The Netherlands suffers from a problematisation problem. In case you find that a problematic term, that is part of the problem. Indeed: we make something into a complicated problem and explain it complicated because there is actually no reason to make it a problem. Venue: our national assembly. Reason: not everyone benefits equally from our subsidies. And we are not talking about the dozens of billions that bankers and multinationals get in the lap, but about the few million euros we spend on art and culture.
In a motion last year, MPs Bergkamp (D66), Dik-Faber (CU), Rutte (VVD) and Asscher (PvdA) raised the question of whether enough was being done to map the non-attendance of art. Now that has been answered, and it is delightful reading.
Prof Koen van Eijck and Prof Evert Bisschop Boele have written a voluminous memorandum, commissioned by the ministry. In 23 pages, supplemented by a 4-page bibliography, they very carefully formulate that the chamber should be able to find something better to occupy itself with than the non-art-visiting citizen. After all, there aren't that many of them. Turns out. In other words: the chamber members now know where to stick their question.
World top
Now, it would not be proper to put something like that in a scientific piece. That is why they summarise the entire social science oeuvre of studies on cultural participation-and-what's-miss with it-in such an extremely condensed way that it cannot have been written except with fat irony. The reason for that irony then is that, first of all, there is no real problem. The Netherlands is among the world's top countries in terms of cultural participation. Almost 90 per cent of the population participates - actively or passively - in culture. If we limit it to 'canonical' culture, that still leaves 40 per cent. We are then talking about participants in theatre, (classical) music, dance, literature. That is - they don't use the word - ridiculously high, even on a European scale.
Still: 60 per cent don't go. Politicians these days think this is as bad as applicants for marketing jobs. This is also the subject of a lot of research, ranging from literature reviews to picking random passers-by off the street in front of the theatre. It proves difficult because THE non-visitor simply does not exist. Even if you limit it to THE non-interested non-visitor. There are so many different reasons why people are not into canonical art just today, or just this year, or this part of their lives, that it makes no sense to set an unequivocal policy on it. This is also why there are so many different marketers and marketing gurus.
Knowledge level
Of course, generalisations can be made. Because it is often about vulnerable 'quality art' that receives a subsidy, a certain level of knowledge is usually expected from visitors as well. Low-educated people might lack some of that knowledge and therefore not go to the opera, at least in the Netherlands. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps, but, the researchers do not state very explicitly, then it is better to increase the level of education of the less educated than to decrease the level of knowledge the opera demands.
We are already doing more than enough to increase public participation, say the researchers. Both in removing physical barriers and in the field of education, we are sparing no expense. With varying degrees of success, but it is happening. They clearly enjoy quoting a researcher who described the problem as follows 'as a problematisation of the cultural sector itself which then also presents itself as a solution - or more precisely, which presents the continuation of the current form of government financing of the cultural sector as a solution to the problem that the current form of government financing of the cultural sector leads to the problem of non-attendance'.
On the shovel
The alternative, according to the researchers, would involve shaking up the entire system. 'If we want to deploy government policies to increase visits to culture 'integrally and inclusively' (i.e. among all members of the population, perhaps with a focus on the 'non-visitor'), one consequence may be to examine whether the existing government-funded offerings are sufficiently relevant to the intended broad audience. If not, financial support may need to be redirected towards forms of offerings that also appeal to other audience segments. This is no sinecure.'
They cite an EU report, which states that in that case, the organisation - and also the mandate - of existing cultural institutions as a whole will come into question. 'This can go so far as to also rethink what 'culture' actually is, and why it suits a government to pursue cultural policy. For example, it may prompt a shift from supporting the provision of programmes deemed appropriate by professional institutions to supporting organisations that enable people to recognise and express different cultures in different settings'
The question is whether the MPs of D66, CU, VVD and PvdA do indeed want to turn the system upside down, or whether they will now, once and for all, let the uninterested non-visitor boil in his stew. Or, as the memorandum concludes: 'If the "non-visitor" really is a problematic category, a thorough rethinking of the foundations of cultural policy is called for'.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
