It really doesn't matter if they don't get anything' The art subsidy system needs to be overhauled. The system with its bills and the Council of Culture gobbles up millions and operates without verifiable criteria. Artists, producing purely out of their own need, put pressure on the government. "It's not about policy but about obsessive distribution of money," says Pim van Klink. He will receive his doctorate on Monday on an un-Dutch vision of "art economy. By Eric Nederkoorn Oy, revolutionary conclusions in a polder culture. That's going to be tricky. Groningen doctoral candidate Pim van Klink (53) knows. "We are not baked for rigorous change in the Netherlands. But MPs have been complaining about the subsidy system since 1990. Rightly so. They are the drain." Van Klink explains. "To stay out of harm's way itself, the government created the Council of Culture. It distributes subsidies by means of vague subcommittees and without objective criteria. There are great differences in advice. The Music Section, for example, was very nice to the symphony orchestras. They were given a pat on the back. The dance section, on the other hand, was very strict." Artists who are rejected or cut back, says Van Klink, throw themselves en masse into politics ("hence that drain"). The pot is replenished by those lobbies, after which even more artists appeal to it. "Because artists want to produce, out of their own need, out of survival instinct. In that they are unique. While the government has for years failed to reverse the declining participation (active interest of the population; ed.). That government is only about obsessive money distribution; not about art policy." Van Klink wants to get rid of that vicious circle. The Council of Culture must give way to a fund system, such as the one operating in England. The money comes from the government, but those funds, with recognized specialists, are responsible for distribution. "Such a Ben Hurkmans, who is now director of the Performing Arts Fund, should have the right to make a final judgment. It then depends on loners, yes, I'm a big fan of that." "It's not bad at all if institutions don't get anything. That only leads to creativity. That happened to Toneelgroep Appel. It came back strong. And no, nothing less happens artistically. It just goes differently, through different funding." "Take the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. That has creatively secured revenue from the private sector. In the process, the orchestra is attracting a whole new audience; young people, Asians. It naturally does not degenerate into populism, because the sponsors only want to attach their name to quality." "You just have to think market-oriented. And you can do that here, too. Our system stupidly invites you to become an artist. The training programs need to be cleaned up hard, already at admission. Artists must be able to make clear the importance of their work. Logical right? Competition is enormous. We must get rid in this country of Thorbecke and his idea that art should not be judged." Shockingly, Van Klink calls his own conclusion that the patriotic subsidy policy is irrational (because arbitrary) and ineffective (costly system), and that the money is leaking away (via sub-subsidies; the extras). "The reaction of the chamber members to my book disappoints me. If there is ten million to be gained by abolishing this vague system, as I calculate, and which also gets rid of that annual pressure, then they should get to work, right? I asked the standing committee on culture if it needed an explanation. Do you know what the answer was? I just had to approach the chamber members individually. So it's all about scoring themselves. About those fifty seconds of fame in Nova."