From the Executive Director
Going Dutch
By Teresa Eyring
This year a newly conservative Dutch government drastically cut funding for arts and culture in the Netherlands, sending a clear message to its arts community: "Try to be more like the United States." Or, put another way, "Go find private donors to support your efforts."
The Theater Instituut Nederland, which is TCG's equivalent in Holland, is going from a budget of approximately 4 million euros to a budget of zero overnight. This news is terribly bleak, particularly coming from a tiny nation of historically big thinkers. It was the Dutch who initiated the settlement of Manhattan 402 years ago; they've engineered massive systems of canals and waterways; they've always recognized the power of investing in art and artists. The ambition and creativity of the Dutch is seen over and over in projects such as the New Island Festival, which took place on Governors Island in 2009, and in the ways in which Dutch consulates showcase their artists abroad, cultivating an image of Dutch strength, tolerance and inventiveness ("Great Exportations," May/June '11). On their home turf, Dutch artists have traditionally been nurtured and respected. One would hope that the policymakers of Holland recognize the tremendous resources they've built in their creative community—and protect it at all costs. But, apparently, they've been overtaken by a very large and very powerful blind spot.
While in the U.S. private funding covers the lion's share of contributed support for nonprofit arts and culture, government funding—from sources such as the NEA and various state and local agencies—has helped stimulate private generosity. In his book Arts in Crisis, Joseph Wesley Zeigler tracked the development of the NEA from its launch in 1965. In the ensuing decades, growth in the numbers of organizations, the size of audiences and the tally of private funding for the arts was staggering. The tax deductibility of charitable donations made individual giving a key component of support for nonprofits. But it took decades to build a solid habit and practice of giving. Today our arts community is bolstered by the American sense of generosity and willingness to support nonprofit causes that improve community life and educational enrichment through the arts.
Over the past five decades, foundation, individual, corporate and government sources have taken turns leading the philanthropic pack—but arts organizations have also been able to fine-tune and grow new sources of income, beyond both contributions and admissions. Building rentals, royalties, classes and souvenirs all bolster the model. Additionally, people in this field tend to contribute "sweat equity"—the kind that never appears on a balance sheet. They offer their time and their ingenuity in order to make it all work.
U.S.-based artists and organizations are generally perplexed when they hear that our arts-funding system should be elevated as a replicable model. It seems as if there is never enough money, never enough audience, and certainly (while the term "artistic deficit" is not used very often anymore) some artists and theatre leaders feel that they are constantly forced to compromise. They suffer from a shortage of the time and the resources needed to advance artistically in profound ways. Many argue that there is inherent weakness in a system that holds artists in largely freelance relationships to organizations, when at one time long ago, the vision had been oriented toward the idea of companies and ensembles.
TCG's fiscal survey and the report Theatre Facts 2010 were published in August, and this issue of American Theatre provides some anecdotal information on how theatres are faring. Most are keeping their heads above water, recalibrating and rebuilding gradually following the recession of 2008–09. One tech staff member is quoted as saying, "Open is the new growth"—meaning that if your theatre has survived at all, that is the equivalent to moving forward. Last year, there were more surpluses than deficits thanks to rebounding investment returns. But, at the same time, working capital continues to go farther south each year. And that means theatres are dealing with the king of all management challenges: the cash-flow crunch.
Collectively, there is no rest for the weary. Still, it's important to recognize the strength that does exist in the social enterprise we've built. It is diversified. It includes ticket sales, contributions from multiple sources, endowment income for some, and other earned income from rentals, etc. If one piece of the pie is weak, there are options for rebalancing. And a sense of hope is generally considered a legitimate portion of the overall resource picture.
We have fiscal diversification, we have ingenuity, and we are always finding new pieces and parts in our value chain. One of the surprising statistics that emerged from this year's Theatre Facts survey was the enormous growth in attendance at staged readings. With the new sense of social connection, and the ever-growing desire for co-creative opportunities, every step along the theatre's creative chain can potentially be leveraged and shared.
But if, as seems to be the case in Holland, the bulk of all support for theatres were eliminated overnight, it would be a different story. And it's important to remember that our colleagues in Holland and other nations, while oceans away, are still connected to us. We share artists and friendships and challenges. To the extent that we can wield influence, it is important for us to advocate for a more reasonable policy for supporting the remarkable arts system the Dutch have built—and which is now threatened in the name of becoming more like us.