Performing Arts Fund subsidy leads to more performances for fewer audiences

Currently, the amount a performing arts company receives in subsidy depends on the number of times it plays. The Performing Arts Fund, which is responsible for that subsidy, has now investigated the effect of this. That research shows that companies are increasingly struggling to sell performances of a single production. This causes companies to release more different productions, each of which has a tour with a limited number of performances. This keeps the total number of performances and thus the subsidy up.

This does not change the fact that companies are still often in front of empty or half-empty venues, outside their own places of employment. So going on tour does not really pay off. Something the Culture Council also hints at in the reconnaissance, which came out on Monday 20 November at the same time as this survey. So now the question is: is that bad? I fear the answer is 'yes', for at least three reasons.

1: The public can no longer see the forest for the trees

If you want to go to special theatre in a city outside the Randstad, or attend a special concert, you need to keep a close eye on your diary. Those events can often only be seen once, and if you miss it in your own city, the chances of travelling after the performance are also slim. After all, the tour is short. Too short to build a good reputation in the local press, in your social network, in short, in all those places where you learn about what is good, beautiful, special and not to be missed.

2: The quality of performances may suffer

If you are a small company with enough manpower and energy to put on one show a year and do a decent tour, you suddenly have to put on two shows, otherwise you lose your subsidy. Then the quality may well come under pressure.

3: Player motivation declines.

With an audience that doesn't know how to find you as well and a show made with perhaps a little less inspiration, a tour becomes an agony. You notice that as a player, you notice that as a theatre director, and you notice that as a spectator. Then a downward spiral soon ensues.

Now what?

However orderly the Performing Arts Fund system is - pay per performance - the net result is negative. It increases the distance between creators and audiences rather than bringing them closer together. Especially in the region outside the Randstad, where fewer companies have a pitch. After all, pitches give audiences a greater connection, the figures show.

So to still maintain a lively performing arts climate outside Amsterdam, it may be worth considering offering artists a pitch outside Amsterdam for shorter or longer periods of time. Not only does this increase their connection with more people than just Amsterdam residents, it can also be extremely refreshing to walk around in a different environment for a few months.

'Our Fund'?

So the system of subsidy must also change. The Council for Culture has already made a start on this last week, by designating 12 urban regions in which art should be centred. The Performing Arts Fund could follow suit. It might also take inspiration from a club that has very different plans for subsidy allocation. That club, Our Fund, is coming Monday 27 November at half past seven gathered at Theatre Bellevue in Amsterdam.

What their plans look like is still a tad vague. Something with frisbees. And trust. That's a start at least.