ART AND THE ORDINARY THE REPORT OF THE ARTS COMMUNITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

Edited by Ciarán Benson.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The ACE Report is published in the same spirit of experimental openness with which the project team of ACE conducted its business. What follows is the full report as laid before the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation. As a result, the views and attitudes are solely those of the ACE Committee and they do not necessarily represent the views of the Arts Council or the Gulbenkian Foundation.

Macnas, Galway (photo: John Carlos).

FOREWORD FROM THE ARTS COUNCIL

The brief of the Arts Council to promote and assist the arts is a complex one. Part of that complexity derives from the fact that in recent years the definitions and the practices of the arts have become more diverse due to a range of cultural and social factors. The Gulbenkian Foundation has always been synonymous with commitment to experiment and development in the arts, particularly in the domains of arts education and community arts. The Arts Council itself, like other Irish arts organisations, has reason to be grateful to the Foundation for embracing and supporting projects which might otherwise have ' 'remained out in the cold". In 1985, as the Arts Council deliberated upon the developing practices of community arts and arts education it was approached by the Gulbenkian Foundation which was itself deliberating upon its policies vis a vis the Republic of Ireland. The ACE project emerged as the result of discussions between the Arts Council and Gulbenkian and its brief was to explore the arts in community and educational contexts through a dual process of action and reflection. As Chairman and Director of the Arts Council we are conscious of the significance of the final ACE report. The Arts Council has observed with interest the progress of ACE as an experimental project, embracing a small number of smaller innovative projects, and it now welcomes the considered views of the ACE committee whose considerable experience and expertise four years ago has been significantly augmented in the intervening period. To the ACE committee and especially to its indefatigable Chairperson Ciaran Benson go our sincere thanks. The Arts Council records also its deep appreciation of the generosity of spirit and of resources which motivated the Gulbenkian Foundation to propose and sustain this significant cultural partnership, a partnership which we look forward to developing with this far-seeing Foundation. That spirit was personified in the patience, flair and commitment of the Foundation's Assistant Director lain Reid who represented Gulbenkian on the ACE committee and who became a familiar and welcome sight in the offices of the Arts Council. We trust that the success of ACE, as a partnership between agencies with complementary interests, will motivate other bodies to consider the advantages of devolving and sharing their expertise and finances when it is clear that common approaches facilitate the common good. The Arts Council will not be found wanting in seeking, with others, to address the implications of the ACE report in the years ahead.

Colm Ó hEocha Adrian Munnelly Chairman Director

City Vision, Dublin photo: Helen O'Donoghue).

FOREWORD FROM THE GULBENKIAN FOUNDATION

The U.K. Branch of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation is one of the very few grant-giving foundations which work in the Republic of Ireland as well as in Northern Ireland. The nature of that work and of the relationship between the Foundation and the Republic of Ireland has changed over the years but it was not until 1985 that a detailed examination of the relationship showed that there was an absence of coherence or of evidence of cumulative effect from the Foundation's investment, notwithstanding the valuable work undertaken by a range of organisations which Gulbenkian had supported. Clearly it was desirable that the Foundation's work in Ireland be characterised by the same features as marked its policies in Britain: namely the identification of areas of potential and need in the arts; the formulation of policies which would realise that potential and address that need; and the designing of methods to give effect to those policies with clearly stated policy guidelines and criteria. By this means proposals could then be properly considered and effective strategic action taken. However Ireland is not Britain and it seemed presumptuous at the time policy was being reviewed, to assume that what would be appropriate for Britain would also serve Ireland. Accordingly it seemed correct to explore some kind of devolving of our funding to Ireland itself. This was in keeping with similar moves which had been undertaken already in Foundation policy vis-a-vis Northern Ireland and Scotland. The present report records the nature and outcome of the devolved structure that was designed following Gulbenkian's initiating contact with the Arts Council/An Chomhairle Ealaion. A partnership was agreed with the Arts Council and given structure and focus through the establishment of the independent ACE committee. The evaluation of the success or otherwise of ACE is for others to undertake and it is a process begun in the present report. However, from the Foundation's perspective, ACE has been a singularly successful example of devolved funding and cultural partnership. The Foundation has received expert and excellent advice from the ACE committee and the support , in particular, of the Arts Council's officers has been an invaluable asset. The Foundation now knows that this kind of model can work, and there is no reason why it cannot be adopted and/or adapted for other appropriate situations. To everybody in Ireland - in the projects, on the ACE committee, and at the Arts Council -who have helped the Foundation in so many ways go all our heartfelt thanks.

Ben Whittaker Iain Reid Director Assistant Director

Creative Activity for Everyone (photo: Derek Speirs/Report).

PREFACE

Prior to 1985 the Arts Council had begun to develop an interest in an area of activity loosely called 'community arts'. Their education policy had developed more strongly both because of the greater coherence and clarity of that domain, and because the Arts Council had targeted this as a primary area for policy development in 1979. The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation had underwritten the initial costs of the Arts Council's development of its education policy, as well as having a continuing interest in supporting particular, community-based arts projects. By 1985, the Foundation had identified its manner of grant-giving in Ireland as problematic. After a series of preliminary consultative meetings with a wide range of people interested and working in the arts, education or communities, both bodies jointly established the framework for what was launched as the ACE project in September 1985. This project was to be an exploration. The Arts Council saw it as a means for developing its understanding of the arts and education, but perhaps more particularly of its already existing category of community arts. The Gulbenkian Foundation viewed it as a potential model for grant-giving in Ireland. Both saw it as a desirable exercise in partnership. Having established this framework, the Arts Council then invited a voluntary committee of five individuals working in the arts, education and community (who had not been involved up to this point), together with two officers of the Arts Council and one from the Gulbenkian Foundation, to form a committee to run the ACE Project. Once established, a high degree of autonomy was granted to the ACE committee, although all major decisions had to pass through and have the support of the Arts Council. The duration of the project was to have been three years, after which the committee was to report back to its parent bodies with its reflections and recommendations, and then disband. In the event, this report is being published after just four years. At all times the ACE committee has been acutely aware that it was set up by and for the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation to explore areas of arts policy which both bodies bequeathed to them as their foci of interest. It was not intended - and ACE always resisted the possibility - to defer, delay or supplant existing and ongoing responsibilities in these areas. ACE was to be an addition and not a substitute for Arts Council policies in the educational and community sectors. Our brief, which we clarified as a committee at the very beginning, was to explore, reflect and recommend using the act of grant-assisted exemplary projects, understood as an interactive process, as our primary means of inquiry. It has been our experience throughout that this role has been widely and constantly misunderstood. Some client groups have seen us as representing their areas, some policy-makers have seen us as representative of such clients. Within the constraints of our constitution we have always tried to preserve our relative independence, not because independence was a fetish for us, but because our advisory responsibilities required it. Although we were the committee, nonetheless as individuals with lives and work profiles independent of ACE, we unanimously admired the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation for their attempts to find a creative, minimally bureaucratic way of learning more about these areas of work, the better to decide what to do about them. With this summary report we hope that we harmonise with the spirit which set us up. Our report is presented in four parts. While each part is more or less self-contained, together they form a whole. From the beginning, even within the ACE committee, we have held diverse views on the themes which the two parent bodies presented to us as the areas on which they wanted

The Poetry Project (photo Derek Spars/Report)

our collective advice. Not surprisingly, given its extraordinary complexity, we have had difficulties with the adjective 'community' as it qualified the noun 'arts'. And we also had difficulties with that same use of 'arts' as a noun. Far from being uniquely ours, these difficulties arc part of the ferment characterising the self-understanding of art as we enter the last decade of this millennium. For the purposes of our report, the committee asked me to present a personal view which, while not being offered as representative of their views, can be taken as being indicative of them. In my essay ' 'Art and the Ordinary" I offer some of the ways in which I have tried to understand the issues which we were asked to advise upon, and to do so from one particular Irish point of view. Part Two describes ACE as a project it itself. For the parent bodies ACE was the project, and it is their responsibility to decide whether it succeeded or not. From ACE's point of view, the projects which it funded were its primary concern both for what they were and for what we could learn from them. A summary of these forms Part Three. Part Four discharges the final part of our responsibility to the Arts Council and to the Gulbenkian Foundation. It is clear to us that in each of the areas which formed the focus of ACE's attention there are a variety of bodies with relevant responsibilities and powers. For arts education per se the Department of Education clearly has the primary responsibility; for arts-in-education the Arts Council has a primary responsibility; and for the young as an arts public in their own right a variety of bodies may have overlapping contributions to make. Hence our recommendations for a more sophisticated approach to service in the form of partnerships. Our ideas of inter -organisational standing committees are just one type of model for this, albeit a potentially good prototype. As Chairperson of ACE I would like to record my thanks to my fellow committee members who gave unstintingly of their time and expertise over a four-year period. In particular I would like to thank Lar Cassidy and Martin Drury whose necessary and frequent changes of role and hat required great administrative suppleness; lain Reid for his excellent judgement and energy; Mary Cloake who was secretary and administrative centre of ACE from 1985 to March 1989, and Sharon Monahan her successor. My final thanks must go to all those remarkable individuals and groups throughout Ireland whom we met in the early days of ACE, and during the project. Whatever else may be uncertain, the commitment of so many people to making the arts a living part of ordinary personal and communal lives is not.

Ciarán Benson, Chairperson, ACE.

Arts Education Workshop, Cork.

SECTION ONE ART AND THE ORDINARY REFLECTIONS ON ART, NON-ARTISTS AND POLICY-MAKING IN IRELAND A VIEWPOINT BY CIARÁN BENSON, CHAIRPERSON OF ACE.

Preface. From the beginning of the ACE project in 1985 it was our intention to commission pamphlets within our area of interest. We were not successful in this partly because potential authors who we approached were too busy, and partly because we were unable to find authors for particular topics which we judged to be of relevance. We continue to believe in the need for public debate as an essential element in effective policy-making, especially in the arts. In the case of the relations of art and community in particular, we felt that an argument had to be made which would contribute to an understanding of this as yet underdeveloped tendency in Irish arts policy-making. Whilst intending to be provocative, such an argument should not be seen as a challenge to, nor as an alternative to the main preoccupations of existing policy. It is an argument for including this set of cultural tendencies in the overall purview of Irish arts policy-making. And since this is a young and as yet ill-defined tendency in Irish cultural life there are many ways of trying to understand it. What follows is one such way. It is written for policy-makers in the first instance and is an attempt to explore some of the ideas at work in thinking about issues of art, community and education. Nonetheless, I hope that it may also be of interest to practitioners and others working in related areas.

Saying what one thinks and thinking what one says. In Philadelphia Here I Come Brian Friel faced the problem of how to convey the contrasts of what Gar thought and what Gar said by using one actor for Gar public and one for Gar private. This tension between the public and the private, between what one says and what one thinks, resonates in the workings of most people who write with the hope of influencing something. There is an overwhelming tendency to present a 'finished' document, one which has met and confronted the necessary obstacles to being heard and understood by trying to anticipate them and to write around or over or through or under them. The result is often clear and polished, while remaining a subterfuge. It may have the initial appeal of the flatterer or seducer, but likely as not it will have the same consequences also - feelings of having been used or 'had', with all the negative consequences which follow from such feelings. In reflecting upon areas of experience which claim a special attention for the processes by which things are done, the better to improve what is done, why not let Gar Public and Gar Private speak with one voice? Why not air in this essay some of the concerns which give it this shape rather than any other? At the outset let's offer a contrast between what I think I ought be saying, as well as what I do say. First, why is this essay being written? Publicly, one might continue to assert that there is a need for clear intellectual arguments which convincingly argue for changes and re-emphases in Irish cultural policy-making, and that this essay sets out such arguments; but privately one might wonder when the best intellectual arguments ever had decisive effect in matters of educational, social or cultural policy-making in Ireland, or anywhere else, for that matter. Rationality is not the

Whilst intending to be provocative, such an argument should not be seen as a challenge to, nor as an alternative to the main preoccupations of existing policy. It is an argument for including this set of cultural tendencies in the overall purview of Irish arts policy making.

final arbiter in matters public or political, at least not rationality of the sort which presents decisions to be made as depending on the balance achieved between intellectual arguments for and against. Indeed, at some mute gut level, one can have a sympathy with this practical suspicion of the intellectual. So, in addressing those who make and inform arts policy what is one to publicly do or say? Without declaring who they are, one might begin to visualize the Dramatis Personae in this policy-making and policy-influencing play, and try to figure out the ways in which they make sense of the areas with which one is concerned. This done, arguments might then be formulated in such a way that when they read them there is the possibility that a certain recognition, a certain comfortable flavour of familiarity, will enliven their reading and begin to win them over. This Departmental Secretary only attaches significance to job creation, so let's write of the jobs potential of the arts; that key politician has a particular xenophobia, so arguments for national culture are offered; this key funder is known to want to contribute to North-South peace processes, so arguments for the reconciling powers of the arts are presented; that major industrial and politically influential patron is known to have a penchant for a particular arts activity, so its virtues are extolled. But what is being done here? This could go on forever. How are you to know what to include or exclude? If a billionaire eccentric, with a known and proven softsp ot for collecting doorknobs should happen to take an interest in Ireland, is there an argument to be offered relating doorknob collecting and artistic access? We could offer names for the argument-packages which are available off the shelf: among them are 'economic', 'moral guilt', 'national shame' and 'bandwagon' arguments in addition to the plethora of aesthetic and intellectual ones. But already one might be experiencing a certain lethargy, a familiar déjá vu. From having previously used these approaches, and from observing similar uses by others, one intuitively feels that on their own or even all together, they rarely pierce the protective defences of their targets. And you yourself probably have your favourites among this library of 'cases to make'. What makes for a favoured argument? Usually, but not always so simply, it is one which provides reasonably solid and safe grounds from which to survey the territory. It is not simple because social and cultural habitats are only partially there to be surveyed; once you realise that the very act of surveying them, of having this particular vantage point and point of view, creates this particular cultural world or any other, then the really interesting problems begin. So where do we begin an argument for seriously attending to a particular aspect of the relations of communities to artistic and aesthetic experience? Why not begin with the idea of experience itself?

Starting from 'Experience'. Without being unduly obscure about it, there is a distinction to be made between our experience and our thoughts about our experience. How we think about our experience, the From our knowledge of Irish social and cultural history we know that high quality experiences in these domains have not been commonplace in most lives and have certainly been absent in the lives of many. intellectual Dry kit which we bring to the job, plays a major part in shaping the quality of that experience. It particularly shapes our memories of it; and it is our memories of an experience that we reflect upon when we want to understand what it was about. So if we were to say that the best starting point for understanding what really good arts education might look like, or for recognising high quality community-situated arts activity, was an experience of them rather than an abstract intellectual argument then we would still have the problem of understanding what that means. From our knowledge of Irish social and cultural history we know that high quality experiences in these domains have not been commonplace in most lives and have certainly been absent in the lives of many. Consequently, an appeal to personal experience, although the most fertile means of developing a productive, grounded dialogue runs the risk of appealing only to those already convinced of the value of such experience. But if this is how things are, then the only option open to those convinced of the value of such experience, is to create the conditions which favour these experiences and allow them become more valued. And in the meantime, for those who cannot be shown their value the next best option is to tell them of it. And again we come back to the distinction between experience and reflection upon experience. If it is to be upon experiences of a particular type that we establish our vantage point for surveying the arts, community and education, then we must be careful not to presume that the term 'experience' has a single, generally accepted meaning. Its history shows quite the opposite. It has had many, often contradictory meanings. Perhaps its most widely understood vernacular meaning has been that of a private, first hand event; the connotations of this have been primarily individualistic. Experience is something that happens 'inside' an individual and is the individual's 'own'. The concern has been to understand the processes by which the individual is able to construct experiences. This is a perfectly valid and useful way of thinking about experience, but it is only one term in the equation. Psychologies specialize in the exploration of that particular term. Another is the ways of experience which a cultural world supplies to its inhabitants. Such culturally specific ways of experience pre-exist any new member of a society and are thought of as being independent and 'outside' of that member. History, anthropology, sociology and other social sciences take this as their focus. This is a more public dimension of experience. When experience of the arts is analysed what we find is a process of mutual construction in which the person recreates the art object and the object constructs or reconstructs some aspect of the person. The person and the work of art 'make' and 'remake' each other in the most complex and subtle ways. If the artwork is genuinely innovative it may also have to create a context which will shape experience in a way that is appropriate to its novelty. Emerging from the privacy of a gifted artist's world for the first time, a picture or a poem may have to count amongst its work the task of building its own public. Clearly we need to understand 'experience' as something that is both private and public, as something simultaneously 'inside' and 'outside' the person. If we don't, then our understanding of

Schools and school curricula have been described as instruments for the creation of minds. We might also describe cultural institutions such as museums, theatres and galleries as instruments for the creation of experiences.

the dynamics of experience will fly like a one-winged bird. And if we don't understand the dynamics of experience, how can we set about creating experiences of a particular kind? And our argument is that a central plank of arts policy- making should be about the means for creating particular types of experience.

Cultural Institutions and the Creation of Experiences. Schools and school curricula have been described as instruments for the creation of minds (Eisner, 1982). We might also describe cultural institutions such as museums, theatres and galleries as instruments for the creation of experiences. If experiences are the joint productions of people and objects/events then we may ask how cultural institutions set about favouring their occurrence. We can ask what sort of experiences they intend to create and compare these with what they actually create. Take as an example Dublin's Natural History Museum at Merrion Square. Opened in 1857 when Victorian fascination with the scientific mastery of the natural world was intense, it presented to the public a wonderful collection of birds, animals and anthropological exhibits. Four days after it opened, Dr David Livingstone of "I presume?" fame, gave a lecture on his recent discoveries in Africa. One aim of the museum was to bring its visitors close to natural habitats of native creatures by presenting cameo scenes of nature, often red in tooth and claw. Mastery by classification and taxonomy seemed to speak from every glass case. Wonder and confidence in science must have been dominant tones in the experiences of its original patrons. The directors of the museum in those early years could have confidently claimed that their museum was enabling its visitors to participate in the excitement of a burgeoning branch of science. Quickly, however, science outpassed such reflections of its work. It became more mathematical, concerned with the invisible, interdisciplinary and specialised. In time, Dublin's Victorian Natural History Museum became the embodiment of an historical notion of a Victorian natural history museum. It has itself become an exhibit ideally suited for any museum of museums. The type of experience which this institution jointly creates with its late twentieth century visitors is now one of nostalgia, a phantasm of the late nineteenth century, ideally visited on a wet Sunday afternoon in winter, and with the same intellectual and aesthetic resonance’s as an old secondhand bookshop. There is a strong case for preserving the possibility of this rich, if unintended, set of experiences as it now is. Its near dereliction adds to the charm of its particular nostalgia. We could lengthen the analysis of the types of experience created by Dublin's Natural History Museum and extend it to others such as particular galleries, theatres, cinemas, colleges, arts centres, and national parks. At a molar level of analysis, we could consider each of these institutions as deliberately crafted instruments for the creation of particular types of artistic, aesthetic, and intellectual experience. Here we would find all sorts of subtle similarities and differences between our chosen institutions. But if we took a sufficiently long time perspective we may well find that the underlying ideas informing what kinds of experiences museums and galleries with established collections, say,

The discontinuity of 'Art' and everyday life is actively enshrined in these great buildings, just as it is in the influential aestheticism of Clive Bell.

There is a growing belief that the function of such galleries and museums is not that of a sophisticated storehouse of 'works'; instead their central function is, as Nelson Goodman has argued, "to make works work". intend to create are today quite similar to each other but quite different from their original inspiration. Then, the objects were expected to speak for themselves: one side in the partnership of making experience was given primacy. For this solemn transaction to take place, suitably awe-inspiring buildings were required. The objects filling these particular places were wrenched from their original contexts - domestic interiors, churches and temples, palaces and public places, across millenia - and made to serve the social and political needs of these new types of public institution. Sometimes within these buildings attempts were made to replicate the semblance of the original context, as in the set-pieces of the Natural History Museum. But always these have the coloration of the institution housing and exhibiting them. They will have long since ceased to function as they originally did. They are now made to function differently in line with the needs of the museum or gallery. The impact on the visitor is, more often that not overwhelming; sometimes it is one of awe and reverence, sometimes of dutiful boredom, mostly in between. Either way an impression of what art is is conveyed to the public, and that impression, which is conveyed by the architecture as well as by the exhibits, has in the twentieth century involved an equation of museum and cathedral, or chapel at the more modest level. As Jacques Barzun has shown us, 'Art' has taken over and been given to many of the redemptive powers of religion (Barzun, 1974). Despite his condemnation of the dryly erudite 'museum atmosphere' this is precisely what Clive Bell argued for in his Art of 1913. "Now", wrote Bell,' 'though no religion can escape the binding weeds of dogma, there is one that throws them off more easily and light-heartedly than any other. That religion is art: for art is a religion" (p. 181). "And as", he continued "throughout the ages, men and women have gone to temples and churches in search of an ecstasy incompatible with and remote from the preoccupations and activities of laborious humanity, so they may go to the temples of art to experience, a little out of this world, emotions that are of another... Patronage of the Arts is to the cultivated classes what religious practice is to the lower-middle ..." (pp. 175-176). The discontinuity of 'Art' and everyday life is actively enshrined in these great buildings, just as it is in the influential aestheticism of Clive Bell. Yet since the establishment of these cathedrals of culture there have been quite radical shifts in the understanding of how they should function. No longer are their objects expected to make themselves clear in an unmediated way. The attention has shifted to that other partner in the construction of experience, the person. The novel idea of more recent times is that the person needs to be prepared for his/her encounter with the art object. Attention to both is now seen to be necessary if the creation of the type of experience distinguishing that particular institution is to be achieved. There is a growing belief that the function of such galleries and museums is not that of a sophisticated storehouse of 'works'; instead their central function is, as Nelson Goodman has argued, "to make works work" (Goodman, 1982).

The idea that what distinguishes 'Art' from other areas of culture lies in something that it does rather than something that it is is a recent one.

Making Artworks Work. There is a clear distinction between making artworks, and making artworks work. The first has to do with what Goodman calls execution, the second with what he calls implementation. Behind this distinction lies a theory which says: - that human understanding depends upon our ability to use sy mbols, to use things that can stand for other things - the word 'poem', for instance stands for a collection of words functioning in a particular way; - that there are many different types of symbol system (words, numbers, gestures, pictures, and so on) and many different ways in which they work and can be made to work; - that meanings are made, like other products of human beings, and that they are made with such symbols; - that the sorts of meanings which it is possible to make in one system, say within a mathematical system, are quite different from those capable of being formulated within another, within a sculptural system for instance; - that a key question to ask if you want to understand any particular symbol is how is it functioning or working?; - that the arts utilise symbol systems of a particular type which are made to work in distinctive ways; - that for an artwork to function aesthetically there must be a public dimension to it, with at least one person relating to the artwork, and with both person and work making a contribution to the resulting experience; - and that all of this is pervasively conditioned by the culture and the times and the context within which it occurs. It is difficult to find a simpler and more succinct way to say this. Part of our argument involves clearly recognising how intellectually demanding it is to understand artistic and aesthetic experience. And consequently how challenging is the job of finding a productive intellectual basis which will justify sympathetic and clear sighted policy-making in the fields of art, community and education. There are many angles to a worthwhile building. When Leonardo painted the 'Mona Lisa' it functioned in a particular way as a picture in a culture which understood the way in which pictures like this worked. But when Marcel Duchamp pencilled in the moustache and goatee on a print of Mona Lisa in 1919, it was clear that a fundamental shift had occurred in the way that this particular image had come to function, as well as in images generally. Now it was bound to the service of a radically different set of meanings. In this new age of reproduction Mona Lisa could be made to appear on tee shirts and billboards, as herself or androgynous, selling drinks or mocking the aspirations of Renaissance art. Versatility of subject and material marks the artistic and aesthetic life of the twentieth century. And from the point of view of our present reflections on the relations of art, community and education, there is the versatility of ways in which artworks function. The idea that what distinguishes 'Art' from other areas of culture is something that it does rather than something that it

This way of looking at things may have little difficulty in assimilating Monet's Waterlilies but may be reduced to an indignant silence when confronted with a piece like Joseph Beuys's 1965 Performance work How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare.

is is a recent one. And it is one that has revolutionary implications for the self-understanding of education taken in its most generous sense (a sense that is much wider than schooling, and which should include what is often referred to as 'community arts'). It is a safe assumption that most cultural policy-makers, and most educationalists, would accept the authority of a question like 'What is art?'. That it may be an extremely difficult question to answer would be generally accepted, but so also would be the belief that works of art, when stripped of all but their 'essence', share certain basic common qualities. Those with an interest in the history of the ideas which have formed and reformed around the notion of 'Art' in Western cultures, coupled with an interest in the types of role which art (seen with Western eyes) has played in the great variety of human societies, may feel less certain about the usefulness of this question than others. What if there is no 'essence'? When hearing policy-makers and arts educationalists speak of the reasons why they think what they are doing is important, one often has the sense of a large time-lag, an asychronony, between the intellectual origins of the ideas offered to justify their practice and the changed nature of the arts in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, much of the work evident in arts education seems very much in tune and synchrony with these ideas. Like the Natural History Museum it smells of a past age, albeit only a recently past one. The idea of the 'beautiful' is no longer a common one in criticism, aesthetics or practice but it still has currency in vernacular thinking about art. So has the association of art with demonstrable skilfulness, and with the idea that good art is art that 'copies' some aspect of the world well. This way of looking at things may have little difficulty in assimilating Monet's Waterlilies but may be reduced to an indignant silence when confronted with a piece like Joseph Beuys's 1965 Performance work How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare. The problem is not that art is not about such things; it is that art is about much more than such things. The belief that the key to good educational practice and to good arts policy-making resides primarily in the 'what is art'? question is challenged by the 'When is art?' question posed by Nelson Goodman (Goodman, 1978). A painting by Patrick Collins does not fulfil its function until it is seen, nor a poem by Seamus Heaney until read or heard. Our experience of the painting may be non-aesthetic in all sorts of ways such as my use of it merely as a firescreen or as an investment stored away in a vault. While remaining an artwork in these cases it does not function as one. "Execution consists of making a work", argues Goodman, "implementation of making it work" (Goodman, 1982, p. 282). And, as many people who collect flotsam on shorelines or old oak in bogs or twisted pieces of old machinery will know, it is quite possible to make something function aesthetically which was not made to do so. The insight that works of art require very detailed attention if they are to be properly implemented, or made to work by allowing them to function aesthetically, is the distinctively new trend in modem museums, galleries, and arts centres. This means that they take it to be part of their responsibility to so organize the ways in which their institutions create experiences that the 'works' presented are 'understood'. If they are artworks, this means that what and how they symbolize will be apprehended, and in such a way that the power of good art to change how people perceive and

organize themselves and their worlds will work to best effect. Lectures and classes, books and work-packs, workshops by artists and critics, guided tours and explicit institutional policies in these areas, are all examples of practices geared to make artworks work. When badly done these form Clive Bell's 'tyranny of eruditon'. Following the same line of argument we can say arts education has, as a definitive responsibility, p key contribution to make to the implementation of artworks in our society. Similarly we can argue that an organisation like the Arts Council will only achieve its most coherent impact on Irish society with a proper balance of attention to provisions for the implementation as well as for the making of artworks. In the existing way of administratively ordering its work, education and 'community arts' would form a large part of the Arts Council's contribution towards making artworks work. These are of recent origin within its catalogue of work, and are still uncertainly regarded. The justifiable basis for some of this caution, especially in relation to the amorphous area of so-called 'community arts', might be explored further by using the ideas of the private and the public together with the recognition that artistic and aesthetic work can function in many different ways.

Publicising Artistic Work. Even in the preschool this intimate relationship between aesthetic functioning and publication has informed pedagogic practice. Images made by children at a rudimentary stage of picture-making are hung up on walls for all to see. Their work in other curricular areas is not. From a very early age this expectation of the necessity of publication is hardened. Clearly the function served by publication in this example is quite different from the type of publication involved when an established artist exhibits her work. But in what way? A crucial and relevant difference is that the established artist is exhibiting the work publicly in the conscious expectation that her work will be assessed by very specific criteria. These will have to do with the quality of the artistic statements she has made, and her achievement against comparative standards. And when the critics locate her work as being 'high' or 'low' on their evaluative scales she won't be unduly surprised since this is part of the game-plan of artist and critic in our society. She has consciously made her work to function according to the general established rules of this particular art world. But most people would baulk at the prospect of evaluating the work of preschoolers in the same way, and for very good reason. We would say that such an artist-critic game is not an appropriate or desirable part of the cultural world of preschoolers in our society, and that the real value of engaging in artistic/aesthetic activities for young children must be assessed by standards that are relevant to the functions which such activities serve in their lives. In the unlikely event of a teacher mounting a public exhibition of such children’s' work as though it were to be regarded as being of similar significance to that of established adult artists, and of a critic accepting it on those terms and proceeding to evaluate it accordingly, then we might say that a double mistake had been made. The teacher was mistaken to publicise it like this, and the critic to evaluate it like this. The

The game would have been played correctly but without the caution of sympathetic insight. Frequently this is what happens in the area called "community arts', and it fuels the suspicion of it. But an examination of that same suspicion can reveal as much about the grounds on which the objections are made as it does about the objectionable aspects of 'community arts'. game would have been played correctly but without the caution of sympathetic insight. Frequently this is what happens in the area called 'community arts', and it fuels the suspicion of it. But an examination of that same suspicion can reveal as much about the grounds on which the objections are made as it does about the objectionable aspects of 'community arts'.

Trying to make sense of 'Community Arts'. In Ireland very little has been published which would allow for a teasing out of the values and beliefs underpinning attitudes of favour or disfavour towards the idea of 'community arts'. In the absence of such public work one always runs the risk of being accused of setting up straw men or of discerning particular ideas where none exist, if one puts a general form on a set of beliefs which experience has frequently encountered. The report by John O'Hagan and Christopher Duffy (1987) on the economics of the performing arts in Ireland sets forward a cogent economic argument favouring community arts in Ireland. The same report also includes a brief instructive history of this area which identifies parallels between the New Deal policies of the U.S. in the 1930's and community arts in Ireland during the 1980's. Fortunately, on the disfavour side, the writer and critic Anthony Cronin has published a stimulating set of essays which give substance to what might otherwise be shadow (Cronin, 1988). Although he does not use the phrase 'community arts' in his collection of essays Art for the People, Anthony Cronin's sympathies and reservations have much to do with this area. His major objection is to the types of practice which have emerged in schools, museums and galleries as means of preparing and shaping peoples' experience of art and other works. Far from developing receptivity and response, much of what is taking place in the name of education - what he trenchantly calls the 'apparatus of intimidation' - is actively destroying them. In this he shares much in common with Clive Bell, although he may feel uncomfortable in the company of 'Dear Clive and Virginia'. There is much truth in these criticisms. But it is not necessarily, or at least not entirely, for the reasons which Mr. Cronin offers. Bad practice, and institutions whose practices are not in harmony with their avowed purposes, are more convincing reasons than the theoretical reasons which he offers. His position relies on ideas of 'initial receptivity', on conceptions of art as 'the attempt to attain perfection', on the notion of pleasure as being central to aesthetic experience, and on the idea that artists are special people in their sensitivities and innate or acquired powers of expression'. There are strong Romantic contours shaping his viewing point. He is led by this way of thinking to query the usefulness of most 'art education' for adults, to object to art being made into 'a mere pastime or social distraction or even therapy', and to condemn the belief that most people have the capacity to experience artistically (productively), rather than aesthetically (receptively), in some degree. He believes that 'The art of the dispossessed is seldom great, precisely because it is the art of the dispossessed' (p. 35). These essays probably express the views of many of those interested in the arts in Ireland, some of whom might morally and politically wish it were otherwise.

It is against such objections as these that the case for greater public expenditure on the 'community arts' area must be made. Accepting the arguments offered by O'Hagan and Duity as being the best available from an economic point of view, our concentration will be on ideas of art and artists at play in this area. As a phrase 'community arts' is not native to Irish ways of thinking about the arts and society. It emerged from the activisms and aspirations of the late 1960's in Britain. If it had a central unifying idea it was its commitment to a form of cultural democracy. In published form its most forceful proponents are Owen Kelly (1984) and Another Standard/The Shelton Trust (1986). An earlier book by Su Braden (1978) used the work of Walter Benjamin to try and develop a newer language to describe the changing working relationships of artists and communities. The supportive role of the Gulbenkian Foundation U.K. in the development of each of these perspectives and practices is noteworthy. The concept of 'community arts' as developed by these writers, notably Kelly, is explicitly political. They oppose what they see as the hierarchical control of the many by the few, they favour democratic collective action over individualistic action, and they identify the ability to use language as a central concern of cultural democracy. Negotiation rather than imposition is the preferred route of such cultural democrats in their move towards a more egalitarian democracy. Power and the control of the means of expression, including 'the arts', are recurrent themes. Their preeminent interest is in the arts as a means, amongst other cultural practices, for changing society in the direction of greater equality and democracy. Their position reveals a clear identification of art as an instrument of power which is to be mobilised in a wider political struggle. They have very little to say on the question of the public and private benefits of artistic and aesthetic experience, nor on what distinguishes the arts from other cultural practices. Perhaps inevitably, by attending to one particular political role of art in society, and marginalizing the details of the personal and social experiences of art, this approach to community arts has itself become marginalised. But there are others. The potential grounds for favourably considering newer relations of art and communities which we are arguing for here have to do with the qualities of experience which are unique to the arts, and with the types of empowerment which they help to develop. But even if the nature of our present arguments differ in emphasis from those originating in the British community arts movement, the types of misunderstanding which they are liable to meet might not.

Orthodox Policy-making and 'Community Arts': Some Grounds for Different Understandings. In the first place, policy-makers such as members of the Arts Council, and the policy-shapers such as the members of Aosdana, will naturally tend to approach questions of art and society from the viewpoint of the artist. This is because the majority of them are artists. It is also because Arts Council policy has evolved in that direction. But the 1951 Arts Act is especially interesting in the

While naturally and rightly the Arts Council in its evolution over nearly four decades has become a mainstay and support for Irish artists, its underwriting legislation does not use the word 'artist' at all. And in its foremost function it specifically mentions the 'public' as being those whose interest in the arts is to be stimulated.

However, the question raised by our present argument is how has the Arts Council come to think about this and its related functions?

responsibility which it places upon the Arts Council to ' 'stimulate public interest in the arts" (3,1 a). This is the first specified function of the Arts Council. Its other three functions are as follows: " (b) promote the knowledge, appreciation and practice of the arts. (c) assist in improving the standards of the arts. (d) organise or assist in the organising of exhibitions (within or without the State) or works of art and artistic craftsmanship." While naturally and rightly the Arts Council in its evolution over nearly four decades has become a mainstay and support for Irish artists, its underwriting legislation does not use the word 'artist' at all. And in its foremost function it specifically mentions the 'public' as being those whose interest in the arts is to be stimulated. Clearly the Arts Council has the widest possible discretion under the 1951 Arts Act in finding ways and developing policies which will fulfill this mandate. The last decade has seen major developments in this area with the implementation and expansion of an education policy, a regional development policy, an arts centre policy, and an incipient 'community arts' policy. The ACE experimental project is part of the Arts Council's policy of development in these areas. These were also the four areas which the Arts Council, in its submission to the 1987 White Paper on the arts, Access and Opportunity, identified as being of primary importance for the development of the arts in Ireland. In its very title, that White Paper endorsed these aspirations and incorporated them as central cultural objectives. However, the question raised by our present argument is; how has the Arts Council come to think about this and its related functions? Is it possible to identify some of the ways in which the Arts Council as an institution makes sense of its mandate? All thinking is from a point of view, normally the point of view of the person doing the thinking. But when we think about many issues in ordinary life our viewpoints have as a matter of fact been inherited, rather than developed by ourselves to match the novelty of the situation confronting us. In the case of Arts Councils as they have evolved in the postwar years one could hypothesise that a dominant point of view which successive incumbents of Arts Councils have inherited is that of the 'generalised artist'. One might further speculate that it is the viewpoint of a particular idea of an artist. And if these were true it would be interesting to imagine the view of arts education and community-situated arts activity which this viewpoint would afford, and how it would harmonise with the functions of the Arts Council as specified by the Arts Act. The primary interests of an organisation strongly influenced by the viewpoint of the 'generalised artist' will naturally lie with the artist. The interests of the public will tend to be understood insofar as they relate to those of the artist. Indeed the interests of the public as they relate to the arts may be taken to be identical with those of the artist. What is good for the artist is good for the public. Unfortunately, when the financial pool from which both drink is as shallow as it is now, what is good for the public - as argued by community artists and others - may not be good for the artist. And here lies an immediate source of friction. A second and related source of difficulty revolves around the distinction already made between the execution and the implementation of artworks. The recognition of the artist's need for a properly receptive public has been a major stimulus in the development of Arts Councils' interest in improving 'access' to the arts. Attention was paid to the public because the needs of artists required it. Arguably this has been a more potent influence than the other argument influencing thinking on the need for greater access which has to do with the 'rights' of the great majority of the tax-paying public to be enabled to enjoy participating in artistic and aesthetic practices. Whatever their relative balance of influence both arguments are now standardly used to justify greater access to the arts. This diversification of thinking and extension of the horizons of arts policy-making demands a more detailed examination of such notions as 'artist', 'standards', and 'benefits' of art. What is it to £»e an artist? The conventional definition would be somebody who practises one of the fine arts. But the idea of the 'fine arts' as distinct from the liberal arts or from skilled artisanship is a nineteenth century one, as is the abstract notion of 'Art'. Their association with ideas of the 'creative' and 'imaginative' is of similar pedigree, as Raymond Williams reminds us. Art was closely related to skilled making and was contrasted with nature which allows beautiful things to be found rather than made. The distinctions between such skills and their uses are related, according to Williams,' 'to the changes inherent in capitalist commodity production, with its specialization and reduction of use values to exchange values" (Williams, 1981, p. 34). The difficulties posed to the arts by such notions of commodity and exchange led - as a defense, in Williams opinion - to the further distinction between the fine arts and the useful arts. But close scrutiny of the practical meaning of these distinctions dissolves the boundaries. Even when they can honestly claim that their intentions are 'artistic' most artists are, according to Williams, effectively dealt with as' 'skilled workers producing a certain kind of marginal commodity". That this is the case is borne out by even a cursory examination of the day to day work of an Arts Council seeking the best possible deals for those whom it has come to see as its primary responsibility, artists: subsidies, royalties, taxation problems, promotion, marketing, display and new product development would, to use the language of commerce, describe much of that work. The evolution of artistic practice in the twentieth century has further chipped away the security of our inherited nineteenth century distinctions. Hardly any assumption of these and earlier aesthetic theories and practices has remained unchallenged, not to say actively defiled by the twentieth century. A few examples from the visual arts will suffice. Dada, in Hans Arp's words,' 'fell upon the fine arts", in an effort to free itself from the past with its ideas of skill, harmony and beauty. Another distinction to go was that between the made and the found. In 1914 Marcel Duchamp exhibited his readymade urinal which he called Fountain and ironically 'signed' as R. Mutt. This is now solemnly regarded as a most significant artwork and to an eye shaped by nineteenth century aesthetic ideas has had many even more outrageous successors. By playing with the rules of the art game - placing embarrassing objects in artistic contexts, for example, thereby making them function as artworks - these and many other artists have changed the rules of that game. Actual practice forces change in thinking and theorising about such practice. Aesthetic theory, as a rule, is the camp-follower of artistic practice.

The truth is that fully committed artists are different from people whose work lies in other fields not so much for what they are as for what they do.

The 'special people' status claimed for and by artists in virtue of "their sensitivities and innate or acquired powers of expression" and their being subject to "a categorical imperative which has to be obeyed for the most part not knowing why or even how", is a further objection to the belief that ordinary people should also be encouraged to become skilled makers in the arts. It is fairly safe to say that most people engaging in non-routine work of any kind which is open- ended as regards its proper conclusion do so without necessarily being able to say in detail how or why they do it. How many people could even explain how it is that they walk? Most people who respond to the human call to understand could also describe it as a type of involuntary impulsion. And many scientists have also been consumed by their work, some literally. The truth is that fully committed artists are different from people whose work lies in other fields not so much for what they are as for what they do. People become much of what they are because of what they do. Artists as a socially identifiable group differ enormously from each other on all the significant dimensions of human being. What unites them is not that they are the living germ-cells of some 'divine daimon' with unique prophetic or mystical gifts. They are united by what they do, their mastery of the means to do it, and their membership of a class of workers who have been an identifiable group since the Middle Ages. There is a much stronger case for saying that there is a difference of degree rather than of kind between artists and non-artists. There is, to rephrase that assertion, a continuity between art and everyday life. The apparent discontinuity has its roots in certain of our inherited ways of thinking about 'Art'. These in turn influence the ways in which we reflect upon our artistic or aesthetic experience. The discontinuity, is also shaped by the ways in which cultural institutions set about their formation of our experience of artworks. There are parallels between sportsworlds and artworlds which illuminate some of the issues concerning the nature of artists' specialness and the extent of overlap or continuity of their sensibilities and skills with those of non-artists. The degrees of being-an-artist are analogous in many respects to those of being-an-athlete. The difference between the highest quality activity in each and the lowest is manifestly obvious; but the excellent merges into the very good as the mediocre merges into the bad. That is most clearly seen if what you are evaluating is the quality of a particular type of activity. But standards of measurement and evaluation must, as Aristotle reminded us, be appropriate to that which is being measured. And in the arts, as in sport, the contentious question of standards can only be clarified when we are clear about the nature and purposes of that which we are evaluating. By the standards of national hurling, a local match between two parishes may not be very good. But to look at it like this may be to confuse what each is doing. While there may be all sorts of similarities between them the local match may be highly successful as a form of relaxation and recreation for the players and that may have been its primary function; whereas the function of an All-Ireland is quite different. We can judge the standards of an activity's function in terms of whether it was successful or unsuccessful, just as we can evaluate its type in terms of whether it was good or bad. Perhaps we should judge artistic activities in educational or community settings as

Barzun has written that "The dogma that daily life is trivial, coupled with a denunciation of those who do not agree, has been repeated innumerable times by artists and their advocates, not with regret but with scorn." having been successful or not, by referring to their avowed function, rather than merely evaluating them as being good or bad as types of art. This analogy between artists and athletes (it is not an analogy between art and sport) helps illustrate the notion of continuity, as well as the different emphases involved in evaluating quality of function as against quality of type. These two ideas are important in analysing the relations between art, community and education. The scale of access and participation achieved in sport is one to which Arts Councils aspire, but the persona which 'Art' has created for itself is a major obstacle. Many contemporary artists energetically disown this view yet, as Jacques Barzun reminds us, even the newest art "owes the public attention it receives to the old dogma of Art, One and Indispensable" (Barzun, 1974, p. 12). In which case we may ask in whose image has Art created itself?

Does Art Redeem Ordinary Life, or Should Ordinary Life Redeem Art? The implicit contempt for ordinary lives in the utterances of many bishop -artists of the Church of Art has not gone unnoticed. Barzun has written that "The dogma that daily life is trivial, coupled with a denunciation of those who do not agree, has been repeated innumerable times by artists and their advocates, not with regret but with scorn." (p. 37). He lets Ernest Hemingway exemplify the arrogance and factual ineptitude of the claims of self-glorifying High Art: "A country, finally, erodes and the dust blows away, the p eople die and none of them were of any importance permanently, except those who practiced the arts... A thousand years makes economics silly and a work of art endures forever." (p. 18). Fragments of art certainly remain, but more often than not because they have the durability of physical objects. But many other cultural achievements also endure over millenia - achievements of social organisation, law, science and engineering, for instance. So also do structures of thought and feeling, values and interests, shaped and passed on by the millions of anonymous dead. Little things like this escaped the broad reach of Hemingway's attention. Yet even with someone as sympathetic to democratic participation as Sir Roy Shaw we find similar beliefs operating. In his Arts and the People (1987) he calls approvingly upon Sir Kenneth dark to make this point: "The poet and the artist are important precisely because they are not average men: because in sensibility, intelligence and power of invention they far exceed the average". What is wrong with this is obviously not that it is often true: it is wrong because it is often not true. There are very good artists and poets and very bad ones: some work very intelligently and some do not: some are highly inventive and some utterly derivative. The same qualities attributed by dark, and approved of by Shaw, could be granted to many other types of person and worker. Generalizations like Kenneth Clarke's are actively harmful. Too often and too readily does this type of thinking capitulate to the language of mysterious exceptionality. Our reason for referring to this again is that Roy Shaw used this assertion in that part of his discussion on democracy and excellence which recalled his experience, as Secretary- General of the Arts Council of Great Britain, with the issue of community arts. In this climate, arguments for vulnerable extraordinariness, especially when its representatives are relatively few in number, may seem to carry more weight than those for vulnerable ordinariness. And if the further case can be made, Hemingway-style, that the extraordinary few redeem the ordinary many, then the grip on the little purse tightens still further.

The poet Roy Fuller had resigned from the Arts Council because he felt that support for community arts was a waste of money. While he disagreed with some of Fuller's detailed judgments, Shaw writes that he could not quarrel with his general principle that "Public money for the arts cannot properly be dispensed without a strong regard by the dispensing body for standards of excellence and principles of value". That goes without saying: but the implication that community oriented arts activity is excluded by this principle should not go without comment. If 'community arts' representatives did in fact call upon Roy Shaw to consider their case without reference to issues of quality then he was quite right to consider that case coldly. If they insisted upon replacing 'conventional aesthetic standards' with 'audience response' as the main criterion, again he was quite right to reject it. It is when we come to Shaw's next difficulty with this lobby that we hear the recurrent leitmotif of difficulty between the intellectual traditions shaping the thinking of many artist policy-makers and the emergent tradition which shapes the more populist tendencies. This is his dismissal of the alleged "egalitarian rejection of any qualitative distinction between the artist of genius and the well-meaning amateur." But with this characterisation Sir Roy Shaw has entered the field of caricaturisation. He seems to realise this within the space of a few lines when he invokes common sense to present his belief that some people are more gifted than others. This much toned down assertion is of course true. Again the difficulty lies not with the reality of differences, great or small, between artists and the rest; it lies with the assertion of the reality of discrete, discontinuous types. If we must use the language of mystery in talking of art and artists then let us address the real mysteries, and not the relics of another age. There is not, nor should there be, any conflict of interest between supports designed to foster and encourage artists and supports which focus upon the development of the artistic and aesthetic lives of non-artists. Indeed the symbiotic relations between artists and their publics favour a mutuality of respect and support. The condition for this being true is that by 'interest' we mean artistic or aesthetic function. These diversely focussed cultural traditions do different things in different ways for different reasons, and are subject to continuous formation and transformation. A democracy can accommodate such a pluralism of activity and aim. But if by 'interest' we mean an immediate economic interest then there is, as we observed above, a definite conflict of interest. As things stand now the sometimes latent, sometimes overt, friction between the traditions is reminiscent of a hungry family trying to share out an inadequate supply of food. Their context is a central source of their conflicts. These internecine suspicions and snipings owe much of their vitality to the correct perception that the more spent on the one the less available to spend on the other. In this climate, arguments for vulnerable extraordinariness, especially when its representatives are relatively few in number, may seem to carry more weight than those for vulnerable ordinariness. And if the further case can be made, Hemingway-style, that the extraordinary few redeem the ordinary many, then the grip on the little purse tightens still further. If we must weigh the value of each approach in the distorting scales of public subsidy for the arts - thereby accepting a conflict when there should be none - what is to be said for the

For some people ordinary life is as extensive as an encyclopaedia; for others it is as thin as a social welfare booklet. Some deaths can be commemorated with the likes of a Mozart Requiem, others with a simple rhyming verse in the In Memoriam columns of the Evening Herald. Some loves are celebrated by odes to one's coy mistress; others by the proxy verses and images of a Valentine card.

But access must also involve facilitating the experience of making artworks by other than fully committed artists, and for publics other than those with a specialist interest in a particular art form. ordinariness of art and its desirability? If art rather than 'Art' can be an harmonious part of ordinary everyday lives will it have been a good thing for Extraordinary Art to have been transformed into ordinary art? Art, The Ordinary and 'Access'. For some people ordinary life is as extensive as an encyclopaedia; for others it is as thin as a social welfare booklet. Some deaths can be commemorated with the likes of a Mozart Requiem, others with a simple rhyming verse in the In Memoriam columns of the Evening Herald. Some loves are celebrated by odes to one's coy mistress; others by the proxy verses and images of a Valentine card. Art is a way of living, a means of power. It is this in at least two senses: one involves the exercise and demonstration of power in an unambiguously public way (a Lovett Pearce and Gandon Parliament House/Bank of Ireland, for example, or a Sam Stephenson Central Bank): the other involves the possession of that power by individuals and groups to quite literally manufacture elements of their own lives. It is this latter understanding of art as a means of private and public power that most helpfully develops our understanding of what a genuine access policy for the arts might mean, especially as it relates art and community. A key question concerning any means of power is who controls or possesses it. Some people can neither read nor write. Clearly they are in a less powerful position than literate people who are not allowed to freely choose what to read or write. In an open democracy the aspiration is towards both freedoms for as many citizens as can avail of them. Such freedoms are cornerstones of an open democracy's theory of what it is and is to be. But merely allowing the public to juxtapose themselves with an artwork, by letting them in to see pictures in a gallery for instance, is not genuine access. Granting someone this kind of access may amount to little more than allowing them to look at. Genuine access would work towards enabling them to see it. Works of art are executed according to conventions, however ambiguous and indeterminate. To understand how and when they function aesthetically requires a subtle education and development. To appropriately experience the aesthetic requires more. This more complete concept of access includes all that is involved in the idea of implementing an artwork as discussed above. Elements of education, the design of display, the organisation of context, documentation and the processes of publication generally are involved in this. But access must also involve facilitating the experience of making artworks by other than fully committed artists, and for publics other than those with a specialist interest in a particular art form. Even Clive Bell argued this in 1913: "In no age can there be more than a few first-rate artists, but in any there might be millions of genuine ones" (p. 185). The ceiling placed upon the number of fulltime professional artists which a society can sustain is constrained by the size and economic level of development of that society. Quality of artwork, like any other specialised and demanding labour, is closely related to the time spent at it, as well as to discipline, skill and ability. Obviously, it should be a central aim of a national arts policy to support such artists in every possible way.

But the personal and social benefits which follow from enabling a much larger number of interested individuals and groups to participate in the means for creating their own artistic and aesthetic experiences, perhaps for their own local public, should be a complementary aim of a national arts policy.

But the personal and social benefits which follow from enabling a much larger number of interested individuals and groups to participate in the means for creating their own artistic and aesthetic experiences, perhaps for their own local public, should be a complementary aim of a national arts policy. Certainly the primary functions of the Arts Council under the 1951 Arts Act invite such policies. This is precisely what that newly organising tendency in Irish cultural life grouped under the 'community arts' banner is requesting. It is also part of what good arts education should be about. Some Public and Private Benefits of the Arts. If the arts can be herded together, as they are in this plural noun, can we say what it is that distinguishes their particular power from that of other cultural institutions such as, for example, the sciences or sport? And if we can, is it also possible to say what benefits accrue to individuals and societies from a widespread ability to exercise this power, albeit to widely varying degrees or standards, and for different functions? It is on such grounds that the case for including this dimension of Irish cultural life rests. Even a partial answer to these questions is beyond the scope of an essay of pamphlet length. It would require a general theory of social, personal and societal development. But centralised arts policy-makers should have at least skeletal answers to them if access in its fuller sense is one of their central policies. The most we can do here is to suggest some headings for a constructive answer. Art makes and shapes experiences which are unique to itself. Sometimes these are lastingly memorable, more often they are not. Lovers of art do not live, to borrow a phrase from Barzun, "in a continuous orgasm of aesthetic perception". It is not continuous because most art is not of a quality which would favour it nor are we always open to such peaks of experience even when in the presence of work of that quality. When the happy conjunction occurs, which is relatively rarely even for the adept, the co-created experience is amongst the finest that human life knows. It was upon these relatively rare peaks of experience of the initiated that the detached edifice of High Aesthetic Experience was erected, like one of King Ludwig's extravagant Bavarian castles. But most experience of art is more akin to a terraced house, often passing unnoticed within the experience of an ordinary day. Arts policy must not allow the image of Art to obscure the workings of art. As we implied in the' beginning, the means of art are perceptible materials (paint, cat-gut and wood, human bodies and inanimate stone, celluloid and light, etc.) which are made to function meaningfully in conventional ways, but ways always open to change. They make meanings, create ways of understanding, form memories, and bind people together through modes of communication which are uniquely their own. Lives which have the power to actively participate in this, whether at the level of production or re-creation through reception, are unquestionably richer lives than those which cannot. Lives lived in possession of these powers would at the public level, for example, be more likely to understand how man-made environments, good and bad, create parallel qualities of experience for their inhabitants, and to demand the best possible standards of design and planning; to play

with the possibilities of house decoration, garden design or personal appearance; to make themselves heard in demands for high standards in the products of broadcasting and recording industries, of theatres and concert halls. At a more private level there would be a general understanding that meanings in life must be made as well as found; that self-knowledge is all the greater if you have command of the symbolic means with which to make that knowledge, and that the sharing of experience of all sorts, which is something that lies at the core of being human in everyday life, would be thin to the point of disappearance without metaphors and music, images and enactments. These are general sorts of reasons which distinguish the social functions of the arts from those of other cultural institutions. These are also the sorts of benefits which would accrue publicly and privately were the powers involved in possessing the means of art more generally and skilfully available in society. Whether the exercise of these powers is always to the good of the person or community is an issue beyond our present scope. But the need for them to be skilfully and intelligently deployed is not.

Spending Time, Making Living: The Question of Art, Leisure and Unemployment. Time is a material in the manufacture of lives. It is also a force in the decay of lives. From one point of view it could be said that the struggle to control the expenditure of time is one of the central struggles of human history. Like other commodities time is owned. "My time is not my own" is a ubiquitous saying of those caring for young children. A traditionally felt division in the sense of 'having' time has been between the time an employer possesses by virtue of paying an employee for it, and the rest of the worker's time which he calls his 'free' time. Free because it is up to him how he chooses to 'spend' it. When, to follow the metaphor, one spends something one is exchanging one thing for another, and expecting some return of comparable value. Spending time on something is usually linked to the quality of the resulting experience. The quality of much 'free' time, especially for those whose paid work is unsatisfying, derives in the initial phases from a process of contrast with the unsatisfying quality of the time they sell. But after a while it is a common experience that time 'hangs heavily on your hands' unless there is something else you wish to spend it on. What we call boredom, frustration, irritation or being 'fed up' are all qualities of the experience associated with this. We are overfed on the monotonous surfeit of our 'own' time. In fact the intuition that we are in its grip and possessed by it rather than it being ours is the correct one. The free quality has ineluctably turned into bondage. This is the more common experience of unemployment. It is also a frequent experience of the retired. Leisure merges into lethargy. This is the problem for which the arts are often proposed as a form of social therapy. A glib association of art and leisure, especially when the idea of leisure is extended to include the unfree time of the unemployed, will inevitably lead to an emasculated understanding and experience of the arts. For most people experience with art can be no substitute for paid, socially valued work. That is because for most people the functions of art are different to those of paid

employment, and therefore cannot substitute for them. Anthony Cronin is quite correct when he says that "to pre- suppose a society in which all questions of work satisfaction, seeing the end-product-of-one's-labours satisfaction were to be loaded on to art is to presuppose a monstrosity. But an equal monstrosity, and one with which we arc all too familiar, is a society in which most people have no experience of the ordering, annealling, compassionating and re- vivifying power of art at all" (pp. 13-14). The question is one of how most people are to have that experience. One view, the traditional one, is that they should do so as recipients of the work of others who are fully-Hedged artists. The other is that of the cultural democratic tendency which argues that they should be enabled to have the experience of production for purposes appropriate to themselves, as well as the aesthetic experiences of reception. All genuine experiences of art, whether the artistic ones of production or the aesthetic ones of reception, involve work of a skilled, personally demanding sort. At its best, community-oriented arts practice aims to create those conditions where ordinary people can spend time working with various art forms so that they can make the sort of difference to their own lives which only the arts allow. It is upon issues such as these that an evaluation of the success or failure of such practices depends. It should be no surprise that community arts as a cultural tendency is so associated with the poor, the unemployed, the marginal. These are the ones for whom the formal education system has been an unhappy experience of failure and irrelevance: these are the ones whose everyday lives are aesthetically threadbare: these are the ones whose time has the exchange value of dole money: these are the ones with such little power to make living or 'a living'. Conditions make their living for them, and they don't make it easy. So if community arts also seems to be preoccupied with questions of power this is only because it has come to be valued amongst the relatively powerless. The understanding of the powers of art amongst educators, artists who have worked in schools and local communities, ordinary people in urban flat complexes and in communities throughout Ireland, and the public comprised of young people (in their out-of-school incarnations) who are so vital to Ireland's vibrant popular culture, is higher and more sophisticated now than it has ever been before. With this understanding has also come a realisation of the needs that must be met if the many promising but vulnerable buds are to flower. Foremost amongst these are the need to improve standards through more and better training at all levels; to develop the infrastructure of arts centres on a national scale and to support them properly; to develop more organically related arts policies so that all the organisations, public and private, which have an interest in aspects of this work can collaborate to the best possible effect; to develop more sophisticated ways of evaluation; and to encourage critical self- evaluation and debate. These are issues to which the ACE report will return.

A Last Word. This essay has moved back and forth between the private and the public. Its justification for doing so is that experience is both private and public, and that artistic and aesthetic experience are especially so. It has argued that our ways of thinking about the relations of art and society, and the vantage point from which we do so, shape the types of problem we will encounter and solution we may propose. The essay has explored some possible ways of thinking about cultural institutions as instruments deliberately crafted for the creation of experiences and asks how we might understand this. It suggests as useful a distinction between policies aimed at making artworks, and policies aimed at making artworks work. It attacks the idea that there is some identifiable essence to art, as static and historically questionable. Instead it suggests that a more dynamic and helpful way of thinking about art is to ask what it does, how it functions, and how it is always developing because human ways of living are continually changing. From this perspective it argues that policy-makers should attend to the type and quality of functions of art as well as to the quality of particular types of art form. This would then open up ways of thinking which could allow for a more detailed and appreciative understanding of what it is that many skilled community artists and arts educators are trying to do. It would also give some directions for ways in which the qualities of this work and its standards could be monitored. Following a brief account of the development of the idea of 'community arts' we then try to identify some of the reasons why orthodox arts policy perspectives might have difficulty in accommodating this particular tendency's requests for help. Specifically we speculate that the perspective of the 'generalized artist' might tacitly be dominant, that particular conceptions of art and artist might be taken for granted, and that an active belief in art as extraordinary and additional to ordinary life might be implicitly accepted. The argument presented here is that our concept of ordinary lived lives must be expanded so that the public and private benefits of art, which are briefly described, can become a part of everyday life and not a refuge from it. There is a public point of view on the arts which is not coincidental with that of artists, and which must also be taken into account in national arts policy-making. Ordinary lives must contain the 'extraordinariness' of art, and not be rendered even more grey by contrast with it. The relation between art and ordinary lives should be placed centre stage so that we might better understand why the apparent divorce of the two came about and better understand the exciting possibilities of a reconciliation. Already much of the work being done is of a quality to justify the call for ordinary life to reclaim as much of art for itself as it appropriately can. As familiarity with such work - and already it is very diverse - grows in time, the skeleton of the abstract arguments presented here will pulse with specific examples. In the middle ages art had not yet become an autonomous social institution and was, as Johan Huizinga put it, "still wrapped up in life". Actual cultural critics like Jacques Barzun have ventured to prophesise that art will return to the medieval communal pattern. If we had to find one example from the ACE project to support this it would be Macnas and their transformation of the quality of the festivals to which they contributed. Medieval life was greatly brightened by festivals. These "forms of collective cheerfulness", as Huizinga called them, offer a good example of the reincarnation of art on the street, to take one kind of place where this can happen. Naturally, this kind of 'return' must not be understood as a sort of historical regression. Instead it should be a natural part of ordinary living in late twentieth century Ireland. The most encouraging thing about community-oriented and community-situated arts activity in Ireland is that it is led by demand. There is no centralised programme dictating what should happen and when, no dogmatic idea of what 'community arts' is or should be. Many diverse activities such as festivals and classes, arts centres and canal renovations, community theatre workshops and local publishing ventures, heritage parks and video projects, skills exchange workshops and artists residencies, are calling out for encouragement and support. Thinkers on matters cultural may be struggling to make sense of them, but what they need is for flexible policy-makers to make more and better room for them.

REFERENCES

Another Standard. (1986). Culture and Democracy: The Manifesto. London: Comedia Publishing Company.

Barzun,J. (1974). The Use and Abuse of Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bell, C. (1913,1958). Art. New York: Capricorn Books.

Braden, S. (1978). Artists and People. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Cronin,A. (1988). Art for the People. Dublin: Raven Arts Press.

Dewey, J. (1934,1958). Art as Experience. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Eisner, E. (1982). Cognition and Curriculum: A Basis for Deciding What to Teach. London: Longman.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Goodman,N. (Spring, 1982). Implementation of the arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XL, 3,281-283.

Government Publications. (1951). Arts Act, 1951. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Government Publications. (1973). Arts Act, 1973. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Government Publications. (1987). Access and Opportunity: A White Paper on Cultural Policy. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Huizinga.J. (1924,1972). The Waning of the Middle Ages. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Kelly, 0. (1984). Community, Art and the State: Storming the Citadels. London: Comedia Publishing Company.

O'Hagan,J. and DufTy,C (1987). The Performing Arts and the Public Purse: An Economic Analysis. Dublin: The Arts Council. Shaw, R. (1987). Arts and the People. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd.

Williams, R. (1981). Keywords:A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana/Croom Helm. SECTION TWO ACE IN CONTEXT

Introduction ACE is an acronym for Arts Community Education. The relationship between those three words and the ideas and activities they refer to is intentionally ambiguous. In many ways the job of the ACE committee was to explore that relationship and, in the midst of uncertainties, to propose co-ordinates by which ACE's parents, the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation, might chart a course for the future. This present report is both a log-book of ACE's journey (1985-1989) and a map for the future. ACE was a project, a funding body, a forum for research and debate and it was a committee. The last was established by the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation jointly as an independent committee. To it the Gulbenkian Foundation devolved its funding functions in the arts within the Republic of Ireland for a period of three years initially, and later extended by a further year. Technically it was a sub-committee of the Arts Council, and all ACE decisions had the status of recommendations for Council ratification. Never once was the spirit of independence breached by the Council which also responded to the experimental nature of the project by nominating two of its executives and no Council member to serve on the AGE committee. The ACE committee emerged from an earlier consultative process whereby the Arts Council invited a range of people with relevant expertise to a forum at which the idea of such a project was introduced and debated. Certain principles were articulated at that meeting which affected later thinking about the nature of the project and which influenced the choice of those invited to serve on the ACE committee. Chief of those principles was that of ensuring that ACE explore and support innovative work rather than acting simply as a second grant-giving body for community arts and the arts and education. The first task of the ACE committee was to debate its broad terms of reference and to represent itself in an inviting and challenging way to the worlds of education and community arts practice. In September 1985 ACE was launched officially and an explanatory brochure was published. It seems appropriate to reproduce that brochure now as it captures the intellectual undercurrents and the procedural practices of ACE, at least as these were anticipated and intended at the beginning of the project. Their re-publication, four years later, will serve the purpose of documentation which motivates in part the present report as well as allowing some evaluation of the project's outcomes against its initial stated intentions.

As is clear from the brochure ACE did not invite full applications initially. Instead, project proponents were encouraged to submit a "Declaration of Intent" outlining the nature and purpose of their proposal. One of the reasons for this approach was AGE'S recognition of how time-consuming the process of designing, writing and submitting a full application is, particularly for those groups without any professional staffer developed administrative infrastructure. A parallel reason was that it allowed ACE intervene helpfully to discourage the full development of applications which were obviously not going to be successful and, more significantly, it permitted the beginning of the interactive relationship between ACE and those applying which characterised the ACE project and distinguished it from the conventional arm's length relationship between client and funder that is the norm in such situations. Additionally and crucially, ACE introduced the practice of giving seed money to a number of groups to allow them develop their idea from the "Declaration of Intent" stage to a full appliction, and in some cases ACE personnel offered detailed advice and guidance during the transition from idea to full proposal. This interactive relationship and some strategic funding practices are described more fully in Section Three of this report which deals with the projects funded by ACE. Some 150 declarations or applications were received by ACE, 104 in the initial application period and the remainder over the following months, and even years. The key criteria in evaluating all proposals were the exemplary nature of a project and the possibility of its replication in other contexts. Many proposals ruled themselves out because they perceived ACE as simply another funding agency and ACE was particularly anxious to adhere to the principle that it was not established to plug holes in Arts Council or Department of Education funding policies, but rather to break new ground by supporting work which, of its nature and/or in its context, was innovative and unlikely to secure financial assistance from existing sources. Complementary criteria included an awareness of geographical location, though this proved extremely difficult to implement, and a desire to see different art forms represented, the problem in this case being the poverty of ideas in music and in literature. In the end three of the projects were in the area of visual arts, interpreted very broadly; one was in theatre; one in literature; and one was concerned with information in community arts, unrelated to a particular discipline. Four of the projects were based in Dublin but, in the case of three, that disguises the national spread of their intentions. CAFE is a 32-county organisation; City Vision's work, though Dublin-based, related to the national and indeed international community of pre-school; and The Poetry Project, it is hoped, will grow to have national impact. The other three projects had a specific and intended geographical focus in Dublin, Cork and Galway/West of Ireland. In the four years of its existence the ACE committee met 36 times, mostly for day -long meetings. In addition there were about 130 formal meetings between ACE and project proponents and countless smaller meetings on particular topics. In addition at least one ACE member, and often two, attended all management committee meetings of the individual projects funded by ACE. Their status was that of member and not, as is the case of Arts Council executives attending board

meetings of client organisations, that of observer. This was a further example of the interactive nature of ACE's relationship with its projects. The sum total of all this work placed an intolerable burden on the ACE committee and it is this experience which informs the recommendation that the new structures put in place after ACE be served by full- time and high-level executives. ACE is conscious of its many short -comings, of the many aspirations it had which failed or which were never tried. A particular wish had been to commission a series of pamphlets which would explore issues like "The Arts and the Future of Work", "The Arts and The Environment" and others germane to ACE's area of interest. A budget was allocated to commission and publish such work but three of those invited by ACE to write such work declined or prevaricated and this hesitation seemed to crystallise an uncertainty that ACE itself had felt. It wasn't clear whether there was an audience "out there" whom one could address meaningfully and it was also the case that ACE was happening at a time when whatever audience might have existed was being decimated by public service cut-backs in health, education, arts and environment. There may have been a residual guilt about publishing pamphlets in such a context, as if to do so was like spending money on books about starvation instead of on food for those who were dying of hunger. ACE did lay stress upon documentation and evaluation however and, for the most part, the projects conducted themselves well in this regard. However there is a notable difference in the quality of such documentation and evaluation as between those operating in the worlds of education and community. The latter displays a resistance, born of lack of tradition, to this process and ACE considers this to be regrettably short -sighted and ultimately a hindrance to the long-term development of this sector. ACE was an experiment. Not alone did it seek to fund innovative work but also it sought to conduct its funding and management relationships in an innovative and flexible manner which took account of the dynamics of the people and groups with which it engaged. ACE is pleased with its successes and only a little embarrassed by its failures or shortcomings. From both, particularly as we have sought to reflect upon them in this report, we believe that there is a great deal to learn. The Wider Context ACE marks neither a beginning nor an end in policies and practices of community arts and the arts and education. Both sectors have a tradition, a lively group of activists and supporters, and a presence in the queue of arts funding. In many ways though, ACE was intended to provide clarification for its parent bodies. For Gulbenkian the clarification was one of strategy rather than policy: how could the Foundation maximise the impact of its limited funds in a country where it had no executives and no local knowledge. For the Arts Council the clarification required was of a different order, having to do with establishing an attitude to a sector that was clearly burgeoning but which did not present itself in the conventional discipline-based models of arts practice familiar to the Arts Council and for which Council procedures had been designed. In particular the area of community arts was deeply problematic for the Arts Council because the issues it raised were fundamental ones concerning the nature and purpose of art, sharpened by an awareness that the Council's resources were public money and therefore carrying certain social

obligations with them. It is also the case that community arts is to an extent a social and political movement, albeit that that term suggests a coherence which is spurious, and that the Arts Council is perceived as part of "the Establishment", bent upon supporting conventional arts practice in galleries, theatres and concert halls. This then was the context obtaining when the Gulbenkian Foundation, as a way of resolving its policy dilemmas vis-a-vis the Republic of Ireland, initiated contact with the Arts Council here. The mutual interests of both bodies were served by establishing the ACE project and its steering committee. In many ways ACE is well placed to try and make sense of the problematic areas of the arts which fall within the scope of its concern, by virtue of its status as an independent committee comprised of representatives of both the Arts Council and the constituencies of community and education. There is little doubt that there is an, at times barely- disguised, resentment between the world of community arts and the world represented by the Arts Council. It is possible to characterise that resentment as follows: one party resents the other because of its monochromatic vision of what constitutes art and its virtual monopoly of public monies for the arts; the second resents the first because of its monopolisation of the word "community", when it believes that much of what it supports is for the good of the community in ways tíiat are obvious and in ways that are hidden. There is no denying that since the 1970s the Arts Council has striven to develop and implement policies which are concerned with making the arts accessible to sections of Irish society which were previously culturally disenfranchised. To consider the art-form of music is instructive. For decades Music in the Arts Council meant only Western high-art music. It was in 1980 that die Council employed a Traditional Music Officer and established a policy and a funded programme dedicated to developing the practice and appreciation of traditional music, recognising the range of diverse styles and idioms that go to make up that tradition. In 1977 the Arts Council made its first grant in the area of jazz and, more remarkably still, it embraced the area of Popular Music when it appointed an officer in that area in 1988, albeit that his salary is paid by the Popular Music Industry Association. This extension of definition within one art form is paralleled by similar expansion in the areas of arts buildings throughout the country, of touring in art, music and theatre and of public art, all begun in the 1970s and, with quickening pulse, continued through the last decade. It should be remembered that these developments did not occur easily and were often obstructed and delayed by "high arts" prejudice, by civil service resistance to expansionist policies, or by local objections to manifestations of contemporary cultural practice. Throughout the 1980s the touchstone of Arts Council policy-making was the word "access". What is revealing is that in the mid 1980s, and recorded in the 1987 Annual Report of the Arts Council, the language became more sophisticated and reference was made to "horizontal access" and to "vertical access". The former referred to a geographic expansion to reach those who were pre-disposed to the arts but for whom access was difficult or occasional. The latter referred to

"access downwards" to reach those, who by their socio-economic and educational circumstances, had scarcely encountered the arts at all and among whom a pre-disposition could not be assumed. Horizontal access was to be achieved through the network of arts centres, the various touring programmes, the expanding regional policy in partnership with Local Authorities and the developing public art programmes. Vertical access referred largely to policies and programmes in community arts and education. Of course this is a set of attitudes and linguistic conventions fraught with a myriad of deeply problematic assumptions about culture and society. Many of these have been explored in Section One of this report. What may be useful now is to try and understand how those problematic assumptions give rise to the resentments described earlier. Certainly, without such understanding, there is a danger that policy-making in contemporary culture (for that is what the Arts Council conducts) will continue, assured of its own community consciousness, while unknowingly alienating large sections of society. It may be, of course, that the understandings and practices of contemporary culture are so diverse at the end of the twentieth century as to call into question the possibility of an Arts Council, as constituted, staffed and funded at present, being able to address all its responsibilities in any meaningful way. However, that is the secondary issue of how to engage with the cultural problem. The primary issue must be the identification and definition of that problem. The kernel of the problem is the term "access", so central to Arts Council policy and practice. It is offered in many official statements, newsletters and Annual Reports as an end or as an answer. It is part of Arts Council jargon to talk about ''delivery systems'' which can ''access'' the'' product'' to the audience. The ACE project has seen its job as reconstituting the answer of access into a series of questions such as "access to what?", "access for whom?", "access granted by whom?". In short access, as an end, is still a concept belonging to a version of cultural practice defined from a position of possessing the centre and of certainty about the nature of art. Indeed so deep are those certainties that the "possessed" can be generous enough to lend out the keys to the tabernacle where art resides or indeed to provide funds for the tabernacle to be taken on tour from the centre to the margins. This may seem like an unjust, and even spiteful, caricature and it may seem to ignore certain Arts Council protestations that it has no wish to be prescriptive in a paternalistic manner but it is drawn deliberately to focus attention upon the extent of the sense of cultural disenfranchisement which many individuals and communities experience in Ireland, notwithstanding the honest efforts of the Arts Council to create "access". There is doubtless a major gap between some key Arts Council documents and its policies. Either this gap results from deliberate institutional double-think or it is that the policies of the Arts Council have failed to engage with the enormous implications of the statements made in the documents. In its submission to the 1987 White Paper on arts and culture, the Council stated its commitment to policies "which on the one hand aim at increasing and educating audiences whom the growing body of new artists can address, and which on the other hand seek to encourage participation in creative activity of people of all ages, from all levels of society, in the cities and in

rural areas". The document is a sophisticated one, deserving of intelligent readership but by the same token inviting equally intelligent exegesis, one part of which is a comparative study relating the contents of the submission to actual policies and programmes of the Arts Council. As mentioned above the Arts Council went to pains to emphasise that it did not see itself "as a paternalistic foundation, repository of all artistic wisdom, embarking on a crusade to bring culture to a benighted country... People have the right to define themselves and their society by means of their own creative powers. The community arts movement is a recognition of this right, and the success of the movement, despite the fact that it is a relatively new and innovative phenomenon, is a demonstration that creativity exists in abundance at all levels of society, and that this creativity can find an outlet in active participation in the arts". The title and content of the White Paper Access and Opportunity demonstrated how influential the Council's submission had been and how current its ideas were. However it must be noted carefully that the next significant Arts Council document may show a shift in thinking of keen relevance to the gap between policy and practice. While Access and Opportunity amplified the tone and spirit of the Arts Council's submission, it promised support only "within the context of a five-year plan". Ever dutiful the Arts Council presented such a plan The Artist and The Public to Government within six months. The plan made reference to "the two complementary traditions of the arts" and described the first tradition in terms of "providing the resources whereby the artists' s work can be experienced by the public. This includes the provision of venues... performance companies... and other programmes dedicated to bringing the creative work of artists t o the public.". The second tradition is defined as arising "from the evolving role of the artist which now includes an engagement in a framework that is more participative" and "which acknowledges the creative resources of his or her community". This would appear to be a significantly more circumscribed understanding of participation than that offered in the earlier submission to the White Paper. In effect it is acknowledging that certain artists engage in work which is not in the older tradition of private making in a studio but in more public contexts and involving interaction with particular communities. For all its generosity the key mediator is "the artist" and this seems to be a deliberate holding back from admitting communities or members of communities as the key mediators of their own artistic experiences. It is interesting to observe how this more circumscribed and conservative reading of the participation practices can dominate the discourse. In June 1989, when opening the City Centre Arts Centre, the Taoiseach Mr. Charles J. Haughey T.D. referred to "two kinds of art": "high art and that art which is the product of people from ordinary walks of life who desire to express themselves in creative ways". While such acknowledgement is promising, it must be added that the relevant passage of the speech found its conclusion in the Taoiseach's announcement that he had asked the Arts Council "to prepare a coherent plan covering, say, three years which would develop the arts centre network throughout the country". However, bearing in mind that the Taoiseach is, effectively, Minister for the Arts, it is welcome to note his words in detail on the same occasion: "I am glad to see that the policies of the Arts Council have due regard for this second view of art and have been in part directed towards encouraging people to practice the arts for themselves and to regard them as something in which everybody can participate. Through its encouragement of art in the regions, the arts centres network, arts education and community arts it has done much to break down the barriers and broaden the access". It is clear that two traditions are acknowledged and provided for. The conventional artist - art object - spectator model, which forms the backbone of Arts Council policy and programming, is provided for. More recently the notion of artists working in non-arts contexts like schools, libraries, workplaces and public spaces has received attention and funds. The third tradition is acknowledged, though ill-defined and totally unp rovided for. It is the tradition whereby so- called "ordinary" people are individually and collectively retrieving their own creative selves and making images in art, drama, literature, video, music and dance, of their own lives. Sometimes it is done with the support of, or under the guidance of, a professional artist-animateur but at other times no professional may be involved; equally it is often distinguished from amateur activity because it is not done as an "after-work hobby" and often it is original material generated from within the community, whereas much amateur work is the re-presentation of pre-existing material. ACE recommends (see Section Four) that this third tradition of community arts be distinguished from the second of arts-in-community and that under the auspices of the Arts Council a committee be established to examine this area further, to provide much needed co-ordination and to consider the issue of training of community workers and leaders in the arts. A similar set of three traditions operates within the domain of the arts and education. However the issues of definition and of organisation are considerably clearer than is the case within community arts. To the existing distinction between arts education and arts-in-education needs to be added Youth Arts. Arts education i.e. the education of artistic and aesthetic intelligence within formal schooling, third-level education or adult education is the responsibility of education authorities. The arts-in-education i.e. the presence of artists and of arts experiences within school experience are essentially the responsibility of the Arts Council, though the continued failure of the Department of Education to fund theatre-in-education and dance-in-education companies and other such services on a shared basis with the Arts Council is deplored by ACE. The third and newest tradition is one which ACE recommends for a great deal of attention ;n the coming years. It is the issue of the arts and young people in an out-of-school context. This has received scant attention and the Arts Council submission to Government on the arts and youth policy (1985), while a worthy document, is deficient in its understanding of how the youth services work and is excessively aspirational. What is needed now is a forum analogous to that proposed for community arts whereby the Arts Council and the National Youth Council can develop policies, and subsequently programmes, in the area of the arts and young people in an out-of-school context. The funding for such programmes should be secured from the Youth Affairs section of the Department of Education. What is clear to ACE is that community arts, and to a lesser extent the arts and education, are

evolutionary practices. Accordingly their management and funding needs to be conducted in a manner sensitive to their ethos and dynamic. Above all they are practices which emphasise the principle of the continuity between the arts and everyday life, which was central to ACE from the beginning. It is this principle which requires that the trial partnership of a private Foundation with a statutory national agency, represented by ACE, be continued and expanded to include other bodies and agencies of differing sorts but with a common commitment to the power of the arts to enrich people's lives.

SECTION THREE THE PROJECTS

Introduction What follows is a summary account of the six projects with which ACE engaged and which were funded in the 1985-89 period. In addition to giving a brief account of each project - extensive reports on most of the projects have been lodged with ACE and can be consulted subject to certain conditions - it is hoped that this section will clarify the nature of each project and the reasons for each being adopted and funded by ACE within the terms of its Guiding Principles. ACE as a Project Before detailing the individual projects however, it is important to record that ACE itself was an experimental project established by the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation. The nature of the experiment was in the domain of the management and funding of arts projects which do not necessarily present themselves or operate within the terms of conventional arts practice. SUMMARY OF THEPROJECTS In all, ACE grant-aided and worked closely with six projects, three in the domain of arts education and three in the domain of community arts.

Project Host Organisation Arts Education 1. Art Education Workshop Cork Teachers' Centre 2. Look At My Hands City Vision, Dublin 3. The Poetry Project ACE Committee Community Arts 4. The Big Game Macnas, Galway 5. Information Network Project Creative Activity for Everyone 6. Environmental Project Fatima Development Group, Dublin.

The Nature of the Activity: The Nature of Funding To a certain extent, but not always to its complete satisfaction, ACE succeeded in breaking with the conventional model of funding and monitoring. Arts Councils, understandably, operate on an arms-length principle to guarantee objectivity and to permit critical evaluation. ACE, on the other hand, as anticipated in its Guiding Principles, engaged closely with the individual project proponents in the design of their final applications, in the management of the projects and in various mid-term evaluations and adjustments. Furthermore, ACE introduced a number of funding strategies which have much to recommend them to future funders and which, in their fluidity of approach, mirror the nature of the work funded rather than insisting upon inappropriate models of administration and presentation. The strategies included: (i) Feasibility Study Grants to allow project proponents bring what seemed like a good idea to the level of a well- researched application, tested against available information and local circumstances. Money was given to the Macnas, City Vision and Fatima Mansions projects on this basis and ACE commissioned further work in the area of Traveller culture and of a Children's Literature Bus. (ii) Grant Revisions were considered as a necessary flexible funding strategy to reflect the nature of the activities funded which, being process-based and highly contextualised, had often to take account of changes and developments inherent in the work or, beyond its control, in the environment within which the work was occurring. At a very practical level City Vision's realisation of the need for subtitles for their videos and at a much more profound level, the realisation of the need for a programme of workshops for parents and playgroup leaders, as part of the dissemination phase, led to increased support for that project. The entire funding basis of the Cork Teachers' Centre Arts Education Workshop had to be renegotiated and revised upwards significantly following refusal by the Department of Education of a request for the Director's position to be funded on a seconded-teacher basis. (iii) Bridging Money: ACE'S fourth Guiding Principle included the aspiration that, at the end of their funding from ACE, the individual projects should be independent of funding from ACE and should have secured funding from other sources. In almost all cases ACE offered bridging money to the projects and in a variety of ways it seems likely that this extra money has bought time for the projects or has provided them with the impetus to seek partnership funding so that at the time of writing the Macnas, City Vision, Cork Art Education Workshop and CAFE Information Network Project have a strong possibility of continued existence in their present, or in some necessarily altered, form. Indeed Macnas, which was the first ACE project to begin work and the first to conclude its project and report, has continued from strength to strength and now seems a stable fixture in the Irish arts world. These funding strategies reflect two broader issues of funding policy central to the ACE project. Firstly ACE always funded a project fully, following detailed consultation between executives of ACE and the individual projects and detailed assessment by the full ACE committee of the financial plan of each project. Once ACE was satisfied that a certain figure was required to realise the project fully, then that figure was made available. This was because the experimental nature of ACE required that the failure or relative failure of a project could not be ascribed to the perennial problem of the arts in Ireland: under-funding. The second funding policy issue which found expression in the strategies outlined above was ACE's conception of its funding as investment rather than as handout. There is little doubt that in the public consciousness there is often a perception of grant-aid in the arts as being soft hand-outs. The word "grant" has almost a pejorative connotation, partially as a result of the wider negative connotations induced by notions of grants and subsidies from the E.C. for a diverse range of aspects of Irish life. In funding, monitoring and evaluating in the manner that it did ACE was anxious to promote the notion of arts funding as legitimate investment in the cultural, social and educational fabric of a nation. ACE Project No. 1 A. PROFILE Title: Art Education Workshop. Area Explored: Support Systems in art education for practising teachers. Name of Organisation: Cork Teachers' Centre. Location: Cork City (serving City, County and Region). Length of Project: 2 years (July 1987-June 1989) followed by an additional year (1989-1990) under the aegis of Triskel Arts Centre. Grant from ACE: £36,500(1987-1989) Total:£51,500 £15,000(1989-1990) Other Income: Support from (increased) general Teachers' Centre Grant, provided by Department of Education. Very limited private sponsorship. Earned income from courses etc. (£4,500). Project After ACE: Reconstituted as Education Service of Triskel Arts Centre, Cork. Documentary Material: Final Report (illustrated).

B. Background A consistent feature of the few reports that have been published in Ireland concerning arts education is the emphasis placed on the need for specialist advice and resources for teachers of the arts, both at primary and post- primary level. In particular the teachers' centres are perceived as a potential site and source of such a service. The then Curriculum and Examinations Board, for example, recommended that: The role of teachers' centres in supporting curricula in arts education should form part of the overall plan for the development of the arts in education (8.12.14 on page 21 of The Arts in Education, A Curriculum and Examinations Board Discussion Paper, 1985). Such a recommendation echoed several in the 1979 Arts Council report on education, where it was stated that: " The teachers' resource centres play a valuable role in developing the professional expertise of teachers. They can both initiate and provide facilities for short courses, lectures and workshops", (p.31 of The Place of the Arts in Irish Education, Arts Council 1979). The Arts Council renewed this theme when it made its submission to the committee on Inservice Education established by the Minister for Education in June 1980. The Committee on Inservice amplified the recommendations of the earlier Arts Council report in so far as those related to in-service, placing particular emphasis on the needs of primary teachers for "a systematic programme of inservice training" in the arts. Recommendations 46 and 48 of the Report of the Committee on Inservice Education refer to the role of Teachers' Centres. The first states that: "The facilities and resources of the Centres need to be of the range and standard necessary to cope with the demands of an extended inservice programme", (p. 55) Recommendation No. 48 is of particular significance: "As part providers of a comprehensive and integrated network of inservice education, Teachers' Centres and local third-level institutions would be encouraged under these proposals to co-operate on inservice projects of common interest. This association might lead to the development of specialist knowledge and skill within certain Centres", (ibid) In the period to 1985 there had been occasional examples of Arts Council support for specialist courses and workshops in teachers' centres throughout the country. However the kind of comprehensive and systematic approach envisaged by the reports quoted above remained wanting largely because of the unwillingness of central education authorities to define such training and resources as a priority and to match such a policy with appropriate resources. In the absence of such policy, the partnerships achieved were fitful and short-term reflecting the scarce resources of the Arts Council but, more importantly, its understandable unwillingness to take significant responsibility for the funding of arts education. Such a policy, implicit since 1980, became very explicit in 1985 during the review of its education policy and is articulated in the Arts Council's Annual Report for that year: "The policy distinguishes between arts-in-schools activities and arts education. While remaining committed to the former, the Council also recognises that no intervention by professional artists, however high its quality, can remove the need for all young people to have a thoroughgoing arts education as a central part of their school experience. In such a situation it is the work of the teacher and not of the artist that emerges as a priority... Arts Education is and will remain the responsibility of the Education authorities, both local and national", (p. 35). All of the above provides the context within which ACE published its own guiding principles and awaited declarations of interest and developed proposals from the education sector. One such declaration came from Cork Teachers' Centre and in its aspirations and by virtue of its source it was of immediate interest to the ACE committee.

C. History of the Project In November 1985 ACE received a declaration of intent from Cork Teachers' Centre. The declaration arose from a consultative process among local teachers, a process described as "a most heartening and valuable exercise" by the Centre's director, and one which resulted in a range of possibilities being outlined. The most developed of the ideas was "the establishment of a permanent workshop in Art and Craft Education". Following a number of meetings between the Teachers' Centre and ACE, a full application was submitted to ACE in February 1986 and this became the basis of detailed discussions which refined the application and led to ACE giving a positive decision in April 1986. The proposal now centred upon the provision of a workshop space dedicated to and equipped for visual arts education and staffed by a full-time director. ACE's offer of support was for ,£22,000 over a two-year period, front-loaded for the first year to allow for expenditure on the preparation and equipping of the workshop space. The remainder was for programme costs and ACE emphasised that the salary of the workshop director should be paid by the Department of Education or a local V. E.C., either directly or via a secondment procedure. Such a response was not forthcoming and in September 1986 ACE was obliged, in order to secure the project, to change the nature and the quantity of its offer of grant-aid. ACE indicated that the £22.,000 previously set aside should now be considered as a provision for the director's salary in the two-year period. Further sums would be made available for programme costs. The next six months were spent establishing a management committee with representatives of the Teachers' Centre, the Department of Education, City of Cork V.E.C. and ACE under the independent chairmanship of the sculptor Vivienne Roche. This group advertised and interviewed for a Director and Kieran Walsh was appointed in May 1987 and commenced duties two months later. At the same time ACE again adjusted its financial commitment for the period 1987-89 and offered ,£36,500 as follows:

Salary/P.R.S.L: £27,000 Advertising Costs: £2,500 Programme Costs: £7,000 £36,500

The Department of Education, acknowledging the additional service now provided by Cork Teachers' Centre, augmented its annual grant-aid to the Centre in 1987 and sustained this in 1988. The core non-wage administrative costs of the project (heat, light, postage, photo-copying etc.) were borne from within the general Teachers' Centre budget. In Autumn 1988, after the second year of the project began, ACE and the Teachers' Centre, separately and together, began negotiations with the Department of Education with a view to securing the long-term viability of the workshop through Departmental support. After many delays a formal letter of reply to these approaches was received in July 1989, indicating that the Department would not provide funds for the workshop and its director. An alternative plan, which had the approval of Cork Teachers' Centre, was then activated to secure the essence of the service which had now been established for a two-year period. This involved changing the locus of the project from an education base to an arts base in the hope of persuading arts funders that an education service and animateur attached to an arts centre were worthy of support notwithstanding the fact that the education funders had refused to fund an arts service. Accordingly, ACE recommended to the Arts Council that it respond positively to the request from Triskel Arts Centre to have an education officer and service within its overall staff and programme. Using its principle of bridging money ACE provided £15,000 for the 89/90 year so that the Arts Council needs only to meet 50% of the costs in 1990 and can plan for taking on the full costs in 1991 The Arts Council gave a positive m principle response to the Triskel proposal and the ACE recommendation. D. The Project At the official opening of the Art Education Workshop, the steering committee chairperson Vivienne Roche described the workshop as "a specific resource within a much wider established resource centre and, like Cork Teachers' Centre as a whole, it would service the needs of the primary and post-primary sectors of education...... " Essentially the workshop's service consisted of three levels: (i) Advice, Information and Resources (ii) Courses, Classes and Workshops (iii) Curricular initiatives (i) Advice, Information and Resources The presence of an experienced activist in art education who had experience of teaching in

school and community situations was a central feature of this project, giving reality to the often-expressed need for arts advisors in Irish education. The mere presence of such a person in an educational context facilitated the exchange of information and advice in a range of ways, both formal and informal. During the project a small slide, print and video library was established as part of the Teachers' Centre multi- media Resource Centre which is administered by the Centre's librarian. The Art Education Workshop spent approximately ,£2,600 on books, slides, videos etc. and so the Teachers' Centre is now particularly well-resourced in this area. In addition, specialist art and craft equipment for use in inservice and for loan to schools was purchased and there was one major capital investment in equipment' the purchase and installation of a kiln within the workshop space. Finally, and most obviously, the dedication of the large workshop space for art purposes represented a significant investment (£4,000) and now means that the Teachers' Centre is particularly well suited to providing inservice education in art.

(ii) Courses, Classes and Workshops During the two years of its operation the Workshop developed a broadly-based in-service programme. Topics and ideas for in-service were identified and courses were designed by Kieran Walsh as Director, in consultation with teachers and with tutors with specialist expertise. The courses were then compiled and advertised through special brochures issued at the beginning of every term to all schools in Cork (city and county) and to each of one hundred full- time and part-time art teachers in post-primary schools.

In all 51 inservice courses, workshops, seminars and lectures were organised involving a total of 536 teachers. A more detailed breakdown of these figures follows: No. Organised Primary Post-Primary Joint* Courses 32 13 12 7 Workshops 11 4 5 2 Seminars 5 — 4 1 Lectures 3 — — 3 Total 51 17 21 13

*0pen to primary, post-primary, pre-school and other interested persons

The final report of the Art Education Workshop project analyses the inservice programme offered and discerns a number of trends which repay reflection. Amongst these are the pragmatism which underlies teacher-motivation and teacher choice: this accounts for the dominance of technique - based courses with direct application to classroom practice and, at another level, for the attractiveness of the week-long summer inservice courses run by the Department of Education for which primary teachers receive three days extra personal vacation. Secondly, it would appear from the project's final report that there is resistance in the Department of Education to the notion of post-primary art inservice courses being offered by agencies outside of the art inspectorate itself. A third trend was noticeable during 1988-89: the increased unwillingness of primary teachers to commit themselves to inservice, following the worsening in teacher- pupil ratios and the general demoralisation of the teaching force on foot of cut-backs, alongside the increased demand at post-primary level consequent upon the announcement of the new Junior Certificate Syllabus in Art, Craft and Design. The project's report concludes its section on inservice with the statement that the present constraints upon inservice education would be eased by the extension of Department of Education approval to: (a) primary inservice held outside of the context of the July courses; (b) post-primary inservice provided by Subject Associations, Teachers' Centres and other relevant agencies; and by the development of a more localised service within inservice art education by the post-primary branch of the Department.

(iii) Curricular Initiatives This was the most problematic area of the workshop programme but the Steering Committee of the project was determined to give expression to the innovative brief of a specialist adviser by

establishing a number of curricular areas for exploration as pan of the Workshop's responsibilities. Three such areas were identified: (i) art in the primary school curriculum (ii) transition phases (pre-school to primary and primary to post-primary) (iii) art and artists in schools. Each is reported on comprehensively in the Final Report of the project lodged with ACE and it is not within the scope of this present report to do justice to the analysis of the successes and failures associated with the work undertaken in the three areas identified. The first area (art in the primary curriculum) involved an intensive exploration, not alone of many curricular issues to do with art education, but also an exploration of the nature, purpose and function of an art advisor attempting to strike a balance between facilitating the needs of individual teachers or schools and the more broadly-based concerns of serving a subject-sector and a geographical region. In terms of true exploration both of the nature of his role and of the "internal curriculum" of art in primary schools the Director's work was successful. While the final achievements seem to have fallen short of the initial ambition, the latter had perhaps taken insufficient account of the remedial nature of the problem constituted by primary art education and the understandable dependence that can occur once primary teachers are thrown a life-line like a sympathetic adviser

The second area (transition phases) concentrated upon the pre-school/primary phase to the exclusion of the primary/post-primary one. A number of reasons are advanced for this, the most worrying being the absence or virtually total neglect of art within 5th and 6th class experience because of entrance exam - led pressure from the second-level system. More fruitful altogether was the pre-school/primary contact, arising from the critical seminar Full Circle which deliberately promoted the notion of art education as a continuum. However the absence of a tradition of practice in this area ensured again that a great deal of the Workshop Director's energies were devoted to working with pre-school leaders and parents of infants rather than to the precise point of transition between pre-school and primary education. Nonetheless valuable work in the pre-school area was undertaken and this has served to influence the Cork branch of the Irish Pre-School Playgroups' Association and, through them, the National Executive of the I.P.P.A. This work was achieved through the establishment of a Working Party in Cork on the issue of pre-school art education and its plans for autumn 1989 indicate a seriousness of purpose which is greatly to be welcomed. It should be noted that a critical stimulus to all of this work was City Vision's project in pre-school art education which was another of the three ACE projects in the area of education. The third area of curricular initiative (art and artists in schools) had a historical and a contemporary dimension. This element of the project's work began with an inservice course on a critical studies type approach to the teaching of art history and appreciation in primary and post-primary schools and it developed to include the Full Circle Seminar, Art History and Appreciation lectures for students in the Crawford Gallery, and the Schools Programme run in association with Triskel Arts Centre. The last of these involved both gallery-based talks and workshops as well as visits by artists to schools. These formed what the final report describes as "part of a wider commitment to advancing the aesthetic agenda in arts education".

E. The Future of the Project As indicated in Section C above the essence of the project's service will be maintained though the shift from an education centre base to an arts centre base may result in more emphasis being placed upon the aesthetic elements of art education than heretofore. The promised co-operation of the Teachers' Centre will do much however to secure the tradition of resources and service established in the 1987-89 period. The truth of course is that those with primary responsibility for arts education (the Department and local V. E. C. s) have failed to grasp the opportunity provided by ACE's initial funding of £36,500 and the exploration and experimentation permitted by those monies. Rather than see all lost, those with a primary concern for art-in-education (the Arts Council) have been persuaded and helped by ACE to secure the valuable service represented by a specialist in art education working in a region, albeit that the locus of the job has shifted from a Teachers' Centre to an Arts Centre. This serves to confirm the (regrettable) conclusion that the source of creative thinking, policy-making, provision and practice in the arts and education is to be found within the world of the arts rather than within the world of education. ACE Project No. 2

A. PROFILE Tide: Look At My Hands. Area Explored: Art and the pre-school child. Name of Organisation: City Vision. Location: Dublin (with national dissemination). Length of Project: 2½ years (1986-1988). Grant from ACE: ,£40,500 (incl. seeding money and post-ACE bridging money). Other Income: Earned Income: ,£3,300 Ireland Funds: ,£12,500 (1988 and 1989) Small Grants from Coras Trachtala and Cultural Relations Committee of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Project After ACE: Further work in the same area on a small-scale basis. Documentary Material; 2 videos 40 hours of video material Brochure/Handbook Final Report

B. Background It is hard to imagine two areas more marginalised within Irish education than the visual arts and the pre-school sector. In many ways a proposal for a project which would explore art and the pre-school child might seem designed perversely and deliberately to ensure that it would receive no funding. However in principle it was a project of great interest to ACE and entirely appropriate to its guiding principle of supporting innovative and experimental work in arts education. The critical factor in this project was however the wealth of expertise that was brought to bear in the experiment. City Vision and Helen O'Donoghue, its chief education animateur, had an impressive track record of work in art education which betokened a commitment to serious empirical research. The word 'serious' is important for one of the sad truths about Irish education is that trivial understandings abound about art and very young children. Both are equated with play; play is poorly understood and badly valued; and so art and the pre-school child are marginal concerns within the ethos of Irish schooling.

C. History of Project In October 1985 ACE received a declaration of intent from City Vision ranging over a number of possible projects, the first of which was called Art and the Pre-School Child. Two months later representatives of ACE met with City Vision to discuss the original submission in some detail. ACE indicated that its interest centred largely on the proposal in relation to pre-school children. After City Vision had developed the pre-school proposal and outlined a structure, timetable and budget for the work, ACE indicated continued interest but stressed the need for a fully-researched proposal and offered £2,500 to City Vision until end of May 1986 to allow for the action-based research necessary to the development of a full proposal.

In August 1986 ACE received the final submission from City Vision. It summarised and evaluated the feasibility study phase (1985-86) and described in detail the major pre-school project Look At My Hands for which funding was being sought (1986-87). A sample video diary recording sixty minutes of activity on a certain day in May 1986 in the pre-school group was also included. Following meetings between ACE and City Vision, ACE decided to offer ,£27,342 to the City Vision proposal, exclusive of the research grant already offered. During the next year this grant was revised upwards on a number of occasions to take account of needs like special effects, interim workshops to inform the editing process and dissemination of the project. In November 1987 Look At My Hands was launched. The following month discussions began concerning the future of City Vision's work in this area and the likelihood of further funding from other sources. ACE indicated that its major funding of the project was complete but that should there be need for support and bridging finance into another phase with major funding possibilities then ACE might consider a small grant to allow the work every prospect of continuing after ACE's core funding had ceased.

In March 1988 ACE was informed of the dissemination of Look At My Hands and of national and international interest in the project. The Ireland Funds granted £5,000 to City Vision in that year. Several meetings were held between representatives of ACE and of City Vision before City Vision presented ACE with a submission for bridging finance to 1989 and indicated the programme of work and the programme of fund-raising being undertaken both in Ireland and in North America. ACE agreed to offer a further and final ,£5,000 to City Vision to assist with further pre- school work and with the fund-raising programme. This figure brought ACE's funding of City Vision in the period March 1986 - November 1988 to £40,539.

D. The Project

Earlier Work City Vision's own report on the Look At My Hands project begins by providing the background to this work which lies in earlier work by the company in the area of art education and children's art. Specific mention is made of an important video, made in 1984 by City Vision, and called Childscapes. Significantly, reviewing that video, the City Vision report states that it soon became clear that Childscapes "far from being the conclusive account was just a first step in bringing an understanding of the relationship between art and child development to a wider audience". It was in order to realise its long-term aim of producing video programmes tracing the developmental patterns in child development and child art that the company decided to begin its study at pre-school level. Not alone had this a compelling intrinsic logic but also, the report records that "Among our Childscapes audience we found that the most enthusiastic response came from members of the pre- schools associations and it was out of their interest that a need for Irish-based video material was expressed".

Research Phase From October 1985 to June 1986 City Vision worked closely with an I.P.P.A. playgroup in Swords, Co. Dublin for 13 three-hour sessions observing the children, researching the ethos and methodology of the playgroup, leading some art activity and exploring ways of recording on camera and through sound that would be relatively unobtrusive. This feasibility study, supported by a grant of £2,500 from ACE, became the basis of designing the future work of the project and became also the core of the full application to ACE. Over a dozen key points emerged from this phase amongst which are mentioned: — the importance of contact between the project and the children's parents

— the importance of contact with a Montessori school to balance the project's research — a method for logging was designed; for evaluation, for records on video diaries and for editing scripts.

The Main Project The project occurred in an I. P. P. A. pre-school in Swords where the initial study had taken place and in a Montessori school in Glasnevin, Dublin. City Vision felt that the distinction between these two traditions — Montessori tending to focus on the individual whereas the I.P.P.A. setting is more group-oriented — must be incorporated into the project. The initial phase of the project involved a great deal of consultation with the leaders/teachers in the playgroups, with the parents of the children in the intended groups and with child-care experts. It also involved Helen O'Donoghue taking the introductory I.P.P.A. course so that her own work was as informed as possible by the wider context within which she would be operating. Several sessions of art activity occurred in both groups before any filming was done. The second phase began in February 1987 and ran parallel to the first for several months. It involved contact with people and organisations in Northern Ireland - including the visiting of certain schools - and in England and Wales, as well as the designing of a workshop programme for parents and leaders which would inform the editing process. There were also developing contacts with the I.P.P.A., the Montessori Society and Bamardo's. The last element in this phase was the nexus of technical, personnel and presentation decisions relating to the editing of the final videos and the preparation of the accompanying brochures which had extensive notes and information. The third phase of the project was the dissemination of Look At My Hands, the series of accompanying workshops, the filming of more work in the area of clay, the development of proposals for a longtitudinal study (following the same group of children over a 5-7 year period) and the development of professional and funding contacts in North America. It is not proposed, in this report, to refer at all to the detail of the issues of pedagogy explored in the City Vision Project. These are far too subtle and detailed and far too important in their implications for the kind of summary necessary to this report. Instead some reflections on the nature of the project as an entity are offered and readers with special interest in this area are referred to the wealth of detailed material that has been generated or collected by City Vision on the specific issues of pre-school art education.

Reflections On The Project There is a danger that Look At My Hands will be considered only in terms of the two finished videos and the accompanying printed material. While these are critical end-products, answering one aim of the project - the production of Irish-made videos on art education - their presence and their high level of professional presentation may obscure elements of the project that are equally valuable and, in ACE's view, equally exemplary. What characterised this project - and ACE hopes it was a distinguishing feature of all its

projects - was the genuinely exploratory nature of the work undertaken. When so much work in art education is prescriptive ACE was impressed that City Vision wished to explore. The video camera became a tool of looking and not simply of recording. Thus the roughly edited tapes, of which there are some forty hours, are as important as the final video package. Related to this was the use of video as a tool of educational research, irrespective of the particular curricular context in which it was being employed. In particular City Vision's own report on the project refers to the "immediate playback facility (which) allowed the project team to reassess their own personal impressions and illuminate the factors which influenced the outcome of the art sessions". Another strength of the project was of course the fact that Helen O'Donoghue is not alone a thoughtful video- maker on child art but she is also a skilled and sensitive teacher-animateur of children's art work. Again this facilitated the subversion of the tradition whereby the camera records the activist. Instead Helen O'Donoghue could be, so to speak, in the activity and outside of the activity simultaneously. Art, Education, Child Development, Videos can be intimidating terms and experiences for many people, particularly for parents who have such a primary relationship with their children. That relationship was validated by the project, not alone by the second video concentrating on the role of the adult, but also by the close involvement of parents and leaders in all stages of die project. Perhaps their most critical intervention was in the period between the rough cuts and the final edited versions when, through a programme of workshops, parents were encouraged to influence the kinds of choices that would determine the nature and content of the finished video package. Reference has already been made to the almost perversely marginal nature of the City Vision Look At My Hands Project, by virtue of its twin contexts of pre-school education and art education. It might have been added that a third, and equally marginalised, context it inhabited was that of educational research. So accustomed to this as an attitude have we become that not a few people looked somewhat askance when informed that ACE had invested over £40,000 in this project. ACE has no regrets for ACE was intended to be a plank between the two stools of art and education between which City Vision's education work has so often fallen in the past. Also in the high-pressured, results-oriented and performance-obsessed world of contemporary education ACE would amplify one of City Vision's own reflections on Look At My Hands: "The value of slow, methodical research work cannot be over-stressed - both for the children we work with and for teachers and parents".

E. The Future of the Project It does not seem likely that City Vision will secure the funding necessary to allow it undertake the longtitudinal study which remains its long-term aim. Bridging money from ACE and monies from the Ireland Funds in both 1988 and 1989 permitted more video work, on a small-scale, in the area of children working with clay as this had emerged as a significant area of interest from the early

ACE Protect No. 3

A. PROFILE Title: The Poetry Project. Area Explored: Poetry and the 12-15 year old (in the context of the Junior Certificate). Name of Organisation: An ACE initiative. Location: Dublin (initially) (limited experimentation outside of Dublin). Length of Project: Proposed Two Years (May 1989-June 1991). Grant from ACE: To be determined (£8,000 for 1989; budget set aside for 1990/1991). Other Income: Not applicable. Project After ACE: To be determined. Documentary Material: To date, one poetry broadsheet. (A two-phase feasibility study also exists on the notion of a Children's Literature Bus which was an earlier conception of the project).

B. Background The Poetry Project emerged from a long process of consultation and research with the aim of exploring means to provide exciting encounters between young people and literature.

C. History of the Project A lengthy feasibility study was undertaken to establish the precise nature and likely viability of a touring bus, based in the Midland Counties, which would act as a children's bookshop, as a stimulating environment for handling books, meeting writers, illustrators etc. and as an information/advice centre for parents and teachers. While ACE could have funded the Children's Literature Bus for a two-year period the costs, as detailed by the commissioned study, were very high and the study was pessimistic about the financial viability of the project when ACE funding ceased. Following consultation with teachers and other activists in the field of children's literature the proposed project was reconceived in terms of there being key resource people attached to two Arts Centres in the South-East. The intention was that each of these animateur figures would have three tasks: (i) provision of advice, information and complementary resources for parents and teachers; (ii) design and implementation of a programme of readings, encounters with writers/illustrators, workshops etc. in schools, libraries and other community venues; (iii) organisation of a special project, on a local basis, exploring an aspect of children's literature e.g. the problem in literacy groups where psychological/emotional maturity far exceeds reading level Task (i) would be undertaken on a shared basis by the two activists; task (ii) would be done locally but with consultation between the two animateurs as appropriate; task (iii) would be unique to each project base, reflecting local needs and local resources. For a range of reasons, having mainly to do with the general funding and staffing of the Arts Centres, it was not found possible to proceed with the project in this manifestation and in March 1989 the ACE committee reconsidered the whole area of literature and young people from first principles. The context within formal education had altered from that which obtained when ACE first discussed this area. In particular the pace of curriculum change had quickened with the announcement that a new Junior Certificate curriculum would be introduced and English was one of the subject areas where change would commence from September 1989. There was widespread concern in the teaching profession about the poor provision of in-service education for the teachers being charged with the implementation of new courses. There was also concern among many educators that, in the absence of adequate in-service provision and of the allocation of monies to purchase new books and resources, the welcome flexibility of the new course would be perceived as a problem rather than as a possibility. The long-term danger of such an eventuality was the implied need for more prescriptive curricula and syllabi.

D. The Project In this altered context ACE consulted with a group of teachers who would be charged with teaching the new syllabus to 12 and 13 year olds from September 1989. After several meetings it was agreed that the group would work together to address three identified needs in the area of poetry education:

(a) Information Needs: Essentially this refers to information and advice concerning poetry for young people. Existing sources are very patchy and one long-term aim of The Poetry Project is to provide a central referenced source of information on poems, creative writing and other issues relevant to poetry and young people. In the meantime the existing group of teachers is gathering material on a self-help basis.

(b) Resource Needs: A perceived block to the enjoyment of poetry in school is the dominance of unattractive text -books loaded down with questions or comments; another is the lack of support resources for teachers wishing to explore ways of animating their poetry teaching. On a trial basis the ad-hoc group of teachers involved in The Poetry Project compiled a broadsheet for use in their classrooms which, by virtue of its content and material, was intended to provide their students with stimulating encounters in poetry. The voluntary nature of the teachers' work required that, at a certain point, someone was employed to attend to the details of copyright search and publication. ACE funded the employment of such a person on a part-time basis during this critical period. This balance between teacher engagement, supported by paid resource personnel, is another exemplary feature of this project. The first broadsheet (Autumn 1989) contained some twenty poems chosen by the teachers themselves as being the kind of work their students would enjoy and which they (the teachers) would enjoy teaching. The broadsheet also contained interviews about poetry and school with personalities, known to the young people, from the worlds of sport and entertainment as well as certain stimuli to creative work by the students themselves. The broadsheet was also designed to be an attractive and colourful resource with a graphic design and layout that would appeal to young people. It is important to emphasise that at no time in the research and preparation of this first phase was there a desire to patronise or pander to the intended audience. The work was chosen out of a conviction that collectively it might awaken a commitment to, or even love of poetry, without burdening the students with an endless list of individual poems. For that reason too the broadsheet seeks a coherence by focussing upon the

Photo: DerekSpeirs/Reporf

ACE Project No. 4

MACNAS

PROFILE Tide: "The Big Game". Area Explored: Creation of large-scale community spectacle in rural context and examination of operation of FAS scheme on arts organisation. Name of Organisation: Macnas. Location: Galway City (serving all of Connacht). Length of Project: June 1986-September 1987. Grant from ACE: £40,000 over 2 years. Other Income: S.E.S.: £116,480 Sponsorship: £2,000 Funds raised: £3,000 Local authority: £500 Ireland West (Bord Failte): £500 £122,480 Project After ACE: Macnas has continued, producing such major spectacles as "Gulliver" in 1988 and "Tír Faoi Thonn" in 1989. Documentary Material: Final Report in 2 parts; Video; Newsletters. CAFE Photographic Exhibition.

Development of Project Macnas, (a word from the Irish meaning 'joyful abandonment') commenced life in October 1985, when its four founding executives came together to make a response to the ACE invitation. The four original executives, who are still its driving force, were: Padraic Breathnach, (Production Manager); Pete Sammon (Performance Director); Tom Conroy (Costume and Design Director); and Ollie Jennings, (Secretary). Two of these individuals were already well known, Ollie Jennings and Padraic Breathnach, in respect of their work for many years on Galway Arts Festival. Galway Arts Festival had produced, for a number of years prior to this application, performances by international theatre companies which have a strong emphasis on the visual image and upon street location, like Els Comediants (Barceleona) and Footsbarn (Britain). These directors forwarded a letter to ACE in October 1985. That letter envisaged the concept of the project as being as follows: "We interpret the word community in the broad popular sense. We are interested in the pastimes, games and rituals of our community in the West. We wish to create dramatic, visual spectacles using and exploring these popular forms of communal entertainments. Our spectacles will be created in the community, in large outdoor familiar spaces. We hope to make fun and have fun on a grand scale and amongst ourselves". "Our initial project is entitled "The Game" and it will be staged during the Connacht Football Final in 1986. "The Game" will involve over a hundred people as actors, models, characters, puppeteers, stage hands and design assistants. The centrepiece of the spectacle, "The Game", will be a play within a play during the interval at the Connacht Football Finals". ACE indicated interest and two further expansions of the original declaration of interest were submitted to ACE by Macnas. The first of these received a response from ACE which indicated a feeling that there should also be an education component alongside the central community spectacle component. In February 1986, ACE stated that it was exceptionally interested in the potential but grant-aid would be conditional upon two stipulations. From the outset, Macnas had stated that it would have a mock Gaelic football game as its centrepiece and perform it at the real Connacht Football Final. ACE required sight of written permission to Macnas to proceed from the Gaelic Athletic Association (G.A.A.). The other stipulation was that the application being made under the Social Employment Scheme (S. E.S.), for funding for one year for 20 workers, would be successful. ACE stressed also the need for a highly professional approach. Indeed, the Coisde Chuige Chonnacht of the G.A.A. generously gave its permission in April 1986. The Department of Labour informed Macnas that it was wiling to fund the project through the S.E.S. Two intensive meetings between Macnas and ACE took place in April 1986 and these were soon followed by a decision from ACE that a grant of £600 would be made available to enable the fine details of the application to the concretised. A final submission was forwarded from Macnas in June 1986.

The final application envisaged that a legal company, Macnas, would come into being. The Board of the Company would be advised also by a Steering Committee of people prominent in community and education life in Connacht. A premises would be required and, indeed, space to create the costumes. On the question of staff, it was envisaged that there would be 29 persons in all, including three of the four directors, all of whom would be funded by S.E.S. The staff breakdown was to be as follows:

Community and Education/Co-Ordinator: Pádraic Breathnach

(6 staff +1 supervisor)

Education Worker: to set up a school scheme. Community Person: responsibility for local heroes and banners schemes. Town and Country Liaison: contact person between Macnas and venues for projects. Bands Person: contact bands, arrange rehearsals. Research and Documentation: responsibility for ongoing research, documentation and final report. Photographer: to give documentary report.

Administration/Co-Ordinator: Ollie Jennings

(3 staff + 1 supervisor)

Administrative Assistants: two persons Book Keeper: to make up wages and keep financial records.

Design and Technical/Co-Ordinator: Tom Conroy

(8 staff +1 supervisor)

Carpentry Shop Persons: two persons Design Shop: four artists to develop various techniques and design aspects. Costumes Shop: two people to make costumes, flags and banners.

Performers/Co-Ordinator: Pete Sammon

(8 staff + 1 supervisor)

These 9 persons were reserved for working out training programmes for performance for the whole group. In was notable that a clear leadership responsibility was laid upon the four main directors. Because the eventual performance, "The Game", was so complex, the application envisaged several performances in community over 12 months which would act as a "limbering up" for "The Game". The other principal aspects of the application were the Education and the Community Plans which provided for projects to occur in two different primary schools. Workshops, small parades,

and performances were envisaged in the two schools involving the children's own participation. The Community Plan involved a "local heroes" project wherein famous, older Gaelic footballers could be identified and interviewed in their own localities. These, mostly retired, footballers would be celebrated again in their own towns or townlands. Such encounters also were to provide Macnas with research material for incidents in "The Big Game". The Community Plan also dealt with the role of local bands. Having reviewed this very careful application, which was tightly costed, ACE made available grant-aid of £20,000 to Macnas. ACE felt that the scale of this project required rigorous planning and the application possessed this feature. Later in the project, this grant-level was revised upwards. A "bridging" grant was provided by ACE at the conclusion of its involvement.

Implementation of Year's Work (June 1986-Septemher 1987)

A series of community spectacles were created.

Project One: This occurred during the opening parade of the 1986 Galway Arts Festival in August when a 16 person Dragon was brought to the streets by Macnas.

Project Two: An original piece of community spectacle was created for the Ballinasloe Horse Fair. This comprised members of Macnas as exotic, surrealistic circus-like animals being directed by three cattle drovers in a parade. The crowd enjoyed this piece very much. This occurred on 5th October 1986.

Project Three: There was a Wren Boys' Outing by Macnas on St. Stephen's Day 1986 which involved a progress through a couple of Galway City suburbs and a visit to an old persons' home.

Project Four: There was a lantern parade involving many children on New Year's Eve, followed by songs at St. Nicholas's Church, in Galway City.

The Education Projects A special Education Committee was set up to implement the Education Plan comprising Rebecca Bartlett (a drama teacher), Patricia Forde (a primary teacher), and Sinead Clifford (a parent), who were all from outside Macnas. The committee was rounded off by Tom Conroy, Ríona Hughes, Pádraic Breathnach, all from within Macnas. The first principal project was carried out in Parochial School, Galway City. The project involved the decision "to research materials and objects to stimulate the children's imaginations and guide them towards the idea of a lantern procession. The theme of the project became Light and Darkness". The research with the children was carried out by Seamus Mac Aindoin, Charlie

McBride and Ríona Hughes. "Whilst researching street lighting in Galway we discovered in historical accounts that street lighting in Galway was initially advocated by the Vicar of St. Nicholas's, a Rev. Darcy in 1837". This project culminated in Project Four and was very successful with both the participating children and the many proud parents who crowded the footpaths. The second project undertaken by the Education Committee was work upon a St. Patrick's Day Parade with Scoil Dara - (Scoil Lán-Gaelach - an Irish-language school). The project embraced all the pupils in this primary school and was carried out over 5 visits by Macnas. The project centred upon the depiction of snakes both in parade and in graphic form. The parade on St. Patrick's Day was very successful and Scoil Dara was awarded 1st Prize, Primary School section by the city -wide parade organisers. The Education Plan was successful in demonstrating how a community spectacle group can stimulate creative participation among young children in school.

"The Game" This commenced with a colourful parade which included: a full complement of a Mayo team , and of a Galway team in masks based upon likenesses of the great players of the mid-1960's; various typical "match-going" characters such as a mascot, a character rather like an alarm clock, a doctor, the referee, photographer with antique tripod camera, and brass bands drawn from bands all around the Galway City district. The parade wound its way through Castlebar on 7th July 1987 just prior to the ending of the Junior Gaelic Football Final. The parade lasted about 45 minutes. It was greatly enjoyed by the townspeople. When the 150 person (approx.) Macnas parade arrived at Mac Hale Park the Junior Final was just ending. Macnas took the field in the interval between the Junior Final and the Senior Final. The mock Gaelic Football game may best be compared with silent cinema comedy. The various "bits" of action worked out by the Macnas group were often based upon the researches done with famous players of the past from both Galway and Mayo whom they interviewed. The original piece of real action from the 1950s or 1960s was worked into the Macnas performance, such as having a jersey pulled. The best approach to understanding "The Game" is to see the video made of it by John O'Mahony. "The Game" was a great hit with the crowd of some 20,000.

Conclusions

S.E.S./FÁS The Social Employment Scheme was an exceptionally important part of the project. However, there were some difficulties. Because the members were over 25 years of age there were some motivational problems. Here the four directors felt it was important to devise warm-up exercise programmes of some intricacy and spread over a long period. The slowing-down effect of a long period of unemployment had to be counteracted. Payments were many times behind schedule from S. E. S. to Macnas and this caused a lot of difficulties. The fact that people must be rotated off an individual scheme after 1 year, just when they have mastered a utilisable skill was very problematic to Macnas, which had invested a lot of time in the training. Management itself is most time-consuming on large FAS schemes in the arts, and many arts groups underestimate this.

Leadership The need to have knowledgeable, tested professionals is essential to a FAS scheme and great achievements are then possible. The four directors of this community sp ectacle company possess this quality in great measure and this was a key to Macnas's success. The other vital element was the careful planning. In 1989, the major work offered by Macnas was "Tir Faoi Thonn" ("Land Under Wave"), which was held during the Galway Arts Festival on Saturday 22nd July 1989). It depicted the wedding of Mannanan Mac Lir, played by Padraic Breathnach, to the Queen of Claddagh and this epic spectacle was seen by 20,000 people. Macnas has also had an influence upon encouraging the other community spectacle groups namely Theatre Omnibus, Limerick and Sligo Community Arts Group. It is remarkable that these three accomplished community spectacle groups all hail from the West Coast. Macnas has enjoyed a major national reputation since they performed their work "Gulliver in Lilliput", devised for the Dublin Millennium in 1988.

ACE Project No. 5

PROFILE

CLAJJE. Creative Activity for Everyone is the representative body for the community arts in Ireland. It is a 32 county body. Title: Information Network Project (INP). Area Explored: Comprehensive information system on community-situated arts in Ireland. Location: Dublin City (serving the 32 counties of Ireland). Length of Project: 1st July 1987.30th June 1989. ("bridging" assistance to end 1989). Grant from ACE: ,£64,000 over 2½ years. Other Income: The Arts Council/An Chomhairle Ealaion -£1,000 (1987) -,£3,000 (1988). The Arts Council/An Chomhairle Ealaion and The Arts Council of Northern Ireland -,£9,100 (1989) Bank of Ireland - ,£5,000 (1988). Project After ACE; The Information Network Project has been absorbed into the general work of CAFE. Documentary Material: Final Report in 2 parts; Video; Newsletters. CAFE Photographic Exhibition.

Early Development of Project A declaration of interest in applying for ACE funding was received in October 1985. This was followed by CAFE submitting a draft proposal, which contained several different headings for a proposed programme. The ACE committee's first response in December 1985 was to indicate that it wished to concentrate upon two aspects - (a) training and (b) setting up a network of information and contacts. A further submission was received from CAFE in January 1986 which sought to instigate a programme which would embrace (a) Information Bank; (b) Publications; (c) Touring Lectures and Consultancy Service; (d) Access to Skilled Practitioners; (e) Community Arts Courses; (f) In-Service Training. This submission was influenced by the 1985 A.G.M. of CAFE which decided that there was a great need to provide an information bank and to provide basic training for community artists and administrators. In March 1986, ACE informed CAFE that it wanted to see a concentration upon (a) the information bank and (b) personnel exchange/skill exchange and not on basic training. A final submission was made by CAFE in May 1986 and in it two areas were highlighted by CAFE - (1) the Information Bank and (2) Access to Skilled Practitioners. In June 1986, ACE offered a response to CAFE which consisted of a guarantee of funding for the first year of salary for a worker to create the Information Bank and it suggested that a feasibility study on the project should be undertaken first. In October 1986 a Management Committee was appointed by agreement between ACE and CAFE consisting of Sandy Fitzgerald and Ivor Davies both from CAFE, Grainne O'Flynn and Lar Cassidy both from ACE. The Management Committee recommended the appointment of Jude Bowles as the researcher to carry out the feasibility study and the CAFE Board decided to appoint Ms Bowles. In March 1987, the feasibility study was submitted to ACE along with a detailed outline of the full project. Ms Bowles had investigated the views of CAFE members as to their requirements of an information service. Her research was carried out by letter and interview all over the country.

ACE agreed to provide ,(,50,000 over two years in order to establish the Information Network Project. ACE felt that a two year intervention would leave CAFE with a developed information service.

Implementation of the I.N.P. In July 1987, Jude Bowles was appointed Information Director, following interviews. ACE and CAFE both noted the strange circumstance where the INP had now received a substantial grant allocation from ACE (of £50,000 over 2 years) while the core funding of the day to day aspects of CAFE stood at only £3,000 p.a. from the Arts Council. The danger of the tail (INP) wagging the dog (core activity of CAFE) was clear to both bodies. A computer was purchased in September 1987 and the process of setting up files of the information on community arts practitioners and groups was set in motion. The criterion laid down by the Management Committee for inclusion in the computer database (known as CAFEdata) was the possession by the individual or organisation of the desire to serve the community level of society in the arts or cultural domain. The information bank held on computer was the first part of implementing the objectives. A second part of this was the assembly of a library which was to consist of books and other media relevant to the area. Over the 24 months of the project the concept developed of holding a core library in the CAFE office and supplementing this by defining precisely lists of books and tides in other media which can be accessed in other libraries or information banks. Finally, regarding the resource of staff, the Information Director was employed to deal with telephone queries and written queries from people seeking information. These first three elements constitute the resources held within the CAFE office, i.e. computer, library and staff The other vital dimension to implementation of the INP was that of dissemination and programmes which have their focus outside the CAFE office bringing the information in usable ways to people round the country. The first of these, the inquiry service, which is described above

under "staff" in the resource section, was made available so that people can have queries responded to on any aspect of community arts in Ireland. Second, the CAFE Newsletter was developed with 7 issues being published during the INP period. The CAFE Newsletter existed already prior to the development of the INP but it became a better production and better designed. One of the features was to provide within the Newsletter specialist directories of different areas like "youth" or "drama". This led on to the notion of the thematic newsletter where in each issue a particular area was examined in depth, e.g. arts and special needs. Earlier in the INP, it had been hoped that in year 2, it would be possible to hook up the CAFE computer "online" to computers in public access points, i.e. in libraries. This did not prove possible in the time span except in the case of Central Library, ILAC, Dublin but the method undertaken has been to have access points to CAFEdata. These access points consist of any organisation which wishes to accept discs from CAFEdata which can be used on the computer systems of the organisation. New CAFEdata discs are made available every few months. Some of these access points are outside Dublin and open for public use. In order that information dissemination should not be a dead thing, skills exchange workshops have been set up by the Information Director. There were many of these including one on circus in Belfast (run by Belfast Community Circus), community dance in Wexford (run by Barefoot Dance), etc. These skills exchange workshops have been skill-specific. Persons interested in the particular form or practice assembled at the workshops from all over Ireland. Links with allied organisations have been established whereby CAFE has developed contacts with organisations the concerns of which are similar. Examples are: Aontas, the national organisation for adult education; trade unions; etc. In all, the three elements comprising the resources, i.e. computer, library and staff and the five elements comprising dissemination and programme have fused to create the INP and CAFE has now a serviceable information programme. This service can be drawn upon in a user-friendly, accessible way to provide information on any aspect of the community arts movement to people and organisations all around the country who require it.

CAFE Exhibition and CAFEdata In June 1989, an Exhibition of photographs illustrating community arts and arts education nationwide was mounted in the Dublin Central Library, ILAC Centre, Henry Street. CAFEdata, the computerised information system, was available also to the public during this Exhibition, which was opened by Dr. Richard Keamey, the philosopher and Member of the Arts Council and by Gabriel Byme, the movie actor.

C.A.F.E.'s DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ACE FUNDING

Year Before ACE Project-1986

Funding £9,700 (£4,700 from Arts Council) and ,£5,000 from the Ireland Funds to produce the first Funding Handbook.

Resources One or sometimes two part-time workers.

A small room with no office facilities except a desk, plastic chairs, boxes for filing cabinets, a phone and the use of a typist and photocopier.

A small information network based on information on less than 100 organisations and members on a card index.

Membership of 70.

Publications: Brochure with membership details and information.

Quarterly Newsletter of eight pages sent to members.

The first Funding Handbook.

Inquiry Service: Enquiries from on average 1 person per working day.

Programme: A seminar in Belfast.

Policy discussions.

Year of Completion of ACE Project-1989

Funding £35,000 C£20,000 from ACE, ,£9,500 from both Arts Councils in Ireland, ,£5,000 from Bank of Ireland for Funding Handbook, £500 from Co-operation North).

Resources Two full-time workers.

A fully equipped office with filing cabinets, shelves, public area for research, two computers, two telephones, use of a photocopier, standard office chairs.

A core library resource facility available for public reference consisting of a filing cabinet of information on organisations in Ireland and abroad, over 200 books, pamphlets, directories, research documents, videos and further information on where other relevant media can be obtained.

An information network based mainly on detailed information on over 1,500 organisations and individuals on a publicly available database.

Membership of nearly 200.

Publications: A new brochure, posters, leaflets, video and logo.

Quarterly Newsletter of 12 pages written, designed, edited and laid out by office staff with distribution of2,000.

Funding Handbook (expanded 2nd edition).

Inquiry Service: Enquiries from on average 15 people per working day.

Programme: 6 skills exchange workshops (including two weekends) bringing people from all over the country to venues all over the country.

A photographic exhibition and video.

A plan for a training programme which will include an adult education course.

A programme for an information package and increased spread of information network.

The distribution of CAFE data around the country on Apple and IBM compatible discs.

Policy discussions.

ACE Project No. 6

Title: Environmental Project.

Area Explored: Creation of liaison between Fatima Development Group and Dublin Corporation during major architectural refurbishment.

Name of Organisation: Fatima Development Group (FDG) (local tenants' representative organisation).

Location: Fatima Mansions, Dublin City. Grant from ACE: £18,000 (approx)

Other Income: £8,000 from European Community (through a separate project).

Project After ACE: A community photography project took place with E.C. money.

Documentary Material: Photographs and slides of visit by members of F.D.G. to view community architecture projects in London. Report of visit to London by F.D.G. members.

Declaration of Intent The declaration of intent was made by a trio of organisations namely Fatima Development Group, Bamardo's and Moving Theatre. The Fatima Development Group is the local representative group, or tenants' association, for the Fatima Mansions residential flats complex, which is owned by Dublin Corporation. Bamardo's is a voluntary organisation which engages in social work and community development throughout Ireland and which has long had an association with Fatima Mansions. Moving Theatre was a community arts group which had run programmes, particularly, workshops for women in the Fatima complex. Fatima Mansions had, in the recent past, shown itself to be exemplary in the area of community development. In the early 1980s, Fatima Mansions had suffered the ravages of the heroin epidemic. In response to this a strong section of the Concerned Parents Against Drugs (CPAD) had been formed. After the community achieved astonishingly fast success in reducing the levels of the drugs problem, the people of Fatima Mansions formed the Fatima Development Group (FDG) with the objective of engaging in the energetic development of their own community The FDG initiated a number of projects. These included: the Fatima Development Group Co-Op Ltd. which set up a community launderette providing at first 3 full-time jobs; the Fatima Mansions Pre-School Playgroup was instigated; a Women's Programme was set up by Moving Theatre to assist by providing courses in home-making, parenting, relationships, health and community development; "Against the Odds", the community development newsletter was initiated. The FDG appointed 2 full-time workers, one of whom was a local man. These posts were funded by the Youth Employment Agency (a predecessor organisation of FAS) and the Inner City Group, a Dublin- orientated funding agency, since abolished, located within the Department of the Environment.

Origins of the Relationship with ACE During the early part of 1986, it became apparent to the ACE Committee that it was not yet in a position to fund a developed urban arts proposal, because none of the proposals appeared to satisfy ACE's criteria. Discussions were in train with a number of Dublin-based organisations including: Base 10 Community Arts, Ballymun; South Inner City Community Development Association (SICCDA); The Small Club, St. Teresa's Gardens; and the Fatima Development Group. In addition, applications from Ennis Travellers Group, Co. Clare and the Dublin Travellers Education and Development Group suggested that ACE might develop a project focussed upon the culture of the travelling people. The ACE Committee decided to commission one of its own members, Peter Sheridan, to conduct a brief consultancy to determine which project might be most suitable for development. He conducted workshops with some of these groups, especially the travellers. The report concluded that the conditions for an exciting, innovative and exemplary urban arts project best existed in the Fatima Mansions area. Central to the question of arts in the community context is the notion of empowerment. It is

difficult to imagine good community arts practice that does not address the question of power to cont rol the forces that shape that community's destiny. Thus, no one would argue a community's right to consultation on the construction of a motorway through their neighbourhood. In a parallel way, good community arts necessitates consultation and sensitivity to the particular needs of a community. And further, good community arts practice should provide a focus and channel to a whole range of issues and difficulties facing a community and the arts are, of course, singularly the most potent weapon in the community celebration and the community festival. Empowerment was at the heart of the Fatima proposal. The Fatima Development Group had managed to secure a commitment to having their flats complex fully refurbished. Dublin Corporation, as owner of the flats complex, selected Fatima Mansions as the pilot programme for refurbishment. The plans were developed by the Housing Maintenance Section in consultation with the residents. The imaginative plan was costed at a budget of £3.5 millions. The plan was influenced by the community architecture movement, which bases itself on the notion that humane and truly habitable buildings are more likely to result when architects create their designs in consultation with residents. The original application to ACE from the Fatima Development Group, Bamardo's and Moving Theatre centred upon "the arts project as a linking force between all the elements of community development".

The Development of the Proposal As a result, in August 1986, ACE gave a grant to Fatima Development Group, Bamardo's, Moving Theatre to carry out an initial feasibility study on synthesizing a role for the arts in the context of community development. In turn, the three organisations commissioned a community arts worker who visited communities in Belfast and London to examine projects which had succeeded in linking community development to community arts. It is interesting to note that when the feasibility study grant of £2,750 was offered by ACE to the three organisations, they were asked to sign the Arts Council's standard conditions of financial assistance, which was the normal procedure with which each project of ACE had to comply. The jargon of the standard conditions document was off-putting to members of the local community. The requirement was waived by ACE and a new set was drawn up and signed. Having received and approved the feasibility study, which comprised an extensive collection of slide photographs of community architecture projects in London, ACE offered funds to draw up a detailed plan of action. The plan was forwarded to ACE in January 1988. The plan called for the appointment of a Co-Ordinator who would act as a link person between residents and Dublin Corporation on the refurbishment programme and who would run an arts programme. In discussing the plan with ACE, the FDG argued strongly and consistently that power equalled control and that the role of ACE should be that of advisors and not "hands-on" participants. The two-tiered structure to which the Co-Ordinator was responsible comprised an Advisory Group which would guide the project and the FDG itself which had final legal responsibility for the project. ACE agreed to the FDG's approach. Even by AGE'S own innovative standards, this represented a leap in the dark. The full ACE Committee met with the FDG in the flats and the partnership was agreed.

The Project The Co-Ordinator was appointed in February 1988. One of the projects, initiated quite swiftly by the Co- Ordinator, who was a local resident, was the construction of architectural models. These were used so that Fatima Mansions residents might have the opportunity to comprehend the architectural refurbishment plans more readily than simply looking at blueprint drawings. The F.D.G. applied to the Youth Project Unit of the Commission of the European Community successfully for funds to set up a community photography workshop. Though this was outside the ACE project, ACE was delighted with this parallel development. Two Newsletters were produced with ACE assistance, and several young people in Fatima Mansions were engaged in their production. These achievements were valuable but progress on the development of play spaces was not so swift. The Co-Ordinator resigned at the end of 1988. The slowness of the development on the work on playspaces had not helped the project. The Corporation's refurbishment was proceeding apace and interest among the residents in matters environmental was palpable. Taking playsculpture as the focus, ACE introduced the stage designer and sculptor Frank Flood to the residents. Frank Flood gave an illustrated talk to the residents centering upon an offer from ACE to provide playsculptures in Fatima Mansions. ACE left the decision for the development of a relationship, or not, with the FDG, in this area of playsculpture. In the end, the FDG felt that a Co-Ordinator was still a necessary part of the process. In the end, the FDG withdrew from the partnership.

Conclusions The Environmental Project was at all times a high risk project. It was very much a leap in the dark. While objectively, it never realised the heights it set for itself, those who the work touched were affected deeply by it - young people who illustrated a newsletter, residents who viewed the architectural models, the visit of residents to community architecture projects in London in 1986. Such very local projects require to be nurtured gradually from small beginnings by funding agencies, commencing with small amounts of grant-aid and building up from there incrementally Funding agencies require to put themselves into a much more open frame of mind in dealing with communities which arc experiencing problems caused by poverty. It is essential that communication channels between the funding agency and the local group/community are clear. The Fatima Mansions community has been notable over the last seven years as a pioneer of community development. SECTION FOUR A FUTURE

4.1 The Need for Coherence ACE'S recommendations reflect a concern for the development of the arts, informed by the particular experience of the past four years of this special project and also by the collective experience over many years in arts education and in community arts which the membership of the ACE committee represents. An imperative, if the desired development is to occur, is for a coherence to be established and communicated as regards the responsibility regarding arts education and community arts and particularly in the latter. Just as the National Library, the National Museum, the National Gallery and the National Concert Hall have different areas of responsibility so there is need for clarification in the area of contemporary arts practice. ACE will propose a three-tiered structure in both community arts and arts education which should provide this much-needed clarification based upon a definition and allocation of appropriate responsibilities.

4.2 Management and Funding ACE recommends that in the area of community arts particularly there is need for structures and procedures that are at once more flexible and more engaged than those which characterise conventional arts funding. The procedures adopted by ACE, as described on page 47-48, and other similar procedures, should allow for careful monitoring of programme activity and of expenditure, while acknowledging the particular dynamics that give a community its identity and the complex and evolutionary nature of much community arts work. Additionally, when expertise is limited and that expertise is employed on boards of funding bodies, or as their executives, it seems wasteful to insist upon a kind of "arms-length" detachment which prevents communities having access to the advice and guidance which is every bit as necessary to the success of the communities' endeavours as is the financial assistance offered by the funding agencies. It has not been ACE's experience that the engaged nature of its relationship with those in receipt of its funds led to any diminution in the quality of monitoring or evaluation of those projects.

4.3 Education and Community ACE believes that the time has arrived for some greater separation between the to-date twinned areas of community arts and arts education. Accordingly ACE recommends two separate but parallel structures within which the developmental work of arts/education and of community arts can best be fostered. 4.4 ACE Recommendations: Community Arts

4.4.1 ACE recommends that the Arts Council should continue its policies in, and increase its funding to, those aspects of community arts practice which present themselves in conventional organisational contexts and which might be thought of as arts-in-community. Included here would be community arts festivals; professional community performance or resource groups; arts centres with programmes based in community-situated arts.

4.4.2 ACE recommends furthermore that the Arts Council design and introduce an artist-in-community programme analogous to the existing Council schemes in Education viz artists-in-schools and artists-in-residence-in-schools.

4.4.3 ACE recommends that the Arts Council devise evaluation methods for arts-in-community work which are appropriate to the nature of such work and which include procedures for self-evaluation by the groups and/or communities involved.

4.4.4 ACE recommends that the Arts Council ensure that there is an infrastructure of advice and support in the arts for communities. Such an infrastructure of advice, information and referral should be designed to be accessible to a wide range of communities with different interests, locations, and educational or socio-economic backgrounds. ACE recommends, as a matter of urgency, that the Arts Council engage with CAFE in discussions which are directed at achieving this objective as ACE believes that CAFE represents the best available mechanism to that end. ACE underlines to the Arts Council and to CAFE the enormous burden of responsibility represented by being a central agency for advice and information in the vast sector within which communities, the arts, and "community arts" operate. Such responsibility must be reflected in the quality and quantity of professional staff employed by CAFE and the Arts Council should fund CAFE accordingly.

4.4.5 ACE believes that Local Authorities have central responsibilities in both the community mediation of conventional arts practice and in full community arts practice. There should be greatly increased funding by Local Authorities of local arts centres, theatres and other resources and groups, particularly when their presence in the community is actively pursued through specialist personnel, programmes or services. The ACE Committee welcomes the clear signs of development of interest in community arts by the Local Authorities. 4.4.6 ACE acknowledges the important funding role which has been played by Foras Aiseanna Saothair (FAS), the National Manp ower Training Authority in the development of the Irish community arts movement. From the very commencement of the Manpower Schemes, particularly in the late 1970s, a commendable and ready openness was shown. Today FAS remains a key funder of community arts practice, mainly through the Social Employment Scheme (S.E.S.) and TEAMWORK. AGE urges FAS to retain its welcome openness to community arts activity. ACE requests FAS to seek to find ways of increasing the discretional proportion of funds to community arts groups. Perhaps FAS might wish to examine some method of offering a proportion of funds upon an incentive basis. Since ACE is placing high priority on training as the next necessary step in the development of community arts, ACE hopes that FAS will play a key role in concert with other funders in setting up a training scheme.

4.4.7 ACE recommends that, given the nature of community arts practice described variously in this present report, there is need for a standing committee representing a range of relevant arts, community and funding bodies and agencies with policies or responsibilities in this area. Accordingly ACE's main recommendation to its parent bodies, the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation, is that they continue their partnership and indeed extend it within the community arts field by inviting agencies like Combat Poverty, FAS, the Ireland Funds to join with them to consider certain issues in a collective manner.

Specifically ACE recommends to the Arts Council that it explores this collective approach by inviting the relevant parties formally to join such a standing committee which would have an (initial) life of three years. Additionally ACE recommends that the terms of reference of this new committee be specific and be linked to the development of true community arts practice. ACE recommends that the new committee concern itself with two issues:

(i) Co-Ordination Within its own work and in terms of informing its constituent organisations the new committee should endeavour to ensure that community arts work of quality is supported. The existence of a collective forum, in itself, and the possibility it opens up for shared funding, should go far to providing the coherence already represented as being necessary to the development of this sector.

(i) Training As its major policy priority in the next three years ACE recommends that the new committee or forum concern itself in a concentrated way with the issue of training. Understood as being included under this heading are the training of artists and animateurs to work productively and sensitively in community contexts; training of professional community workers and of voluntary community leaders and workers in arts and arts-related processes, skills and organisation; training of policy-makers and of local authority officials in an understanding of and value for the place of the arts within community developments. The process of initiating agencies to join this new collective committee on community arts and indeed the later selection by individual agencies of their representatives on such a committee should be informed by the knowledge that the thrust of future work will be in the areas of co-ordination and of training.

4.4.8 ACE recommends that the new committee be served by a full-time, high-level executive working from within the Arts Council. Reference has already been made in this report to the intolerable burden placed upon ACE committee members by virtue of the workload required. The only solution is the employment of a full-time paid executive.

4.4.9 Consistent with its policy of bridging money (cf. p. 48) and of seeding initiatives, ACE has retained certain funds which it intends to apply strategically to facilitate the employment of such an executive.

4.5 ACE Recommendations: Education

4.5.1 ACE recommends that education authorities in Ireland (the Department of Education, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, Vocational Education Committees) reflect in practice their oft-stated commitment to the central educational importance of arts education.

4.5.2 In the area of the arts-in-education ACE recommends that the Arts Council expands the range of its programmes in this area and funds them accordingly. ACE recommends that the Arts Council examine the serious limitations upon the development of its arts-in-education services in literature and the visual arts by virtue of their being direct promotions of the Council operated by an officer who is not full-time. The establishment of an outside or parallel agency to develop policy and programmes in this area should be examined urgently.

4.5.3 ACE recommends that the Arts Council adopt a policy whereby an education officer is considered as a core-staff member of all arts centres, galleries, theatres, performance companies and other important arts organisations and Arts Council funding is made available for such positions.

4.5.4 ACE's key recommendation in the area of education is concerned with the arts and young people in an out-of-school context. ACE regards this as the third tradition complementary to those of arts education and arts-in-education. ACE recommends that the Arts Council explores the setting up of a joint committee with the National Youth Council of Ireland and with representatives of the Gulbenkian Foundation, the Ireland Funds and other agencies, as considered appropriate. ACE recommends that this new committee's first task be the formulation of a policy, expressed in a document, analogous to the 1979 Arts Council Report on the arts and the formal educational system. ACE recommends that this policy become the basis for discussions with the Youth Affairs section of the Department of Education leading to the establishment of a three-year programme with funding secured from the Department of Education. ACE recommends further that priority in policy and programme be accorded to the areas of drama/theatre, dance, and popular music. The nature of these activities, being collective enterprises, is particularly appropriate for youth work (and they are concomitantly neglected within formal schooling). There appears also to be the latent resources, both human and material, to undertake an introductory programme and to provide an ongoing training and development programme by which the initial progress could be extended.

4.5.5 ACE recommends that the new Youth Arts Committee be served by a full-time and high-level executive and that such a person is best placed within the N. Y.C.I, organisation.

4.5.6 Consistent with its policy of bridging money (cf. p. 48) and of seeding initiatives ACE has retained certain funds which it intends to apply strategically to facilitate the employment of such an executive.

4.6 Gulbenkian Foundation ACE recommends that the Gulbenkian Foundation continues its excellent and valued work in Ireland through a mechanism which is a slightly more complex version of the devolution represented by ACE. Thus Gulbenkian would be represented on both the new committees recommended by ACE. ACE recommends that Gulbenkian employ its monies within those committees to ensure that innovative work always has a chance to occur and develop. Appendix 1 APPLICATIONS TO ACE

List of individuals or organisations who/which furnished declarations of intent or applications to ACE. These were received prior to the ACE closing date in late 1985. ACE furnishes this list to give the reader an idea of the activity in its areas of interest in Ireland. Antíent Concert Rooms - Dublin - Community Co-op Theatre Arlen House - Dublin - Literature/Publishing Arts for All - Waterford - Community Visual Arts Art Sandwich - Dublin - Community Performance/Workplace Arts Arts with the Handicapped - Dublin - Community (Handicapped) Arts Ballina Vocational School - Mayo - Post Primary Visual Education Ballyhaunis Community School - Mayo - Music Education Barefoot Dance Company - Wexford - Dance Education BASE 10, Ballymun - Dublin - Community Arts/Visual Boyle Community Arts - Roscommon - Rural Community Arts Project Bray Community/Arts Group - Wicklow - Community Arts/Social Training Sue Bullough, - Kerry - Visual Arts Education (Primary) CAFE - Dublin - Community Arts Resource/Training Patricia Callaly, Irish Museums Trust - Dublin - Arts Centres Feasibility Study Camaelon Dance Company - Galway - Dance Education James Cassidy & Associate Artists - Dublin - Community Visual Art City Vision - Dublin - Pre-School Visual Arts Education Ciotog Community Theatre - Waterford - Community Drama Clifton Community Arts - Galway - Community Arts Comhdhail na nOilean - Kerry - Rural Community Arts Administrator Community Arts Mosaic Annual Project - Leitrim - Community Visual Arts Community Art Workshop - Monaghan - Community Crafts Training/Workshop Michael Connaughton, Sutton - Dublin - Community Light Project Cork Corporation - Cork - Visual Environment Cork Teachers' Centre - Cork - Visual Arts - Teacher Education Cork Youth Theatre Project - Cork - Drama - Youth Theatre Anne E. Courtney - Dublin - Dance Education/Community Dance Cumann Naisunta na gCor - Cork - Community Choral Music Douglas Hyde Gallery - Dublin - Visual Arts Education - Community Officer & Outreach Programme Catherine Drea - Waterford - Primary Teacher Education/Visual Arts Drolleries Entertainments - Dublin - Community Drama/Literature Dublin Chamber Music Group - Dublin - Music Education Dublin City Association (An Taisce) - Dublin Environmental Community Project Dublin County Orchestra for Young Players - Dublin - Music Education Dublin Scrap Bank - Dublin - Arts Resource - Schools & Community Dublin Travellers Education & Development Group - Dublin - Community Drama Ennis Travellers Training Group - Clare - Community (Travellers) Drama Ennis School of Music - Clare - Music Education Ennis Arts Week - Clare - Community Arts Festival Ennistymon Branch Comhaltas Ceolteoirl Eireann - Clare - Community Music Centre Fatima Development Group/Barnardo's/Moving Theatre - Dublin - Community Drama/Arts JudyJohnson Flaherty - Galway - Visual Arts Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) Patrick Flynn, Ennis - Clare - Lexicography Focus Point - Dublin - Self Development/Homeless Women Galway Travellers - Galway - Drama/Video Project Garter Lane Arts Centre - Waterford - Education/Community Liaison Officer Graffiti - Cork - Theatre in Education HOPE - Dublin - Self Development/Homeless Boys International Amateur Theatre Association - Kildare - Drama Conference Irish Film Institute - Dublin - Media Studies, Second Level Irish Student Association of Drama - Cork - Drama Irish Youth Video & Film Project - Cork - Film Education (Youth, Schools) Patricia Jackson, Ennistymon Live - Clare - Community Arts Centre Jazz on the Terrace - Dublin - Music (Jazz) Education (2nd Level) Kalichi, Liberation Dance Workshop - Galway - Community Dance Keyhole Arts Group Mayo - Community Arts Centre Gene Lambert - Dublin - Photography/Handicapped Lourdes Community Crafts Centre - Dublin - Community Crafts Macnas - Galway - Community Theatre/Spectacle Aileen McKeogh - Dublin - City Sculpture Martin Mahon - Dublin - Media & Film Education Mercy Convent, Ballinrobe - Mayo - Music Education Midland Arts - Westmeath - Arts Education/Artists in Residence Mid West Arts - Abbeyfeale Project - Limerick - Co-op Community Arts/Rural Town County Monaghan VEC - Monaghan - Community & Youth Drama Moving Parts - Clare - Theatre Education (Primary School) Muintir Chronain - Dublin - Community Arts Centre Audrey Mullins - Tipperary - Community Visual Arts National Federation of Youth Clubs - Dublin - Community Youth Arts Project Newcastlewest Area School of Music - Limerick - Post Primary Music Education Newpark Music Centre - Dublin - Music Education Facilities Padraic O'Grady - Mayo - Visual Arts Education (Photography) Jane O'Leary - Galway - Music Education/Peripatetic Scheme Pas de Deux - Dublin - Peripatetic Dance Education The Picture House - Dublin - Film/Media Images Richard Pine - Dublin - Community Arts Publication Richard Pine, Muinin Too. - Dublin - Community Cultural Video Project Red Kettle Theatre Company - Waterfbrd - Community Drama Reel to Reel - Dublin - Music Education/Young Rock Musicians Leo Regan, Co. Sligo VEC - Sligo - Rural Community Light Project Peter Reynolds - Dublin - Homeless Photography Project Rialto Development Association - Dublin - Community Media Rivennount Community Workshops - Dublin - Community/Youth Arts Education Vivienne Roche - Cork - Visual Art/Joint Purchase St. Brendan's Hospital Project - Dublin - Community (Mentally 111) Arts Project St. Teresa's Gardens Development Committee - Dublin - Community Video Scenario - Dublin - Community Theatre Schools Recital S cheme (MAI) - Dublin - Music Education Scitter Scatter Puppets - Cork - Puppet Drama/Primary Schools Seoda Productions - Kildare - Children's Theatre Shannon Art Group - Dublin - Visual Arts Kay Sheehy, Ennis Library - Clare - Video Film Resource Shoestring Children's Theatre - Dublin - Drama Education, First & Second Level SICCDA/NCAD/Dublin Travellers - Dublin - Art Education in Community (Travellers & Young People from Inner City) SICCDA - Dublin - Video & Drama in Community Skibbereen Arts & Theatre Society - Cork - Arts Centre Patrick Sutton, Letterkenny Community Theatre Project - Donegal - Rural Community Theatre Theatreworks - Galway - Community Drama Visual Arts Group, UCC - Cork - Visual Arts Education (Third Level) Vox Pop - Dublin - Community/Arts Magazine for Young People Margaret Walsh - Cork - Local History/Folklore Project Wet Paint Theatre Company - Dublin - Community Youth Drama Wexford School of Music - Wexford - Music Education Women's Education Bureau - Dublin - Community Writing/Publishing Appendix II ACECOMMITTEEMEMBERS

The membership of the ACE Committee, appointed in 1985 by the Arts Council and the Gulbenkian Foundation, was made up of:

CIARÁNBENSON (Chairperson) Born Dun Laoghaire, 1950. Studied psychology and philosophy in UCD and social psychology at Sussex University. He has worked for the Economic and Social Research Institute, the Mater Dei Dept. of Counselling, St. John of God Mental Handicap Services, The Arts Council and the Higher Education Authority. Chairperson of Irish Film Institute (1980-84) and of the Grapevine/City Centre Arts Centre (1985-89). Since 1979 has worked as a lecturer in the Education Department in U.C.D. and has lectured and published widely in psychology, aesthetics, education and policy-making.

HELENBYGROVE ACE Committee until 1987. Regional Arts Officer for the Galway-Mayo Region from 1979 until 1987. Her work in Galway-Mayo involved many community arts projects.

LAURENCECASSIDY Born Dublin 1950. He is the Literature and Community Arts Officer of the Arts Council, having joined the Council's staff in 1980. From 1980 to 1988, he was Arts Centres Officer of the Arts Council also. Member of the Co- Ordinating Group for Poetry of the Council of Europe. Organiser of the First Dublin International Writers' Conference 1988.

MARTINDRURY Worked as a teacher and subsequently as Arts Education Officer in Sligo/Leitrim before becoming Artistic Director of TEAM Educational Theatre Co. in 1981. Since 1985, he has been Education Officer of the Arts Council.

ROBBIE McDONALD Born Cork 1952. He attended Cork School of Art 1973-78. Founder-Director of Triskel Arts Centre, Cork since 1979 and his full-time work today is Director of Triskel. Committee Member of the Sculpture and Drawing Exhibition (S.A.D.E.) 1982 and 1987 and Cork Art Now (C.A.N.) Exhibition in 1985.

GRAINNEO'FLYNN She is the Education and Research Officer of the Teachers' Union of Ireland. Teacher in Education Department, Trinity College, Dublin from 1973-80. Teacher also in N.C.A.D. and People's College. Worked also as Director of a Development Education project funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs 1980-83. IAINREID Trained at Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, London, as an actor. Worked in commercial and subsidised theatre in Britain before becoming Drama Officer with Greater London Arts. Subsequently he became Assistant Director with responsibility for the Arts programme at the U.K. Branch of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. In 1989, he was appointed Director of Arts Co-Ordination at the Arts Council of Great Britain.

PETERSHERIDAN Dramatist, theatre director and community arts worker. Former Artistic Director of Project Arts Centre, Dublin. Artistic Director of City Workshop Theatre 1982-83. Co-Founder of Creative Activity for Everyone (CAFE), all- Ireland alliance of community arts groups. Author of many plays, among the best-known of which are' "The Liberty Suit" (1977) in collaboration with Gerard Mannix Flynn; and "Diary of a Hunger Striker" (1982) which was given also in a bilingual version as "Dialing Okras". His recent play "Mother of All die Behans" was successful both in Dublin and at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival 1989 and the Brighton Festival 1989. Appendix III

References of illustrations in the middle colour section of the Report. 1. Macnas, in parade in the streets of Castlebar on 7th July 1987, en route to "The Big Game" performance in MacHale Park. 2. Painting from the Art Education Workshop, Cork. 3. Section of page from The Broadsheet, from The Poetry Project. 4. "Look At My Hands" by City Vision - children explore visual arts materials. 5. CAFEDATA, CAFE's Information Network in action. 6. The picture shows blueprint of the architectural refurbishment plan of Fatima Mansions drawn up by Dublin Corporation architects. 7. Ron Goodall who played the Bishop, about to "throw in the ball" to start "The Big Game", a section of the 20,000 (approx) strong crowd is visible in the background. Publisher: Arts Community Education Committee, c/o The Arts Council/An Chomhairle Ealaion, 70 Merrion Square, Dublin 2. Ireland.

© Arts Community Education Committee 1989. ACE-ISBN 09515451 08.

Book design and illustration by The Graphicomes (Borfoli, O'Neill. Tiemey) Typesetting by Beta - Set Printed by The Orchard Press