How harrowing the payment of artists, musicians and theatre actors, screenwriters and all those other 'creators' is, became clear again in recent weeks. In newspaper Trouw, a musician - finally - came out of the closet of poor working conditions. Against the prevailing mores, she revealed how much she earned. What turned out: top national institutions like the Concertgebouw allow musicians to perform for free, orchestral musicians play a symphony for 70 euros a day, including travel expenses and dinner. The lid went off the cesspool: actors only get paid per performance and not for rehearsals, writers write plays at the country's biggest company that are never performed.
The storm that erupted led some to hope that the culture minister, who was working on her starting point note at the time, would make a substantial extra injection. Lobby organisation Kunsten '92 had even already calculated how much extra money would be needed to bring artists' pay up to the level of the Fair Practice Code: twenty-five million euros. But lobby organisation Kunsten '92 had not taken a few things into account. The first was that Lobby organisation Kunsten '92 was not the only lobby organisation, the second was that minister Ingrid van Engelshoven had never claimed since taking office that, apart from the eighty million for new policy, there would not be a penny more. And so, that applying the fair practice code would inevitably lead to less supply.
Rock hard
The principles paper published on Tuesday 11 June now states this adamantly. The arts sector needs to be more diverse, broader and more inclusive. Absolutely right, and about time. Just like that slavery museum. Top idea. For distressing labour market situations, some incidental money is also available. As for the rest: those who do not apply the fair practice code will no longer receive subsidies. And that's going to hurt.
Let's take an example close to home. The website Theaterkant.co.uk receives an annual grant of 40000 from the Performing Arts Fund. From that money, miracles are performed: almost every professionally-named performance is reviewed by a professionally-named journalist. With 1,200 premieres a year, that's quite a lot (Theatererkrant reviewed a fat 800 of them last year).
So someone is paying for it, and like everywhere else in the arts (and journalism) it is the people on the floor. A professional reviewer receives a fee of 60 euros per review. For that, the performance has to be visited, attended and described. And other expenses are paid. All in all, just under six hours of work. For a theatre marathon, proportionally longer.
50 euros per hour
That translates to €10 an hour. The fair practice code prescribes a normal fee. Say 50 euros per hour. Plus expenses. Then only a fifth of the current review offering can be provided from that subsidy.
That would seem to be the end of the story, were it not for the fact that the supply of performances could also start to drop drastically. After all, there are also (often independent) makers working their asses off for crazy hourly wages. If the fair practice code is applied there, the supply might also drop by half, or more, maybe even two-thirds.
Flexible labour market
Unfeasible, you say? If the minister keeps her word, this is the future for the next four years. Something the sector has entirely to blame itself for, by the way. People have - with or without gentle coercion - given up permanent jobs and fixed fees, anything to save the arts. The funds, Podiumkunsten's in the lead, encouraged this by honouring more applications than were financially viable when budgets were dwindling. Groups were given money to continue, but not to survive.
So in 2020, under Rutte III, we are going to see the real impact of Rutte I's austerity work. The Council for Culture, which came out with a rather broad opinion in April, saw this coming. Of course, they also secretly hoped that the minister would come up with more money, but they also knew something else. The only way for the fair practice code to be effective is if the funds, which usually house the more free, self-sacrificing, over-ambitious creators, are given less money to distribute. Because the self-immolators among creators need to be kept in check. Partly by making them work more often under the responsibility of local authorities. Therefore, the funds should be closely aligned with municipal policies.
Less ZZP
This will therefore also almost automatically lead to fewer self-employed people in the arts. After all, with the application of the fair practice code, it will become easier, and more desirable, for institutions that fall under the basic infrastructure to employ people. Fund makers are almost all self-employed, so there will be considerably fewer of them. That immediately solves the fair practice problem there too, as self-employed people are notorious for cutting into their own flesh.
So who is also very happy about this? The Arts Union. Because the union thinks ZZP'ers are scary. Logical if you're talking about healthcare or transport. But so we do get an arts sector that in six years or so will consist almost entirely of happy semi-officials with good pensions and excellent working conditions. People who are also very attached to their mortgages.
Good to know
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
){kind=link}