Letter From Brussels

Towards A Mass Produced Culture?
Julie Robert

Belgium is well known around Europe (and maybe around the world) for its sense of self-deprecation and the humour of its citizens. The theatre, cinema, literature, comic books have always taken a lot of space in Belgian life. As in a lot of other countries, this culture has taken part in the formation of the country, in the creation of a national feeling and in the export of its knowledge. The Belgian Revolution of 1830, which has led to the independence of the country from the Netherlands, started at the Theatre de la Monnaie in Brussels. To celebrate the birthday of the king William I of the Netherlands, the theatre presented the opera La muette de Portici. It was on 25th August 1830. The audience saw on stage a similitude between the situation of the Belgian people and what the actors were enacting. The opera is about the rebellion of the Napoli people against the Spanish domination in the seventeenth century. During the performance, the audience stood up, shouted 'Take up arms, take up arms!' This call spread in the crowd which went out of the theatre shouting and spread throughout Brussels. Soon, the country rebelled, and the governmental troops were beaten first in Brussels, then in other cities and in the countryside. The national independence was proclaimed on 4th October 1830.

Conscious of the importance of the culture in the welfare of its people, the Belgian government has always been involved in its development. In 1945, the cultural policy followed the path of democratisation of culture. It wanted to re-build a broken nation, torn by the war, and to allow access to quality culture to the vast majority rather than to elites only. In the seventies, various European countries along with Belgium, structured a new cultural policy. The stated objective was a democratisation of culture, and an increased participation of the population. These policies resulted in the creation of diverse committees, each dedicated to a particular from of art: theatre, cinema, literature, painting, music, etc. Every committee receives money from the government, and its primary role is to spend it on artists of the discipline with an aim of maintaining a diverse blend of talent and views in each art form. But for some years now, and because of the Euro zone financial crisis, the government has decided to reduce its culture budget drastically. It has not done all this at once, but with small measures here and there. It has imposed new criteria for obtaining funds and has put up new mechanisms to attract money. And all this raises several questions; to whom does all this profit, towards what kind of culture are people heading? But most of all, why is the question of the usefulness of the arts and culture in the society always coming back? This usefulness is always put forward by the authorities to justify expenditure cuts.

Last week, on a particular road, tens of trucks, caravans and tents were blocking the way. Swarming around were dozens of members of staff, crew and technicians. No one was allowed to enter the zone demarcated by the police with red and white cordons. It was not very clear about what was going on, but the tension was palpable. There was no way that one could ask anyone about what was happening. Then, in the papers the next morning was an article with headlines; 'Latest Spielberg's film currently being shot in Brussels'. So, that was it. This was the shooting of 'The Fifth Estate', Steven Spielberg's latest production. The film will recount the story of WikiLeaks, the famous website and of its founder, Julian Assange. Several places have been selected for the film: the roof of a mall, a boulevard, a hotel, the central station. Altogether, 38 days of shooting are scheduled in Belgium, mostly in Brussels, but also in Gand, Anvers and Liege. But no place will be recognisable in the film. But how is it that a big American production comes to Belgium for shooting the whole film? The reason is the attractiveness of what the Belgian government has called a 'tax shelter'. The 'tax shelter' is a tax incentive created in 2004, a mechanism for tax planning in favour of the beneficiary companies. It aims at encouraging the investment of private funds in the production of films. The direct profit of the investing company is tax exempt up to 150% of the investment. In return, the selected producer has to spend 90% of the cinema project's funds in Belgium. Since the introduction of this 'tax shelter', the number of foreign productions produced in Belgium has moved fast forward. But the measure is encouragement to extravagant productions. As pointed out by several critics of the system, it has created a gulf between the films which are 'tax sheltered' and the others. This situation is created by the link between the films and big investors. So, big foreign productions which already have a lot of money get even more funds, thanks to the Belgian tax mechanism. And unfortunately, this leads to the squeezing out of a great number of small national projects which have no money at all. Belgium has a long tradition of art-house films, which are always starved of finance. These films are slower, they have a different rhythm and so, when not initiated into it, the films do not generate sufficient interest. Even if they win awards at various foreign festivals, Belgian art-house films do not attract large audience. Due to the nexus of big finance with films, films with enough money making prospect are usually chosen. A good solution would be to break this nexus and to create a sharing process that would assign money to different kinds of cinemas—documentaries, short-films, auteur films, fictions etc. However, one is not sure that the Belgian authorities really want it.

A recent example of most renowned art-house cinema is revealing. Two years ago, the Arenberg had to close. For thirty years, this small cinema (two small projection rooms) worked on promoting and showing films and documentaries that could not find their place in the major cinema complexes of the city. It showed European auteur films, in original version with subtitles, and dedicated itself to the promotion of European films. As mentioned above, this kind of cinema is not always easy to understand. But Arenberg had various programmes to help the audience get an opportunity to acquaint themselves with different ways of viewing and reading cinema. It organised special sessions for the pupils of schools in Brussels, meetings with producers and actors who were asked to share experiences. Regularly it opened its doors to Attac-Bruxelles to organise screenings and conferences. It also welcomed groups of foreigners to show them 'easy' Belgian films in order to help them to understand the Belgian society. These are only few examples of the multitude of social and cultural activities undertaken by Arenberg. Of course, it did not attract thousands and thousands of people. Of course, it did not generate a lot of profit. But that was not its aim. Since its creation, and until the beginning of the century, it was the most subsidised cinema of Brussels. The main reason for these subsidies was that the Arenberg was not profit-making. So it needed that money to pay its rent and its employees. In 2011, the owner of the building took advantage of the end of the lease and refused to renew it, giving as a pretext his wish to assign the place to a modern project meaning, a more lucrative venture. This new cultural project includes a cinema, but also a 'playground dedicated to digital arts', a store, and movies accessible on mobile phones through a specific application in the 'wi-fied' galleries around. The Arenberg was not a commercial space, and that is what led it to its death.

In the world of theatre, the situation is even worse. Both artists and venues need public money to survive. As mentioned above, the cultural creative activities used to be seen as a public service. But in an era of financial crises, theatre is one of those easy targets for the authorities to introduce austerity measures. Recently, the Minister of Culture announced a cut of 45% in the sum given to theatre projects carried on by young directors who are working on their first production. As to the venues, the minister has decided to change the allotment criteria. A new and very objective criterion has been set in the application form which the individual venues have to fill up in order to apply for a subsidy; their attendance levels. But Minister keeps on saying that she wants a cultural diversity in the performing arts, and not only a theatre for the elite. But by introducing such a criterion, she inevitably serves the interest of big productions. By linking the attendance levels with the money allocated, the minister intends to force the venues to choose 'easy' plays ensure that the productions attract a large audience. Conclusion : theatre will lose its cultural diversity. Then Minister, confined in her office, has done a bureaucratic work based on financial standards. Moreover, it seems that the minister has not realised that the subsidy given to the cultural sector generates employment. Spontaneously, one thinks of actors and stage directors. But it requires a lot more people to put up a play; technicians, theatre designers, electricians, light engineers, costume designers, sound engineers, photographers and so on. All these people, with uncertain income will lose all job opportunities as there will be no more money allocated to pay them. So by trying to resolve the crisis, the authorities have just worsened it.

Previously, culture along with research and education sectors were left alone and never targeted by the government for tightening government expenditures. But today, while culture is not an exception anymore, the police and the security sectors have become the new exceptions. Those two sectors will face no cuts. It seems that culture is now considered expendable and superfluous. Culture enables the world to have a look at itself. What would the world come to if it had only financial models, and no metaphysical thoughts? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has declared, in its article 27, 'Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits'. But when it comes to allocation of funds, the authorities are prompt to forget that they have committed themselves towards this Declaration. They recognise that culture is clearly a vehicle for social introspection and emancipation. But in times of crisis, they forget it and do not take into account the fact that it is via education and the culture that the crisis can be addressed.

Here are two striking examples to conclude. 1. Back in 1999, the authorities accepted to take part in a programme called Article 27, referring to the article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentioned above. The aim of the programme was to contribute to cultural democratisation, as a section of the population is always kept away from cultural activities for economical, psychological or sociological reasons. Article 27 subsidises a reduction in the price of the tickets of some cultural events all around the country. The programme has created a web of cultural partners who take part in the programme, and carry events to people who do not normally have access to such programmes or prefer to stay away. Since its inception, the programme has been supported financially by numerous departments of the government. 2. Each year, the Communaute Frangaise de Belgique (the French-speaking part of Belgium) celebrates its birthday on 27 September. It's on 27 September 1830 that the Dutch soldiers were ousted from Brussels following the mass movement that took place in August after the showing of La muette de Portici. Since 1991, on that occasion and as an implied reference to history, multiple venues, theatres and operas open their doors to the audience for free. This event is collectively called Theatres Fortes Ouvertes. Last year, 33 theatres took part in the event. More than 10,000 people had an opportunity to enjoy and experience a total of 44 shows around the country. The authorities used to promote this programme and indulge in self praise by saying that it was a unique opportunity for the professional to showcase their work to people who were not regular visitors of cultural venues and that it was also a unique portal for the people who were not regular visitors to cultural venues to see shows by professional auteur, free of cost.

But this was before, before the financial crisis. In early December 2012, the Minister of Culture announced the fiscal belt tightening measures that she was planning for her ministry. Besides others, she announced the end of Theatres Portes Ouvertes. She also mentioned the possibility to reduce the budget for the programme Article 27, but this has not been endorsed yet. The way things are going there is no reason to think that she will not be successful in her expenditure control measures, killing a vibrant feature of Belgian society in the bargain.

Culture was always treated as an exception by the Belgian government, an aspect of Belgian social life that was not to be judged by commercial norms. But the authorities are taking decisions that will finally lead to a commercialisation of culture. Belgian people are already witnessing creation of cultural industries in the USA and some big European countries, and to the detriment cultural diversity, Belgium will follow this path too. If the present trend of fund curtailment by the government for diverse cultural activities continues, people will be playing into the hands of the mega culture industry that succeeds by standardising the human being's definition of culture and this mega culture industry thrives on culture that can be mass produced at lowest cost, to maximise profits. Under these conditions the cultural space is dominated by the rich and famous elements and fresh talent stays out, unless they wish to conform to the mega culture industry standards. All those who depend on public money to practice and present their art and to disseminate alternative thoughts will be crowded out because they simply cannot earn a living. Standardised culture squeezes the space for dissent and perhaps this is the covert objective of capitalist nation states; no more dissent...?
13 April, 2013

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 47, June 2-8, 2013

Your Comment if any