Toothless culture debate offers few new insights

On Thursday morning 12 November, the culture spokespersons of the Christian Union, VVD, D'66 and Green Left entered into a debate on culture. However, the debate organised by LKCA (Landelijk Kennisinstituut Cultuureducatie en Amateurkunst) Kunsten '92, the Fonds voor Cultuurparticipatie and the Boekmanstichting did not become scintillating at all. This was due not only to the absence of opposition parties SP and PvdA, but also to the format chosen.

For three themes, four possible solutions were offered that the spokespersons had to 'rank'. But cultural policy is not a Ranking the stars and often it is not choosing between the different solutions, but together they contribute to a better cultural policy.

18th century

This was evident right from the first topic: 'diversity and inclusion'. No one would argue that the government should not get involved in diversity and inclusion at all, not even Zohair El Yassini (VVD). "Everyone can enter, but not everyone should always enter," he said. He is joined by Carla Faber (CU): "Diversity has also sometimes become too much of an end in itself" citing criticism of the Orchestra of the 18th Century as an example.

A misleading example, as this orchestra was not given a negative subsidy advice because it is not diverse enough, but mainly because its artistic plans were not good enough. But needless to say, El Yassini eagerly hooks into this: "It is nonsensical that organisations and institutions are punished for not being diverse enough. Representation and inclusion has nothing to do with ethnicity."

Layered

Corinne Ellemeet (Green Left) still nuanced "People are stratified and you want to see that stratification reflected in the cultural sector", but there was no substantive discussion on concrete plans to achieve this goal, as immediately the topic turned to the imbalance in subsidy funds between the Randstad and the rest of the country. ChristenUnie wants to change this. For the VVD, too, regional distribution is crucial and popular culture is an important part of this, although El Yassini is not at the ready whether this is still in the VVD's election manifesto (it is in there). The important observation by Corinne Ellemeet (Green Left) that there is simply too little money going to culture snowballs.

The second theme, 'social issues', also provides little. Faber wants to involve art and culture in all social issues and gives the work of Daan Roosegaarde as an example. Ellemeet thinks the labour market position of makers is most important: art is a fully-fledged profession and should be rewarded as such. Salima Belhaj (D'66) Belhaj, who has now joined us, warns against the functionalism of art: "Wonderful if you can use art everywhere, but art does not necessarily have to demonstrate its functionality" and stresses the importance of cultural education.

Halbe

When El Yassini is asked whether he regrets Halbe Zijlstra (he obviously does not), the debate seems to get brighter, but discussion leader Roderik van Grieken quickly switches to the final topic, 'equal opportunities'. Should more money go to cultural education, or should there be more subject teachers, and what role do municipalities play in this? Ellemeet and Belhaj want to embed culture more in the curriculum. There are too many differences between schools. Faber again emphasises regional distribution. "If you want to connect education and the cultural sector, that sector has to be there in every region."

How to achieve this? That remains unclear. Like basically everything else in this debate. And so El Yassini can talk for two minutes about the viral video of a ballerina with Alzheimer's, but is not questioned about his party's wish that provinces and municipalities should supplement the amount of the central government. Nor is there any mention of D'66's proposal to reform the entire cultural system.

A missed opportunity, because the differences between the cultural plans of the various parties are indeed significant.