|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
An "Act of Political Vindictiveness"Dateline: 2nd January, 2006That's how Welsh Liberal Democrat Assembly leader Mike German describes what is, essentially, the sacking of the Arts Council of Wales' chair Geraint Talfan Davies (see our news story). It may well be a politician's exaggeration but there will be many in the Welsh arts world, of whatever political affiliation, who will agree. The Assembly wants to emphasise the "access agenda" - "I'm looking for a woman or man who has a very strong interest in the access agenda," said Alun Pugh - but the suspicion will inevitably be that what he really wants is a "yes man". He denies it, of course, but the government of which he is a senior member has always stressed its desire for "a bonfire of the quangos" and their moves of December 2004 were aimed at emasculating ACW, a quango which they could not destroy because it has a Royal Charter. And, incidentally, widening access to the arts has been a part of ACW's remit since it was set up in 1994 "to develop and improve understanding and practise in the arts and to promote the accessibility of the arts to the public of Wales." Pugh, in fact, is on record as saying that he finds the arguments against direct government funding of the arts "obscure". "The Wales Millennium Centre," he said, "is directly funded, and no-one seriously suggests that if you go there the air is somehow less artistically pure." One wonders whether he is disingenuous, not terribly bright, or something rather more sinister. The argument for arms-length funding, which has been the norm in Britain since the forties when the Arts Council of Great Britain was set up by Jennie Lee, is that it prevents government control of the arts. It is as simple as that. Hardly obscure! The arts must not only be free from political pressure but must also be seen to be free. The arms-length principle is part of that very British complex of checks and balances which prevents the executive having too much power. Indeed, it could be argued that arts councils perform a very similar function in thr arts that the judiciary performs in relation to the law. The membership of bodies like ACW is made up of people who have a proven track record in the particular field, plus other skills which are useful to such a body. Among the members of ACW are artists and performers, academics, a lawyer, a local politician with cultural interests, an architect, journalists, and one person who combines marketing and communications experience with political consultancy. No single area, either in terms of art forms or profession, dominates. The Assembly would replace this with members of one profession - politicians. The dangers are obvious, and no amount of talk about accountability and the public good will convince a very sceptical public that politicians will not follow their own agenda. We might not be headed towards the kind of state control of the arts that the Soviet Union wielded but, if the Welsh Assembly Government has its way, the mechanism for such control will be in place, should any future government decide to use it. The decision to advertise the job of ACW chair is just one small step along that dangerous road: if the WAG can't abolish the organisation, it will gain control of it, beginning with putting its man in the chair.
|
|
|
|