Ireland ranks low among our EU neighbours in terms of the amount we spend per capita on the arts, writes Tania Banotti.
This year has been a busy one for the performing arts. The State requested the involvement of the performing arts community in the May "Day of Welcomes" for the EU accession countries. Theatre, dance companies and musicians travelled to these countries to give people a taste of Ireland.
The Irish festival in China saw companies such as the Gate Theatre performing in Beijing and Shanghai to great acclaim. These were aimed at promoting the overall image of Ireland in the accession countries and with China, with which this Government is anxious to expand trade links. We were delighted to be able to do this. We hope that - having shown what we are capable of - the Government will recognise the urgent need to put national funding of the arts on a better footing. As a country with a great artistic tradition, we like to think of ourselves as generously supporting the arts. Surprisingly, Ireland ranks very low in terms of the amount we spend per capita. In 2000, the Netherlands spent €69 per capita, Scotland €42 and Ireland just €26. A lot done, more to do, we say.
The performing arts are doing it for themselves in many instances. The recent report into the "Economic Impact of the Professional Performing Arts in Ireland" estimates that 60 per cent of our income is generated through tickets sales, sponsorship and programme/bar sales. Of the third we get from the State, half is returned through taxes. There were an impressive three million attendances at performing arts events in 2003. The bulk of these tickets were paid for, but 8 per cent of this three million were individuals and families benefiting from free events, usually at festivals up and down the country. Ticket prices in Ireland are considerably lower than elsewhere in Europe. The average price is €19. Public subsidy has helped keep these prices affordable.
Why give more you say? Well, commercial success is not the only criteria for artistic work. We must also focus on developing new playwrights and directors, staging brave new work and supporting the new network of theatres and arts centres in every county so it's not just urban audiences who can access theatre, dance and music. The arts are not the icing on the cake, a fall back after the important things like work are done. Engagement with the arts at whatever level can offer us insights into the world around us and sometimes - when it's great - satisfy the deepest human needs.
We recognise that politicians need to be able to explain why it is right to fund the arts to any sceptical voter. We have provided all the necessary facts and figures in this report. We also need to find a way to demonstrate the benefits an individual can experience from engaging with the arts.
Too often politicians and those in the arts have been forced to debate culture in terms only of its benefits to other agendas: education, social exclusion, cultural diplomacy. We explain - or in some instances almost apologise for - our investment in culture only in terms of something else. Culture and the arts lie at the heart of a nation's wealth and a healthy society.
The argument for public subsidy rests above all on the desire that all, not just a minority, should have access to the thrill of engagement with great art. People are free to accept and enjoy, or to reject through lack of interest, the best in all the arts but the access should be there. Public funds help ensure that wide access. We're keeping our fingers crossed for Budget Day.
Tania Banotti is chief executive of Theatre Forum