OPEN LETTER: 'A vision for the dance field is needed now'

The results raise a lot of questions; What is the perspective for the makers who get nothing now? But also what can be expected for in the future? Many companies that received multi-year support for the first time four years back are now dropping out again. This creates uncertainty and a lack of sustainability within the sector.
This is why Amos Ben-Tal (OFFprojects), Jasper van Luijk (SHIFFT), Kalpana Raghuraman (Kalpanarts) Jelena Kostic (BOLDMoves), Katja Heitmann (St. This Is Not A Show), Gaia Gonnelli (Dadodans) have joined hands and written a letter to policymakers and funds. Read the full letter below.

'We write to you as the middle segment of the national dance field. Experienced and proven makers leading new and adventurous organisations. We operate locally, nationally and internationally and are the connective tissue between talent development, artistic innovation and excellence in dance. We are literally in the middle of the dance ecosystem. Together, we are responsible for hundreds of performances a year.

The quadrennial grant revolving door is once again behind us, we largely know how the cards were shuffled this round. And while we were promised a light touch, understanding and solidarity on all sides, from funds to municipalities, a harsh conclusion has now been presented.

The national dance field is now on its back. More than a fifth of dance companies have been cut in the local and national distribution of funds for the 2025-2028 cultural note period. Of the 27 dance companies currently supported by the Performing Arts Fund, as many as 10 companies have been cut, one company has now quit and only four new companies have joined. So only 20 dance companies remain, a reduction of 22 per cent.

No vision has been formulated here, just a chilly scoring by largely de-emphasised committees. Without an overarching approach, without coherence between local and national or between production and presentation, without regard for the human capital being destroyed and, most worryingly, without regard for the social impact on the public. It is ruthlessly dismantling previous investments. For these committees at the funds and municipalities, it seems to us an impossible job.

As a dance field, we are shocked, we feel unseen, unheard and lack vision and perspective. Four years ago, local governments and the national Performing Arts Fund decided on the influx of a new generation of makers and companies. Makers who had previously been able to take their first steps in the field through new-makers schemes of the Performing Arts Fund and project grants, and had carefully built up organisations, received good news: we see your potential and quality, go ahead and spread your wings!

So we have all invested heavily; in our work, in further building relationships with theatres and venues, with our local communities and our audiences. We have invested in artistic growth, deepening our research and dance language, our relationships with dancers and other creatives.

All our dance companies have good reviews to present about their activities in recent years, and perhaps a critical note here and there, that should be possible. Our quality was nowhere in question, especially not in the monitoring discussions with the Performing Arts Fund that assured us of strength and positivity, and of our resilience and clout. We were doing well!
We have all reapplied for our own jobs and function in this ecosystem in the run-up to the 2025-2028 cultural policy period. As a dance field, we are largely disappointed. In our industriousness, we have defied a pandemic that struck down hard on our field. That this pandemic only allowed us to build our clout for two years is more than a side note in this letter. The fact that the grant makers did not take this into account in their schemes and assessments is an omission.

Sustainability, inclusion and fair practice were all important issues that we embraced and seriously integrated into our visions and working practices. But after this round of assessment, we see that these important efforts and successes are not being put into practice by the very same agencies that required these of us as conditions for grant funding.

Of course, we congratulate the new intake to the funds. We know what this opportunity feels like and share their sense of happiness. And we recognise the value of longer-standing institutions and are glad they can continue with their valuable work. But with 22 per cent less dance supported by the Performing Arts Fund, the fact remains that far more was broken down than added in this round.

The new policy, aimed at better geographical distribution, failed the dance sector. Companies in the bigger cities lost crucial assessment points through no fault of their own, while the total number of dance companies outside the G4 remained unchanged.

So we ask a few questions, specifically addressing politicians and the Performing Arts Fund:

What does largely cutting out the middle segment in dance say about the sustainable development of our dance field? Is the midfield with its midcareers the new cutting post? And what does that say about years of sustainable investment in a pool of creators by funds, talent developers and cities? What is the value of innovation without sustainability? Isn't the Performing Arts Fund responsible for the long-term flourishing of the field?
What perspective will a new generation be given now? That they get to build their organisation for four years only to possibly tear it down again in 2029? A total of 40 per cent of the organisations that received multi-year support for the first time in the previous round have been cut. What does this mean for the hundreds of professional dancers, dramaturgs, producers and marketers who make up our profession? Does this mean that human capital is worth nothing? Sustainability and fair practice were conditions for applicants, why are they not conditions for assessment and policy?
We work out of passion and proven expertise, and whether or not we receive multi-year funding says nothing about our right to exist or quality. What effect will these choices start to have on the flow and circulation of the field? Organisations like ours will reapply for project grants, leading to competition with a new generation of creators. We often have local or European grants as matching which gives us an edge. Or will we no longer be eligible for project grants? As Anne-Maike Mertens puts it so strongly in her open letter to the Performing Arts Fund: is the Fund now advising us to disband? Should our 2025 productions that have already been booked hundreds of times by theatres and festivals be cancelled and withdrawn from offerings?
We have more often called for a different way of funding and judging art. As a dance field, we have also more often called for a redesign of the system. Every four years, we organise ourselves and publish an exhaustive 'call to action' with recommendations, only to see the same mistakes devastate our field again. That the system in place is proving to be a minefield is proven by the huge battlefield that is once again emerging after this round of reviews.

The VVP, in its latest letter in response to the results of the national and local funds, acknowledges that a great generation of midcarers is being sent away who have built audiences and also managed to attract full auditoriums. All venues (large and small), without these healthy and previously multi-year funded midcareer organisations, must now start afresh to build audiences for new dance. With very little support for these routes, there is a risk that even more theatres will cut dance from their programming. The reduction in funding for two important dance festivals (Holland Dance Festival and Julidans) and the removal of De Stilte from the BIS mean further problems for our fragile ecosystem.

Dance is a relatively new art form that needs time, attention and a solid chain to remain embedded in society. Instead of support and vision, we constantly feel misunderstood and undermined. With the new round of opinions, our field has just taken another big step backwards.

Things are not going well, they need to be better, we need to shape this together.

A bleak wind is blowing towards the arts in the current political climate, but we expect the support infrastructure of our own sector (funds and local authorities) to provide an appropriate solution to repair this damage. A systemic change and a concrete vision are needed now, not in four or eight years' time. A vision of our art form in its breadth: of the importance of dance to society, of the development of young and promising talent, of the position of established makers and of the mid-careers, who find themselves between these two stages. We want to have a constructive conversation, you owe it to us.

We look forward to your response.

This letter was created at the initiative of and together with: Amos Ben-Tal (OFFprojects), Jasper van Luijk (SHIFFT), Kalpana Raghuraman (Kalpanarts) Jelena Kostic (BOLDMoves), Katja Heitmann (St. This Is Not A Show), Gaia Gonnelli (Dadodans).

This letter is endorsed and co-signed by:

The National Ballet
Nederlands Dans Theater
Introdans
Scapino Ballet Rotterdam
Club Guy & Roni
Conny Janssen Danst
ICK Amsterdam
AYA
DOX
The Silence
The Dutch Dance Days
Oerol
Korzo and The Hague Dance Consultation
The New East
Dance studios
DansBrabant
Holland Dance Festival
Festival Cement
Limburg Festival
Another Kind of Blue
The Dancers
Leine Roebana
Bellevue Theatre
Sharp / Arno Schuitemaker
Dunja Jocić
Panama Pictures
Cecilia Moisio Company
Dance company Ivgi&Greben
Theatre De Nieuwe Vorst
ARK/Connor Schumacher
The100Hands
Body of Art - Annemijn Rijk
Corpo Maquina
Keren Levi
Backbone
MAN || CO Motion Theatre
Leeway
Teddy shouldn't smoke
Misiconi
Matter Affects
Ulrika Kinn Svensen - Fontys School of the Arts
Marijn Lems