TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 6 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Opinion: There should be no debate – artists need money, says Dorothy Cross

Iconic Irish artist Dorothy Cross says the debate on the economic value of the arts is a moot point.

Dorothy Cross

Dorothy Cross, one of Ireland’s leading Irish artists, tells TheJournal.ie why the debate about the economic value of the arts should not even be an issue and why the amalgamation of arts institutions is a ridiculous idea:

WHEN I HEAR people debating the economic value of the arts my heart sinks – because I feel – why do we even have to talk about it. We shouldn’t even have to discuss it – it is worth funding.

I don’t even think that needs to be explained. It is as simple as that. You look at the history of extraordinary art we have in the world, whether it is the Pyramids or the Mona Lisa, whatever is your choice, it goes without saying that culture has to be funded or how else will it exist?

The importance of art

Art is important for the world. We shouldn’t just single out Ireland, art is important for the whole world. However, I don’t think that visual artists generate enough talk. I think we need to, because yes, in some ways we need to be invisible and while I never think art should be about the artist, it should be about the work, we need to talk about the works.

I don’t think that art works should be explained, but a conversation needs to be generated, this can sometimes be lacking. Art is often talked about how much it costs – but I think the reason I put myself out there into an awkward position, in terms of speaking, is because there is a responsibility around it.

I have as much difficulty speaking about visual art as anyone else, because visual art is visual art – it is not language based.

A drop in the ocean

But it is great to have someone like our president, Michael D Higgins, who understands the importance of the arts. It is brilliant we have a poet as our president – a friend of mine in the States was just saying how amazing that is.

I think yes, people are pinching for money, but money for the arts is really a drop in the ocean. It is terribly important for the people and our imagination -  can you imagine the Irish without imagination?

Of course you have to consider where the money is, but when you get to my age you hope you can survive without getting the help. It is hard to survive as an artist – but I think it always has been. I came back to this country in the 1980s and it was kind of a similar time. It is going to get tighter and tighter, there is no doubt about it. Institutionally I know people are afraid that their funding is going to be cut, but young artists who apply for a bursary for €5,000, it really isn’t a lot in terms of funding, but that is a goldmine for them.

If the focus can be turned to that rather than the focus being on the art that costs €100,000 then people will begin to understand.

I am not sure that the integrity of artist is any different than before the recession but perhaps more art will come out of this money-tight situation. In the boom time there was a lot of fluffy stuff around and I sympathise with young artists who were on the cusp of that wave and making money from that and producing art that didn’t particularly mean anything – but it was making them a lot of money. Now they are probably suffering more.

The art scene in Ireland is a vibrant scene probably even more so than when I returned from San Francisco. I wouldn’t separate it from anywhere else in the world. The young energy of making art here in Ireland should be nurtured.

Amalgamation

There has been discussion about amalgamating the art institutions – the National Gallery, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and The Crawford Gallery.

I think that it is absolutely ridiculous and I don’t know who came up with that idea. I think there is too much meddling by civil servants and I think that it really needs to be looked into. There shouldn’t be this merging, generic nonsense of governmental notions – it’s ridiculous.

The institutions are bit removed from the melting pot of young vibrant art being created and one does worry when money is being spent on giant refurbishments and not on the art.

The desperation in modern life to simplify things is crazy, like trying to put all the institutions together – it’s madness. It will only make it more bureaucratic with more paperwork.

Dorothy Cross works in a variety of media including sculpture, photography, video and installation. Her work is included in the collections of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the Norton Collection, Santa Monica, Ulster Museum, Belfast, Hugh lane Gallery, Dublin and the Tate Modern, London, among others.

She will be speaking at the TEDxDublin event, organised by The Science Gallery, this Saturday. TEDxDublin is hosted by The Science Gallery and is sponsored by Science Foundation Ireland.

Dorothy’s new visual book, Montenotte and Fountainstown, published by Occasional Press, is available to buy now.

Column: Culture was Farmleigh’s answer; Dublin Castle was about quick economic wins>

Column: Here’s why we turn empty properties into art spaces>

Read next:

Comments (48 Comments)

  • I am a lover of the arts and feel strongly that we should support the arts. However when you see various artist who are not your typical struggling artist and pay no tax or contribution because of exemption then that is wrong. Yes tax breaks for am artist starting off. Cecilia ahern a writer an artist pays no tax earns millions. Once an artist income exceeds 50k then they should be liable to tax!

    Reply
    • Agreed. No point using the argument that “hospital beds are closing”. It’s an apples and oranges type of debate. The percentage of the budget that goes into the arts is comparatively tiny – grants and bursaries are competitive and make an enormous difference to the recipient. If you redirected ALL of the arts funding it would likely be gobbled up ineffectually by another department (snowball, meet hell) or possibly squandered, as much public money still is.
      All of those ridiculing the author and calling for further cuts in the arts fail spectacularly to take into consideration the earnings that Ireland’s art and artists rake into the country via tourism – LeBroquy, Yeats(x2), Joyce, et al – AND the emerging technology-based partnerships – animation, design, film etc., where some of our talents have already won Academy Awards and BAFTAs. What about radio? How many international broadcasting awards have we won? This is revenue and good publicity – something we desperately need.
      The arts has always received less funding. It’s the last to get the money in the good times, and the first to lose it the bad times. The derision for the arts from some commentators here is myopic, to say the least. Income from artistic pursuit is less reliable and regular, so it’s unfair to give it the same financial treatment as a your typical 9-6 job. We should have thresholds, as the above poster remarked. No need for the likes of Cecelia Ahern or Bono to be getting tax breaks as they’re earning a fortune. But many are struggling.
      How miserly have we become to say that we want to slash the already-meagre spending in the arts scene when Bertie and Brian have ALREADY claimed tens of thousands in expenses this year alone despite not having “served” the country in years. Point your canons in the right direction!
      (Comments from a regular PAYE worker).

      Reply
  • Art is much less important than life, but what a poor life without it. – Jasper Johns

    Reply
  • Artists need money??….don’t we all!!

    Reply
    • Dorothy
      You should have been warned. This site is for philistines and a place where they eat their young. To appreciate the Arts one needs to have a mind a soul and a heart . In most cases the battle hardened soldiers who spurt and spout here have little or none of these. They equate wealth with evil and so the debates are less about facts or ideas and more about naysaying and insults. They don’t listen because they are deaf and blind to reason and logic and most of all…emotion.
      All through our history there have been times of economic hardship and Art has suffered but the State should provide creative support to people like you without the need for bitterness from those who want more than others or to protect what they have.
      Would artists be willing to swap their tax free status for creative works with Companies or individuals whereby they get the tax benefit and you get the sale. Such an idea could be supported by the State if a structured proposal were to be made. There are lots of other ideas but this is unlikely to be an appropriate forum.
      Just watch the scrap start now!

      Reply
    • Simon 07/09/12 #

      Get over yourself Mick

      Reply
    • Mick i read a comment during the week where you riduculed the work of the Jack and Jill foundation,yet here you speak of “heart” “soul”and “emotion”.All three of which i feel you do solely lack.

      Reply
    • I would agree with him that the arts deserve funding (and therefore some artists do) , I would actually base their funding on something that is approacable by the general public. If it isn’t approachable at least it should be able to be understood by the average Joe, or else I would question why the state should be paying for it. Yes the state should be supportive of things that build a national culture but it needs to relate to people to do that.

      Reply
    • medred 08/09/12 #

      31 people on trolleys in St james and we need art ????

      Reply
    • More classic trolling from Mick.

      If the site is for philistines Mick, you seem to love their company.

      Reply
  • Yes, art is important and very necessary. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone writing a novel, poetry, or a play and getting a drama group together to act it out; or expressing themselves through painting, or scuplture in whatever time is available to them without receiving funding. If you have talent and are passionate and driven about your work, you will find a way to be heard or seen. Anyone who can financially afford to spend their time solely engaged on any of the above are blessed indeed. If you have to work a regular job, or are unemployed, it doesn’t make your work or creation any less valid or worthy of being taken seriously as a piece of art just because you are not a full time artist, funded or otherwise.

    Reply
  • alan 07/09/12 #

    if your opening gambit is ‘We shouldn’t even have to discuss it – it is worth funding.’ then you have no chance of convincing anyone of anything. Discussion and debate are exactly what ARE needed. The idea that art is self evidently worthwhile and that art and artists should as a matter of course be financed carries no weight at all. If all that artists can come up with is some vague idea of the power of the imagination and the value of imaginative works then they can expect no help. worse than that, they can expect little other than incredulity or derision from people for whom art is not self evidently valuable

    Reply
  • Instead of giving money direct to artists. They should consider giving tax relief a against all income up to a set amount per taxpayer. That way you would give the average person an incentive to purchase real art, go to theatres, music etc. the artists wouldn’t be getting handouts the are spent in questionable ways sometimes.

    Reply
  • @mickcollins
    you my dear are a complete arse. firstly. . I don’t have any young to eat and if I did. . I doubt they’d taste good. but that aside, I do support Irish writers and artists, especially the ones who are up around Stephen’s Green when I could afford it. And fair play to anyone who has a few quid but I don’t think I would equate wealth with evil. And if been more concerned about the state of the country vs money been spent on art. well then yeah. I an emotional. I believe that the elderly people who have worked all their lives should not have to beg for the ones they deserve, or be. worried about the heating and esb bills. I believe that the hospitals should be better funded and not have emergency rooms shut or beds be cut . I don’t have more than others. Jesus I’m lucky in the respect that I have a roof over my head and food in my presses. But a lot of people don’t . so if wishing they had more than others then hell yeah. they have a right to want more. wanting to provide for their families and so on. I actually feel sorry for you because I’d guess you are a very lonely man. and you did give out about the jack and Jill foundation. so to you sir . when this country has really hit skid row I hope you are comfortable with your art. and I hope it keeps you warm and fed .

    Reply
    • Pip even if you have to wonder,thank you.

      Reply
    • Pip
      Rommel
      Please reread my contributions and tell me on the one hand where I supported Lobbying for the funding of Art or where I specifically mentioned or identified postings or people that confused the ownership of wealth with Evil
      In the case of the latter I carefully used the word many and on the subject of helping struggling artists I suggested a temporary switch of the existing tax exemption so the buyer rather than the seller gets the gain. That costs the State nothing and helps artists to support themselves.
      And Pip my continuous onslaught on Quangos and NGO ‘s is around the complete absence of audits and controls where our taxpayers money is being used to finance them. Given your emotional discharge above I would have thought on the basis of logic you might agree with me. Furthermore every year at or about the time that the State decides on Funding for these Organisations we get a plethora of slick Annual Reports with tables of data to suggest that every man woman and child on this island and everywhere else is receiving a service and the numbers are up yet agin by double digits. In many cases we’ve run out of places for growth any more.
      Finally my bugbear with them all is the use of children in their activities and their lobbying but particularly their photographs and specifically where they suffer from a disability. This is morally outrageous. Could you imagine a child with Aspergers in ten years time at an interview and being confronted by a photo of himself at a demonstration.
      Any problems with the above folks or indeed any problems with the truth?

      Reply
  • I completely support and agree 100% with everything the artist is saying…

    For a start however there are large collections of some beautiful pieces of art garnishing the walls and offices of AIB, BOI, IBRC etc that given their level of indebtedness to the Irish public should be confiscated and returned to the public…

    Reply
  • Of course art is important, but food and shelter have to be considered to be a more pressing priority, during an extreme recession. What does it gain a society, if the arts are preserved and through starvation and worse, the potential audience to appreciate that art has dwindled by death?. Nothing!.

    Reply
    • Damn it. I fell into their divide and conquer trap too easily. From the bottom of the trap, I now see how setting the humble artist against the working person works to their agenda. Slippery so and so’s. You couldn’t be up to them!.

      Reply
  • Art came into fruition long before money did, it will outlive this Generation, Government, country and economy. Financing art is not necessary.

    Reply
  • I think yes, people are pinching for money, but money for the arts is really a drop in the ocean.

    Really! Well funding for hospitals, care services, children’s services, homelessness, and not forgeting the people who have been shafted by the banks who are losing their homes . Not to mention the hike in electricity and gas prices that is gonna leave an awful lot of people in desperate situations.
    I’m sorry but maybe the arts are important to you and the few others but they got there fair share of funding in the good times. Now it should be put on the back burner until this country is in a better financial situation. And the funding should go towards what is needed.

    Reply
    • But at least you would have something nice to look at while lying on a trolley with the arm hanging off ye!!

      Reply
    • Only if there was a fresco on the ceiling.

      Reply
    • Norman Hunter
      You are either incapable of reading and understanding English or you are incapable of telling the truth. I should be pleased to have you publicly ridicule me on facts rather than lies.
      The work of the Jack and Jill Foundation is well known to me and I have admired the child facing services they provide at no cost to parents who need support and respite that would no be available without them.
      Please provide the copy where you accuse me of such .
      My criticism as you are aware was of their Marketing and Communications with the misuse of children’s/patients pictures where the issue of informed consent is brushed aside. A child can never consent to their pictures being used for fund raising and nobody else should on their behalf either.

      Reply
    • Mick i would suggest go back and read your comments on the article on Tuesday which referenced the foundation i mentioned even the author of the piece took issue which you as did i.You seem to major problems with charities in all sectors of society,i can’t imagine why.As for the photo of the child,to use your logic no parent would have a photo of their newborn,as a newborn is incapable of offering their consent.

      Reply
    • Mick my last and final comment to you having read and commented to alot of the vile and nasty comments you made to other posters on this site this week i feel it would only make me angry to keep interacting with someone such as you.Therefore i won’t.But try to lighten up on the bile you spew,you’ll give youself an ucler.Good night to you.

      Reply
  • Simple really if their is enough of a demand then their is no problem, however if their is little demand then they will need to find another income to subsidise their calling.

    Reply
  • I think some of the comments have gone off focus. I myself agree with those of you who have argued that there are more important things than visual art but this is not what is in focus for now. The entertainment industry is always going to be cut first but ask yourself this. Would you live in a world without any sort of design element. Art is not just something we put on the Walls but is evident in every physical manmade thing. The computer we are reading this article from was designed by someone with a creative imagination. The main problem with arts funding lies in who actually gets the funding. I believe that people who man the galleries have a right to be paid for their work but if the work isn’t supported by emerging or established artists these galleries will be full of work that may not have reached it’s potential, may end up being a few of the same artists rehashed again and again or worse of all they may be left empty. Not just galleries but all other cultural institutions such as theatres, museums etc. Which provide a vast contribution not only to society but to the tourism industry also. I think what dismays the wonderful dorethy cross is the very fact that artists still have to justify their work, this sort of validity should already be evident.

    Reply
  • The rich and detached begging from the poor. Get a grip of yourself Dorothy. We can’t afford luxury goods anymore.

    Reply
  • What about the ppl who can’t pay for uniforms or school books for their children? What about the ppl who lose sleep over mortgage arrears? What about the ppl who can’t afford the 2000e p/yr college reg fees? What about the ppl who can’t afford to provide their children with fun activities or worse food? Why about the ppl who can’t afford to put cloths on their back? Seriously.. Priorities.. I mean I’m all for pretty things to look at but There are ppl out there who need the funding more!!! Especially over tax-free professions. Get over yourself love.

    Reply
    • In fairness this isn’t only about paintings, this is aobut music, film, theatre etc.

      I would agree with him that the arts deserve funding, I would actually base their funding on something that is approacable by the general ublic. If it can’t be at the least bit approached and understood by the average Joe then I question why the state should be paying for it. Yes the state should be supportive of things that build a national culture but it needs to relate to people to do that.

      Also your whole paragraph was nonsense tosh, if we viewed societal spending as just to those who immediately needed it most we’d only spend on emergency healthcare. Top quality thejournal comment section nonsense you are woman.

      Reply
    • Most artists earn a lot less than average. They are people who struggle to pay for all those things and more.

      Reply
  • Art depending on finance is like paying for sex, sure it feels and looks the same but the heart is just not in it.

    Reply
  • is true art of the nation , the ability to draw the dole .

    Reply
  • Get a job, you can paint in your spare time.

    Reply
  • If artists need money let them sell their art. If people want it they’ll but it. Problem is most artists aren’t good enough to make a living from it. I had the same problem I like thousands of others wanted to be a professional footballer but nobody thought I was good enough to be paid. So like thousands of others I worked and played amateur football. These guys should do the same.

    Reply
  • Mick
    it’s gas how you make your comments and when challenged on them you back track and then try to say that’s not what you said. every one is entitled to their opinion. but don’t go saying things and then say you didn’t. unless you just type whatever comes into your head and don’t actually read it.

    Reply
    • Pip
      I have no choice but to believe that you’re illiterate. I asked you to reread my postings and must assume that you did and still you continue to make the same assertions. My mother warned me not to argue with a fool as onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.

      Reply
  • Dorothy
    I warned and I was right. Poor old Norman has difficulty with the truth and then there are those who shamelessly use the innocent to advance their causes so you tend to get rather disheartened with such a selfish lot . Their minds are closed and bitter but over time they’ll be swamped.
    You’d get a better class of response from the Times and even the Indo but this lot are too sour.

    Reply
    • Mick,
      I see you have no problem with people lobbying in regard to financing of the Arts. No calls for tighter auditing of how the money is spent etc.
      Yet when it comes to Dublin Rape Crisis Centre you were very quick to question their integrity and their funding. What’s good for the goose isn’t good enough for the gander?
      I’ve no problem with the appropriate funding of either by the way.

      Reply
    • Mick Collins signs in on an anonymous twitter profile with zero activity.

      If this guy had any conviction, he would sign in as his real identity and stand behind the comments he makes.

      I have little time for faceless trolling.

      Reply

Add New Comment