1. The World Wide Video Festival should not be terminated on the basis of one dissenting evaluation
The previous four festivals’ budgets were co-financed by cultural foundations and sponsors who were all very positive about the festival. These institutes and organisations were advised by committees of professionals from the arts world, committees comparable in composition to the Arts Council’s Visual Arts Committee. All our request for grants, except one for a one-time project, were honoured to an average 90 % of the requested sums.
This raises the question of why the Arts Council’s position is so very different from that of all these other respected committees. Could they all be wrong? We feel that a critical look should be taken at how the Arts Council’s advice about the WWVF came about and on what it is based.
After all, we are talking here about ending structural funding for a cultural organisation, thereby effectively terminating it.
2. Ending the subsidy is destruction of knowledge and capital that was built on taxpayers’ money – this is unjustifiable.
Over the past 21 years, the financial support by the Ministry of Culture has amounted to 2.8 million euros. This sum has contributed to building a vast reservoir of knowledge and expertise with regard to the presentation and production of video and media art. Within the international art world our knowledge and expertise is acknowledged, appreciated and called upon by both prominent individuals and organisations. Also, we have built an extensive international network that is unique to the Netherlands. This network is of great value and it would be a great waste to lose it. Once it’s gone, it cannot be restored.
It would be irresponsible to let this destruction of knowledge and capital take place on the basis of a single dissenting advice.
3. The importance of the World Wide Video Festival for the variety of the cultural landscape in the Netherlands.
In non-western countries media art has emerged only in the last decade. The WWVF is monitoring this development closely. Over the previous four-year Cultural Memorandum period, we have presented work by artists from Arab countries, Africa, India, China and South America, making the WWVF the platform of choice for showing non-western media art at a grand scale. The artists from the regions mentioned above use their videos and installations to paint a different picture of the world, politics, media and culture. This attention to and acknowledgement of non-western media art is what makes the WWVF’s programme distinguishing, idiosyncratic and unique, and this is why the WWVF is an indispensable element in the existing Dutch cultural offering. The programme both reflects and informs the multicultural society of the Netherlands, and of Amsterdam in particular.
4. Cultural responsibility does not end at our borders.
WWVF presents an international programme that includes artists from non-western nations. Besides organising a festival event in the Netherlands, WWVF also facilitates presentations elsewhere in the world. A good example of this is the installation Remembering Toba Tek Singh by the Indian artist Nalini Malani. This work was a protest against the nuclear tests taking place in Rajasthan, a politically sensitive issue in India. WWVF found the means to finance the project, present it in the Netherlands and also to exhibit it in the Prince of Wales Museum in Bombay.
By showcasing work by relatively unknown artists WWVF provides them with a steppingstone to advance their career – especially in the case of artists from non-western countries. Funds like the HIVOS, Stichting Doen and the VSB Fund put their trust in our expertise and support artists and projects chosen by us. WWVF feels it is important to not only show these – often politically inspired – works in the Netherlands but also at their place of origin, where their impact can be impressive as well. Ending the financial support for the WWVF therefore is more than ending a cultural event in the Netherlands. What then is the cultural responsibility of the Dutch government? Does it really stop at our borders?
5. Terminating the WWVF is at odds with the international cultural policy of the Ministry of Culture.
The WWVF is a Dutch cultural export product, judging by how well it is received in the international arena of art and culture. By actively maintaining our international contacts the WWVF has managed to secure the lasting interest of foreign cultural institutes and governmental organisations for taking over parts of our programme. In fact, the demand surpasses our capacity. Over the last four years WWVF has presented parts of its programme in Lima, Peru (2003); Belo Horizonte and Sao Paulo, Brazil (2003); Hérouville Saint-Clair, France (2003); Pusan, South Korea (2000); Cape Town, South Africa (2001). In 2005 elements of the WWVF will be presented in Beijing, China; in November 2004 there will even be a full replica of a festival edition in Milan, Italy. The WWVF definitively contributes to the presentation of Dutch cultural events abroad, and does so without incurring extra costs: the cost of these presentations is paid for by the inviting parties. The festival’s policy regarding presentations abroad is in line with the ministry’s own policy: in its advice (June 2003) regarding international cultural policy the Arts Council states: “a more active attitude of both the cultural field and the government is required if we wish to maintain the current international positioning of the Netherlands”.
The outcry within the international art world over the possible ending of support for the WWVF is huge. Terminating the WWVF will damage the reputation of Dutch cultural policy abroad. Besides, it is at odds with the Ministry’s international cultural policy which aims at having the Netherlands show its cultural side in an outspoken and characteristic manner. Which is exactly what the WWVF is doing.
6. E-culture versus Media Art – a dogma.
The Arts Council’s advice on the WWVF places great emphasis on the importance of E-culture and its influence on (media) art. In doing so, the council is introducing a false dichotomy. E-culture has an influence on all aspects of our culture, and new developments in technology are applied all over the world in all disciplines. The Arts Council is confusing E-culture with interactivity and sees E-culture as the road to innovation. This is a misconception.
Video art has gone digital; it has not disappeared, nor has video become obsolete. Video art can be found in public spaces, on the World Wide Web, in museums, theatres, and in interactive applications. Video’s advance is not over yet. Nowadays, video is the medium most used at art academies. Isn’t it strange then to end the support for the WWVF, an organisation dedicated to this influential artistic medium? Does one terminate a film festival with the argument that nowadays anyone can download films from the Internet?
In its programming, WWVF presents developments which are innovative in content and technology, placing these developments within a ‘historical’ context. Interactive works are juxtaposed with narrative works.
The Arts Council heralds E-culture as the new guru, but E-culture is not a new art discipline. It is a technological development that affects the entire cultural field and therefore the visual arts as well.
It looks like the E-culture Committee that was involved in formulating the advice concerning the WWVF has been calling the tunes. The dissonant result may lead to the termination of an internationally important media art festival, along with all of its expertise and contacts.
Martijn Sanders (chairman)
Tom van Vliet (directeur)
