The performing arts in Flanders

A landscape of relations

The Flemish arts’ field prides itself on its international recognition, artistic quality and experimental diversity. Since the 1980’s there has been a continuous development of excellent artistic work across the disciplines. Artists working in Flanders and Brussels are often welcomed guests on the international stage. The success of Flemish performing arts is not a coincidence, it is a result of how the sector is structured and supported.

We can describe the Flemish arts’ field as a landscape of relations with a dense network of interdependent functions. Flanders is envied for the great diversity of its houses and institutions, including companies and production houses with or without their own infrastructure, art centres, art labs, management agencies, festivals, cultural centres, etc. Big and small organisations exist alongside each other and are often intertwined in a multitude of collaborations. There is a constant exchange between the different players. This horizontal, non-hierarchical architecture provides a strong incentive for initiative, exchange, involvement and responsibility on the part of each player.

This landscape of relations is constantly in motion and has its roots in the early eighties. At the time, the infrastructure for performing arts was old-fashioned. There was a Theatre Decree and Cultural Centres, but not much space for contemporary Performing arts, dance, music theatre or other more experimental forms. A new generation of artists and organisers felt the need to create new spaces for the production and presentation of innovative theatre and dance. This dynamic quickly caught the interest of diverse audiences and international venues which in turn started to change the management and programming of the more conservative city theatres and cultural centres in Flanders. These different players and functions in the field emerged within a short timeframe, and created a strong impact on audience participation as well as generating media attention.

Looking back, we can see that several needs for artistic creation were tackled collectively, including production, (international) co-production, presentation and promotion, advocacy, research and documentation… Collective production companies emerged alongside festivals and Arts Centres occupying abandoned buildings. These venues were almost immediately backed up by and involved in the creation of international networks, exchanging information and creating international co-production structures at a time when there was almost no funding for these artistic practices in Flanders.

This international success was and still is a key factor in the lobbying strategies of the arts’ field. Since the seventies, a defederalisation process took place in Belgium, in which more competences were gradually handed over from the federal level to the communities and the regions. In fact, culture was the first competence to be de-federalised. In this context, the bottom-up dynamics in the performing arts field was met with enthusiasm by Flemish policymakers. They picked up on this energy and eventually a Performing Arts Decree was created (in 1993). An important factor in the success of this decree is that it not only made multi-annual funding possible, but also highlighted and celebrated the bottom-up spirit of the field. Anyone can apply for funding for an artistic project without too many qualitative or quantitative directions and is evaluated by a commission of professionals in the field of art.

The bottom-up philosophy of the Arts Decree, its distinct functions (support for development, production, presentation, participation and reflection), the importance of international collaboration, and the influence on the programming in cultural centres have remained the ingredients that define the organisation of the Flemish arts field until today.

Structuring production

The diversity and complexity of the arts field is perhaps most visible when we look at the organisations producing work. The spectrum ranges from city theatres and companies through to individual job-hopping artists. Even though we can largely group organisations in the above-mentioned categories, each of them has a unique focus or strategy.

The evolution of the position and operation of the different city theatres is an interesting example showing both the diversity of strategies as well as the way in which the dynamics in the field and society are answered by large institutions. Flanders has three city theatres: Toneelhuis in Antwerp, KVS in Brussels and NTGent in Ghent. These are no longer the dominant classical institutions of yesteryear, but have transformed into open houses with very diverse artistic approaches, organizing themselves in different ways and taking on a unique position towards the changing urban societies in which they are embedded. For example, Toneelhuis opened up its producing and presenting facilities to a diverse selection of artists, enabling them to create autonomously within this context. Their focus on preparing young artists for the big stage, in collaboration with a smaller company, is a response to a lack of opportunities for emerging artists to create large-scale pieces. NTGent, on the other hand, currently works with a fixed ensemble of actors and collaborators and has a clear ambition to produce and tour internationally. From the 2018-2019 season, the Swiss director and author, Milo Rau will take on the artistic leadership. He follows Johan Simons whose artistic curatorship will end. Rau and his team are aiming for what they call ‘global realism’, a theatre that connects the local with the European. They coproduce and tour internationally, but also branch out into collaborations with local artistic organisations including ‘Action Zoo Humain‘ and ‘Victoria Deluxe‘, infusing social diversity into the artistic landscape of the house. The mission statement of KVS reads that the intercultural urban reality of Brussels as the capital of Flanders, Belgium and Europe is central to their operations. KVS works with an open ensemble of theatre-makers, performers directors, choreographers and authors whom they support on a long-term trajectory. This model not only encourages the development of these makers individually, but also crosspollination between them. In addition, they stand out with their introduction of city-dramatists who are appointed actively to make the link between the stage, theatre and the new urban reality.

Other theatre companies, often with a long history, also kept on evolving, differing in size, production capacities, with or without their own spaces, with fixed collaborations or a more loose-knit interpretation of collectivity. Mid-scale theatre companies such as Arsenaal/LAZARUS, Antigone or Malpertuis originated from chamber theatres in the 1950’s and 1960’s and have now developed into open production centres working with a range of theatre-makers. They are often strongly engaged in the cities in which they are based, presenting a distinct and recognizable artistic language that brings a faithful audience with it. They tour extensively throughout Flanders and their presenting facilities are not only used for their own productions, but opened up to younger makers with whom there is an artistic connection. These structures all have long traditions, but this does not stop them from continuing to evolve and change in relation to the rest of the field. Musical theatre ensemble such as Het Nieuwstedelijk could be seen to function as a company but defines itself as a city-theatre from multiple (smaller) cities.

In the 1990s, collectives such as Tg Stan and De Roovers marked the emancipation of the Flemish actor in independent working structures. These long-standing collaborations between actors emerged from the acting schools as a reaction to the director-based way of working. The young actors were not only looking for strategies on how to organise themselves, but mainly on how to create new works collectively. We continue to see their importance today as new collectives emerge with the same philosophy. Canonical texts and pieces, or, as in the case of De Koe original writing, are often their starting points, but as we see with young groups like FC Bergman the results of the intensive text-study can be highly cinematographic.

This enticing cross-pollination between different artistic languages that inspires new forms can happen because all these different organisations and artists operate within the same artistic space. There are no separate corners or parallel systems. Youth theatre for example is considered an equal player, making it possible for flagship organisations such as HETPALEIS, Kopergietery or BRONKS to thrive and have an engaged exchange with the rest of the field. Many houses that focus on children and young people have an active policy of encouraging makers also to create for a young audience. Similarly, production houses such as Fabuleus see it as their mission to elevate ‘working with young people on stage’ to a challenging artistic level. They collaborate with interesting and daring directors and choreographers and distribute their pieces throughout Flanders as well as internationally to both young and adult audiences.

The same aversion to separation and the eagerness to form ‘unholy alliances’ bred the rich dynamic and hard to define field of music theatre. The experimentations of music theatre also emerged from the dynamics of the 1980s, with organisations such as LOD, WALPURGIS and Muziektheater Transparant at the forefront of this development. While those three organisations remain closest to their relationship with opera, new companies like het nieuwstedelijk or more recently Tuning People emerged throughout the ‘90s and 2000’s experimenting with rock, pop, jazz and improvised music as starting forms. The landscape of music theatre is constantly shifting, going beyond ‘explicit’ music theatre by finding new fusions between sound, stage and narration. Flanders Arts Institute recently produced a separate publication (in English) focussing on the distinct developments of this segment of the field.

A notable place should also be reserved for dance companies. It is no coincidence that Flanders and Brussels are referred to as the ‘Mecca of dance’. Brussels is home to several renowned companies and choreographers like Rosas (Anne Teresa De Keersmaker), Ultima Vez (Wim Vandekeybus), Damaged Goods (Meg Stuart). But also in Ghent and Antwerp choreographers and dance companies such as Alain Platel & Les Ballets C de la B and Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui & Eastman assume an important role in both the local and international development of dance. The presence of these choreographers, but also the unique academy P.A.R.T.S., continues to inspire a highly dynamic and challenging development of new choreographic statements, attracting young and ambitious dancers from all around the world. As a result, we can see that next to these renowned names, there are many mid-scale companies such as fieldworks and Peeping Tom as well as individual makers who continue to choose Flanders as their base for operations. More established structures are responding to new dynamics by opening up their organisations to collaborations with emerging talent, crossing the disciplinary boundaries and broadening the relations they create with the rest of the field.

The project-hopping artist as producer

Alongside the manifold (funded) structures, there is another important stream of artistic activity that makes the Flemish arts field a vibrant ecosystem: individually working artists. More and more artists hop from project to project, weaving an intricate network of collaborations around them and playing with this landscape of relationships. This group is growing every year. Their way of working offers a useful insight into how different players interact to support the development of an artist or new creation.

Let’s imagine an individually working performance artist, on the brink of producing a new piece, a month or two away from handing in a project subsidy application. With some luck, they are operating under the wings of a production and management structure such as HIROS (Brussels), Caravan (Brussels) or Klein Verzet (Antwerp). These are often light and flexible organisations, with a structural funding base, leaning on a handful of team-members. They either offer long-term trajectories with artists or short-term project-based support, focused on administrative, management and production services, as well as sales and distribution depending on the focus of the organisation. These small and viable organisations essentially provide stability for artists who are not in a position to employ a continuous collaborator or producer. The structure of the Belgian job market makes independent producers very rare. These management structures often have an income base through their own structural funding, making their services financially interesting to artists working with small production or research budgets.

An often-made remark is that these organisations function as a first ‘gate-keeper’ and it is true that each has their own artistic identity that may not ‘fit’ with every artist. In the best cases they operate with transparency and serve as a hub for artists to exchange knowledge, providing insight into how to create interesting production-processes, tailored to their work.

In the last seven years we have seen artist-run alternatives to these management offices emerge. In structures such as ManyOne, SPIN or ROBIN, artists have huddled together to communalise resources and opportunities without abandoning the artistic autonomy of each of the makers and continuing a project-based approach.

Once this initial and intimate circle of support for the project is found, the weaving of partnerships begins. This is where the arts centres, workspaces and international partnerships come in. Few of these artists working independently will create their work in a single uninterrupted rehearsal period, provided solely by one partner. Most stretch out their development over chunks of two to three week residencies over many months and several workspaces scattered across Flanders and sometimes neighbouring countries. The use of these residency facilities is usually free and sometimes even accompanied by a small financial contribution. Places like WP Zimmer (Antwerp) provide studio spaces on a project-basis but are also the main producer for a handful of artists for whom they provide full circle support. Organisations such as Workspace Brussels or De Theatermaker (Antwerp) function as nomadic entities, focussing on the use of infrastructure provided by multiple partners within the city and mainly offering strategic advice, dramaturgical exchanges and visibility through work-in-progress presentation platforms. The arts centres offer co-production as well as presentation opportunities throughout Flanders. Again, there is no fixed template that makes an arts centre. Their similarities lie in their presentation function and in supporting artists by co-producing new work. They are free to define their own artistic identity and focus. Arts centres e.g. BUDA (Kortrijk), CAMPO (Ghent), Monty (Antwerp), NONA (Mechelen) focus on supporting creation through offering residencies or full cycle production support while Kaaitheater and Beursschouwburg (Brussels) or STUK (Leuven) have some artists in residence but emphasise programming, curatorial concepts and creating spaces for knowledge exchange and reflection. All of these arts centres look beyond performing arts, making connections with visual arts and music, either through specific festivals or by weaving different art forms into their seasonal programming. Many of them invest actively in the internationalisation of the Flemish field, providing international touring opportunities through their engagement in European networks and personal and informal connections with programmers and curators.

Unique position of cultural centres

The cultural centres are another unique network in Flanders. Flanders is characterised by a dense network of venues that can professionally present performing arts , including outside the major cities. Most arts centres, workspaces and other organisations funded via the Arts Decree are located in the major cities, whereas the cultural centres can also be found in smaller cities and towns. Their activity is largely financed by these cities and municipalities, and not via the Arts’ Decree. Their mission is more than the mere presentation of art. It also encompasses participation and community building. This means there is often a significant difference between what is being presented within arts centres and cultural centres. In fact, many of the production organisations known for touring abroad hardly show their work in cultural centres. Due to their community function as well as lower financial resources, the programming at cultural centres often favours a broader mix, including comedy and music, with only a limited space for contemporary theatre and dance.

Collective advocacy and support

A few final pieces of the puzzle are the network and support organisations that keep a finger on the pulse and follow up on the latest developments in the field, strengthening the connections or actively doing lobbying work. With over 200 members, Employers Federation OKO unites almost all  arts organisations from Brussels and Flanders working professionally across the disciplines. Members meet on a regular basis in smaller working groups focussing on specific issues or segments in the sector. This approach makes it possible to keep the position of the arts strong and pro-actively to engage with policy. Besides its lobbying function, OKO is also an important resource for the dissemination of juridical and financial knowledge. Since OKO is financed uniquely through membership fees, it can act quite independently from political pressures and policy changes.

The Flanders Arts Institute (or Kunstenpunt to the locals) is the interface organisation and expertise centre for the arts from Flanders and Brussels. Flanders Arts Institute stimulates the development of the arts and policy and feeds this debate about the arts into society. They are important allies for both artists and art organisations, mapping and studying the artistic ecosystem, connecting arts and policy and strengthening international relations.

In addition to those two major players, there is also Cultuurloket (formerly: Kunstenloket); a helpdesk for individuals providing commercial and legal advice around working in the arts. There are also several other organisations and/or networks focussing on the locality of a city or on knowledge exchange on a specific topic, e.g. Pulse, a network that focuses on ecology and sustainability in arts and cultural heritage, or Demos, a knowledge centre on audience participation and diversity.

Government support and tools

So what makes up the fertile soil for this variety of organisations? As already mentioned, the Flemish arts field functions as a single whole within the funding framework of the Arts Decree. This Decree, that was updated in 2013, provides the arts field with several instruments based on a flexible and tailored approach. It is open to all arts disciplines, but not to literature and cinema (which are supported by the Flemish Fund for Literature and Flemish Audiovisual Fund respectively).

Structural funding that provides a fixed subsidy for a five-year period is an important instrument for the majority of organisations. This funding is accessible to both big and small structures and to all possible functions and disciplines. Proof of continuity and vision that goes beyond the accumulation of projects is important. Just before the summer of 2016, the results of the new structural subsidy round were announced. 207 organisations will receive structural funding from 2017 to 2021, of which 99 organisations are within performing arts. The total amount currently awarded as structural funding is about 84.7 million euros.

Project funding is a second important funding line. It can encompass projects from all disciplines that run for up to three years and is accessible to both organisations and individual artists. With three application rounds per year the demand for this kind of support is very high, however the budget available is considerably lower than that for structural funding, i.e. only about 7 to 8 million euros in total per year for all arts disciplines (excluding cinema and literature). In addition to project funding, the development grants prove an important tool especially for individual artists. They provide artists with the opportunity to focus on research and reinvention, without a specific need for results or outcomes. It has a lower threshold, making it an appealing option for emerging artists applying for the first time.

The Arts Decree also provides special attention for the internationalisation of the arts with specific funds for international touring and residencies, for which both artists and international partners can apply. When presenting work from Flanders, support can be requested in the form of a grant that helps cover travel, lodging and transport costs, connected to the presentation of a show. This type of support can be requested within a short timeframe (filed at least 2 months before the project takes place) and has a maximum limit of 7,000 EUR. For the presentation of a cluster of performances or the creation of a bigger project, a project subsidy can also be requested. However, the Flemish Community decided that these types of support are only possible for the presentation of smaller or ‘midscale’ companies and artists, and the budgets for these kinds of support have also been shrinking.

All these funding options ask the applicant to define the precise DNA of their structure or project according to a matrix of functions (development, production, presentation, participation, reflection) and disciplines with an array of sub-disciplines. Applications are evaluated on their artistic quality by a large pool of arts’ professionals. There are very few quantitative or qualitative restrictions, making the evaluation both an open discussion about each individual project as well as a difficult balancing task for commission members. The funding philosophy is that of a lever rather than a ‘compensation for a deficit’, providing core funding that makes it possible for an organisation to develop the continuity needed and go in search of additional resources via partners at home and abroad.

Besides the subsidies anchored within the Arts Decree, the Flemish Community has seven institutions that are directly funded through a management agreement, these include the large performing arts venues Vooruit (Ghent), Concertgebouw Brugge (Bruges) and deSingel (Antwerp). The total amount allocated to these seven large institutions is just under 54 million euros. They are expected to fulfil all the functions that the Arts Decree describes, leaving each of them free to define what that means for them.

Besides the Arts Decree the municipalities and provinces provide important additional support for some organisations, often focussing specifically on infrastructure or access to specific networks. But due to recent state reform, funds from the provinces are now flowing back into the cities and to the Flemish Community with great uncertainties about the exact terms of these budgets.

The Ministry of Culture is currently working on a broader framework for additional funding, including a ‘tax shelter’, but this is still very much under construction. Many organisations receive additional funds from crowdsourcing and ‘friends of’ programmes, but Flanders does not have a culture or history of philanthropy, meaning these efforts only account for smaller amounts of an organisation’s budget and are certainly not a viable income that could replace government support.

International intertwining

We have already touched upon the importance of international collaboration on several points. But truly to understand the complex entanglements of Flanders and Brussels in the world, it is important to stress that the development of the Flemish arts field since the 80’s is deeply intertwined with the development of international relations and networks. This can particularly be seen in the development of dance. From its inception, the alternative art spaces that grew to become the arts centres and festivals of today were exchanging information with their peers abroad, creating international touring opportunities and co-production practices for Flemish artists. In the past 15 years, the number of international partners and presentation venues grew exponentially resulting in growth of both productions and artists active in the field. But as every ecologist can tell you, there are limits to growth. We can look at the advantages of this transnational system of co-production, but must also raise critical questions about sustainability.

On the other hand, Flemish organisations have always invested in international artists and companies which means that unlike some other countries, there is a genuine interest from audiences in international work. The success of festivals like KunstenFestivalDesArts and large institutions like deSingel is directly connected to their ability to bring big international names to Flemish audiences, and the appreciation for that is visible in the rapid ticket sales and sold-out venues.

And then there is a third sense in which we could interpret the ‘internationality’ of the Flemish arts field. Flanders, and especially Brussels has a very high density of emerging artists from all over the world choosing it as their base. This is partly due to renowned schools like P.A.R.T.S. and the vibrant scene, but also because the funding or co-production system does not exclude artists on the basis of nationality. What counts is your active engagement with the Flemish field. In fact, one could ask what the name ‘Flemish Performing Arts’ means when such a large proportion of the artists come from abroad and when a large part of the financial resources that make creation possible come from international partners… 

Pressures and challenges

We can hear something creaking in the machine that we thought was so well-oiled. Of course, the Flemish context is not immune to the growing economic pressure that can be felt everywhere in Europe. Here conservative and neo-liberal political thinking has also gained ground, bringing in a discourse of doubt around the need for arts and arts-funding in society. The challenges this brings are two-fold; the relationships that are so central to the functioning of the field are under pressure, as well as the relations built with the audiences.

Renewal and sustainability

The landscape of relations, that is so central to the dynamic of the Flemish arts scene, is under pressure. The field underwent a 7.5% budget cut in 2014 from which it has not yet recovered. Looking back, we can see that the current subsidy situation is very close to that of 2010 but the cost of living has increased since then. Clearly this has a major effect on the purchasing power of the arts field, with calculations made by Kunstenpunt showing a decrease of 48% for performing arts organisations in purchasing power compared to 2001.

There has been a significant decrease of subsidies for producing organisations and companies, probably pushing more artists into a project logic and preventing long-term thinking and planning for artistic practices. This also heightens the pressure on project subsidies as more artists and organisations are applying for these funds and we see a decrease in success rates of receiving project funding.

These evolutions make international collaboration more important than ever. Producing organisations and independent artists rely heavily on their partnerships with international co-producers as well as on international touring. In the past decades, Flanders Arts Institute noted a relentless increase in international partners and presence on international stages. These increasing numbers are not only due to the popularity of Flemish artists, but also as a result of creation budgets increasingly needing international co-producers to step in because of declining subsidies and purchasing power of the Flemish arts scene itself. More and more partners are needed to keep up with the same level of production, revealing the effects from the decrease in government funding across Europe. This solution can therefore only be a short-term one.