“We must nurture creativity and innovation,” said President Irfaan Ali recently. He was at the time referring not to the world of culture but to the launch of refurbished Physics and Chemistry laboratories at St Stanislaus College, where he called for an innovation fund to support students. If he wants to see a flowering of creativity in the field of Science, the same is not true of the arts, where he is content to allow his Minister of Culture constrain artistic expression within the straitjacket of political diktats.
Undeterred by his bruising encounter with the nation’s leading sculptor, Minister Charles Ramson is now confronting its leading artist. In a letter to this newspaper on October 6th, Mr Stanley Greaves recounted how it had been his intention to hold an exhibition of his work in Castellani House in celebration of his 90th birthday, based on what is held in the National Collection. The established protocol, he said, is to approach the Curator of the Gallery, who in this case is Mr Ohene Koama, but he was told that Minister Ramson was now the person to whom this request must be directed. Furthermore, he was informed that no catalogue would be printed and no refreshments served.
As Mr Greaves explained, catalogues constitute important historical records providing data on artists and their work. Artists, he went on to write, indicate their presence by having exhibitions, as writers publish books – he might have added, launch them too – and musicians mount shows or concerts.
The essence of the problem is, however, that removing the power to decide on exhibitions from the Curator to the Minister imports a political dimension into our artistic world from which it has been largely insulated hitherto. All the Curators of the National Collection have been knowledgeable about art; Ms Elfrieda Bissem-ber, to give one example, was qualified in Art History. Where Mr Koama was concerned, Mr Greaves told this newspaper that he had facilitated international exhibitions and nurtured local talent. “He’s been doing that for decades,” he said. “His understanding of our National Collection is unparalleled. I am not aware that Ramson knows the content of the National Collection … either in part or in whole.”
The disempowerment of the Curator was not the only administrative issue which Mr Greaves raised. The other was the absence of a Committee, which had been in existence from the time Castellani House became the formal permanent home of the National Collection shortly after the PPP/C government came to power in 1992. Mr Greaves related how the Castellani House Committee had always been very supportive of the National Collection administration. Past members, he wrote, “included a government representative, lawyers, the business community, artists, writers and Head of the Burrowes School.”
What perhaps should be added for Mr Ramson’s benefit was that for many years the government representative on the Committee was Mrs Janet Jagan, who was also the lever behind establishing Castellani House on a permanent basis in the first place. What-ever her political orientation, she had a feeling for artistic enterprise, and would not have been impressed by the current Minister.
Apart from the importance of having a body removed from the political directorate to assist with the work of administering the gallery, Mr Greaves had concerns of a different character, including the current pressure on Mr Koama who was working alone under stressful conditions without adequate support. “We used to have discussions to make sure that everything was functioning properly,” he said of the Committee. “Now he’s all on his own, and that’s simply not sustainable.”
Mr Greaves’s letter did not pass unremarked by the Ministry of Culture, and we were contacted by Director of Culture Tamika Boatswain at the behest of Minister Ramson who said that the administrative process referred to had been in place “since this administration got into office.” She went on to say that the Ministry’s position was that Mr Koama was very much involved and was a part of the decision-making process.
Furthermore, she said, the Ministry had not turned down any artist, and the process was intended to ensure that the quality of pieces shown at the Gallery was of the standard required. We reported that Mr Koama was also on the call and agreed with Ms Boatswain’s statement.
As for ensuring that the quality of pieces was up to standard, the last person in the country to be able to determine that is the Minister, who has no expertise in the field of art that is evident to anyone. So to downgrade the one person who is more knowledgeable about the National Collection than anyone else and subordinate his views to those of a political appointee has a whiff of Stalinist thinking about it. Mr Ramson’s predecessors in his own party, like Dr Frank Anthony, did not operate in that fashion.
And as for Mr Koama agreeing with Ms Boatswain’s statement, one can only remark that given Minister Ramson’s treatment of Mr Ivor Thom, it would have been surprising if the Curator had not agreed with the Director of Culture.
The other matter adverted to by Ms Boatswain was the absence of a Castellani Committee. Where this was concerned she said “There is no legal basis for a board to be instituted, there is no act to support this. The presence of a board is based solely on the decision of the minister.” The fact that the appointment of a board or committee is at the discretion of the Minister does not answer the question as to why he has not used that discretion to set up the Committee. He has to explain why he doesn’t want one or thinks it superfluous, when prior to his accession to office there was one in existence. Instead, the public is just told authoritarian style, it is his decision.
Mr Greaves’s words to us were: “We need leadership that values artistic integrity and respects the people who work tirelessly to promote our culture. It’s about preserving our heritage and ensuring our artistic institutions can grow. We cannot afford to let the cultural fabric of our nation unravel.”
In the light of that President Ali now has to ask himself whether Mr Ramson is really the most suitable ministerial appointee to handle the portfolio of Culture. Ignorance of the field, arrogance and a penchant for issuing ukases are not the recommended qualifications for overseeing a difficult and complex area. The Minister undoubtedly has enough to occupy his time with Youth and Sport; Culture should be transferred to a more appropriate ministry.
