De Valera's Irelands (25 page)

There can be no doubt that Ó Faoláin's view of what constituted the arts was a more rarified one than that of P. J. Little. Ó Faoláin, for in­stance, sought to exclude traditional Irish dancing and folk dancing from the Arts Council's remit and a delightful piece of English law was cited in favour of this opinion. The judgement of 27 July 1955 in the British Court of Appeal stated, relative to folk dancing:

Folk dancing was not one of the fine arts: since the fine arts, although con­strued more widely than formerly and including music and perhaps poetry, eloquence and ballet dancing, did not include recreational dancing such as ballroom dancing, and folk dancing as practised was dancing for the enjoy­ment of those practising it as opposed to a form of artistic expression giving aesthetic satisfaction to those perceiving it.
37

In a Canute-like stance in December 1957 Ó Faoláin wrote to the Depart­ment of the Taoiseach on behalf of the Arts Council deploring the propo­sal to establish commercial television in Ireland and ‘respectfully beg­­ged the Taoiseach to reconsider the matter.
38
By 1957, it was estimated that there were already 25,000 television sets in the Republic of Ireland.
39
The reasons given by Ó Faoláin against the introduction of commercial tele­vision in Ireland are worth citing in full:

1. Commercial television cannot be considered to be Irish television as long as a great many if not the great majority of its programmes are – as they are morally certain to be – for reasons of cost, imported programmes initially manufactured for and governed by the tastes and standards of audiences outside Ireland.

2. It is to be borne in mind in this connection that for reasons of self-concern, commercial interests tend unscrupulously to relate the cultural level of the majority of programmes to the tastes and standards of the most undevelop­ed mass-audiences.

3. It follows that in commercial television not only does self-interest, of its nature, over-ride cultural values for the sake of appealing to mass-aud­iences but, in doing so, produces a proportionate and progressive vulgar­isation of public taste as a whole.

4. That the establishment of commercial television here, far from diminish­ing the influence of television from elsewhere – not to speak of eliminating it – will on the contrary by increasing the habit of televiewing among the public make this influence more and more widespread.

5. That any really effective control of the objectionable features inherent in commercial or commercial sound-broadcasting has been proved by experi­ence to be impracticable.

In view of the foregoing the Arts Council believes that no system of com­mercial television should receive the sanction and practical support of an Irish government.

Given such a negative attitude, the Council should not have been too sur­­prised when it was not asked to join the Television Commission estab­lish­ed by the government on 10 April 1958. The Council felt itself snubbed and sent the Commission its resolution against commercial television, and finally had the resolution published in all the national news­papers on 29 June 1959.

In a further emphasis on the policy of ‘high standards', Ó Faoláin directed the Council away from sponsorship of amateur dramatic acti­vity. There were over 850 drama groups in Ireland,
40
and he judged that the Council's grant was needed for other purposes. The Council advised the Amateur Drama Council of Ireland that, in future, it would advance amateur dramatic activity by sponsoring courses for producers rather than performances by local groups. Ó Faoláin felt that profession­al dramatic activity was capable of operating without the Arts Council's support. This was debatable. Although the Dublin Theatre Festival was launched suc­cessfully in 1957 without an Arts Council grant, brave ventures like the Pike Theatre, Dublin's best-known little theatre of the 1950s, fought a hand-to-mouth existence before final extinction for want of a subsidy.

Ó Faoláin's priority was to provide Irish people with opportunities to see, read and hear the work of renowned artists, poets, writers and musicians. Concerts by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, the London Symphony Orchestra, and Yehudi Menuhin, were sponsored by the Arts Council. In the winter of 1958/9 selected art experts and writers were invited to participate in a lecture series titled ‘The Artist and his Milieu'. The initial guest list of speakers drawn up largely by Seán Ó Faoláin in­cluded Albert Camus, Mies van der Rohe, Tennessee Williams and Sal­vador Dali. The lecturers who finally came were distinguished but not quite such major names – Rene Huyghe, Pierre Emmanuel, Felix de Nobel, John L. Sweeney, Angus Wilson and Gabriel Marcel – and they address­ed audiences at the Royal Hibernian Hotel, Dublin, and the Im­perial Hotel, Cork. The lecture series became something of a social event but its usefulness was questionable because some of the speakers had either poor English or none at all.
41
Ó Faoláin should not have expected Irish audiences to understand French. The exercise therefore created a sense of exclusivity, the opposite of that stimulated by Little's more indiscrimi­nate policy.

Ó Faoláin's challenge to civil servants in order to win greater indep­endence for the Arts Council continued concerning the appointment of a successor to the Council's secretary, Dr Liam O'Sullivan, who decided reluctantly in April 1957 to leave the Council to take up the higher paid post of Keeper of the Art and Industrial division in the National Mus­eum. Although the Council was statutorily empowered to select a new secretary, Dr O'Sullivan explained to Ó Faoláin that de Valera, who had recently replaced Costello as Taoiseach, had his own views on the mat­ter. Dr O'Sullivan wrote:

At Dr Nolan's request I had an interview with him last evening in the De­partment of the Taoiseach about the position of secretary. He said to me that the Taoiseach would be glad if the Council would consider favourably the appointment of the present director of the government Information Bureau, as the next secretary. His position had become redundant there.
42

Ó Faoláin was indignant and made his feelings known to Dr Nolan. After three difficult weeks, the Taoiseach and his department finally re­lented. Dr Nolan excused the Taoiseach's indiscretion by suggesting that it was thought that the Council ‘in recruiting a secretary, might be look­ing for a public relations officer.' The director was ‘now free to look a­round' for a suitable secretary.
43
Ó Faoláin had someone in mind. He sent a telegram to Mervyn Wall, author and broadcaster, who was on holi­days in Roundstone, County Galway: ‘Would you be willing, if invit­ed, to accept this post?'
44
Wall travelled back to Dublin for an interview with Ó Faoláin, and two other Council members, John Maher and Dr Hayes. He was the only candidate invited to apply for the post and, predictably, the Council ‘had no hesitation in recommending him.'
45
He took up his new position on 1 July 1957.

Ó Faoláin's Council followed up this little victory by rejecting rep­resentations from the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education and several other politicians, on behalf of a young musician who had applied for an Arts Council grant to help her to take up a place at the Royal College of Music, London. The Taoiseach felt that the case appeared to be ‘worthy of further consideration by An Chomhairle Ealaíon'.
46
The Council de­cided to stand firm and reiterated its refusal to accept applications by in­dividuals for grant aid. Ó Faoláin supported this policy and was deter­mined to quash political pressure in order to guarantee the Council's in­dependence.

In the autumn of 1958, the Department of the Taoiseach asked the Arts Council to reduce the grant which had been awarded to the Wex­ford Festival because the tourist board, Bord Fáilte, was also funding it. Having spurned political interference, Ó Faoláin decided it was time to seriously challenge Dr Nolan. He wrote:

It would help in this matter if you would be so good as to explain to them in what manner their decision to grant the original sum to the Wexford Festival runs contrary to the Arts Act, 1951, as it may conceivably occur to some members of the Council that the Arts Council is entitled to spend the grant made to the Council ‘for such purposes connected with their func­tions as in their discretion they think fit.'
47

Dr Nolan was not to be easily outdone. He reminded Ó Faoláin that the Council's decision to fund the Wexford Festival ‘was expressly qualified by the Council as being “subject to the approval of the Taoiseach”.'
48
Ó Faoláin refused to be made the victim of his own words. He replied to Nolan:

The point at issue was not whether the Taoiseach's approval should be sought in the matter. The issue was the Taoiseach's power in the light of the Arts Act, 1951, to determine how much the Council should offer to the Wexford Festival.
49

Dr Nolan was forced to agree that while it was for the Taoiseach to de­cide the amount of the Arts Council's annual grant-in-aid, the Council did not require the Taoiseach's approval to spend it.
50
He advised that in future the Council should seek the Taoiseach's approval only in relation to proposals involving the employment and conditions of Council staff which, under the Arts Act, required it. Having clarified the position, Dr Nolan sensibly relaxed the level of supervision of the Council's activities and allowed it to get on with its business.

The Council realised that Ó Faoláin's hard-nosed style paid divi­dends and authorised him ‘to pursue a policy of protesting privately or publicly against unsightly public buildings, erections, hoardings or street furniture.'
51
Ó Faoláin was concerned particularly about roadside adver­tising hoardings which were transforming Irish roads into American-style ‘billboard alleys'. Ogden Nash wrote a pertinent little poem on this theme: ‘I think that I shall never see/a billboard lovely as a tree/Indeed, unless the billboards fall/I'll never see the trees at all'.

Ó Faoláin applied his campaign to three separate industries – petrol and oil, beer and spirits, and tobacco.
52
He began with the petrol and oil companies and asked that, for aesthetic, scenic and tourist reasons, they should refrain from erecting advertisements on roadside hoardings. Rep­­resentatives of all the companies involved were invited to a meeting and, to Ó Faoláin's surprise, they agreed to his proposal. He was less success­ful with beer and spirits companies who argued that if they did not erect advertisements on the hoardings, their competitors would do so. The to­bacco companies advised Ó Faoláin to secure the collective agreement of advertising agencies to withdraw the hoardings.

The campaign was welcomed enthusiastically by journalists who praised the Arts Council for its valuable lead on an important issue.
53
Ad­vertising agencies were anything but happy. One of them, Messrs David Allen & Sons, Ltd, threatened to sue the Council on the grounds that the campaign was ‘outside the functions of the Arts Council as pre­scribed in the Arts Act, 1951.'
54
Ó Faoláin sought legal advice which con­firmed his view that the Council's action was in line with its statutory functions and was not directed at the business of Messrs Allen & Sons, Ltd, but at pre­serv­ing ‘the natural beauties of the countryside because of the salutary effect on public taste'.
55
The advertising agency decided not to pursue the matter. Although the campaign gained useful publicity for the Arts Coun­cil, it did not work. The oil companies hon­oured their agree­ment until it became obvious that different advertisers had replaced them and no hoard­ings had been taken down.
56
The Department of Local Government be­gan to plan new legislation which would include restric­tions on hoard­ings at tourist sites.

There was a clear need for legislation to preserve buildings of archi­tectural significance. The Council played its part in highlighting the issue by entering into a public controversy with the Office of Public Works in protest at the proposed demolition of Georgian houses at nos 2 & 3 Kil­dare Place, Dublin. Despite the Council's objection, the OPW demolish­ed the buildings.
57
The Council at its meeting on 25 June 1957 approved a draft letter for issue to the press which criticised the OPW strongly. Hav­ing considered the wisdom of entering into conflict with another excheq­uer-financed agency, Ó Faoláin asked the Council not to issue the letter.
58
The Council could not afford to be so openly aggressive when it was pleading for more funds.

It would have been odd if Seán Ó Faoláin and Mervyn Wall had done nothing for the cause of writers, poets and publishers. The Council spon­sored an International Book Design Exhibition held at the Technical In­stitute, Bolton Street, Dublin, in November 1957.
59
Financial support was given to periodicals of literary and cultural merit such as
Irish Writing
,
Studies
and
The Dublin Magazine
. Mervyn Wall proposed that memorial tablets should be placed on buildings throughout the country to comme­morate notable artists and writers who had resided in or been associated with them. Ó Faoláin's view was that it was not the Council's job to put up signs saying ‘So and so lived here' but only to erect signs which had sculptural or artistic importance in themselves. The Council agreed in principle to the idea of supporting such memorial tablets but it was later decided that it would be more appropriate for Bord Fáilte to implement it.
60
This was done successfully during the 1950s.

It would be incorrect, despite all the activities recorded here, to inter­pret that Seán Ó Faoláin was an executive director. Mervyn Wall had full responsibility for managing the Arts Council office. Ó Faoláin, in fact, rarely visited it as recorded by Wall: