That the model that Bartelse and Adriaansse proposals will lead to their desired improvement in lawfulness, legitimacy, efficiency and transparency, I venture to doubt. Fundamental developments cannot be observed by occasional observers or people who occasionally glance from the sidelines. The development of art is unpredictable, which is precisely what is exciting about it. It's about, as Paul Slangen writes in his account of theatre group Hollandia, "(treading) paths not yet trodden before".1 It goes against the nature of art to indicate in advance what paths these will be. That has to be revealed in practice, a practice that develops step by step, from production to production. To determine the effect and value of that, you need well-versed and constantly watching and reflecting contemplators who follow the practice closely.
Peer review (peer review (ed)) is still the best assessment method for this. A method applicable to all utterances. Criticism of peer review as a method is unfounded. The problem that has increasingly emerged is that its application has eroded, partly at the instigation of the government, as I explored in my recent publication The art of dividing - How the government controls arts and culture.2 Whereas 'viewing baggage' used to be decisive, gradually other qualifications have been introduced to qualify for a place on a committee, such as age, gender, cultural background and place of residence.
Intendants
The only model in which I completely agree is assessment by intendants. This preference stems from my experience of following theatre. I have been watching theatre performances since 1990. Performances in all genres, on all stages and of all ages, at home and abroad. I have been able to develop a gaze that has been shaped and remains sharpened both horizontally and vertically. It also means that I am constantly in conversation with all types of makers and with fellow viewers.
The objection that judging by a small group of people encourages clientelism and personal preference can be overcome by having an intendant operate not on his own but in a group with colleagues - in other words, as a group. peers - who are also as fully informed as possible about what is being made by whom. They are people who, like the artists, have a day's work to do, should be appropriately remunerated for it and are accountable for their work. To the Minister of Culture, for example.
A system with intendants - 'authoritative experts' to quote Bartelse & Adriaanse - makes the whole assessment process many times simpler, more legitimate, legitimate, efficient and transparent. Exactly what Bartelse & Adriaanse have in mind. And that at a fraction of the cost, deployment of hundreds of people, political arm-twisting and hassle with grant period lengths. In short: with a much larger share of the art budget for the art and artists.
1 Paul Slangen, You don't have a chance, but take it - The story of theatre group Hollandia, International theatre & film books publisher, Amsterdam, 2025
2 Constant Meijers, The art of dividing - How the government controls art and culture, Publisher international theatre & film books, Amsterdam, 2025
