10 April 2008 - Open letter to the former Dutch minister of Culture Ronald Plasterk. presented and published by Lectorate Artistry21. 2143 words.
SUMMARY
In this letter Paul Oomen describes his concerns regarding the general political perspective on culture and the resulting governmental funding policy. In his statement he touches upon the spiritual responsibility of the artist, the artist's function in society and the relationship between artists and cultural institutions.
MAIN TEXT
To Ronald Plasterk, minister of culture.
With great interest I took notice of the late developments around the new direction the government intends with its cultural policy, and the reactions of artists and institutions. First of all I wish to compliment you with a sharp translation of the reality in society and arts into your new subsidary plans. You seem to intend a shift towards a larger responsibility for society to nurture and foster arts, and therewith you place as well the artist and the cultural institutions for a serious challenge. I write this letter because I believe your plans to be promising, but yet I wish to nuance and question the intentions and execution of this policy by the ministry.
It worries me when you write:
Art does not exist for solely for its own reasons, but instead has, in centuries of parallel history to religious, political and materialistic realities, always embodied and kept alive the human ideal. Art is the only true example of a balance between the spiritual and the material. She shows us the ideal consciousness, and the confrontation with its appearance influences a positive development of the perfection of our personal conscience. In the arts, the personal struggle is expressed that every individual faces in life, and the artist is appointed to realize this process in the world. The unawarded and unselfish artistic act reflects the true meaning of life. Herewith art fulfills a by now almost forgotten or unnoticed task – she remembers us how we suppose to exist.
The government shows in her new plans clearly a retreat from her appearance as commissioner, and wants to research and stimulate the developments of arts in society by different means. I share this vision with you, but as well expect from you a full awareness of the spiritual importance of art. A realisation that art has to maintain itself and should not be maintained by the government, needs to be accompanied by accepting the responsibility that you carry politically for the spiritual value of art in society, that is never apprehensible by the amount of audience or financial means.
You show unawareness of this spiritual responsibility when you are quoted in the press:
The relation of the artist towards his audience is highly paradoxical. Although he wishes to reach as many people as possible, the artist is essentially predetermined to his interior vision on life, instead of any exterior reality. Isn’t the reflection of life within ourselves the only honest perspective on the world that we as individual human beings possess? It is know that the painter Cezanne, during his life acknowledged and praised by his colleagues , was deeply unhappy because his neighbor didn’t appreciate his paintings. And still he couldn’t change his style of painting. For art it is true that, as soon the artist disconnects himself from his inner experience to create, but instead starts to paint cows because there is a market for it, art ceases to exist as art. She becomes nothing but an empty consumer product, far attached from her essential meaning. I don’t think such a vision should be carried out by the minister of culture, that wishes to stimulate the flourishing of the arts in his country, and therewith carries in fact a responsibility for the spiritual well-being of an entire nation.
The real hard reality is that the artist cannot do any concession to so called predetermined wishes of audiences, if those exist at all. Every untrue expression from the artist, triggered by reasons outside of his personal perception, diminishes the artistic value of his work, also in front of an audience that is interested in a true artistic experience, whether conscious or not. I can assure you from experience that the reaction of audiences, regardless their level of education, cultural background or social surrounding, is always more interested, more surprising and more refined than you could expect on the basis of any market analysis. There is no a priori market that is waiting for art as a consumer product. It requires a collective effort of artists, producers and indeed a culturally aware government to shape the required circumstances effectively.
I fully share your opinion that the artist should search intensively and independently his own audience and supporters, and in doing so cannot expect the government to pay ones daily bread. I am convinced that every artwork created out of an inner necessity of the artist has the potential to find audiences and supporters that by nature of spirit connect to the content and vision expressed in the artwork. But the social and economic realization of a work of art can only be preceded by a spiritual process of the artist himself. Therefore a possible financial and public success of an artwork is first dependent on an unconditional sacrifice of the artist’s time and energy, which is by no means guaranteed to be paid after by the government, or in fact by anybody. Artists who think this have clearly lost sight of the importance and responsibility of their task.
On the other hand, from the government can be expected that everything is put into effort to support and stimulate the market, that indeed the artist should discover and conquer himself. This starts with implementing a moral and spiritual awareness of arts for the future audiences. For this a far-reaching application of arts in education is required. Only by establishing a larger cultural, creative and even artistic consciousness with children from the youngest age possible, a society will be able on the long term to really benefit from a true artistic market, one that is waiting for an audience that carries the desire for a real artistic experience ‘from within’. Secondly, the government is responsible for a beneficial climate for artists, that want to invest in that what they truly believe in and will try to realize it whatever it takes. For these artist the doors should be wide opened to operate on a larger scale.
The problem is that there is hardly any space to operate for the independently enterprising artist. My opinion is that the responsibility of a flourishing artistic movement in society lies with the artists, and that institutions should follow the development of individual artists and present a flexible adaptation to what the artist requires in realizing his work publicly. But the state of affairs in the Netherlands is exactly opposite. Facilitating institutions are gathering the total governmental budgets for arts, and therewith become appointed substitute ministries, that set a norm the artist has to adjust to. Apart from a complete off-circuit there is hardly any other way for an artist than to adapt to the conditions of institutions, or become an institution themselves. With your new policy you intend to subsidize institutions according to the amount of audience they reach. This claim is fully justifiable and it is high time institutions will be forced to fulfill their function – to create a largest possible public scope for arts in society. With their large state’s capital, many institutions have the means to reach a seemingly enormous potential of audience and support a broad investment in arts research and development, and yet exactly in this assignment in many cases they fail.
This failing connection to the audience is the result of a increasing disinterest of institutions to engage with the perception of the individual artist. There is a surplus of formats and formulas the artist over and over again has to adapt to. This inflexible and narrow surrounding the artist has to deal with to publicly release his work, leads to an impoverishment of the communicative power that art has by nature. It affects the engagement of society in sharing its actual spiritual qualities negatively.
If there is anything the current society has a severe lack of, it is spirituality. Not spirituality in the shape of religions or grouptherapies, but an enlargement of the personal consciousness. The artist is can give shape to this necessity with his work. I imagine a city of the future where artistry is a direct, natural and more fundamental part of life itself. Art will be able to take place everywhere and anytime. It is the artist, aided by an uninterrupted will to connect the content of life to sounds, images and words, that can provide the most diverse of individuals in our society with a new reason to gather together. Then, the artwork becomes a contemporary ritual, an event where one is confronted with ones self, reflected in the collective experience with others.
But how far is this vision from the way cultural institutions try to maintain their subsidies with a exclusively consumer-aimed audience seduction. It should be the task of cultural institutions to protect the artist’s inspiration, and turn this energy into public engagement. Instead art is rather presented as a tasty product because there is a market that needs to be conquered to justify the necessity of art. Considering the fact that the theaters, museums and concerthalls complain about decreasing numbers of audience it proves that art as a consumption product is simply hard to sell, an will be taken out of the market altogether soon. In this light it is remarkable that Joop van den Ende’s Stage Entertainment, completely independent from states subsidies and highly ‘marketable’, has recently decided to take all theatre-productions out of business because the low market profit does not weight up the artistic interests anymore.
Only the artist himself, pursued by his tantalizing inspiration, can create the excellent conditions for his work to exist, and can bring together his audience on a fair ground, whether small or large. A change can only take place if the the artists themselves are in turn to guide the developments of a policy. For this the theaters, concerthalls and museums should be to their disposal unconditionally, and are furthermore just one out of many places the artist can present his work, if the specific facilities these places offer are favorable. The real problem for an open communication between artists and audience is the paralyzing dependency on existing frames and forms, that makes it more difficult for audience and artist to reach one another.
If you, the Minister of Culture, truly expects from the artist to conquer new markets, I suppose you have to take one step further in your reformation of the arts subsidies. Lets say for instance at least half of the annual €430 million available for culture is actually spent on ‘new’ art productions. This money should go directly to the artists instead to festivals and institutions. Not because the artist wants to depend on the state, but because it is your political responsibility to support the arts. The money that is now spent on the maintenance of institutions can then be used for the direct organization required for the realization of the artwork, its way of presenting, the production and its promotion, possibly in collaboration with other artists that can form festivals and initiatives on the basis of newly found and not predetermined artistic content. The cultural institution takes in this process a no more and no less important role of knowledge exchange centre and executive producer serving the public part of realizing the artistic process. Only if the space for artists to operate individually will enlarge, the artist will be able to design the market, its specific audiences and in fact the spiritual direction of the world.
I kindly ask you to take these observations into consideration, and challenge you to find practical forms for the enlargement of the artist’s playground in society, which is, as I assume, above all in our common interest.
with highest regards,
Paul Oomen
With great interest I took notice of the late developments around the new direction the government intends with its cultural policy, and the reactions of artists and institutions. First of all I wish to compliment you with a sharp translation of the reality in society and arts into your new subsidary plans. You seem to intend a shift towards a larger responsibility for society to nurture and foster arts, and therewith you place as well the artist and the cultural institutions for a serious challenge. I write this letter because I believe your plans to be promising, but yet I wish to nuance and question the intentions and execution of this policy by the ministry.
It worries me when you write:
“Art does not pay service to any political goal or whatever power in society. She only pays service to herself.” [ NRC Handelsblad, 23 juni 2007 ]
Art does not exist for solely for its own reasons, but instead has, in centuries of parallel history to religious, political and materialistic realities, always embodied and kept alive the human ideal. Art is the only true example of a balance between the spiritual and the material. She shows us the ideal consciousness, and the confrontation with its appearance influences a positive development of the perfection of our personal conscience. In the arts, the personal struggle is expressed that every individual faces in life, and the artist is appointed to realize this process in the world. The unawarded and unselfish artistic act reflects the true meaning of life. Herewith art fulfills a by now almost forgotten or unnoticed task – she remembers us how we suppose to exist.
The government shows in her new plans clearly a retreat from her appearance as commissioner, and wants to research and stimulate the developments of arts in society by different means. I share this vision with you, but as well expect from you a full awareness of the spiritual importance of art. A realisation that art has to maintain itself and should not be maintained by the government, needs to be accompanied by accepting the responsibility that you carry politically for the spiritual value of art in society, that is never apprehensible by the amount of audience or financial means.
You show unawareness of this spiritual responsibility when you are quoted in the press:
Unfortunately you picture the market for art as a known fact insensitive to influence. Every artist dreams about an optimal communication with his audience, and hopes for wide-spread acknowledgment of his work. I can assure, when artist's gain the means for it, many will apply it for this cause with full conviction. The belief that there is somebody receptive for the aesthetic experience the artist envisions, is the only reason for art to come into being. It is the only truth with which the artist can console the painful selfsacrifice that the realization of the artistic process demands.“Being an artist is a free choice. The hard reality is that you have to be able to survive from your work on the long term. Artist's don’t have to engage in the market. But if they can’t make ends meet from creations that they find worthy themselves, there is the choice to for instance start painting cows because there is a market for it.” [ NRC Handelsblad, 27 maart 2008 ]
The relation of the artist towards his audience is highly paradoxical. Although he wishes to reach as many people as possible, the artist is essentially predetermined to his interior vision on life, instead of any exterior reality. Isn’t the reflection of life within ourselves the only honest perspective on the world that we as individual human beings possess? It is know that the painter Cezanne, during his life acknowledged and praised by his colleagues , was deeply unhappy because his neighbor didn’t appreciate his paintings. And still he couldn’t change his style of painting. For art it is true that, as soon the artist disconnects himself from his inner experience to create, but instead starts to paint cows because there is a market for it, art ceases to exist as art. She becomes nothing but an empty consumer product, far attached from her essential meaning. I don’t think such a vision should be carried out by the minister of culture, that wishes to stimulate the flourishing of the arts in his country, and therewith carries in fact a responsibility for the spiritual well-being of an entire nation.
The real hard reality is that the artist cannot do any concession to so called predetermined wishes of audiences, if those exist at all. Every untrue expression from the artist, triggered by reasons outside of his personal perception, diminishes the artistic value of his work, also in front of an audience that is interested in a true artistic experience, whether conscious or not. I can assure you from experience that the reaction of audiences, regardless their level of education, cultural background or social surrounding, is always more interested, more surprising and more refined than you could expect on the basis of any market analysis. There is no a priori market that is waiting for art as a consumer product. It requires a collective effort of artists, producers and indeed a culturally aware government to shape the required circumstances effectively.
I fully share your opinion that the artist should search intensively and independently his own audience and supporters, and in doing so cannot expect the government to pay ones daily bread. I am convinced that every artwork created out of an inner necessity of the artist has the potential to find audiences and supporters that by nature of spirit connect to the content and vision expressed in the artwork. But the social and economic realization of a work of art can only be preceded by a spiritual process of the artist himself. Therefore a possible financial and public success of an artwork is first dependent on an unconditional sacrifice of the artist’s time and energy, which is by no means guaranteed to be paid after by the government, or in fact by anybody. Artists who think this have clearly lost sight of the importance and responsibility of their task.
On the other hand, from the government can be expected that everything is put into effort to support and stimulate the market, that indeed the artist should discover and conquer himself. This starts with implementing a moral and spiritual awareness of arts for the future audiences. For this a far-reaching application of arts in education is required. Only by establishing a larger cultural, creative and even artistic consciousness with children from the youngest age possible, a society will be able on the long term to really benefit from a true artistic market, one that is waiting for an audience that carries the desire for a real artistic experience ‘from within’. Secondly, the government is responsible for a beneficial climate for artists, that want to invest in that what they truly believe in and will try to realize it whatever it takes. For these artist the doors should be wide opened to operate on a larger scale.
The problem is that there is hardly any space to operate for the independently enterprising artist. My opinion is that the responsibility of a flourishing artistic movement in society lies with the artists, and that institutions should follow the development of individual artists and present a flexible adaptation to what the artist requires in realizing his work publicly. But the state of affairs in the Netherlands is exactly opposite. Facilitating institutions are gathering the total governmental budgets for arts, and therewith become appointed substitute ministries, that set a norm the artist has to adjust to. Apart from a complete off-circuit there is hardly any other way for an artist than to adapt to the conditions of institutions, or become an institution themselves. With your new policy you intend to subsidize institutions according to the amount of audience they reach. This claim is fully justifiable and it is high time institutions will be forced to fulfill their function – to create a largest possible public scope for arts in society. With their large state’s capital, many institutions have the means to reach a seemingly enormous potential of audience and support a broad investment in arts research and development, and yet exactly in this assignment in many cases they fail.
This failing connection to the audience is the result of a increasing disinterest of institutions to engage with the perception of the individual artist. There is a surplus of formats and formulas the artist over and over again has to adapt to. This inflexible and narrow surrounding the artist has to deal with to publicly release his work, leads to an impoverishment of the communicative power that art has by nature. It affects the engagement of society in sharing its actual spiritual qualities negatively.
If there is anything the current society has a severe lack of, it is spirituality. Not spirituality in the shape of religions or grouptherapies, but an enlargement of the personal consciousness. The artist is can give shape to this necessity with his work. I imagine a city of the future where artistry is a direct, natural and more fundamental part of life itself. Art will be able to take place everywhere and anytime. It is the artist, aided by an uninterrupted will to connect the content of life to sounds, images and words, that can provide the most diverse of individuals in our society with a new reason to gather together. Then, the artwork becomes a contemporary ritual, an event where one is confronted with ones self, reflected in the collective experience with others.
But how far is this vision from the way cultural institutions try to maintain their subsidies with a exclusively consumer-aimed audience seduction. It should be the task of cultural institutions to protect the artist’s inspiration, and turn this energy into public engagement. Instead art is rather presented as a tasty product because there is a market that needs to be conquered to justify the necessity of art. Considering the fact that the theaters, museums and concerthalls complain about decreasing numbers of audience it proves that art as a consumption product is simply hard to sell, an will be taken out of the market altogether soon. In this light it is remarkable that Joop van den Ende’s Stage Entertainment, completely independent from states subsidies and highly ‘marketable’, has recently decided to take all theatre-productions out of business because the low market profit does not weight up the artistic interests anymore.
Only the artist himself, pursued by his tantalizing inspiration, can create the excellent conditions for his work to exist, and can bring together his audience on a fair ground, whether small or large. A change can only take place if the the artists themselves are in turn to guide the developments of a policy. For this the theaters, concerthalls and museums should be to their disposal unconditionally, and are furthermore just one out of many places the artist can present his work, if the specific facilities these places offer are favorable. The real problem for an open communication between artists and audience is the paralyzing dependency on existing frames and forms, that makes it more difficult for audience and artist to reach one another.
If you, the Minister of Culture, truly expects from the artist to conquer new markets, I suppose you have to take one step further in your reformation of the arts subsidies. Lets say for instance at least half of the annual €430 million available for culture is actually spent on ‘new’ art productions. This money should go directly to the artists instead to festivals and institutions. Not because the artist wants to depend on the state, but because it is your political responsibility to support the arts. The money that is now spent on the maintenance of institutions can then be used for the direct organization required for the realization of the artwork, its way of presenting, the production and its promotion, possibly in collaboration with other artists that can form festivals and initiatives on the basis of newly found and not predetermined artistic content. The cultural institution takes in this process a no more and no less important role of knowledge exchange centre and executive producer serving the public part of realizing the artistic process. Only if the space for artists to operate individually will enlarge, the artist will be able to design the market, its specific audiences and in fact the spiritual direction of the world.
I kindly ask you to take these observations into consideration, and challenge you to find practical forms for the enlargement of the artist’s playground in society, which is, as I assume, above all in our common interest.
with highest regards,
Paul Oomen
No comments:
Post a Comment