A lot can be done with a little, and little done with a lot. In presenting Budget 2024, the Minister of Finance told us that “[i]n 2023, 30 persons benefited from the Cultural and Creative Industries Grant with another 30 persons expected to benefit in 2024 [and that 12] three-week Culture Camps were conducted across all our regions where 400 young people were exposed to techniques in music, dance, visual arts and the preservation of heritage sites.” These are among the activities which situate 2023 as a year of “major growth in our culture and arts sector.” We were also told that for 2024, the government has budgeted “$2.7 billion for the continuous development of culture and arts including provision for a new art gallery and museum, outfitting of community spaces for cultural performances and to continue the [aforementioned activities].” Excluding the $100 million budgeted to support activities associated with the observance of the International Decade for People of African Descent, $2.6 billion is the culture and arts allocation out of an overall national budget exceeding $1.1 trillion.
$2.6 billion. This figure is just that – a figure. I wonder how $2.6 billion will translate for culture and arts development? More precisely, how much of the $2.6 billion will go to the new gallery? Will this new gallery stand as the new National Gallery? Where will it be sited? Hopefully, it will be fireproof, temperature controlled, with very high floor to ceiling ‘pinnable’ walls – that can receive a nail or a tack to facilitate hanging artwork without the strings being seen. Walls that are not load bearing will also need to be movable (not fixed) so new spaces can be configured as needed. Additionally, the new gallery will need to be outfitted with windows that have UV protection so the artwork within can be protected. We all know what can happen to our coloured clothing when routinely hung outdoors on a line or coloured drapes at the window after a while. Slowly the colour fades. Without UV protection windows, the same fate can befall artwork, especially those using light sensitive materials necessitating drapes to block harmful rays and obstructing the natural light. But perhaps the designers of the new facility will minimise windows to optimise wall space. And while the floors will need to be concrete so they are flexible in their use, the structure itself does not need to be yet another boring, uninspired concrete box. We have enough of those.
Something of $2.6 billion, that is what we know will go to the new art gallery. While I wonder about the possible inspired design that may distinguish the structure while tying it to our architectural heritage and cultural space, I am as concerned that millions could be spent on a building that is not fit for purpose. Or perhaps, I am made wary by recollections of the past and those times are not characterising our present time. Perhaps, I need to be more optimistic. Perhaps I need to say to myself no, this new gallery will not be like the bridge built which collapsed shortly after, or the school built that … but there have been so many schools that failed in one way or another – major or minor – due to design or construction errors. I suspect my fear is triggered by the dirt footpath transformed into a vehicle-worthy concrete road, driven on by cars and heavy cement-laden mixing trucks en route to nearby road work sites which showed no evidence of deterioration but was dug up about two months after its completion. Now a lovely gravel road remains that is impassable by pedestrians in the aftermath of a heavy downpour. Could it be that such a violation of public trust has me wary that the requisite checks may not be performed allowing the new gallery to be efficiently built so it may serve as an appropriate space for the storage and display of art?
Millions spent on a new gallery should be met with delight. This, I know. Why am I not excited? Will our new fit-for-purpose, architecturally inspired (fingers crossed) gallery be outfitted with the requisite personnel? Will the new gallery have a director, registrar, conservator, in-house curator, and in-house art handlers? Each of these are trained individuals with specialist knowledge. Will people be trained? Or, will the ‘appropriate’ people come from among a cohort of politically aligned associates with no background in art to perform a show of work at the expense of what the gallery should do on behalf of the collection, artists, and the wider community? With the way construction costs can run for a simple family dwelling, a substantial portion of $2.6 billion would need to be spent for a new gallery to replace our current structure, but even the best designed and best constructed edifice is only as good as those who serve from within.
Admittedly, my wariness extends to the possibility of witnessing on a grander scale a demonstration of sentiment that visual art does not really matter in agri-basket, oil and natural gas Guyana. I recently sat in a meeting and was told the art situation I am affiliated with is doing fine. It is not. A coat of paint (even if the wrong colour) can make everything look well, I suppose. Our new art gallery needs to be designed responsive to a clear articulation of its anticipated programme (functions). This can only happen if people with the requisite experience and knowledge are consulted. Will reasonable sums of the millions be spent on soliciting the informed opinions of others in the region or within the vast Guyanese diaspora on how the new space should be designed and function? Beyond our shores are Guyanese experienced at establishing and running award winning art spaces. Will their knowledge be harnessed for guidance on a space that functions as it should?
I want to be as excited as my colleague on foreign shores who asked me about this new development. However, while 2023 was recorded as a year of “major growth in our culture and arts sector” I watched and felt visual art being further suffocated.
