nrc.nl
Dutch Theater Directors Question the Future of Art Institutions
At the opening of the Netherlands Theater Festival, Theater Utrecht director Anne Breure and theater maker Sadettin Kirmiziyüz questioned the necessity of art institutions, particularly in light of rising right-wing extremism and the normalization of collaboration with fascist parties.
- What immediate consequences could result from the potential dissolution of art institutions like theaters?
- The dissolution of art institutions would lead to job losses and the immediate cessation of artistic productions. It would also eliminate the "space for art," a concept Breure highlighted as crucial for upholding deeply felt values and facilitating critical discourse.
- How do the current funding mechanisms and political climate influence the risks taken by Dutch theater institutions?
- The four-year subsidy application cycle incentivizes theaters to prioritize guaranteed audience numbers and avoid politically sensitive topics. This pressure to conform to funding criteria and appease political anxieties limits risk-taking and hinders the exploration of challenging themes.
- What long-term systemic changes are needed to ensure the future relevance and resilience of Dutch theater institutions in a changing sociopolitical landscape?
- To remain relevant, Dutch theater institutions must move beyond merely reflecting society and become active agents of change, engaging in critical questioning and challenging established norms. This requires a shift away from a survival-focused mentality and a willingness to embrace greater risk in their artistic endeavors.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of Anne Breure's and Sadettin Kirmiziyüz's speeches, highlighting both their critiques of the theater sector and the potential counterarguments. While the article focuses on Breure's provocative question about the necessity of theater institutions, it also presents the concerns of other theater directors and acknowledges the potential economic consequences of such a proposition. The framing allows the reader to consider multiple perspectives, although Breure's critique is given significant space.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although words like "extreemrechts" (far-right) carry a strong political connotation. The article uses descriptive terms like "lyrical" and "philosophical" to describe the speeches, which are subjective, but do not appear to unduly influence the reader's opinion. The term "waan van de dag" (whims of the day) could be considered slightly loaded, implying superficiality in the sector's response to current events.
Bias by Omission
The article does not explicitly mention the specific works of the smaller theater companies that were threatened with defunding, nor does it detail the nature of the 'controversial' works. This omission prevents a complete understanding of the context of Breure's arguments. Additionally, the article doesn't explore the specific financial mechanisms that constrain the theater sector or offer concrete examples of how those constraints stifle risk-taking. It would also be helpful to see concrete examples of the "fascistic normalization" mentioned.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a strict false dichotomy, but it does imply a contrast between risk-taking and mere survival within the theater sector. This is not a false dichotomy, but it does simplify the complex challenges faced by the sector. It could be argued that risk-taking and survival are not mutually exclusive.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the role of theater in society and the importance of challenging norms and promoting critical thinking. While not directly about formal education, it highlights the educational role of art in shaping perspectives and encouraging engagement with complex social issues. The call for more risk-taking and challenging established structures aligns with fostering creativity and critical thinking skills, both crucial aspects of quality education.