In Perspective #2 - Centres for the arts, threatened and promising, part 2: beyond the A7

(What preceded. In the previous chapter, I thought back to my father. Who sought support from a predecessor of today's Cultuurconnectie to set up a creativity centre. And how he himself later downsized an arts centre precisely. Most municipalities now focus on cultural education in education, not on individual amateurs. What is the best model? And can you counteract the excessive flexibilisation of the labour market)?

Assembly and dismantling

In the Heerenveen region, Centrum voor de kunsten A7 went bankrupt. The bank no longer had confidence in it and cancelled the credit. Some of the participating municipalities withdrew and the remaining municipalities, Heerenveen and Opsterland, wanted to continue, but not without cuts. My assignment became to set up a new institution in the short term, using existing infrastructure and expertise, but without allowing this to be a transfer of undertaking (that would have labour law consequences) and without the municipalities again running the risk of long-term, hefty downsizing obligations (they were already hurting from the redundancy arrangements for those laid off at A7).

All this played out around 2010. It is good to keep this in mind. Municipalities everywhere were wondering where they could pull out and where they really still needed to act. There was an increasing push for a more flexible labour market. The big cuts of the first Rutte government were yet to come, but the financial crisis of 2008 was becoming apparent. (By the way, read the book "Phantom Growth" about the context of growing markets and shrinking budgets. Or Dirk Bezemer's book "A Land of Small Buffers"¹)

How do you set up a centre?

It was, especially in 2010 , not an attractive idea for municipalities to make themselves responsible for the large group of employees at an arts centre, let alone give them a (semi) civil servant position again.

If you wanted to establish a responsible model for a new arts centre, it had to be with a small core of permanent staff and a large flexible shell. So the new arts centre for Heerenveen and Opsterland: 'Ateliers Majeur'got off the ground on that basis. In retrospect, it is a perfect illustration for the familiar mix of phenomena. Retreating and retrenching governments. Out-of-control corporatisation and privatisation. Uncertainty about self-employment and false self-employment. Knowing that entrepreneurship in culture is sometimes highly desirable, sometimes undesirable, but not knowing when and to what limit.

Avid freelancers

Afternoons of interviews. Job interviews with art teachers, uncertain about their future, curious about the offer. All employees of the bankrupt centre A7 who wanted to could apply for a contract with the new institute, but for the majority of them a permanent employment contract was not in the cards. For some, it was perfect: they wanted nothing more than to function independently, combining their contract with work at other music schools, their own teaching practice or their own artistic pursuits. Some of them felt like entrepreneurs. They were in for a new business and content adventure. Others were so far removed from this adventure that they did not pass the selection. A third group was not unfit for it, but chose self-employment out of necessity, seeing it as a second choice. It was forced self-employment, on the verge of false self-employment.

For the new institution to operate in a healthy, prudentially sound manner, large-scale employment was not an option. For the employer (and or the grantor), the risk of new layoffs was simply too great. Students vote with their feet, swap guitar for football, sometimes impulsively and very temporarily choose an instrument made popular by their music hero. Rarely does the demand for drawing lessons or violin lessons exactly match the size of the supply of teachers. This can be partly compensated for by secondary tasks: ensemble lessons, coordination tasks, projects, but the possibilities are limited and not everyone is suited to them.

Experimenting with new models

On a bend in the road, I turned right while my wife cycled straight ahead. In the fall, I broke a wrist and both arms. As work had to continue at full speed - preferably without collisions and falls - I handed over my quartermastership of Ateliers Majeur to a valued colleague. After recovering, I tackled other assignments. When I unexpectedly took over after more than a year, Ateliers Majeur functioned as if it had existed for years. Enthusiastic coordinators and teachers had regained the trust of schools and students. The tent was up and running. But nationwide, Ateliers Majeur was viewed with raised eyebrows, which was not incomprehensible. It symbolised the loss of job security, of a government subsidising at a distance, of flexible employment contracts, of a departure from the solid position of music schools and arts centres. And this example could be emulated more again. And so much was already disappearing.²

What did not exactly ease the distrust was the role of consultancy firm BMC, which had taken over responsibility from the municipality. BMC wanted to step out of the relatively comfortable role of consultant and interim manager and take on the running of an arts centre itself. As a learning process, to experiment with new models, but who knows also as a new revenue model. To this end, the Stichting Culturele Ondernemingen Nederland was set up. But it stopped at the one experiment.

Ateliers Majeur is now more or less on its own feet. It has continued on the path of flexible offerings and networking. On the other hand: there is still an offer for schools and for amateurs after the bankruptcy of A7. And there is still a (modest) labour market for art teachers.

Small buffers and big worries

I bring to mind Bezemer and Heijne and Noten or the work of Piketty. There is enough wealth, but not by 'us'. There is enough money being made, but not by 'us'. And so there are flexible employment contracts, often with the lowest pay, for postmen, delivery workers, people in care or education, art teachers and performing artists³. Successive cabinets have wanted to keep public debt low and limit collective spending. Much was passed on to municipalities, whether or not packaged in decentralisation and shared responsibility. The remaining free policy space for municipalities is minimal. Philosophising about the ideal municipal approach to cultural education therefore seems to have become of little use. You can already be happy with what has survived, although there seems to be cautious change for the better here and there.

For the long term, I would still argue for that one combined institute and for a recognisable place in the city where people can meet, feel at home, and be educated in the arts. An institution that also advises education and provides art teachers to it so that parents and children might share the same teachers. The kind of buildings with which the government shows: that is how important we consider the creative development of our citizens. If that institution coincides physically and organisationally with the museum, library or theatre, that is fine, but let it not be an imposed pattern.

The issue of socially responsible employment contracts cannot be solved by the arts sector itself. It can, however, be an active participant in the discussion.⁴ The tough Borstlap file - the opinion on how to reform the labour market⁵ - should be translated decisively into regulations for all sectors. That should produce free, happy and well-paid freelancers alongside happy and well-paid permanent staff. Sufficient flexibility to keep an institution from falling asleep, sufficient constancy for continuity and quality.

How cultural education is regulated in Zevenaar, Heerenveen, Amsterdam or Groningen is up to those municipalities. But the Lower House should be much more aware that it has great influence on this with the national budget and with social regulations. A gentleman or lady from The Hague should visit Heerenveen more often.

Nuts