Spread is only half the story about the region. There is also embedding.

That the Dutch performing arts, especially in relation to our neighbouring countries, are in a spread bed may seem like a lame pun, but it is nevertheless where.

Yesterday, we presented a best alarming calculation example on the consequences of the emphasis on distribution in the assessment of grant applications by the Performing Arts Fund. Today, a follow-up response from the same Fund reveals that while the problem identified may come into play, it is partly offset by the Fund's equally strong emphasis on 'embedding' in its assessment. 

The complete spread component was worth four points at the last assessment round, which were divided between two points for spread of performances and two points for 'embedding'. And so that is where the shoe began to wrinkle for applicants coming from one of the four big cities. They did not get a single point for their embedding, and thus had to make the most of the spread. So this deliberately put them at a disadvantage compared to applicants embedded outside the periphery. Because those got at least 1 point, but more often 2 points for not living and working in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague or Utrecht. 

Embedding test

The Fund puts it this way: "The criterion of distribution (reintroduced in this period) therefore had an effect mainly due to this embedding test, because out of a total of 22 fewer applications from producers 'fell' a reduction of 21 honours in Amsterdam. This changed the distribution of supported producers in the country in favour of non-G4 municipalities."

A side effect of this shift is that there could potentially be a reduction in the number of performances, but that, according to the Fund, is more than compensated by performances by makers from outside the periphery. 

Amsterdam in burden

According to the Fund, the pain is mainly caused by the lack of compensation for those applicants who fall just below the general 'saw line', and this time quite often from Amsterdam. In the past, these were often still angled into the system by the Lower House, but there is no such thing now. As a result, the removal of precisely those saw-line groups now hurts so much. 

Thus, not one great injustice has been demonstrated. Or, to put it in the words of FPK director Viktorien van Hulst: "The impact of one criterion more or less is modest. And in this case with your example, that includes the fact that the situation you outline played a role in some organisations. So hypothesis is correct, but in practice it has not had the effect outlined to such an extent." 

Not to mention the large number of unsubsidised creators who increasingly seek out regional theatre houses. But we'll look at that another time.