Cultural sector suffers from collective inferiority complex

"Of course I don't have to get rich from it..." It's pretty much the most frequently heard comment when you hang out with artists and creatives a lot. "Why not actually?" I then ask. Startled, they look at me. Appalled that you dare to question this universally held truth. In reply, something extraordinarily vague like "Well, just.... money isn't the most important thing, is it?" comes in.

When it comes to money, many artists (who are after all known as individualists pur sang) repeat as will-less robots what they have had to hear for years at academies and conservatories.....that you should choose another profession for the money. After all, it is logical that money is more likely to be spent on a hospital than a museum.

Somehow, the choice is always between culture and healthcare or education and never between, say, a museum or replacing some still-functioning lampposts. Thus, it seems that artists themselves take the lead in downplaying the importance of art to society.

After all, during their education, they are already being groomed for the victim role that many of them fervently cherish throughout their lives. That of the poor artist who lives in a shabby attic room and makes beautiful things but can barely make a living from them. There is something romantic about that image, of course. But most do not last for years. That is why many artists end up choosing other careers.

Is it strange that politicians question the usefulness of art when the creators themselves don't seem too convinced of its value either? Moreover, the wave of austerity that swept up a few years ago is the perfect fuel for that victimisation. You see now, no one sees how important what we do actually is. And we already have it so hard. Ah, ah, woe, woe. There were plenty of protests. Not a week went by without me getting some petition in my mailbox.

[Tweet "Is it strange that politicians question the usefulness of art when the creators themselves don't seem too convinced of its value either?"].

It seems artists and culture providers were especially busy trying to convince themselves of the importance of art for society. They shouted at the top of their voices how important it is. And if you shout that at an event that only attracts culture-loving audiences, everyone quickly agrees with you. While the average Dutchman (whoever that may be) shrugs his shoulders.

Politicians eager for austerity, meanwhile, were laughing in their fists. They realise all too well that the more frenetically you try to convince someone of something, the less credible you come across. A bit like those thirty-somethings who constantly describe themselves as "happy single". And meanwhile are registered on dozens of dating sites.

I am not in favour of the culture cuts, but I do understand them. When there are fewer euros to distribute, choices have to be made. I would have made a different distribution myself, but I understand how it works.

What I do find incomprehensible is that the finger is being pointed at private individuals and businesses at this very moment. Sponsorship and crowdfunding are the solution. But it is, to put it mildly, bizarre to first call out loudly that all artists are lazy subsidy-guzzling idlers who perform incomprehensible plays that no one wants for 90%. And then to think that the business community and wealthy individuals will be eager to fund it afterwards. No, then you have to explain that as a government you certainly do think it is important but simply have to make choices.

It is therefore time for artists themselves to stand up for what they are worth and propagate it. So that politicians react again as Winston Churchill did when asked to cut spending on culture in favour of that for the war. He simply replied "Then what are we fighting for?"