IN PERSPECTIVE 7: Artists and providence

In the series In Perspective, Erik Akkermans looks back and ahead at developments in cultural policy and practice. Today: providence for artists.

The office at Noordeinde in The Hague. At the meeting table, all board members had a fixed spot. At that spot was a packet of cigarettes of the right brand ready for everyone. The meetings started at the stroke of two o'clock. Around half past four, the sherry and saltines arrived at about the same time as the round table discussion. At five o'clock sharp, the meeting was closed.

Of the Provident Fund for Artists (AoA), the director of Social Security at the Ministry of Social Affairs was the chairman. He sat there on behalf of the minister. Vice-chairman was the director of Arts at the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work (CRM). Another senior Social Affairs official, just slightly below the chairman's position, held the treasurer position. Also on the Executive Board: two or three artists and a representative of the Federation of Artists' Associations.

The Provident Fund for Artists, established on the initiative of J. F. Van Royen in 1936,¹ helped with investments in professional practice with donations and loans, but also came to the aid of artists in case of illness or other social distress. The VC worked for all disciplines in art and most professional organisations were affiliated to it. The fund formed a perfect collaboration between artists' world, central government, municipalities and private funds. It brought solidarity, government policy and charity into one fund. There was a small Executive Board, a compact office and a very extensive General Board in which all these different parties could polder.

Changes

In 1986, at the Kurhaus in Scheveningen, the Provident Fund for Artists celebrated its 50th anniversary. But already more had changed in the last two years than in the whole period before. Governments withdrew, from the board, but largely also from funding. No more civil servant at the table, other than for negotiations. I was allowed to chair; sherry and saltines were left behind. The board started thinking about developing new collective social security schemes for artists. This was viewed critically by a number of artists' organisations, as at the same time the abolition of the visual artists' scheme (BKR) threatened². Weren't we developing the alibi for that? Not such a real thought, but resistance is not always real now.

Artists' organisations were thus critical of the new plans. And the ministries were only moderately interested. In the meantime, they had already struck another deal with each other. The BKR would be abolished, part of the budget transferred to the Ministry of CRM for a new fund for visual arts, design and architecture, and the rest provided a nice cut. That new fund would have exclusively artistic criteria. Both equal treatment of all art disciplines and attention to the social aspects of artistry fell by the wayside. After persistent negotiations, a small subsidy was left for the Provident Fund, which could become a supporting institution on modernised lines. A new social security (contribution) system did not materialise for the time being. However, there was room for a more businesslike approach.

With Jo Houben's directorship, the Provident Fund became more businesslike in the 1990s. The name first became Kunstenaars&CO (Culture and Entrepreneurship) and, after merging with Kunst & Zaken, eventually Cultuur+Ondernemen which gave a strong impetus to entrepreneurship and governance. Business loans remained in the package. At the time of the new statutory artist provision, the WIK and WWIK, the organisation fulfilled a vital role in its implementation, with a central test of professionalism³. With this, it was for a while more strongly back in the realm of social as well as professional security for artists. After the WWIK was repealed, the focus was again mainly on strengthening entrepreneurship and professionalisation.

Ready with artist policy?

The signal shown by the abolition of BKR at the time of Eelco Brinkman's ministry was clear: the central government was done with artists' policy, it was only about art policy. That same signal, but much more politically expressed, came over a decade later with the first Rutte Cabinet and state secretary Zijlstra. Artists had to earn enough money themselves or else choose other work or appeal to 'Providence'. Quite a contrast with the approach of subsequent ministers Bussemaker, van Engelshoven and Uslu. These gave the social and professional position of artists a place in policy again, based on an integral vision of art and artistry. In doing so, they also facilitated the labour market platform Platform ACCT and the professional development tool Werktuig PPO. Through Cultuur&Ondernemen, loans remain possible to invest in one's own practice. Own responsibility and solidarity are also back. Think of the bread funds, for example, or the initiative of young creators to the Fair Practice Code.

The attempts in the 1980s to create a collective social security system in the context of a Provident Fund-new-style clearly came far too early in the day. Currently, at least, there is talk of it. Among others, Cultuurconnectie and PGGM investigated the possibility of a pension scheme for creative self-employed people. In this, however, there is no tying the knot without general agreements on the national pension system. The same applies to disability and temporary unemployment insurance. The government prefers to hold off categorical schemes because something has to be arranged for all sectors at the same time. This creates stagnation in the sector because of stagnation in the above-sectoral dossier. The pension system, the Borstlap dossier⁴, disability insurance for the self-employed, compulsory or not, we can talk about it for a long time.

The previous minister of social affairs, Wouter Koolmees, was quite interested in social policy specifically for the cultural and creative sector. Unfortunately, halfway through his period corona came to claim almost all the attention. Painful that precisely the specific needs of self-employed people in the cultural and creative sector were then overlooked⁵.

The arts sector has a strong interest in progress on these dossiers. Conversely, the cultural and creative sector could very well be a pioneer or pilot. I advocate setting up a meeting table in the short term at which the Ministry of Social Affairs & Employment, OCW and Economic Affairs (with high-ranking officials), but also the Dutch municipalities, funds, industries and artists' organisations will try to achieve progress together. There will be no cigarettes there. Sherry or rosé will be allowed, but only after five and after results have been achieved.

1 Roel Mulder et al, On the Basis of Solidarity, sixty years of the Provident Fund for Artists, The Hague 1996

2 F.Kuyvenhoven, A Monument to the BKR, Zwolle 2020

3 P.Pennings, Half five in the Morning, Handbook for application of the WIK, Elsevier, The Hague 1999

4 Advisory Committee on Regulation of Work: "What kind of country do we want to work in?", The Hague 2020

5 See the recent summons to the government by the Arts Union to provide proportional compensation for damages.