19
In the past 30 years, and particularly the latter half, Hong Kong has sown its artistic seeds widely though somewhat wildly. We have jungle and rain forest lushness in some parts of our cultural island and wilderness and desert in others. The growth has been haphazard and uncoordinated, with too much irrigation and fertiliser applied to some parts, while others have been neglected. And while there is a general belief Hong Kong needs more money and public interest to be invested in the arts scene, the how, where and when are less easy to answer. For almost 15 years the Chairman of the Council for Performing Arts, Alex Wu, had been clamouring in the Legislative Council and elsewhere for greater co-ordination and stronger emphasis on culture in our education system. He argued this when, in the mid-1970s, it appeared that local youth were losing direction, lacking responsibility and needing more outlets to absorb their creative energies. He felt Hong Kong was not a cultural desert but ‘a culturally under-developed area which simply needs an irrigation plan'. He criticised our cultural achievements at that time on the grounds that 'they reach only the elite few'. He called on the government to establish a policy on subsidies, and to adopt a more planned and active role as a patron of the arts. He proposed a central organisation 'such as an arts council' which would act as an overall cultural co-ordinator, avoid overlapping and establish policy guidelines.
Government Response
The government's response to this was two-fold. It set up a Music Office more than a decade ago which has done great things in music training of the young, arranging its own concert tours overseas and locally. It also established the Council for Performing Arts in 1981 to give advice on how it should encourage and support these activities. This led to the government handing out subsidies to a variety of deserving groups in the form of grants, both capital and recurrent, to 'foster artistic excellence'. The Municipal Services Branch is the executive arm of this council, and provides 'infrastructural support for the development and promotion of performing arts'. The Urban Council and Regional Council operate the various venues in their areas, and while the Urban Council manages performing companies, they both present performances and hold exhibitions.
How is it all working out?
While the artistic juggernaut is making progress, the gears are not synchronising well. For while in theory the arrangement looks tidy, in practice it is beset by problems resulting from rivalry, jealousy, pettiness and a good deal of bickering. One close observer describes the Council for Performing Arts as a 'toothless tiger'. He added: 'When the Council for Performing Arts was established, the vision was not clear enough; they did not foresee the difficulties ahead. They haven't got enough money; they can't ask the Urban Council to comply. Only when they get much more money can they project themselves as an effective council'. The causes of the division are understandable. The Urban Council's monopoly of the major venues is resented by many who either cannot get bookings (about half are unsuccessful) or cannot get access for rehearsals or have to accept what the Urban Council will provide in terms of sound systems and lighting. The Urban Council reply that, as the pioneers, they had not only to promote and sell their venues but also to create and support some of the principal users, for had they not done so the cultural take-off might not have happened as quickly and as broadly as it has in recent years. They have also taken the lead in developing the visual arts and at the same time have shown a responsible attitude to expenditure such as by axing eight of the 11 proposed district civic centres which could not be justified, at the risk of upsetting many district boards which would have liked to have had them built.