What a valuable contribution to the discussion on the cultural system Jeroen Bartelse and Paul Adriaanse have made! (Culture Press 26 June 2025). Especially by making a clear distinction between the functions of the institutions, criteria you need for them and the distribution methods you use. And then knowing how to differentiate in those methods.
I have long argued for more variation in the distribution system - and of course I am by no means alone in this - and in particular for the use of visitations, self-evaluations and monitoring. (See, for example: Erik Akkermans and Sanne Scholten, Thorbecke and/or De Haas van Utrecht; twelve opinions on advice and art, Amersfoort 2008,). Also in my forthcoming publication 'In Perspective' I do. But precisely the precision of scientists with which Bartelse and Adriaanse analyse the system offers much clarity. Which hopefully gives the discussion a push to take the big step forward.
The authors show the amounts of money involved in the current state of affairs. That, of course, makes us all, steeply or not, jump backwards. For a truer picture, you should actually show the quantitative development alongside: more applicants every four years, and a flow of money that doesn't exactly grow along with it. The 'old for new' discussion is becoming increasingly unfair: valuable old can no longer afford a short-term dip: before you know it, you're out. Promising new has little chance of getting into the system. Like young house seekers in the housing market who have only starter status.
Two more comments I would like to attach with a paperclip to this ABC (Adriaanse Bartelse Culture System). I wrote about it in my afterthought of "In Perspective."
1. Vary grant periods.
So far, the discussion has mainly been about 4 or 8 years as the duration for the subsidy system. But precisely if you vary methods, you can also vary time much more. If a dance company subsidised for three years does not turn out to be worthwhile, the subsidy stops and there is a vacancy at that moment, initially for dance again, but perhaps for visual arts if the pressure on the system is higher there. For infrastructural institutions, there are well-defined checkpoints, but if they perform badly, the management disappears rather than the institution. The subsidy period is unlimited, so to speak. What you lose is the integral assessment of the total offer, but how realistic is it and, above all, how necessary is it to link it to that one moment in those four years? Decouple this and for all concerned, a lot of administrative fuss disappears at one and the same time.
2. Watch out for administrative crowding.
In "In Perspective", I doubt we should go for the big order change. "Major system changes lead to major, partly unforeseen, new problems. The triple decentralisation (youth care, home care and Participation Act) of Rutte II (2012) is a good example. Large administrative crowds, huge discussion and participation processes, lengthy and expensive transitions; the bottom line rolls off the table in the meantime.
I believe more in organic processes, in going step by step, trying things out, setting up pilots, provided you clearly know the direction you want to take. For instance, first take the 'too big to fail' institutions out of the system and introduce some variation in subsidy periods. And so proceed step by step. See where you can get practical. For (even) more cooperation between the funds, for instance , you don't need a direct merger.
Finally, a system change does not guarantee a more intense relationship between art and society, between arts and politics. Other homework needs to be done for that. That can put the importance of system rejection into perspective. And by the way, Bartelse and Adriaanse also offer help for that better relationship: with their citizens' initiatives (or citizens' councils?)
