'And why do all these art institutions have to open on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and even Thursdays? I don't understand that. I'm far too busy working on those days.' Just a question during the Paradiso debate, The annual closing of the Uitmarkt at Amsterdam. And normally you can expect these kinds of questions from the audience after a few glasses of beer, but so this question came from the Alderman Culture of Rotterdam, a city with a population of several hundred thousand anyway.
This new VVD-corypha, who in her municipal video proposal roundup several times associated the word 'fun' with 'arts culture' shocked the audience with her total lack of knowledge of the sector, and her full-throated willingness to make cuts beyond those wimps in The Hague. Logical, because in these dark times, nice things are not done and arts culture is mostly fun, so it should be less. Especially during the week.
Even Bart de Liefde, who served as the VVD's sports and football law spokesman in the Lower House hobnobbing with the arts as well, seemed momentarily startled by so much incisive rudeness. After all, he had unlearned this himself after declaring to a journalist that he wanted to kick the Council for Culture out of that expensive building in The Hague. He referred to it during the debate, without actually taking the words back. Just as he repeated again that he also did not expect the art world to survive the 200 million cuts. And that the VAT measure was bad, but enforced in the coalition talks and therefore unmentionable.
If the Paradiso debate, which has now become the culture sector's annual round of complaints, has made one thing clear, it is that the VVD under Rutte has totally, but totally changed: no longer showing any interest in facts and figures, and priding itself on having as little dossier knowledge as possible.
That knowledge was there among Eindhoven's D'66 culture alderman (no shares). From her came the only interesting suggestion of the afternoon: to pay for the municipal cultural policy, one could decide to have it, together with green areas, fully financed by the OZB, the local tax on houses. A logical choice, as earlier that afternoon Gerard Marlet of Atlas voor Gemeenten had shown that house prices in a city with a healthy cultural offering are many percent above average. As a whole, a city like Utrecht is worth a billion more with culture than without.
That figure of 1 billion resounded more often during the debate. As a major newsmaker, as in previous years, Bureau Berenschot had been flown in. Based on existing research by peer agencies and their own dossier work, they had come to the conclusion that in 2013, when the cuts become a reality, the arts sector will have a quarter less income than this year. And so that means that, in income terms, things will go down from 5.25 billion to a good four billion euros. By no means a cat's length. The main reason is that the cuts inevitably lead to less supply, and less supply can therefore be sold less and so there is less income. One of the economic laws that Mark Rutte yet again have to explain to the goose that calls the cultural shots in Rotterdam.
Talk about explaining. The biggest sore point of the day already surfaced at the opening of the debate. In a speech in which he rather banally advertised Utrecht's festival De Vrede van Utrecht (The Peace of Utrecht), Utrecht mayor Aleid Wolfsen argued that the art world should better explain how important it was for the economy and society.
In the past, there was no need for such explanations, much less for artists to explain why they were there. Closing the debate, the Brabant Queen's commissioner put his finger on the sore spot: "we have come to see culture as a sector, but it is what we breathe and are."
Except in Rotterdam, then.
The Berenschot report
Click to access paradisodebat2011-presentatieberenschot-28aug2011.pdf
Atlas of Municipalities
Click to access Kassa_of_-Kaalslag.pdf
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
@Kees van Vleuten:
The above text is therefore not a lobby, but (in my opinion) an expression of a feeling that I and many of my colleagues experience as artists. You should know what kind of filthy language we have been receiving lately. Whereas art was previously presented by the government as something special and valuable, it has now suddenly become the black sheep, which everyone is allowed to poke fun at on all occasions. Of course, it's not good to go back to mud-slinging, but sometimes it's nice.
For those who do not understand why the alderman's statements are so shocking: It is simply not true that there is no audience during the week. Even working people go to a museum, performance or concert in the evening or on their day off. Besides, new product(s)(ies) are also being worked on during the week in the aforementioned institutions, and obviously without preparation no results. So weekday closure of our institutions costs visitors and work opportunity. Perhaps you now understand why this suggestion is an attack on our professional practice (yet another one).
As the piece also describes, it is not up to the artist to defend his existence. A society has to decide whether it wants special things to be made or not, and whether it wants to expedite that there is something inspiring for everyone (not just the largest group) to experience. If yes, then that costs money. If no, then in this case, too, as the figures clearly show. For lobbying, which generally takes place in "the corridors", there is unfortunately no money or time available within the arts sector, as all income is needed to pursue our profession.
Dear art friends,
I love the arts very much. That's why I find it so regrettable that you conduct your lobbying so incredibly badly. Now, vilifying this VVD lady does not exactly seem to me to contribute to a positive lobby, especially when it is done with a certain arrogance, as in the piece above.
Sincerely,
Kees van Vleuten
amateur dramatist
Pitch and Feathers! Mud!
Really a super contribution to the discussion this little blog....
Instead of playing or blaming the man/woman/the-rest-vd-godsociety, it would come across as artful if you tried to come up with some substantive arguments that refute the policy as it is currently proposed. If, in passing, you could also let some alternative ideas seep out of your undoubtedly creative brain, it would come across a lot more intelligently than this gibberish, which seems to have been written in a fit of I-can't-count-to-ten-count insanity.
VVD-Coryfeeks you will mean.
By now, you would begin to think that any intellect or expertise is totally undesirable in politics, wouldn't you? And not only in the field of Culture...
Bit of a shame that this piece limits itself to being a rant and nowhere even begins to explain why the comment in question would be so "shocking" and "incisively boorish".
I would like to believe it, but this is not made very easy for me....
Surely you can't take such a stupid person seriously. VVD had problems getting people of any level into the municipal council 20 years ago; glad I left them then. Shameful that such a person gets more than a tinker's job as a window official.
"I'm going to work my ass off for that" is how she ends her proposal video. Still, that sounds a bit dirty.
On weekdays, you must of course only work work and work.... and above all not do FUN things like enjoy two branches of SPORT!
OK, but what is there to do on those weekdays?
"For that, it is essential that we emphatically support these two branches of SPORT in this city" ?!?
Funny though that on MONDAY, August 1, she still tweeted that she could not go to Boijmans Van Beuningen (because it was closed 😉
Comments are closed.