State funding of the arts has always been a fraught activity. Does the state or the patron effectively purchase the opinions of the artists by providing them with the funds needed to pursue their art? Or must the artist retain his or her creative independence to make the investment worth while? The arguments have run forever without producing definitive conclusions, but history would seem to indicate that the world of the arts has been served better under those liberal regimes which have respected and preserved the creative independence of the artist.
The Abbey Theatre would not have earned worldwide acclaim had it been compelled to follow successive Irish governments' policies in return for the finances (small as they were) it received from the State. Politicians have not generally been noted for the grandness of their artistic vision. Perhaps this was why some enlightened governments transferred the task of disbursing funding to bodies, such as arts councils, whose members might have a more sympathetic sensitivity to the needs of artists.
It is ironic that the current funding spat between the Gate Theatre and the Arts Council should be occurring when the Council is in receipt of the highest-ever State funding for disbursement to the arts in this country. Not all the details of the arguments between the Council and the Gate are known; both sides have demonstrated an exemplary discretion in their public statements on the issues involved. But they appear, from documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, to concern the matter of how the funds accruing to the Gate are spent on its theatrical creativity. These arguments have taken on an urgency given that the Arts Council is expected in the next couple of weeks to announce its budgetary allocations for the current year, and maybe for the next three years.
The Gate would appear to have accrued what many responsible business organisations might describe as a war chest - a buffer against the kind of unpredictable losses which any theatre production company can suffer without warning on the basis of a box-office failure. As a result, the Council may now regard the Gate as a cash-rich institution which can get by with a lesser subsidy than it has come to expect. But it must be aware that significantly successful theatre production companies have disappeared without trace as a result of a couple of financially disastrous presentations. The Council is also aware, of course, that under Michael Colgan's direction, the Gate has an almost unprecedented record for combining the artistically adventurous with success at the box-office.
Mr Colgan has argued that the witholding of Arts Council funding last year has had a damaging effect on the Gate's funds and further such damage could result in the theatre's closure. The Council has argued that the Gate has not been adequately forthcoming about its financial situation. These arguments need to be resolved swiftly so that the public may continue to enjoy the dramatic fruits of what has been a remarkably successful partnership between the State and the Theatre for nearly 20 enlightened years.