IN RESPONSE to the missive from the Department of Arts to several national cultural institutions suggesting they mount “more populist” exhibitions, the director of the Crawford Gallery in Cork, Peter Murray, is right to warn of the risk of commercial imperatives damaging cultural values. Certainly, in a time of tighter State funding, new ways of ensuring the continued and valuable role of these institutions have to be found and exploited. But State interference in programming policy is hardly acceptable, and the Minister must ensure it is not repeated.
This suggestion comes at a time when legislation to amalgamate these institutions – Imma, the National Gallery and the Crawford – is being prepared by the department. Those who know and best understand the distinct functions of these museums are correct in their forthright opposition to this regrettable idea. Perhaps there is more than a hint of rebuke towards the resistance coming from the boards in the language of the letter from the department’s assistant general secretary Niall Ó Donnchú when he states: “What we are not looking for is a treatise or a defence of what you are already doing.”
What the letter may well achieve is exacerbation of already existing tensions between the department and institutions, particularly Imma, which has also been reprimanded by the same senior civil servant over leaks to the media about the board’s attitude to the amalgamation proposal. The institutions might well be alarmed at the mindset behind the prescriptive manner of the letter, its focus on “commercialisation” and what this might imply for their future under an integrated board. The autonomy of the institutions must be recognised and safeguarded; central control and annulment of the constitutions that have served them well runs counter to protecting their separate identities.
In the senate last Friday, the Minister, Martin Cullen, acknowledged that these three cultural institutions were a core part of “our tourism product” and cautioned against a rush to legislation. No evidence of significant financial savings has been produced, and a board with overall responsibility will be faced with conflicting responsibilities of governance. The careful consideration of this matter that the Minister advocates might best begin within his own department. The work that each of them has done to build collections and audiences and to enhance their reputations needs to be championed, not placed in jeopardy, which is where the department’s ambitions are leading.