Opinion | The art sector can benefit from this right-wing turn

The election results are causing panic in the cultural sector. There is some reason for that. According to the PVV election manifesto, all cultural subsidies can be abolished and the other coalition parties envisaged do not appear to be major supporters of the current government subsidies.

The result: pessimism in the sector, which responds to politics with a high-sounding appeal that connects culture. And that attention must be paid to the beneficial social effect of art, which brings people into contact with each other, cultivates empathy and is a medicine against polarization. Art would make citizens better citizens.

Bitter pill

This narrative of the cultural vanguard is at odds with the opinion of the majority of citizens. If you ask them what can be cut, art is high on the list. Of course, everyone benefits from the opportunities that art and culture offer: listening to music, watching films streaming platforms, singing together in a local choir or discussing books in a reading club. We are a country where art and culture can be found everywhere. Yet there is limited support for a generous cultural policy. This contradiction is a bitter pill for the many hardworking and passionate professionals in the cultural sector. But apparently the traditional view of ‘connection’ has not worked in recent years.

Also read
Cultural sector fears demolition after PVV election win

The trend is favorable that more artists are leaving the traditional stage and focusing on a different type of audience. They work with residents in all corners of our country on new art expressions, in the streets of major cities and rural villages, in healthcare, in the neighborhood. In their artistic practice they make unusual connections between care, welfare and culture, between young and old, between new residents of our country and those who have lived there for decades. However, the results of this cultural innovation are rarely visible on the theater stage.

The cultural system is still too elitist. It is trapped in an institutional logic. It focuses on preserving existing institutions. Too many cultural managers focus on the survival of their own institution.

You expect the cultural infrastructure to open its gates wide to artists. You hope that the development of the professional practice of artists is central. But the majority of institutions are mainly focused on showcasing art by established artists and on providing a crowd-pleasing offering for older and highly educated art lovers. The holy goal is to get the exploitation done. Many artists are not discussed.

The cultural system is too elitist – aimed at preserving existing institutions

The institutional rigidity is reinforced by the existing criteria for subsidy allocation by the government and national art funds. These work to the detriment of the growing group of artists who are more focused on the social impact of their artistic work. Subsidies mainly go to mainstream venues and traditional art disciplines.

The outdated structure of the cultural system and the one-sided assessment criteria together ensure that few see the connection between their own involvement in art and culture and current cultural policy. It is logical that the cultural sector has been unable to make this connection clear for a long time.

There is a power issue in the background. The part of the sector that focuses on the classical arts does not want to lose its position and thus maintains the distance between itself and the rest of the Netherlands. That’s a shame. Because the artistic and social value of the cultural sector starts with the artists and their work practice. Why not organize the cultural system in such a way that they form the center of it? Why are innovative artists not generously supported, regardless of where they are active and with whom they make art?

Also read
Usefulness and art are no longer a contradiction

Bakunin’s Barricade, 2015–2020, as the work was on display at the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven in 2015.” class=”dmt-article-suggestion__image” src=”https://images.nrc.nl/-otvH4O7Ph8y2uBbCiDFBmot2nc=/160×96/smart/filters:no_upscale()/s3/static.nrc.nl/bvhw/files/2021/05/data71039633-3b6079.jpg”/>

Of course, one senses that something is wrong. Reluctantly, a debate has recently started in the arts sector about the social value of art. There is cautious talk about a larger-scale deployment of artists at various levels of society. There is still no serious and broad policy commitment aimed at larger groups of artists and reaching the entire society. And exactly this is desperately needed. Also because pioneering work is done when working outside the established order, in super-diverse cities and in the countryside.

Cold Fair

In order for these artists to achieve their full potential on their own terms, a different cultural system must be created, with different selection criteria. And budgets have to be shifted significantly. No, that does not mean cutting back on art and culture, on the contrary. A greater social contribution from artists actually requires more money.

The cultural sector may hope that the new right-wing wind will pass, but if it does not quickly commit to real change in the sector itself, it will once again be in for a rude awakening at the next elections. A superficial, half-hearted reorganization of the cultural system is insufficient. The social legitimacy of the cultural sector is not self-evident and must be fought for. Radical policy choices are required.

To share





Email the editor