When the Council for Culture released its long-awaited musical advice a month ago, its president Marijke van Hees was remarkably nervous. This was particularly evident in her choice to act as moderator at her own presentation. When there, at Amsterdam's Allard Pierson Museum, there was (very mild) criticism of the advice, she shot to the defence. That got a bit embarrassing, but I now know why it happened: that nervousness was not because of the musical, but because of the big story that was already in preparation then, and which is now, Thursday 11 April 2019, shaking up the art world. Because that's quite a thing.
The proverbial faeces will already have stained the various ventilation systems by the time this article appears, because what the Council for Culture is doing with this advice is quite unprecedented. While all the lobbies, interest groups and lower authorities have been promised by the minister that no drastic system changes are imminent, the Council advises just that: a drastic system change. And that is putting it mildly. Except for a few top institutions, whose position the Council wants to secure for eight years from now on, nobody's existence is secure anymore.
The whole opinion, excluding appendices, runs to 115 pages. There is much worth reading in it, although some of it is also the restatement of earlier partial opinions, discussed on this site. To repeat everything in detail here is taking things too far. I have listed the main points, entirely according to now obsolete internet laws. In a listicle. Because that's pretty handy anyway. Come they.
Opportunity 1: Everyone should participate
What was already coming: the cultural subsidy system in the Netherlands should be open to everyone who can and wants to distinguish themselves creatively. This means that the traditional - also called canonical - art movements will face competition from new art and new artists, who currently have no access. Think hip-hop and urban, think spoken word, street art, haka dance, but also art forms that are now mainly practised on an amateur basis, or operate purely commercially, such as Arabic pop music. Or musical.
Threat 1: Not everyone can participate
The aim is that no one feels left out, including Henk and Ingrid. Although the latter are notoriously difficult to satisfy. They will not like the fact that a museum for the history of slavery is also urgently needed.
The fact that more people can apply for (structural) subsidies also makes the position of existing clubs shaky. Think of a single symphony orchestra, a dance company, a youth theatre house. Or opera provision.
Opportunity 2: Everyone in basic infrastructure!
2009 ushered in a new, 21st-century subsidy system. Years had passed, and now something stood that could preserve what was good and ensure innovation. Production houses, A-list companies and buildings, funds that provided dynamism. That Basic Infrastructure has never been able to do what it was meant to do, thanks to Zijlstra. The monstrosity that remained after the cuts in 2013 fell prey to political arbitrariness, budget shifting, overproduction and outright exploitation. So there had to be something else.
Fully in line with Liberal views, the minister seemed to be heading for the smallest possible basic infrastructure, as a large one would only create political hassle. Rather, she wanted a bigger role for funds and lower authorities, so that the ministry could monitor the main lines. Saves a lot of scale12 officials, too.
The Culture Council now wants it exactly the other way round: the number of institutions under state responsibility in the new Basic Infrastructure will more than double (from 35 now to possibly 75 in 2021).
Threat 2: Everyone is about basic infrastructure!
The big BIS means another heavy task for the ministry, new advisory committees, and more whining in the chamber.
Opportunity 3: The city gets a say
In recent years, Holland Culture Land has been dominated by urban regions. These were to have more say over the culture made and displayed within their borders. 15 regions came up with a plan, of which 11 now remain. Despite a strong lobby that wanted to limit the role of cities, from 2021 those urban regions will be responsible for the humus of the new culture system: education, participation, talent development and living labs and presentation institutions that will have to work closely with production institutions. If the state wants to subsidise such an institution, the region in which the institution is located must co-pay.
Threat 3: Artist loses independence
For the middle tier in the new system, clubs that are now no longer called "company" but "chain institution", there is an obligation to interfere closely with the urban region, and vice versa. What many people in the lobby feared may now become reality: that an alderman of culture will interfere with the arts. Or that public reactions will become decisive.
Opportunity 4: Provinces are culturally challenged
With the advent of urban regions in cultural policy, the provinces' role has been played out. Only Flevoland, as a province, has also become an urban region itself. South Holland no longer participates at all. Observes the Council.
Threat 4: Culture loses importance in Senate
Art and culture already played no role in provincial politics, and hence no role in the Provincial Council elections. A conscious voter could still have made Culture the deciding factor in view of the Senate, which is elected by the Provincial Council, but now that has become almost impossible.
Opportunity 5: Production and presentation in one hand as much as possible
The chain institutions are the main novelty in the system proposed by the council. These are sometimes the institutions that are currently still subsidised one time by the Performing Arts Fund and another time by the state. Think of youth theatre companies, dance workshops. Those words will be dropped.
For all those clubs, a good number of them move on to the basic infrastructure, where they become responsible as chain institutions for education, presentation, outreach, development and innovation of their specific field. In the BIS, they get a basic income, big enough to pay projects, staff and hiring well, and can get extra money for one or more of those plus tasks.
The removal of the separation between presentation (municipal subsidy) and production (state subsidy), so desired by some and rejected by the minister, thus enters the system through a back door.
Threat 5: Completely autonomous art gets tough
For over 70 years, the subsidy system was based on artist autonomy. Government money was there to compensate for poor sales. The artist was free to shape his very individual thoughts in his own way. When you potentially become co-responsible for sales, that is no longer possible.
Opportunity 6: Autonomous art gets more space at the funds
Under the new system, the funds can focus entirely on the autonomous artist and their creative development.
Threat 6: Funds implode (especially performing arts)
Without the multi-yearly subsidised companies and festivals, which largely move to the new BIS, and without the development task, which in that BIS will fall to regional authorities, virtually nothing will be left for the country's largest cultural fund. It can concentrate entirely on artistically substantive, unique art made by creators not necessarily tied to a city or region.
If it is up to the Council, the fund should also apply other criteria for funding: no longer by number of plays, but by relevance and impact. Of course, with a guarantee of good working conditions and with at least 10 million less budget transferred to the BIS.
Opportunity 7: Two and a half funds will be added!
Cooperation between state and municipality will not go smoothly everywhere. To lubricate that a bit, a new fund will be added, specifically to facilitate cooperation between chain institution and municipality. To make investments in possible mega-successn, there will also be a revolving fund, into which the government and banks and market parties will deposit money, which can be recouped. And because the broadcasters in Hilversum handle the legacy of the dissolved Media Fund exceptionally badly, that budget - if it were up to the Council - would be transferred to the Film Fund, which would thus become an AV fund, enabling not only film but also other audiovisual productions.
Threat 7: Two and a half funds will be added?!
What should all this cost?
Chance 8: All codes are active
The codes for Fair Practice, Governance and Diversity will be decisive in awarding grants. As the transition may be a bit abrupt for some employers, the adage 'Apply or explain' still applies in the first grant period. After that, structural underpayment of employees and exploitation of freelancers, racism or nepotism means an irrevocable end to the subsidy relationship.
Threat 8: All codes cost money
Paying employees and freelancers well costs money. That has to come from somewhere. The Council calculates that this will lead to fewer applications in the short term. In the Basic Infrastructure, things will be guaranteed, outside, at the funds, the blows will fall.
Opportunity 9: Assessment committees should reflect population
The council does not talk about room occupancy rates and income standards, but it does believe that culture should be widely supported. So the assessment committees should also reflect society. It is not yet a jury system with associated draws (which would be quite interesting), but it does mean a hefty task for the funds and governments, which now really have to ensure that the committees are diverse, in all respects.
Threat 9: How do you determine prejudice?
If, due to circumstances, a fund or committee is not a reflection, while it is a requirement: what guarantee do you have as an applicant that you will be approached without bias? And can you, as a rejected applicant, go somewhere if you think you see bias, conscious or otherwise? As it will be quite difficult, especially in the first period, to achieve the required pluralism in each committee, we can expect a lot of turmoil.
Threat 10: What if no money comes?
Of course, all the Council's ambitions to turn the whole system upside down cost money. More money, than the minister has set as an absolute limit. Money, too, that will go to more officials and advisers, because the complete change is quite involved.
So the big elephant in the room (besides all the excrement blown around by fans) is that money question. The Council does make a calculation that comes out at a net few tens of millions more, but therein lies the problem. What if the minister, or the House, adopts the ambitions but not the budget? Then we all have a big problem. What may be a consolation, or indeed a hellish alternative, is that the House can no longer dump that problem over the fence at the Funds or lower authorities.
Indeed, from now on, most of the Dutch arts are simply the responsibility of politicians again. You have been warned.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
