Like other Senators. I should like to welcome this Bill, realising, as the Minister said, the urgency of the position and realising also that it has been vastly improved in its passage through the Dáil. I hope that it will be further improved in its passage through the Seanad, and that it will achieve the purpose mentioned by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, where he says:
It is directed towards removing the College of Art from my Department and placing it under an independent governing body whose task it will be to manage the college and organise and administer its affairs....
Like another Senator who has spoken, I think we have a good way to go. The primary consideration is to have a statutory basis for the College of Art as soon as we may do so, so that this year's students, who have already lost so much time, will not loss any further part of the academic year, and will be able to get back to the business of learning about art.
In introducing the Bill, in what I would regard as a rather short and skimpy Second Reading speech on a matter such as this, the Minister made one very brief point on the wider context of the Bill. He said:
I have every confidence that under the aegis of the autonomous body which is being constituted under this Bill the college can develop in such a way as will enable it to cater in a fuller manner for the cultural and economic needs of the community in so far as they relate to Art in its fullest sense.
I agree with Senator Cranitch that the community means the community around the country and not just Dublin.
I suggest that this Bill will do nothing on the face of it to achieve that wider purpose. It is an attempt to change the administrative structure, and even that attempt, from my reading of the Bill, will not be successful unless further amendments are made. This is not even beginning either to understand or to improve the problem. I should like to put on record a quotation from a young art critic in the city, in relation to the College of Art. I am quoting Mr. Bruce Arnold in the latest edition of This Week, of November 12th, 1971, at page 38, where he says:
The biggest single danger—
this is in relation to this Bill
—is that the conventional outrage —the concern of parents and future parents of art students, the feeling for those who have lost their sources of income, the disgust at the broken promises and the victimisation of supposed Left-wing activists—will create pressures that are sufficient to resurrect a more sophisticated, more independent, more "liberal", better housed version of exactly the same thing. People will sigh with relief at the autonomy created for the new College of Art by the Bill, and remain totally blind as the same tired functionaries queue up for the same outdated jobs and resume teaching the same archaic subjects.
The great problem with the College of Art Bill is that it is not based on any examination of education in art, it is not based on the art seen in Ireland today and it will do little towards improving the position, either in relation to the education of students or in relation to the climate of opinion in the world in which artists live. Since we hope soon to have a decision on our application to join the EEC it is fair to look at the practice of other countries in relation to their culture. I turn to one country, which is a member of the European Community, France, where as long ago as October, 1966, the Minister for Cultural Affairs, Monsieur Malraux, said in the French National Assembly and I quote him in translation.
The Republics of Europe have been strongly attached to educational systems but none has created an artistic system. Why? Because art at that time was for the bourgeoisie, art was for the people who could afford to pay for it. Now, over the entire world people are demanding culture even though they often do not have a chance to enjoy it as yet.
What he proposed to do, and did, was to announce a new cultural programme, a detailed plan of cultural action, the setting-up of regional houses of culture —"Maisons de la Culture" round the cities of France. The basis of this is what we need in this country. We do not need a technical change of administration and a so-called autonomous body and the same story as before—out-dated methods, no proper approach. We need a programme for cultural development, just as we have had three programmes for economic development. We need a coherent plan in this connection and until this is forthcoming the problem will not have been faced; the statutory basis we are giving the College of Art will not free it from the tragic situation which brought the present system to a close. Moving to a larger building and providing more space will not solve the problems. They will only be transferred and, as Senator Horgan pointed out, we do not know as yet where they will be transferred to although the Minister is in possession of information about the site.
Although the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary has been given special responsibility for recreation and leisure, it is sad to see that recreation and leisure in this country seems to consist of sport and only sport. It is not realised that art is a community enterprise, that it should be brought to the community much more than at present and that there should be the creation of art appreciation in the fullest sense. It should be realised that we are not merely confined to the restructuring of the administration of a college of art which has lost its credibility, has lost any standing it might have had in the community. Despite the list of renowned names which Senator FitzGerald has placed on the record not many people have a high regard at present for the reputation of the College of Art and this administrative change of structure which is not giving it the necessary autonomy and freedom will not alter that. I regret the rather narrow approach of the Minister in his Second Reading speech where he has given no indication of being aware of the problems, being aware of the discontent in art education and in the climate in which the young artists work.
I should like to speak on the idea that the proposed College of Art is out-dated in its conception if it is to be based on the academic approach of teaching students for three or four years. Unless the College of Art is to be a true community venture and unless it will have the facilities which affect the artistic community, then it will not be very successful in reforming the existing position.
The College of Art should look to the practice in other countries, especially in Norway, of providing studios for young artists. It is expected there will be more facilities for students. Furnished studios should be provided for young artists who can use these in the first few years before they have established themselves and can set up their own studios. This might be done on a scholarship basis; it might be done by providing studios at a very low rent to the students.
The great problem in the College of Art at present is that the students either concentrate on design or on the more artistic side. If they are concentrating on art for itself at the end of their studies, they are very vulnerable. Our society does not offer them the outlets necessary to make a living in this country. You cannot devise a system of art education unless you are thinking in terms of providing outlets for that art, unless you say to the students, to whom you are teaching art: "The community will allow you to make an honest living in the country. You will be able to subsist in Ireland and there is sufficient community and State subvention for this." One of the ways in which to do this would be to offer studios and equipment to young artists. Some of the equipment is extremely expensive and it is very difficult for them to buy it. Unless the College of Art can be much more of a community effort than it has been to-date, unless it can change the whole practical outlook, it will not be a great improvement on what has gone before.
Looking ahead, the real problem for art students is to see how they can live, work and concentrate on their artistic work. Many artists who would prefer to stay in creative art are forced to go into design because they cannot live otherwise. Having proper outlets is another great problem. The first outlets one thinks of are the commercial galleries. The commercial galleries are under pressure to be profitable. They have to back successful named artists. They have to back artists whose pictures they can sell. The commercial galleries cannot seek out young rising artists, exhibit their work and hope to sell that work.
Another outlet is provided by the co-operative artists exhibitions, the Independent Artists or the Project Gallery run by the artists and into which the profits, if any, are ploughed back. They exhibit young artists and help them to find a market for their work. I speak with a great deal of seriousness and feeling because last night I went to the opening of an exhibition in the Project Gallery. It was an exhibition of the critic's choice, chosen by three young Irish artists. To my surprise, and the surprise of a good many people present, we were addressed by Colm Ó Briain, who is the chairman of the committee of Project. He informed us with great regret that it looked as if the project would have to close, that it was becoming bankrupt and it did not appear that it conld survive. This is a very sad reflection on the artist's world in this country.
The history of Project is indicative of what needs to be examined and what the comminity ought to be facing up to and considering. I give this brief history in the knowledge that near me is one patron of the Project Gallery, Senator Keery, who will at least listen to me if nobody else does.
The project was opened in 1967 by the then Minister for Education, Deputy Donogh O'Malley. It got no support at the time from the Arts Council, who were of the view that it was on the same basis as other commercial galleries, in spite of the fact that it was a cooperative and non-profit-making body. It began to organise exhibitions. After about a year certain specific exhibitions were guaranteed against loss by the Arts Council when applications were made.
In May 1969 it moved to a new premises, its present premises in Abbey Street. The premises needed to be overhauled. There were building and conversion costs. An application for a large sum was made to the Arts Council at that time with details of these costs. A warm letter of sympathy came back saying that the Arts Council could not possible underwrite past debts but that they would provide a guarantee against loss on future exhibitions. They did provide a guarantee against loss on exhibitions and even went further.
In May, 1971, they promised a guarantee of £1,000 a year. This is the first real guarantee that the gallery got. They have also got from Bord Fáilte a grant of £500 to subsidise music, drama and poetry activities, which are very much part of the work of the project. They are not just devoted to the graphic arts. That has meant that the project gets £1,500; the rest comes from patrons, private gifts or subscriptions. The sad thing is that despite the influence of this gallery in the world of young artists, despite the number of exhibitions, plays and exciting new ventures which they have presented, and sometimes their dramatically unsuccessful experiments, because these people are prepared to experiment, the project is now in a most critical state.
An attempt has been made to form a limited liability company for charitable purposes. It is hoped that the project may be saved. They cannot be saved without a great injection of money. They cannot be saved unless three different things happen in a very short time, that they can clear off the present debt and overdraft, have sufficient running costs to appoint a fulltime manager and have a reasonable certainty of viability by means of an annual grant which would be more than just a guarantee against loss, which does not allow anybody to plan.
The project then is an example of artists' attempts to help themselves and the way in which they are up against it, the impossibility, almost, of trying to provide an exhibition hall for themselves and as an outlet for young artists. The artists involved are very critical of State action in this matter, especially in the form of the Arts Council who were set up under the Arts Act, 1951. I was looking at the Arts Council's report for the year April, 1970, to March, 1971, and I find it rather extraordinary that in this report the council do not give any assessment of the position in relation to the arts in Ireland. There is no attempt to describe what is happening or even to describe what they are trying to do in any great detail.
It is a very skimpy report. It does not analyse the situation or show that the Arts Council are in touch with what is really happening in the world of young artists, the problems they are meeting and their attempts to cope with them. There are many complaints levelled against the body. They have a purchasing committee. This purchasing committee purchase the works of already well-known artists. I do not particularly grudge this. To some extent this can be a good policy but well-known artists are able to sell their work.
A good example recently was the opening of the exhibition of Louis le Brocquy. The Arts Council, prior to the opening, bought one of his pictures for over £1,000. They did not send anybody from their purchasing committee to the exhibition in the Project Gallery last night. They did not send anyone to an exhibition recently of John Behan's work, the well-known young Irish sculptor. They did not send one to the Independent Artists exhibition. These are the young, struggling artists.
The Arts Council, who have a considerable amount of public money at their disposal, did not send people to buy from them. They have an annual grant from the Government of £70,000 to parcel out. I understand, although I am subject to correction on this, that they were in a position to give a grant of £15,000 to Rosc. This has given rise to a great deal of criticism because Rosc was an exhibition of artists from outside Ireland. It was a matter certainly of great public prestige and importance that it be held here. The appropriate people to subsidise it are Bord Fáilte, the city of Dublin, anybody who is benefiting from it. The Arts Council should turn their attention first to young artists living in this country who are trying to make an honest living and who cannot cope with the lack of opportunity, outlets and a buying public.
Examination of the position of the National College of Art has to be done in the light of the approach to education, art appreciation and also the possibilities for these students. I well remember, when we were debating the Higher Education Authority Bill, that the Minister seemed to be aware that just to produce graduates from our institutes of higher education for export is a very sad and silly occupation, that there must be some way of advising students where they can go, of creating opportunities and job possibilities for them. In discussing the education of students of the College of Art we must discuss what opportunities they can have in a country such as Ireland.
It is an important matter that the voice of these artists be heard. That is why, like Senator Alexis FitzGerald, I think it is most useful to have a debate on a Bill such as the National College of Art and Design Bill in the Seanad so that the voice of the artists involved can be heard and read into the record of the Seanad. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a memorandum, which was drawn up by a group of young artists that I have already referred to, a group formed in 1960 called the Independent Artists who are close to being a trade union of artists. They have proposals for a reform of the Arts Council. This memorandum was sent to the Minister for Finance in 1968. I do not propose to read it but I should like to refer briefly to some of its proposals. It is their proposal towards a working basis for a new Arts Council. They said in relation to the purpose and function of this Council:
The idea of an Arts Council in our day arises out of the realisation that the forces of a commercial democracy could lead to the obliteration of art for all but commercial or prestige reasons, and that its lesser offshoots could, and already have, run individual artists into the ground. For that reason the State becomes the patron.
The State has more of a function in the modern world in relation to art because it has to create the possible environment for it. The young artists propose a full-time director with a full-time working executive, with part-time representatives on various committees. They propose, and this should appeal to Senator Cranitch, regional centres around the country. They also state:
To make sure that the other parts of the country are fairly dealt with, and local talent is encouraged on local projects, it is advised that centres be set up in such cities as Cork; Galway or Castlebar; and say, Athlone or Dundalk for northerly regions. When the annual Government grant is being voted to the Council, each of the regional centres are to be allotted their own sums, and Dublin, Cork, Galway, Castlebar, Dundalk or Athlone be specified with the sums voted.
The memorandum emphasises that it is important that individual support for young Irish artists be considered:
The Council would always keep in mind its main objectives; promotion of the arts and support of artists— not the promotion of the country with art as a prestige label, as is the case now.
In my view Rosc is a bit of a prestige label.
There is separate money for tourist and prestige work. The money for the arts is to be devoted to the arts— and it will have plenty to do. The prestige harvest would still be considerable; at this level, the State is entitled to reap it.
There is a certain bitterness in the language of this report. It is a report drawn up by independent artists and not by lawyers, and to some extent for that reason it lacks cohesion but it does not lack resentment at the idea that the money of the Arts Council is not devoted to the working conditions, to the future and to creating possibilities for young Irish artists.
This then is one way in which the State and community can patronise the arts. Another way is to look at further examples of public patronage of the arts in other countries. John Behan has done a study of the work done in other countries and he referred recently in a newspaper article to this and in particular to the position in Germany where building legislation requires that a certain percentage of the contract price in either public building or commercial building goes to the decorative arts. John Behan advances the idea that if 1 per cent of the contract price of putting up public buildings or commercial buildings in this country had to be devoted to decorative arts, to the artistic works which would be incorporated in that building, this would be an enormous stimulus and an enormous outlet for young artists.
The whole purpose of going to the College of Art and acquiring skills would be rounded off by the community appreciating what they have and giving them an outlet for their work. It would be possible for the architect to be given a function in ensuring that 1 per cent was spent on artistic work and if this could be open to competition it would be more desirable that this 1 per cent of the contract price be spread among a number of artists other than necessarily endowing it all for one particular work or to one particular artist. This would vary due to circumstances. The important thing is that it would be a patronage in the best sense and an outlet for artistic work.
Another possibility is the system which prevails in Holland where apart from the ordinary stamps on envelopes through the mail there is also a special artistic stamp which costs a little more and anybody who likes can buy the more expensive stamp and they know as they buy it that any profit from that is going straight to the promotion of art in that country. Every time they stamp a letter with the more expensive stamp they are indirectly, or as directly as they are able to do so, subsidising the arts in that country.
In England under their local government laws they have the possibility for local authorities to consider imposing as much as a shilling or five new pence— it was sixpence—on the rates for specific artistic purposes. This, in the present climate dispute about rates in the country, might not be a very popular solution but it shows that even local authorities on a widely spread basis around the country can address themselves to this and can consider it in striking a rate. This whole climate of opinion, this whole community involvement in artistic work in the country and in promoting the artist, is crucial to a consideration of a college of art.
I now get back closer to the consideration of the College of Art itself and the suggestion that it must move away from outdated academic approach. There are various suggestions which one could make. One is that there must be more involvement from outside: more artists and more well-known personalities in the art world ought to be invited to come as visiting lecturers for a short period or even to deliver one or two lectures when passing through. In art more than in any other form contact with what is going on in the world is extremely important. There is an opening of young minds to ideas and stimulus.
If you have a very good artist or professor of art giving a top-class lecture, it can create a sense of excitement and can encourage people in following their pursuits. If somebody like Francis Bacon were to come over to the College of Art fairly regularly it would be a great stimulus and a very necessary one.
Secondly, proofsmen in expert fields should be encouraged to come. In the printing field artistic printing has become a very specialised field. There are special inks which need to be worked with in order that the artists will understand them. There is a lot more photographic and lithographic materials that artists must work with. If this facility were offered by the College of Art it would not just be to students passing through for a period of three years, it would be for young artists to go there and use as their centre.
This brings me on to what I have already mentioned, that students be provided with working studio facilities there. They ought to be provided with foundries in which they can learn how to cast bronze and cast iron et cetera. What you have then is a working artistic environment which is not just an academic approach to the problem.
So much, then, for the wider aspects of this College of Arts Bill. As I said in opening, I welcome it because of the great necessity to get a college of art working again in this country. I said I hoped that, in its passage through the Seanad, it can be further improved from its passage through the other House and we can end up with an autonomous body. We would have to look at the provision in relation to the appointment and removal of members of the board and at the necessity for the Minister to approve the scheme where students and staff members are appointed and various matters such as this.
I should like to ask the question— the Minister may have already answered this on another occasion—to what extent this College of Art Bill is linked to the Higher Education Authority Bill that we passed last term, especially in relation to section 14, subsection (3). Is the College of Art to be designated immediately as an institute of higher education which would remove the necessity for section 16 (2)? If this is not so I still think we ought to remove section 16 (2) because I should not like to require any free institute of learning in the country to be forced to submit reports at the beck and call of the Minister. This is neither necessary nor desirable.
These are Committee points about which I, and I am sure others, will be putting down amendments. The overall position is that we are not solving the problem by moving it to new premises under a semi-autonomous body. We are not solving the problems of a different approach and of new staff. We are not improving the position of staff-student relations. Therefore it is necessary to look at the subject in its wider context and to emphasise the need for change. The reason that things came to such a deadlock was—yes— bad staff-student relations, bad relations with the Department of Education and the obviously wrong position that a college of art would be under the Department of Education. I am glad the Minister admits that this is a very bad foundation.
All of this was only aggravated by the substantive approach to the teaching of art. The creation of an environment in which young artists can live needs re-examination and needs a change of attitude, needs community involvement to an extent that has not taken place.