On Budget Day, everyone in the arts was happy, as Minister Ingrid van Engelshoven came up with millions over the bridge to help the arts structurally. Almost immediately, the lobbies hushed up, sworn enemies of government policy came out with laudatory profiles of and understanding interviews with the D66 minister, now known as a benefactor. We also saw a decline in visitor numbers for articles that still dared to be critical here and there. Still - unfortunately for our donation jar - all is not well. Turns out.
The generous make up after 10 years smutty art policy namely only applies to the performing arts, and especially to those performing artists who depend on contributions from the Performing Arts Fund. This leaves, for example, Oerol and Holland Festival hang in the balance, because they have been hit by the Culture Council's conflict of interest arbitrariness. But there is more to it. Just not in the performing arts.
Mondrian
What we heard nothing about in recent years, except the occasional a pretty positive message, was the visual arts sector. Why is that so? You may say. In any case, the sector is smaller than the performing arts. The Mondrian Fund (MF) that exists for the arts has a more limited budget (26 million). That fund too was cut in recent years, but it did not lead to concerted action in the visual arts sector. The MF was just pretty quiet, in recent years.
The fund also likes to keep quiet, it seems. A recent example is the allocation of subsidies to 'arts venues' for the coming arts plan period. As with the Performing Arts Fund, more applications were submitted than money was available, and as with the Performing Arts Fund, more of those applications were deemed suitable than the budget allowed. As a result, suitable applicants ended up below - or above - a saw line. Only the MF does not mention that saw line. It prefers to speak of 'prioritisation'. And that falters.
'Applicable Criteria'
Strictly speaking, prioritisation is another word for wielding a saw line, but it feels different. 'Prioritisation within the applicable criteria', as it says on the site, smacks of possible arbitrariness, because nowhere is it indicated which criteria carried how much weight. Institutions that have been excluded because of this prioritisation, and coincidentally there are some in North Brabant (40%) and South Holland (37.5%) proportionately very much, are now in big trouble. (In Friesland, one of the 2 approved applications was sawed, so even 50% there)
Suddenly their provincial or local subsidy is also in jeopardy, suddenly they are no longer eligible for schemes meant for the often mostly smaller art institutions that are affected. This is because all those schemes and extra support are linked to subsidy by the MF. If the fund's committee finds you worthy of recognition, but the money has run out, the government would have to step in. That happened with the Performing Arts Fund. However, the Mondrian Fund seems to have no inclination to make a case for it. Indeed, insiders tell us that the saw line was not even mentioned in an earlier version of the article in question on the site, only added in an edit on 23 September following criticism.
Wrong sector
This is not a crime, but it does not feel open and transparent. So then there are some questions to be asked, for instance about the role that lobbying club Arts 92 has played in this, but as 'asking questions' is mostly a hobby of conspiracy thinkers these days, we don't do that.
It is notable, however, that the Mondrian Fund has not been more vocal within the lobby. That is a pity for the visual arts, and certainly a pity for people who had recognised great plans, but are in the wrong sector. Especially in North Brabant.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
