State of the Dance 2024

I
A diverse and fertile dance ecosystem

Up until early this summer the Dutch dance field lay basking in the sun. The platitude ‘let a hundred flowers blossom’ really did apply. From bouncy little twigs straight out of school to fully grown trees with luscious crowns. From creative dance researchers and independent choreographers to promotors of inclusivity and companies operating nationwide and beyond. From working with the youngest children to the most senior of citizens, from the most alienating performance to the most collectively created hiphop. From mid-size groups to steady dance hubs, from regional talent developers to international festivals, fertile ground upon fertile ground upon fertile ground.  

How often has this diverse and fertile dance ecosystem been celebrated over the years? The shoutouts, the times its praises were sung have been countless. We were there, in the auditorium, participating, watching, forming opinions, making contributions.  

Let’s first take a little step back: what are we talking about when we use the term ecosystem? The Wikipedia definition reads: ‘An ecosystem (or ecological system) is a system that environments and their organisms form through their interaction.  The biotic and abiotic components are linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows.’ Abiotic means not-living, and applies to aspects like climate. 

If we regard the dance field as an ecosystem, the makers, companies, festivals, schools, talent developers and venues are all organisms. Het Nationale Ballet, ISH Dance Collective, WArd/waRD, Conny Janssen Danst, Illusionary Rockaz Company, Lloyds Company, Korzo, LAVA Collective, Dansateliers, Panama Pictures, De Dansers, Misiconi, Introdans, Sally, NDT, Katja Heitmann, Club Guy & Roni and everything in between, around, above and beyond them. Large, mid-size, small, tiny; classical, modern, contemporary, hiphop, Indian, Gnawa, AI-driven, able-bodied and all variants imaginable; for young audiences, for grownups or both; with four-year government funding, European funding or project-based funding. Reaching far beyond any stylistic boundaries, across the edges of the disciplines, irrespective of national borders. The funding bodies, too, are living organisms. 

The environment is small but international. The abiotic components form a vast, Dutch-based array. The climate in which the dance organisms exist is largely determined on a national level: by the performing arts, society, audiences, science and education, the economy.   

These units become a system, they are linked, through biological interactions between the organisms and the interaction with the abiotic environment. Without interaction there can be no system, just a collection of separate items, like rare insects each pinned carefully to a piece of cardboard in a glass display. Stunning to look at, something to savour. But dead as a doornail.
In a functioning ecosystem, everything is brimming with life.  

And then early July a three-stage rocket was launched with the publication of the four-year cultural funding plans for 2025 – 2028 by the Dutch Performing Art Fund (FPK), the Fonds Cultuurparticipatie (FCP) and the Council for Culture (RvC). In its wake came the local and regional governments’ funding decisions. And this round of four-year funding applications turned out to hit very hard indeed in parts of the dance ecosystem.   

If these decisions are finalized, Julidans festival will miss out on funding for its organisation; the pivotal Holland Dance Festival will no longer receive four-year funding from FPK; City of Dance The Hague will lose four major players in its government-funded chain leaving only Korzo and Nederlands Dans Theater; dance for young audiences company De Stilte will lose its place in the ‘Basisinfrastructuur’ (BIS) and with it, the means to remain the most widely touring Dutch dance company (more than NDT), and DadoDans will no longer be able to serve its toddler and baby audiences.

Over a fifth of all dance companies has been cut away in the national and local allocation of means for 2025-2028, as a group of outraged, disappointed and embittered dance makers calculated in an open letter. Out of 27 dance companies currently funded by FPK, 17 will remain; 4 additional groups are new entries. Only 20 FPK-dance companies are left, as one has ceased activities since – a 22 percent reduction.

That’s nearly a quarter of the ecosystem. That’s a substantial chunk of biodiversity coming to a crashing halt in the tunnel that is cultural funding.

The Nederlandse Dansdagen asked a group of outsiders with a heart for dance to reflect on the events as outside eyes – 3 dance critics and 1 godmother of hiphop theatre dance. Critics are used to doing splits, if not literally, as their position is always with one foot in dance and the other in journalism. Nita Liem, who recently ended her active years in creating dance, also still has one foot in the dance field. The other is already outside it, and she’s looking back upon the 25-year history of hiphop theatre dance.
As a group, we have observed how a diverse field has been hounded into a tunnel that’s simply too narrow.  

II
The state of the organisms

Zooming in on the players in this field, we see there’s continuity for five major institutions funded by the RvC as part of the BIS. Three of these are expecting to hand over the reins to the next generation within the next few years. These institutions have the privilege to think in these terms: in years, in transfer, in the continued development of dance as an art form, of craftsmanship, of talent development, from one generation to the next. Most of these have existed since the decades immediately after WW II. 

On the other end of the chain, we see a host of smaller players. They form collectives, sharing spaces, knowledge and freelance staff. Or they are loners, carving their own unique path.  

Between the two extremes you would expect an organic layer of small to mid-sized, fairly stable dance companies or hubs centred around a dance maker, a duo or a group, with the longevity to develop over the years. People who have outgrown the project-based approach, who are building a unique dance vocabulary, a choreographic practice, a community, a body of work, a hub, a collective. Who are looking around like Nita, and like her, ask themselves: what story am I telling, with my work as a whole, my body of work? Who are the people I relate to in this field? What is the common thread in our stories, what are we saying as a community?  

Of course, they are there. They are now, part of the vast (bio)diversity, the overwhelming breadth. But not as many as you would expect from the bustling and brimming layer of new makers. The outflow is greater than the throughput. A forced exercise, since the fertile ecosystem is pushed into the funding tunnel every four years.  

III
Interaction with the world: the narrow tunnel

The system of four-year funding is heaving and sighing and slowly grinding to a halt. One big problem for dance in its interaction with funders is the increasing stress on language skills in the tender system. How to make yourself important, as a non-language-based sector, in a funding and value system that is based on handing in the best written plan? True: this applies to music, circus and Dutch mime of physical theatre as well. But music boasts a much longer history as part of the canon to fall back on. Circus has the momentum from the flow generated by strong new developments. And Dutch mime? This round, this form of physical theatre has been hit just as hard as dance.

There is precious little scope for the specific embodied language of dance in the funding procedure. Dance deliberately moves between the lines, and cleverly escapes the pen. It comes alive when you see the images: live, in pictures or on video. But plans must be captured in words, visions of the future must be described in gripping sentences. The strange decision to not weigh earlier performances and visitation reports in the funding decisions strikes the final blow.

Why isn’t the funding system adapted to suit the strengths of the art form? What efforts were made to ensure all the members of the ‘open-style’ committees, comprised of experts from multiple art disciplines, were sufficiently equipped to fully value dance’s  ‘non-linguistic, embodied language’?

This brings us to the second stumbling block: advisory committees are now invited to advise across the disciplines. Dance applications have been weighed by sector-wide advisers, as opposed to the (pre)committees made up of dance experts in earlier years. Peer review is given the backseat. It should at least have raised some eyebrows that among all the FPK dance applications, only one was allocated a ‘very good’ score on the criterium ‘artistic quality’ (Nicole Beutler Projects). The other applications all scored lower (or significantly lower) than ‘good’. Could it really be true that no other dance maker handed in an application that would score ‘very good’ on artistic quality? Shouldn’t this at least have been noted as an exceptional situation in an overall weighing of the FPK-tender? And shouldn’t the holes the outcome has punched in the dance field at least have been noticed, if not corrected, repaired?
The biggest problem of the FPK’s tender construction is that it ends in counting points per application, with no mechanism to see what this means for the overall field (as the RvC does have). This helicopter view, tethered by an informed view of what a healthy arts field and dance ecology should be, would reduce the chances of losing vital pillars.

A third hurdle is the solidified structure of the funding system and within that, the juggling with criteria. The middle section of the field needs a more stable form of support than project-based funding. But they can never count on the same sort of stability as the five biggest institutions. When a criterium for four-year funding from FPK is simply one of many in one round, but is made leading in the next, applicants are left empty-handed all too easily. In earlier rounds this would happen after twelve years, or eight. Now, increasingly, after just one four-year round. The same blows were dealt in the middle section of the theatre field. If we continue on this course, what sort of lifespan will be left for a career in the performing arts? And specifically in dance, where physical age dictates that applicants must peak early?  

Mid-careers who want to extend their practice with support for other (e.g. younger) makers have precious few opportunities to do so within the current funding structure. Such activities require additional means, but the production-based budgets of national, local and regional funders do not cover them. The position of the middle section is quite specific: it houses a wide range of organisms who each have a unique growth curve from one four-year plan to the next. And moving through the ranks to reach a position in the BIS is not typically the ultimate goal. Many intend to bloom as part of this middle section, across the FPK-categories I, II and III. But with the emphasis on creating productions within this strand of funding, supporting each other is hardly a safeguarded option. The financial system is a narrow tunnel, with walls of concrete, and the ecosystem is hounded through it every four years.  

What about the bigger organisms, do they see what is happening elsewhere in the field?  The big organisms, the mid-sized ones and the smaller are all caught in their own separate financial strand, with the BIS on the one hand and production-based funding or local government funding on the other. Each is dealing with a separate set of requirements, in spite of politicians’ promises to better align the different systems over the years.

Fundamentally, there are three forms of dynamics in place: the big organisms work along long lines, the small ones along short lines. The group in the middle is looking to grow towards longer lines, but the dominant, prescriptive four-year funding system keeps tripping them up, cutting those lines completely or partially when, for instance, local funding does come through but national funding is denied. The difference in dynamics is not helpful. It hampers cohesion or the sense of a joint responsibility for a balanced ecosystem.

What’s more, because of the tender construction in funding, the relationships within each dynamic group – big, mid-size, small or beginner – heat up to boiling point in the competition every four years. Where scarcity is portioned out, solidarity goes out the door. Each dance maker or organisation asks the maximum amount for themselves, or the set amount.
But what kind of ecosystem is this, where the funding system flattens the interactions into one-dimensional competition every subsidy round? In a system like this, who can find the space to look beyond their own practice?   

IV
Interaction: splintered solidarity  

Nita’s question, ‘who do I relate to in this field’ is essential. Those who move around the field from this viewpoint are only one step away from interaction. And interaction is what makes the ecosystem. Not just to stand out from your peers and keep dance as an art form alive and interesting. But also to stand together and increase its visibility; to demand space.  

There’s a pivotal role here for the more established to see the new arrivals, and for the big organisms to see the mid-careers. Look out for each other, se the other’s needs, show that you can be a community, one living, breathing ecosystem.  

When does the dance field really embrace the saying: ‘I am because we are?’ – a brilliant motto and powerful view of humankind, expressed in her acceptance speech by performer Princess Isatu Hassan Bangura, when in September she became the first winner of the Theo d’Or for the most groundbreaking stage performance.  

We’re not saying that it’s not happening at all, this holding space and looking out for each other. A number of mid-careers is looking out for younger makers and actively committed to the transfer of knowledge. Just look at ISH, IRC, SHIFFT, OFFprojects and their talent development efforts, to name but a few. Conny Janssen Danst is committed to the cause, with the well-established Danslokaal formula, showing another premiere during this edition of the Nederlandse Dansdagen. And yes, HNB, NDT, and Scapino also have formats for talent development. But they lead to precious few trajectories with actual longevity for makers to really grow and blossom and reach that highest tier. Nanine Linning’s arrival at Scapino is a good point in case – albeit that she needed the German dance field to get there.
The experiences young makers can gain with the bigger companies should substantially increase the chances of reaching real positions among them. And it doesn’t happen often enough. The situation is dire; the consequences for mid-careers are painful, as became apparent when the results came in for this round of funding.  

How can the five biggest organisms with their longevity be of better service to dance makers from the central section of the Dutch field? This is one of the pressing questions we are asking the field, the ecosystem. It would help to carve out a more unique profile internationally for Dutch dance as well.  

In a neighbouring discipline, theatre, bound as it is to Dutch-speaking areas, talented mid-career makers are reaching the top tiers of their field. Eline Arbo, Char Li Chung and Daria Bukvić are but a few. What’s more, a number of theatre houses are home to increasingly diverse groups of makers. At the helm of Theater Rotterdam, Alida Dors is leading the way in creating an organic system inspired by the creative practice of hiphop crews. Text-based theatre alongside dance and performance. In her house, with funding intended for the theatre, she is creating additional space for dance. It has even led to a funding promotion for TR from mid-sized to big, with a million euros more to spend.
Even though the theatre sector has had to take some hefty blows itself, they are pushing the boundaries over there. Their voice is louder, they are making more of a fist.   

V
Is there light at the end of the tunnel: an ecosystem in 2028

A new and improved funding system has been announced. Its construction starts today.  The dance field itself must help shape the ideal ecosystem that offers scope for growth and allows makers and dance itself to move through its ranks and blossom.  

The dance ecosystem needs your increased awareness. You’re not an ecosystem if you let yourself be limited to your own practice. You’re not an ecosystem if you view your peers as mere competition in the scramble for scarce funding.
Wherever you can, look out beyond your own professional practice. Your community will grow stronger if you look out for each other: ‘I am because we are.’ An ecosystem needs biodiversity as well as interaction to be fertile ground. 

Take people on board who are good with words. Learn from each other and learn from the language employed by politicians and funders. It will still be necessary.
Join forces and make your shared voice heard more loudly. Represent one other, stand together in solidarity. Initiate and maintain better interactions with each other and with the world, even though the current funding system may be stacked against you. Be proud, make a fist. Open your mouths and kick some holes in the system.  

But most importantly: be strong-willed. Never, ever disown your unique embodied language. Take a page out of the book of those creative hiphop crews who carve their own path, away from institutions, and present your own propositions for how things can be run, equal but different. Push the boundaries. Demand a valuation and funding system where the physical element counts. Where images count. Are your needs not met? Demonstrate today that this need is essential.  

Join forces now, so that you can help create a system that will serve you. Look out for each other. Support each other. Nourish each other. Support the diversity of your dance field together. Speak up. Loudly. You can. You must.