"The investment in the arts is so small, the actual return so large, that it represents value as research into ideas." That observation, in a British context, by commentator and champion of the arts John Tusa can equally be applied here.
While the recent 18 per cent increase in funding to the Arts Council can only be applauded, the return on that State subsidy is considerably more than is apparent, not only in the provision of outlets for the creative imagination, but also in providing for the non-material wealth and well-being of society.
Before the State's recent economic transformation, one of the means by which we were always happy to measure our success was our ability to impress the world with the talents of our poets and novelists, dramatists, performers, musicians and film-makers. Our culture was - and remains - a flagship export.
The ambitions of the Arts Council for future investment in this area - as set out in the just published statement of policy and goals for the next five years - are therefore modest enough: an increase from the €72.9 million allocation for next year to €100 million in 2008. At a time when the potential of cultural tourism to the economy is being given serious consideration, the scale of this contribution from the exchequer would, in fact, be rather less generous than might be expected.
Among the many commendable aspirations of the new arts strategy - in which much emphasis is placed on the council's advocacy role and its partnership with the arts community - the council identifies two vital functions for itself which must be pursued with vigour: highlighting the contribution of the arts to daily life, and ensuring that they are "central in society". Both of these messages are essential to the promotion of the place of the arts - and their value as a project for ongoing increases in financial support.
The strategy document, the successor to the Arts Plan which was ditched last year, is the result of a period of dialogue with the wider arts sector. It promises yet another study on artists' living and working conditions. But do we really need further confirmation of how badly off most arts practitioners and managers are? Few of them are in it for the money. Part of any scheme to pour extra resources into the arts in the future must be some action to improve these conditions and rewards.
In Tusa's fine argument for recognition of the importance of the arts and the art-makers, he makes another observation which policy-makers here should pay attention to: "The risk of funding the arts offers benefits far greater than the immediate gains of not funding them."