Currently, the discussion about subsidizing the cultural sector is very vivid in The Netherlands. A new government is proposing cutbacks ascending to more than €200 million in the year 2015 on their annual budget. This is a substantial amount of the around €900 million that has been the state budget in former years. (rijksbegroting, 2010)
The proposed cutbacks have caused a lot of negative reactions from cultural organizations and entrepreneurs stating that these cutbacks will cause a dry up of the cultural climate in The Netherlands, and will make it impossible for them to survive. (De Pers, 2010), (LAgroup Leisure & Arts Consulting, 2010)
I think there lies a definite responsibility with the Dutch government to invest in a healthy cultural industry. The justification of subsidizing these arts lies in different facets, both social and economical.
An important aspect to start with is that Dutch cultural policy states that art and culture should be available to all people, both rich and poor. (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2010) This is not possible without some kind of investment from outside players. If cultural organizations would have to base their income on revenue from sales, the price of, for example, an opera ticket would become unaffordable for the average Joe. This has to do with the costs of fine and performing arts. Where other industries have made progress in efficiency, during the industrial revolution, making more in less time and with less people, an orchestra still needs the same amount of musicians and time to be able to perform. The same goes for a painter or a sculptor. The comparison with other sectors that flourish without subsidies from the government cannot be made, because of this fact.
An argument that is often made against subsidies is that the cultural sector should look more to the private sector for sponsorship to cover their costs. But what will become of the autonomy of an artist when he or she will have to deal with the commercial benefits that a private organization will demand for its (substantial) investment?
Granted, there are some opportunities in sponsorship, but this can never cover the average amount of 63 percent that is now invested by the government in the cultural sector. (Vinkenburg, 2010), (Berenschot, 2010)
This being said, the cultural sector doesn’t only cost money. Though subsidies are needed to make art affordable for every individual, the cultural industry actually has a positive economic effect.
Gerard Marlet, director of the spatial-economic research institute Atlas, writes in his book ‘Music in the city’ about the important role that the cultural industry has in the Dutch economy. He calculates that in 2008 €16,9 billion directly and indirectly are grossed by the creative industry. This is the result of purely economical factors, but also of social and social-economical factors; people like to live in cities with a blooming cultural climate, thus companies will also settle and invest in these cities. (LAgroup Leisure & Arts Consulting, 2010), (Marlet, 2010)
In a more recent research Bastiaan Vinkenburg, member of consultancy agency Berenschot, also recognizes the returns of the creative industries. In his presentation for a debate on art and culture subsidies he mentions the significant economical impact of the arts and culture sector on related industries. The turnover of related industries, like tourism, hotels and restaurants, add up to €70 billion. The state, provincial and municipal subsidies of €5 billion can be justified with these numbers. (Vinkenburg, Kunst & cultuur, het investeren waard?, 2010)
Looking at the economical factors there already is a clear justification of subsidies, but that on itself doesn’t do justice to the importance of art and culture. In a way, art and culture can be seen as a right to express and experience society and its values. Without subsidies a lot of these experiences will not survive. Cultural organizations all around Holland are already struggling with their budgets. Future prospects are grim.
If the government would turn around and again acknowledge the important social and economical role that the creative industry has, it could save an industry that simply can’t function fully on its own.
As Anne Berk stated, art critic for the Dutch Financial Paper: “How could Van Gogh, who didn’t sell even one painting during his life, have survived without the support of his brother?” (Berk, 2008)
I would say that the art and culture industry could still use a little help from big brother.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten