20
STATE OF THE ARTS
Without the initiatives by successive Urban Council chairmen Sales, Cheong-leen and Forsgate - the state of the arts would be far less spectacular than it is. Hong Kong, however, remains lopsided in its development and lacks basic co-ordination; a lot of money is being pumped in by various authorities, amounting to more than $160 million, not counting inputs from the Jockey Club and private sponsorship. Yet of the government's funding, two-thirds goes to the Academy for Performing Arts. No sensible and sympathetic supporter would deny that the academy will play a highly significant part in producing a steady flow of graduates who should enrich Hong Kong's cultural scene, if they are not lost in the emigration rush in the next few years. But the academy and the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra and the Urban Council's various groups tend to get the lion's share of the official handouts, and the rest go begging for scraps. Let no one deny they are in some cases quite meaty and tasty scraps; but many fear for the future, for there is no assurance of continuity and growth and no basis for future planning.
It would be foolish now to embark on a cornucopia policy, liberally sprinkling rewards to whichever supplicant made the correct ritual kowtows. How then do we evolve a rational policy which achieves fair deals for all, with a living wage for professional performers, and adequate venues, which in turn attract good public attendance and support?
Do we need a cultural supremo, a Mr Big who would be appointed by the government, surrounded by bureaucracy and immured in one of our splendid new glassfront office blocks, dictating the establishment of more orchestras, 20 per cent more drama for Tsuen Wan and 10 per cent less for Junk Bay, more censorship, less ballet in Tuen Mun but more in Sai Kung, less this and more that and none of this new fangled nonsense, thank you?
No one in the arts world I spoke to wants such a co-ordinator, particularly with 1997 on the horizon, yet all feel the need for more co-ordination. And not just at the programme level to avoid clashing dates, but in building the basic infrastructure of our cultural effort.
The government's desire to encourage the arts is sensible and consistent with what many enlightened and democratic governments are doing. An Arts Council representing both the main streams and the side streams of the arts, and preferably including all spending authorities may well be needed, but should not be dominated by the central government or a Mr Big, however enlightened and acceptable that person may be. The council could perhaps meet annually at a seminar or workshop where its chairman would be elected for a two-year or three-year term by all involved in the arts or their constituency representatives. This might become a sort of self-regulating 'parliament of the arts' in which all can have their say,
and through which policy can evolve and co-ordination and future planning be achieved, as well as official funds allocated and dispensed. This is a personal view based on conversations with many in the arts world, who recognise the need for co-ordination but strongly oppose domination by one all-powerful authority.
Big things are in the offing with Urban Council cultural projects exceeding $1 billion in the next three years, and a budget for museums, entertainment, libraries and culture in the current financial year amounting to $350 million, with $63 million going to the performing arts. The government will be spending about $93 million and the district boards $9 million. In terms of expenditure per head of population this works out at about $30 per head, which contrasts with the $60 a head that Australia spends, $90 by countries such as Britain, the United States and Italy, and $250 by Canada, West Germany, France, Netherlands and Sweden. Clearly this is big money, and if Hong Kong is to approach the levels even of Australia people will want to see it spent wisely and productively with results for all to recognise.