This new blog is called State of the Arts, and it would be remiss of me not to begin it with the State of Creative Scotland.

Sometimes it seems that the cloud of controversy surrounding our national arts funding body is the only story in town. It has been the subject of so many of my conversations, email exchanges, and texting marathons in the last year.

Many artists and arts companies I speak to do not want to be quoted by name. Others just want to gossip. Others are trying to conspire to initiate change.

But one thing has bothered me in recent weeks. Where does all this controversy end? Is there an endgame? Resignations? More turmoil? Everyone agreeing to get along?

I was asked by someone last week - Is there actually a campaign to do down Creative Scotland? An organised effort? My honest answer was: No, I don’t think there is.

Yes, there are very many concerned artists (of all genres), arts companies, cultural figures and commentators, but not a concerted campaign. It is not quite a ‘Down with this sort of Thing’ movement.

But opinions range wildly and different people are concerned about different things. Concerns range from wanting Creative Scotland to communicate and work better, to worries over the legality of Lottery funding, misgivings over the personalities involved, anger over perceived ignored art forms, to a simple desire to rip it all down and start again.

Some figures at Creative Scotland feel the current furore will run out of steam eventually, without a dramatic denouement, and will fade as many of the now-Flexibly Funded companies receive Lottery-funded project funding in the near future.

They will try to improve their operations, internal and external, and hope the current turmoil goes away. Indeed, without a concerted, organised campaign, this will happen, and the current fertile anti-Creative Scotland sentiment will become a constant but impotent background noise, which will be pretty unhealthy for the arts world in Scotland, but will not greatly effect what the body does or what the Government does.

But there are many people (even though Creative Scotland think it is actually not that many) who just don’t like what Creative Scotland stand for: its hybrid role of arts funder, arts commissioner, and film and creative industries business investor.

People just do not like the language, world-view and the phrases associated with this hybrid creature, and the jarring way that, on one hand, Flexible Funding is being removed from 40 hard-pressed arts companies, while on the other hand a commercial company, STV, can receive cash for a cookery programme.

The phrase “Bring back the Scottish Arts Council” (and what of Scottish Screen?) has even been uttered. But without an organised campaign, without a manifesto and a plan of action, there will be no action.

Right now, one thing that is not going to happen: a cataclysmic change. For all their discomfort over the bad press, the SNP Government is not going to dismantle Creative Scotland.

And right now - even if unexpected ‘events’ may change the narrative - those who desire to have it dissolved, however eloquently these desires are articulated, will be disappointed. Creative Scotland was, after all, an idea created by Labour and backed by the SNP. There is next to no political will to have another period of structural change at that level.

Could it be reformed or rejigged or relaunched? Well of course. But it seems there is no desire in government for that either. What Fiona Hyslop wants, it seems, going by her letters to the body, is better dialogue between Creative Scotland and artists and companies, and calibration of its “commissioning” role - she has even suggested using a different word - and transparency in its decision making.

And on the Flexibly Funded companies? In her letter to the body’s chairman, Sandy Crombie, she says “the Scottish Government supports Creative Scotland’s review of its flexibly funded organisations and is confident that the process has been rigorous, thorough and in line with the commitments in your corporate plan”.

Ms Hyslop does not, I have been reliably told, want to see resignations or sackings, especially in the middle of the Year of Creative Scotland. It is not being considered.

And Andrew Dixon, its chief executive, spoke well and defended his body capably at Holyrood's culture committee last week. Ms Hyslop herself will be before the same committee soon. Which should be interesting.

But if artists, arts companies and other cultural agitators, across all the art forms, want real change, now or in the near future, they will have to get organised. You can only truly see your objective if you raise your head above the parapet.

ANOTHER thought that occurred to me in the past week: thanks be for Twitter and Facebook.

Not for the idle gossip, jokes, baby pictures, messages from faraway friends, birthday reminders as well as instant news, although all these things add to the sum of human experience, too.

No, thanks to social media for providing artists, cultural commentators and arts companies the chance to vent, inform, explain, comment and grumble this year.

Yes, sometimes those comments, views and judgments are inconvenient, annoying or thought-provoking. Not all of them are constructive. But often they are eloquent and perceptive. And funny.

Some of them even provide new information. And although these comments and social media interventions could be deemed as “unhelpful” by some, they are certainly not by me.

Last week at the Scottish Parliament, Mr Dixon said he wished that artists who have a problem with his body would talk directly to it, rather than through newspapers or Twitter.

He may have been referring to some of the comments made by playwright David Greig or writer Irvine Welsh. Or perhaps the fairly spectacular article written by the distinguished poet Don Paterson which caused such a stramash last week, and which HeraldScotland published in full online

Or maybe he was referring to Janice Galloway, who provided The Herald with her views (that she was disappointed, to say the least) on being asked to alter her Book of the Year prize acceptance.

Or maybe he was referring to Vicky Featherstone, director of the Natlonal Theatre of Scotland, who expressed misgivings over Creative Scotland’s project funding in our newspaper.

Whatever comment or story he was referring to, would Scottish culture be genuinely better off if none of these comments had been made publicly?

Some would say (and indeed they have been saying) that Creative Scotland’s apology for its communication misfires, its decision to delay the fraught Flexibly Funding process for a few months, and other conciliatory actions would not have happened without public comments and general outcry. I tend to believe them.

Now, social media is just a medium: it can relay bad or good. Through Twitter, email and other online sources, there have been scurrilous rumours and some ill-informed and unfortunate comments.

I can say as an arts news reporter, I have checked out “stories” about Creative Scotland which turned out to be nothing but Chinese whispers. There have also been other allegations, some of them ugly, which are hard to prove whether they are true or not - at least with enough evidence to put into print.

Also, as Francis McKee of the CCA said this week, Creative Scotland is doing some good things which are not gaining as much attention. Artists have the right to be inconvenient, be noisy and “unhelpful” and generally not care about the communication strategies of funding bodies or governments.

Long may they continue to say what they like, to whoever they want to.