Earlier this month the Arts Council of Northern Ireland launched its Public Art Handbook for Northern Ireland to coincide with celebrations marking National Architecture Week. The Arts Council claims the handbook is a ‘major new’ work that will serve as ‘a clearly-written guide through the process of commissioning works of art for public spaces. It contains a brief history of public art in Northern Ireland, explaining the Arts Council’s role in supporting these projects and offering practical advice on commissioning, routes for funding, best practice guidelines, and case studies of exemplary projects.’
According to Paul Harron, Architecture and Public Art Officer at the Arts Council, the Arts Council has a ‘lead role to play in stimulating critical debate and promoting art that enhances its environment and invigorates the surrounding community.’ He goes on to say that the handbook ‘will help those involved in the process of commissioning art within the public realm to achieve the most rewarding results, by approaching their project in an informed way that will best benefit the artists, funders and communities involved.’
That the Arts Council has a significant part to play in ensuring artists can work with communities to produce aesthetically pleasing urban and rural environments is not in dispute. But to what extent can a publication such as this new handbook, bloated with illustrated case studies and historical overviews, be expected to achieve its own stated aims? Particularly when nowhere in the handbook is there mention of what the Arts Council is doing to promote new public art.
Rewind to the 1980s when various groups came together to lobby the UK government on the issue of introducing Percent for art legislation. The aim of the proposed legislation, which has been successfully introduced in America (see Pheonix case study) and throughout Europe, was to ensure that ‘whenever a public building/space/place is constructed/created/restructured/maintained, a percentage of the overall cost of the scheme shall be spent on art, for the public benefit.
As we know the proposed legislation was passed over in the UK. Art legal specialist Henry Lydiate wrote in 1987 that Percent for art legislation “was shelved [by the government] in favour of publication of information…The U.K. Government has no such obligations to introduce Percent For Art legislation, but it is clearly convinced of the public benefit such legislation could bring about.” So, whilst not willing to endorse the proposal with a statutory instrument the government was only too happy to release a number of documents espousing the benefits of Percent for art.
Back to the present and the Arts Council’s new handbook, isn’t there just a bit of déjà vu in the sense that it is a lot cheaper and easier for the Arts Council to produce a new publication than to effect real change by lobbying local councils to set aside resources to fund new and maintain existing works of public art. Perhaps the arts Council is already doing the latter behind closed doors, but if it is then why aren’t they talking about it in the new handbook?
In its own words the ‘Arts Council of Northern Ireland is the lead development agency for the arts in Northern Ireland. We are the main support for artists and arts organisations throughout the region.’ Producing a glossy catalogue of public art is all very well but it’s hardly an original concept and without any indication of measures the Arts Council intends will help it to ‘lead development’ regards the introduction of new public art works the whole thing seems somewhat lacking in conviction.
In the handbook’s Appendix sectionthere is mention of funding available through the Arts Council (£1.5 million between 1995 and 2001) and how it can help guide artists through the commissioning process. But operating the funding system is not tantamount to acting as a ‘lead development agency for the arts.’ Where is the proactive championing of the arts and artists; the development of innovative new partnerships to bring extra money into the arts without relying on government and Lottery subsidy? Where is the leadership?
The handbook looks pretty. There are dozens of colour photographs featuring public art in its best light. It serves a tribute to the skills of public artists working in Northern Ireland. But it could also be taken as a smokescreen behind which the Arts Council, deliberately or otherwise, is hiding the dearth of other initiatives that it might reasonably be expected to be engaged in.
Such a trend, of publishing strategies, reports, appraisals, guidelines, manuals and handbooks when other activities might be construed as a better use of Arts Council time, skill, and resources, is not limited to the public art arena or peculiar to Northern Ireland. It is an endemic symptom of an overtly overly bureaucratic system that has built up around the arts in the UK. To some extent it is to be expected and accepted. Projects that apply for public funding must be appraised and evaluated according to stated criteria. The public has a right to be kept informed of the machinations of the bureaucratic machine and of works paid for by their taxes. Some publications serve a logical defined purpose and should be welcomed. But a disturbing number do not.
A quick review of the Arts Council England website reveals that over 120 publications are listed that have been published during the past 5 years. These include the publication of a speech given at the Royal Society of the Arts earlier this year, a celebration of 30 years of pioneering work in the development of disability arts that neatly coincides with the European Year of Disabled People, a report on action that the Arts Council has taken since 1998 to highlight cultural diversity, a raft of annual reports, annual reviews, corporate plans, as well as an annually produced Arts Council manifesto. Is all of it necessary? And is it the Arts Council’s business to provide an excessive volume of information about itself or to champion the arts and artists? With such a wealth of published material to its credit but having achieved only a single major funding collaboration with the private sector, which led to the publication of a report all about the experience, there is apt to be some exasperation when assessing whether the Arts Council’s published output is a means to an end or an end in itself.
