The art world needs to be more entrepreneurial. The VVD thinks so, D66 thinks so, in fact the entire Lower House thinks so. But how do you get that combined with the 'intrinsic value' that the last two culture ministers say it should also be about? The Council for Culture, in response to a question from minister Ingrid van Engelshoven in March last year, has now found a solution. Besides a number of other schemes to ease the tax regime for artists, the Council advocates a "revolving fund". That is a fund that costs money once, and then pays for itself.
In the piece released today, Thursday 28 February, it argues that it is still languishing in the arts sector. Of course, there are a few clubs that are doing well, such as in the film industry and blockbuster museums. 'The museum sector, for example, saw its own revenues rise dramatically,' states the Council, 'partly due to an increasing number of visitors, to which 'blockbusters' and greater use of the Museum Card have contributed. As a result, some exhibitions are attractive candidates for sponsorship and international, wealthy circles of friends are growing.'
'Funding mix'
Success and big names attract money. This has been known for years. But not all art is immediately successful, or profitable anyway: 'As a rule, artists, creatives and cultural institutions do not yet know how to incorporate instruments such as crowdfunding and loans into their funding mix, also because people go from project to project and thus often do not get beyond preparing a project-level cost budget.'
Still, they will have to, because substantially more money from the government is not going to come. Except for the 80 million that the current cabinet is giving back from the 280 million of capital stolen by Halbe Zijlstra et al. So entrepreneurship is the magic word: getting money from the market. But that market, which also consists of private donors, is not really eager to give money to destitute artists, who have been depicted by successive politicians as dependent idlers.
Lever
And, it must be said, in business terms, so are many artists. They were never taught how to do business, says the Council. Art schools are struggling enough to get the artists of the future to be good artists. If you have to learn to get the high c, accounting is somewhat less relevant.
Here the government must come to the rescue by providing a lever: the government sets a good example, then the market will automatically follow. The Council envisions it this way: 'Access to financial market players such as banks and financial institutions, which are normally a source of funding for growth and innovation, has hardly improved for the cultural sector in recent years. Banks have become stricter in their risk assessment, which has been enforced by stricter rules as a result of the financial crisis. But it is not only the imposed rules that are playing tricks on the sector here, many banks are exhibiting risk-averse behaviour based on their own policies. This is where politicians can call banks to account, given the increasing focus on the 'social and utility function' of these institutions.'
Revolver
The solution: a revolving fund. This already works on a small scale in big cities, so could be rolled out nationwide. Basically, the government makes an investment, followed by banks, businesses and individuals. From that deposit, artists can borrow money on favourable terms for their project. Because it is a loan, they do have to pay it back, and new loans can be made from that money.
Top idea. A few buts, of course. So far, it appears to be especially good working when real estate is involved. After all, banks love collateral, in case an artist is a little late in paying off. To make it also suitable for ephemeral things like an experimental theatre performance or a piccolo concert, more is needed. The Council puts it this way: 'The proposed fund functions in addition to the system of giving money. The premise is to invest in earning assets that are tested against financial criteria, through an assessment of payback potential.‘
Culture Awards
So if you have no earning capacity and payback potential, it's better not to apply for the revolving fund: you should just apply for subsidies. The Council: 'The criteria can be derived from (pre)education, achievements, cultural awards awarded and other objective criteria for a professional test in arts and culture. Importantly, the actual allocation of funding is based on financial assessment of payback and creditworthiness.'
Many artists are reluctant to do so. And don't blame them. After all, among the criteria of many funds is that you do not care about the market, but are only concerned with striving for the very highest and most individual. So the revolving fund should never be more than an addition to existing subsidy schemes.
Terrace
Maybe that's why the story about art subsidies should be revisited. After all, aren't those art subsidies already revolving by themselves? After all, a good art climate with a varied offer brings more happiness, more bars and restaurants, higher house prices, more tax revenue and a favourable business climate. That 2.8 billion spent on art subsidies returns rock hard to our economy, if only because artists also use that money to buy food, sit on the terrace and -especially- pay rent.
Nice, then, that the Culture Council advocates a more favourable tax and loan system for the arts with a rather cumbersome narrative. The emphasis on entrepreneurship and creditworthiness does have a downside. Let's remain vigilant on that.
The entire opinion can be found here:
Funding_of_culture
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
