in his or her own right in this country. We have muzzled artists in the State in the way funding streams are managed. The mainstream people in the middle of the road who do not look to rock the boat tend to get the lion's share of the funding from agencies. We do not give space to artists to be critical.
Some people say Charlie Haughey's greatest invention was Aosdána. He got all the creative and critical people in the country and put them into one space, giving them all a grant to keep them kind of quiet. That might not be fair to the people in Aosdána. I am interested to hear the delegation's opinion of Aosdána and the likes of Aosdána. It gives a stipend each year to artists in order to allow them space to do what they want. Is it outdated and does it need rejuvenating?
The move away from liberal arts in third level education in particular is a major step backwards for arts in general. Third level education is not just about getting a degree; it is about being in a community where a person can do all kinds of other things. When I was in college in Galway, the societies were much more vibrant. At NUI Galway today - it is the day for societies - one can see that the societies are nowhere near as active as they would have been in the past. Perhaps that was to the detriment of people doing their degrees, but there was much creative talent that set up the likes of Druid, Macnas and the Galway Arts Festival. We are losing much of that through the education system, as it is based on points and people getting jobs. The process has been industrialised. What are the witnesses' thoughts on the third level education system in particular? The issue of second level and primary education has also been mentioned, as well as the status of the arts in school and lighting the flame with young people. There has been some really good stuff in the hospital with the Galway university arts foundation that was set up. There have been some really good projects regarding health and the arts. It is an area we should consider much more.
Collective bargaining is a major issue. We would like to get more information on how that could be put in place. It is crucial that people have the right to stand as individuals employed as artists and can work together as well. In some cases being an artist is collaborative, but in many cases it starts with an individual writing, painting or doing something else. People may not work in a collective but it is crucial to have collective bargaining.
There are issues around income being aggregated over a year for tax. Many artists live from hand to mouth and when they get the gig with the big cheque at the end of it, the tax people may see it as aggregated, but not over the space of a year. Social welfare for artists should also be examined. An actor on tour may really be on the dole because it is the only way he or she can make a living. Such people might get a few bob out of going on tour. The idea of having to sign on for social welfare every week while on a tour takes away from the practicalities of trying to create the art. We need to look at social welfare having a more positive approach to people in the arts.
Nobody has mentioned new media, an area where we certainly need to sort out copyright issues. What is the potential for new media and what are the collaboration prospects with other countries such as Scotland? TG4 has been really successful working with the Irish language broadcast fund and other organisations such as BBC Alba to complete projects that could not have been done alone. It is not just about artists being involved with the arts and creating things; it is about culture and about ourselves as a people with an identity. How can we give artists the space to be critical, confront us, challenge us, take us on and entertain us? That is what a strategy and policy framework should be. It should not be the State dictating that it will give money if a person does A, B or C. If a person wants to do A, B or C it should be a case of how the State can help in creating that art. Most of the people who gained the awards mentioned earlier did not go through any formal training and many did not get State grants; some turned down State grants to do what they did but were given a space. They became wonderful international artists in their own right. It is a case of asking how we can foster that.
