The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam closed 2024 with a tidy profit of almost three million euros. Shareholders' equity now stands at over 53 million euros, the general reserve at 34 million. Not figures to be pitied. Yet the museum is sounding the alarm: more subsidies are urgently needed, on top of the 8.5 million it already receives annually from the government. A total of 104 million euros is needed for major maintenance and preservation, the complaint says. And if The Hague doesn't step in? Then the museum threatens closure.
The arrogance of success
What falters here is the tone. The Van Gogh Museum is among the absolute best in the world: millions of visitors, high admission prices, queues of tourists who happily plunk down 20 euros or more for a ticket. On top of that, the museum benefits from shops, restaurants and an unlimited stream of international attention. And yet it is not enough. While cultural institutions outside the Randstad toil to scrape together a fraction of such sums, the Van Gogh Museum argues that The Hague should pull out the purse strings, as if it were a given.
Randstad vs. region
In cities like Enschede, Deventer, Groningen or Maastricht, museums and theatres have known for years that they have to be entrepreneurial, collaborative and creative with limited resources. A positive result of three million euros would be seen there as a blessing as well as a buffer for the future. In Amsterdam, it is apparently reason to demand with a raised finger that the government close the gap of tens of millions. The contrast underlines an old frustration: in the Randstad, great and international success seems automatically entitled to more taxpayers' money, while regional institutions with as much social value are hardly heard of.
A wrong signal
Of course, major maintenance costs money. And yes, sustainability is urgent. But the current message - "we are profitable, but we still need more subsidy, otherwise we will close the doors" - shows not self-reflection but arrogance. It puts bad blood on institutions outside the Randstad that are already lucky with a few tons of structural support. Moreover, it threatens to erode public confidence: why would a museum with millions in its coffers not invest a considerable amount itself?
Time for fairer distribution
What is needed is a fairer distribution of cultural subsidies in the Netherlands. Museums like the Van Gogh have enough clout to fend for themselves, especially as long as tourist flows continue. Extra millions of taxpayers' money would be better spent on institutions that simply disappear without structural support - especially in the region, where culture is crucial for liveability and identity.
⸻
In short: the Van Gogh Museum would do well to bang its fist on the table a bit less, and show a bit more modesty. Those who make profits and have reserves, but still cry out for extra subsidies, should ask themselves whether they still understand that culture does not only exist in Amsterdam.
