Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1013924
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 AUGUST 2018 INTERVIEW passively appreciating the piece. And I think, in principle, that's a good thing. We've seen this in quite a number of pro- jects, even at V18; but it is also part of the evaluation scheme which the Arts Council has adopted in recent years. Most of these projects will have a so- cial dimension attached to the funding criteria. You say it's a 'good thing', but isn't there also a danger in that form of approach? If arts funding is linked to a political agenda – however commendable, in theory – doesn't it also mean that art gets channelled in directions into political directions? There is a danger, certainly. Artists are becoming increas- ingly dependent on govern- ment funding, and this could lead to a silencing of dissent. The fact that the 'social di- mension' is being presented as a 'democratic participation in cultural life in Malta', also has a political agenda attached to it. If we're not careful, artists run the risk of becoming promot- ers of government's political agenda. It's a real risk. I don't want to shoot down the social dimension, because it would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The 'baby', in itself, is a positive thing. But sometimes you get to a point where you're actually playing a game to please the funders. And the funder, in this case, is often the government. Government has become very strong in this field. So, it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is posi- tive that government is fund- ing the arts; but on the other, we seem to have lost a certain amount of grassroots activity that might have existed some 20 years ago. Back then, artists still did things for no money... because there was no money to be had: the Arts Council didn't exist yet. The Depart- ment of Culture might put up LM150 for an exhibition, that could take a year to produce... and even then, it would have to be shared by around 20 artists. That was the reality. But things still happened; there was a level of grassroots activity that also enjoyed a sense of 'freedom'... though I admit it might not be the right word... If I may suggest another: the sort of art you're talking about may have been more 'subversive'. Up to a point, art is also expected to challenge preconceived notions, to draw people out of their comfort zones, and so on. If I'm understanding correctly, this is not happening as much anymore... Yes. Especially because, in the local scenario – and I have to say this – practically all cul- tural entities are headed by political appointees. The policy itself already seems to favour this populist, social dimension approach... for instance, by en- couraging work that communi- cates its meaning to as wide a sector of the public as possible... and that, in itself, can become dangerous. What if you have an artist whose work needs to be difficult? Or needs to create tension with its public? I think that sense of tension is impor- tant. We shouldn't have a situ- ation where everyone works in a false sense of harmony.... where everyone 'participates', so everyone comes out 'happy' as a result. Art is not there to make us 'happy'. It is also sup- posed to bring out the conflicts within us, to make us aware of them... not to sweep them all under the carpet. Now, when you have this sort of scenario in a context where everyone 'at the top', so to speak, is a po- litical appointee... whose job, ultimately, is to please his or her authorities, because they put him or her there...decisions can end up favouring politi- cians rather than artists. Of- ten, such appointees would not have the qualification to de- serve that position. They might have other qualifications; like – it has to be said – voting for the right party... but no quali- fications of an artistic nature. When you put all that together, it could, potentially, intrude on the running of the entity and real artistic development. The consideration for such appoin- tees becomes: "Why are we putting on this play, when it's so 'controversial'? Why are we including that video in our in- ternational exhibition, when it features Maltese swearing? We want to portray a different pic- ture of ourselves to the world." These are not artistic consid- erations. They're ultimately political considerations... There is, however, an irony in all this. A few years ago, we had a play [Stitching] banned from Malta because it was too 'controversial'; we had an author and publisher taken to court over an 'obscene' short story; but what you're now describing is taking place under a different administration which, among other things, has removed censorship from the statute books... how do you account for this paradox? When I said 'there's a risk', I didn't mean that it's happen- ing all the time. I think that [government] is seeing the po- tential of the arts in different ways. I'm not trying to suggest that government is only look- ing at it from a very restric- tive, utilitarian angle. It's not only that. But then, certain things have already happened to make us aware of the danger. There were highly qualified ap- pointees to the V18 commit- tee who were removed from their positions, for instance. I was one of the first to say that was a bad decision. And I still think that way. So yes, you do have to scratch your head, and ask yourself: why? Why is cul- ture dominated by people who are passionate about a politi- cal party rather than about the arts? And there are cases of in- terference: no doubt about it. When talking about 'dependence on government funding', another reality swims into view. There doesn't seem to be very much choice. Unlike other countries, Malta's commercial/business sector does not seem to respond to the allure of investing in the arts. Do you agree? What sort of private avenues for arts funding – if any – exist in Malta? I think, first of all, that even this sector is improving. There are more galleries opening, for instance. It's still relatively small, but I think the potential is being perceived more now, even if just in the last five years. You are certainly right, though, that 20 years ago no one would have dreamed of investing in the arts. Speaking for myself: even I knew, as a teenager, that I would have to make a living for myself, and that art was not going to help me get my daily bread and butter. Not in Malta, at any rate. That mentality still exists today; I see it with young artists; with their parents who sometimes talk to me at Uni- versity. They remain uncon- vinced. But things are slowly changing. I really do hope, however, that we will see more artist-led, grassroots projects that do not depend so much on government funding. Apart from the risk I mentioned ear- lier, it would also give artists a stronger voice. stronger voice Artists are becoming increasingly dependent on government funding, and this could lead to a silencing of dissent