| In the 80s, on a rough foundation laid in the 60s and 70s by a small group of committed art lovers from Rotterdam, a well-structured art policy came into being. Rotterdam started to compete with the capital city of the Netherlands and succeeded. Those confronted with the hermetic and crowded city of Amsterdam were attracted by Rotterdam’s space and the harbor city was presented as a haven for artistic pioneers from Holland and abroad. In the 90s, there was an active policy to attract galleries; artist initiatives began popping up everywhere and big institutes such as Witte de With, Centre for Contemporary Art, Nai (Dutch Architecture Institute) and the Kunsthal were founded. |  |
Change of Mentality Please… – Bregje van Woensel Rotterdam
In the 80s, on a rough foundation laid in the 60s and 70s by a small group of committed art lovers from Rotterdam, a well-structured art policy came into being. Rotterdam started to compete with the capital city of the Netherlands and succeeded. Those confronted with the hermetic and crowded city of Amsterdam were attracted by Rotterdam’s space and the harbor city was presented as a haven for artistic pioneers from Holland and abroad. In the 90s, there was an active policy to attract galleries; artist initiatives began popping up everywhere and big institutes such as Witte de With, Centre for Contemporary Art, Nai (Dutch Architecture Institute) and the Kunsthal were founded. The pinnacle followed in 2001, when Rotterdam earned the title of Cultural Capital of Europe. At the time, the city was held in high regard in the art world, but not for long.
By the end of 2001, the new political themes of security and safety pushed art to the margins of the political agenda. In Rotterdam, the politics of fear became very pronounced: this is the city of the very conservative political party Leefbaar Rotterdam (liveable Rotterdam)—connected to the party of the murdered politician Pim Fortuyn. Huge budget cuts were announced and the first reports on the intended privatisation of the civic cultural institutions were heard in 2006. For the Netherlands, this meant an immense change in mentality, for this country was accustomed to the subsidy system. From that point on, art would be seen as a side issue and just a palliative to society.
The local art and culture world barely voiced a protest. Many institutions even cooperated proactively with the political wishes and tried to prove that art is beneficial to society—and that art can be used to promote “safety.” In 2004 the first protests emerged with slogans like “Rotterdam loopt leeg” (Rotterdam is being drained). Cultural Rotterdam was left behind as people fled the city in search of more accommodating communities.
In December of 2004, the city started the “Rotterdam durft!” (Rotterdam dares) campaign trying to impede the diminishing quality of life. Conversely, not a month passed before a disastrous cut is announced in the budget for art and culture: the area with which “Rotterdam durft!” tried to promote. Local politicians seemed to have lost their way.
When the first definite financial plans appeared, ad-busting begins with “Rotterdam dooft” (Rotterdam is extinguished). The institutes, with some exceptions, went along with political tendencies, hanging on for dear life. The visual arts could have reacted sooner, when Chris Dercon, former director of Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, warned against “Berlusconian practices,” when AVL Ville (the autarkic city by Atelier van Lieshout) was closed down and when Santaclaus, a controversial sculpture by Paul McCarthy intended for public space, was dragged from one city plan to the next.
A city that “dares” should also support art, with conviction, without ulterior motives.
A large part of the art management has willingly appeased the bureaucratic changes. Reflection, balancing, taking stock: everyone was occupied with an administrative legitimization of the Rotterdam art institution and art consequently suffered.
At the moment, this realization seems to have dawned on most institutes. It is time for the institutes to take back their responsibility by making programs that attract attention, that generate debate and conversation with substance. It is time to try and understand the value of art in itself and to create room for that. The recent sea change in local politics and a large amount of fresh blood in the art institutions lays the path for a renewed and revitalized Rotterdam.
