There are those, including in the arts, who still think the world has not changed for good. Who suspect that a vote for a culture-friendly party will at a stroke turn the clock back eight years. Those people will wake up to a new world after 15 March, even if the Netherlands has suddenly opted for a majority, green or not, but still left-wing. This week I was at two meetings that convinced me of that. On Wednesday, I almost fell asleep at a disconcerting election debate by lobbying organisation Kunsten '92. On Thursday, I heard at a meeting on cultural entrepreneurship that private funds are going to make culture less of a priority. All in a days work.
Want money? Need to borrow.
It is a wonderful solution for cultural entrepreneurs: the culture loan. Serious banks crawl behind the curtain at the word "art" shivering with fear and then throw you out the door with appropriate force. That is why a few municipalities have come up with something new. Artists can - on the basis of a solid business plan - get a loan at an attractive interest rate and with flexible conditions.
Me reported on this earlier, and also commented: the in-and-out bank that in Utrecht, for example, arranges the revolving[hints]A revolving fund lends money and makes sure that the money that is paid back becomes available for lending again. The interest is then for the lender[/hints] credit, of course, would very much like to have a solid brick collateral, in case things go wrong. It could thus look like a way to expand the real estate portfolio with the support of the municipality. And thus on the backs of the artists who still have to pay off their premises with hefty interest.
To overcome that problem a bit, foundations have now been called in: the K.F. Hein Foundation in Utrecht does it together with Cultuur+Ondernemen. The latter foundation now also banks by offering loans of up to 40,000 euros at reasonable interest rates. There is no need to have a house in return, but there must be a solid entrepreneurial business plan. And a guarantee that the money will be paid back within three or five years.
No chance
Heartening. Every artist who knows how to use his or her creativity to make 40,000 euros profit (excluding interest) in three years can turn to Cultuur+Ondernemen. The musician who needs a special cello, the lighting designer who needs something with high-tech beamers wants: they are promising and can get money. The theatre collective that wants to research the collected works of Vaclav Havel over three years and perform them in small theatres will have little chance.
So the culture loan is not a solution to everything. Indeed, the culture loan only boosts the already successful, entrepreneurial part of the arts sector. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it does not become the norm. And that might just happen. If you belong to the category of creators whose work mainly generates social or spiritual returns, you mainly cost money. So then you are not entrepreneurial enough for a loan. The subsidy gives you even more of an image of a beggar-thy-neighbour who is too lazy to learn a real trade.
Stop debating
Two parties likely to have a majority together after 15 March both believe that artists who need money should mainly earn it themselves. Some other parties to the left of VVD and PVV want to return 100 million in subsidies of the 200 million that was previously taken from the arts.
Should those parties get a majority at all, the question is whether the arts sector should be happy about it. After all, all those parties do want something from the arts. They want social relevance, domestic help, better communication and more of that sort of thing. If they end up talking about art at all. Indeed, art has not really become more popular as a topic of discussion among politicians in recent years.
Elections over
First the leaders of the youth sections of the parties were allowed to tell their stories, after which the adult cultural spokesmen had the floor. The difference between them lay mainly in the skill with which the latter managed to get their party positions across. The title of the debate ('Beyond Elections') indicated the ambition to look beyond the elections, but that did not really work. Probably because that is never asked of politicians.
Two disruptive artists had been invited, both non-white and ready to kick things up a notch. white privileged light. They did not manage to make a real dent in the pack of political butter. For that, they too were too far removed from their peers in still-white politics.
Artists, go into nature
On Thursday, at that presentation of the Culture Loan, I heard something remarkable from the host, Utrecht's K.F. Heinstichting. Now that subsidies for nature and environmental organisations are also disappearing, more and more private funds are picking up the environmental gauntlet. The percentage of 80 now spent on culture could well fall considerably, in favour of nature conservation. According to my host, this was a view widely held among many funds. Even big funds like the VSB Fund, were going to reduce their cultural spending in favour of nature conservation.
Just so you know. As an artist.
I foresee a great future for enterprising artists who want to do something outdoors. With trees.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
){kind=link}