This article is based on this Dutch article of Martijn Benders
Ilonka van Bercken – what an optimistic woman she must be to still dare to ask for a “vision” from something that bears the creepy name “The Fund for Cultural Participation.” Vision, what kind of elitist nonsense is that?
But I am a bit elitist, I freely admit it. And from all my elitism, the vision naturally arises that the 80 employees of this “Fund for Cultural Participation,” who collectively cost society about 4 million euros a year, could easily be replaced by A.I.: this would free up enough money to continue nurturing all that musical talent and remove only the useless overhead.
Even now, the new cabinet (like all previous cabinets, by the way) claims it will downsize the civil service, yes, even now this “Fund for Cultural Participation” (can’t this be renamed to Fund for Carnival and Fairground?) is still looking for new employees. The fun-job militia continues under all circumstances.
No, please just give that money to the musicians, the writers, the artists: that was its original purpose, not setting up a fun-job structure. Yet in practice, you see that the longer such funds exist, the more everything begins to revolve around that structure as a goal in itself. You then get that artists and writers become a sort of means to endlessly make them dance like a bunch of monkeys to fabrications whose sole purpose is to reinforce this order of meaningless jobs.
For why, if I appeal a decision by the Letterenfonds about the quality of a book, do I face no less than 3 lawyers? Here, I would have wanted to see 3 writers instead. Putting 3 lawyers there indicates that literature is not the focus. Placing 3 lawyers there signals that the “objection procedure” is primarily meant to be intimidating.
Instead of actually supporting artists and writers, it seems that such funds shift their focus towards creating a bureaucratic infrastructure that sustains itself. This shift leads to the resources, which were originally intended to promote creative talent, being swallowed up by administrative costs and salaries of officials who are often far removed from the artistic reality. This results in a waste of potential and resources that could otherwise have been used to directly support creative projects and initiatives.
Moreover, using art and culture as a means to achieve economic or political goals leads to the instrumentalization of the arts. Artists are often subjected to the whims of policymakers and financiers, limiting their creative freedom. This results in art that is not authentic but rather a reflection of the policy agendas that finance them. This system discourages independent and innovative artistic expression, as artists are forced to adapt their work to meet the expectations and demands of those who control the funds.
Finally, replacing human employees with A.I. in funds for cultural participation would not only be cost-effective but could also contribute to a fairer and more objective evaluation process. Art and culture are subjective and sensitive to personal preferences, biases, and political influences. A well-designed A.I.-based system can minimize these biases and ensure that subsidies are awarded based on objective criteria such as artistic quality and impact. This could lead to a fairer distribution of resources and more diverse and inclusive support for art and culture.
Martijn Benders, 11-07-2024