Landscape Sketch of the Arts 2025: Performing arts

Performing arts are presented in various locations: not only in the theatre, the black box or the local cultural centre, but also in the library, healthcare facilities, streets and squares, or digital spaces. The encounter with the public takes place in the form of performances, but a theatrical walk, an individual or group discussion, a ritual or a digital creation is also possible – interactive or not. To support and guide, we have a rich and varied field of structures: they present, produce, distribute, and offer residency and rehearsal spaces.

Below we discuss the prominent challenges that emerged during the sessions preparing this Landscape Sketch. These concern challenges in the support and guidance of performing artists, collective self-organisation, co-productions, distribution, working in a fragmented way, fair practices and the audience.

The support and guidance of performing artists

A range of supporting and guiding structures are available to performing artists in Flanders. Some of these combine multiple roles, others work in a highly specialised manner. This includes assistance with financial or HR administration, communication, advice on subsidy applications, content feedback, work, rehearsal, and residency space, and technical support. Professional infrastructure is available for showcasing work, but also for developing it. In principle, this allows creators to tailor their approach to the type of guidance they are looking for, but in reality there are limitations.

This makes it difficult for newcomers to find their way through the wide range of services or supporting activities offered by organisations, or to understand which types of support are available where. The criteria on the basis of which these structures make their selections are also not always clear. Not only artistic considerations, but also the limited working time and budgets available force organisations to make choices. This is not new, but sensitivity is growing for the importance of fairness and transparency in this.

Sector discussions gave rise to three important principles that have growing support in the field. The first is the greatest possible – and well-communicated – clarity about selection criteria. Or more precisely: the substantive ambitions of organisations, and what these mean for the profile of creators or productions they want to work on. In addition, sufficient diversity in the group of people making the selection is important, especially when the criteria also allow for such a great diversity of proposals. The third principle revolves around a vision on feedback and encouraging a feedback culture. For creators, rejection without explanation or context is of little use and can be very hurtful.

It is sometimes impossible for programmers to provide a detailed response to everyone who makes a proposal – either spontaneously or in response to a call. One of the good practices that people shared with us concerns the mention in the text of a call: the (im)possibility of feedback, or the phase in the procedure in which feedback is possible.

The demand for a greater feedback culture is a common desire, both formally and informally, between creators as well as between creators and structures. Nevertheless, there are organisations that reserve the right to select plain and simple, because they see this as their responsibility, and because not everything can be captured in criteria in advance.

In addition, support and guidance organisations are often overburdened. Many do not have the capacity to meet the high demand from creators and producers. This applies to structures that combine, for example, the functions of production and presentation under the Arts Decree, as well as to specialised development organisations. There is a lack of space and opportunities, especially for the guidance of creators, it is said.

Some creators or collectives organise their own structure around themselves. Over time, these structures sometimes open up to other creators, with a view to the continuity of their own organisation and good advancement in the field. Some structures are organised from the outset around multiple creators and practices.

Collective self-organisation

To optimally tailor individual support to their own practice or to maintain control over the development and production process, creators also set up mutual collaborations. These kinds of artist-run structures based on artistic affinity can sometimes make the business aspect difficult. A formal collaboration comes with legal and financial conditions and responsibilities (e.g. HR, governance and well-being), which leave less room for spontaneity or improvisation.

There are also many flexible collectives: (temporary) groupings of creators or performers, many of whom are also part of other groups. After all, creative work in the performing arts is largely done collectively and on a project basis. It is mainly the constellation of people and partners involved that varies. In principle, such a less rigid approach allows the chosen artistic goals to go hand in hand with good agreements about the ways of working together. This concerns questions such as: how much time does everyone spend on the project, how does the group implement fair practices, and what do the decision-making structures look like? In practice, however, these ambitions often encounter time pressure and after a while, the artistic and organisational work are split up again. Loose-knit collectives weigh the desire for customisation – according to their own wishes and pace – against the support that surrounding structures offer them – according to the approach of the institution.

Due to a lack of continuity, it is more difficult for loose-knit collectives to build up organisational know-how and praxis.  This can complicate any access to resources under the Arts Decree. In addition, various engagements in parallel projects hinder the artistic development of productions after their premiere. Tours are interrupted due to fragmented employment, and the work has less opportunity to refine itself over successive performance dates.

An additional difficulty with collective self-organisation is financing. Who pays for the supporting work that the creators and performers undertake for themselves? The administrative threshold for operating subsidies under the Arts Decree is high, and the assessment makes it difficult to allow for alternative forms of work, organisation, and financing. It is also possible that the requirements imposed by the decree are not in line with what a particular collective wants or is able to do, for example if it does not want to set up a formal legal form with the obligation to have an administrative body, or if it does not aim for (inter)national outreach. Project subsidies under the Arts Decree, on the other hand, are not intended to develop a support framework. Each form of organisation therefore comes with advantages and disadvantages.

(Co)production

Financing a stage production is a challenge. It requires a variety of revenue streams to balance budgets for aspects ranging from development to presentation. Subsidies alone are not enough, and while many companies used to reinvest part of the income from performance fees in a subsequent creation, these are now more often used to cover the costs of ongoing productions. A co-production model is almost always used, often including Tax Shelter resources. The latter are not feasible for every production, and producers usually work together with intermediaries who are in high demand. Tax Shelter resources are also only possible for organisations that pay corporate tax in Belgium.

The co-production system also has problems. For organisations with operating subsidies from the Arts Decree, we found that revenues from co-productions in 2022 had returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, there is a clear shift in the amounts from foreign to domestic co-productions. Since the pandemic, major international partners have prioritised supporting creators and creations from their own countries or regions, or are reducing their co-production budgets.

Flemish creators and producers are devoting more time and energy to the search for co-producers. They quickly fall back on the same partners, because trust has already been built up there. In turn, these potential partners are also contacted from other quarters, and all these ‘parties’ suffer from a high workload.

Moreover, the interpretation of what a co-production can and should be differs per partner. Some co-producers choose to make a substantial contribution to a limited number of productions. This may be financial in nature or consist of other forms of guidance or support (although a financial contribution usually forms the basis). Others prefer to support as many productions as possible, but in a more defined way. There are also mixed forms where substantial support is offered to a number of productions or creators, while smaller amounts or in-kind support is given to others. You also see this in constellations where a distinction is made between a limited number of partners who really drive a creation, supplemented by a series of co-producers who play smaller roles.

On top of inflation and non-indexed subsidies, co-production amounts are stagnating, making it increasingly difficult to balance budgets. The more co-producers a production gathers, the less involvement each party often has, and the more difficult it becomes to communicate with each other or to consult strategically about complementary support. Moreover, the more different projects an organisation brings on board as a co-producer, the fewer such discussions are possible – gradually one project gets in the way of the other.

If co-producers fail to make good agreements about complementary support, this obviously makes the production process more difficult. It happens that organisations specialised in development then step in to help creators with whom they have a connection. This, in turn, means that their core tasks or the planned support of other artists are compromised. This is not a sustainable situation, especially since artistic development in the field in general is already under pressure.

Local and international distribution

Local distribution – bringing Flemish-subsidised performing arts to the venues in Flemish cities and municipalities – is one of the most discussed issues of recent times. Distribution prevents people from having to travel far to experience art. It also contributes to the artistic development of stage work through successive performance opportunities. In addition, distribution is an integral part of the financing model of many productions and organisations, with the buy-out amount for each performance contributing to the budget of the current production and possibly even a subsequent one.

For a long time, stage creations with Flemish support found a wide audience, including through the extensive network of the 65 former cultural centres. Cultural policy on this subject has gradually changed in the period up to 2018, and the distribution of subsidised theatre and dance has demonstrably shrunk since 2011 (Janssens 2018b). This brings us to the heart of the distribution issue: there is no coordinated Flemish and (supra)local policy for cultural dissemination. Programmers at the former cultural centres no longer have Flemish incentives or support to put together a high-quality offering, which included mainly Flemish-subsidised productions. They are now considering whether to do this to a greater or lesser extent, depending on their own ambitions, mandates and profile. ‘Blind booking’ – programming a production before it is finished – is reportedly happening less often than it used to.

Cultural institutions also seem to be less committed to presentations. Local governments would be more focused on a balanced budget, which would shift programming towards an offering that attracts a broad audience. If assessment committees are not sufficiently made aware of this, they risk relying too heavily on performance schedules and professional commitments. Thus the tandem between Flemish-supported creation and a local presentation policy breaks down.

A parallel can be drawn with international distribution. Working internationally offers opportunities: enriching exchange, expansion and diversification of networks, visibility, a variety of audiences, income through buyouts or co-productions. But here too there are challenges, such as declining opportunities to perform and reduced co-production commitments. In addition, international partners increasingly assume that Flemish producers will bring additional financing from an international presentation project (IP) or a contribution towards an international presentation moment (TIP). This is intended to reduce the total presentation costs (for example, travel expenses or accommodation for the artists). It happens that if such a request is refused, the venue or festival immediately cancels the presentation.

Other issues surrounding distribution concern sustainability (for example, the ecological impact), psychosocial well-being during intensive touring, administrative justice (such as visa issues and work permits for creators from outside the Schengen Area), complex paperwork that varies by country (think of customs forms), and different policy visions and efforts on export support, which are perceived as unfair competition.

One consequence of these trends is that performance tours are interrupted, and such fragmented tours entail additional work and costs. If there is too much time between performance dates, new rehearsals are usually necessary, which require time and wages for performers, as well as technical and production support. If players need to be replaced, adjustments to the performance or costumes may be necessary, and the storage of sets and props also entails costs. Finally, performers often participate in multiple productions during the same period, making it more difficult to coordinate schedules and put together coherent tours. They are then confronted with fragmented employment. The subsidy settlement reports no longer include the full tour of a production. Slow burners who have participated in an impressive number of productions over the years are not seen or tracked in analyses, which disrupts data-driven optimisation of arts policy. The less certain the chances of sustained visibility and income through distribution, the faster creators feel the need to set up a new creation (production pressure). In this way, they may continue to work while receiving payment through (co)producers and project subsidies – which points to an overheated system.

Not all performing arts are created with a view to wide distribution; some opera productions, for example, rarely tour. Sometimes a work is so monumental or connected to the location where it was developed, created or shared, that it is transitory, or there are other characteristics that make distribution difficult and require a different approach (think of digital distribution). Sometimes the required technology is so complex that it cannot be set up and taken down easily, or it is not the production that travels but the theatre text, the choreography or the concept, and the work is recreated on site. These are artistic choices that the relevant partners make in advance.

It is a view on distribution that cannot simply be captured in terms of the number of times a performance is presented. It is accompanied by a different financing mix and commitments from potential (co)producers tailored to the work. It is up to policymakers to take this into account in their vision of culture dissemination, and up to assessment committees to judge these forms according to their artistic value.

Fragmented working

The performing artist with the status of flexible worker creates and performs in varying collaborations. On the one hand, this comes with a lot of autonomy: people are in control of their own artistic development and choose which projects they participate in. Moreover, a change of context provides inspiration. On the other hand, for many, flexible working is a necessity rather than a choice, because it is difficult to get permanent contracts as a performing artist. The artist as a flexible worker faces the challenge of building a sustainable career through successive projects.

Production pressure and visibility pressure are driven by artistic ambitions, but also by financial uncertainty and the pressure of an established system focused on output, which can lead to exhaustion. There is widespread demand within the sector to work together to do something about this. Structurally changing practices can be done by experimenting in ongoing projects or by following specific training courses (Hesters 2019; Flanders Arts Institute 2023a). Tackling this difficult issue, however, is a long-term task. An open attitude from all parties involved is essential, as value frameworks and existing structures can get in the way – they often also need to evolve, and that can lead to tension.

Fragmented employment does not contribute to a safe climate for the desired system change. The sense of competition for opportunities limits the solidarity needed for system change, and gives way to divisions: people in permanent and long-term employment versus people in short-term temporary employment; employees who build up social security through their employer versus self-employed persons who have to make a separate contribution to the social safety net; a buyout amount based on a difficult negotiation versus a salary based on work performed. By ‘versus’ we do not mean that people are opposed to each other, but that the status of people is not

always visible, and therefore not always taken into account in considerations about fairness. Fragmentation of employment makes it more difficult to monitor working hours, attend multi-day training courses, and coordinate work schedules for multiple employers.

This also represents an additional administrative burden for (supporting) arts organisations. Moreover, it is difficult to implement commitments regarding training policy or psychosocial well-being for employees in short (and non-consecutive) employment periods. The pressure on the financing model already makes it difficult to employ people for long periods, thus meeting the need for rest and deceleration. The long-standing emphasis on developing fair practices is closely related to this.

Fair practices and safety

When one speaks about fair practices, they quickly think about the socio-economic position of artists and fair compensation. However, the conversation goes beyond that, and in June 2020, the Juist is Juist platform provided a guiding framework with four principles and twelve agreements on cooperation in more general terms.

The Arts Decree also identifies a number of priorities. Appropriate compensation, application of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and the Culture Governance Code are mandatory for operating subsidy applicants. Ensuring integrity and fair practices is also mandatory in project-based support; applicants must take this into account when preparing their plan and budget.

The application of fair practices is often discussed in the performing arts. People are calling for caring for each other, making and keeping good agreements, and sharing responsibility for fairness in mutual trust. They express a desire for a more supportive, inclusive, sustainable and ethically responsible performing arts sector. This goes beyond financial resources or regulations: it revolves around the discussion of what is ‘right’ for all parties involved in a given situation.

In reality, this does not always work. Some artists do not find it easy to have these kinds of conversations – with organisations, but also among themselves. For example, how do you agree on working hours and fees for work in development, for a production whose financing is not guaranteed? Even when we narrow the conversation to payment from a guaranteed budget, people do not always have the necessary knowledge or negotiating skills.

Flexible workers report that tools such as calculators or model documents are not always useful in a solo practice or project, or in less common practices that require a customised production process or are research-based. Even before model contracts and calculators come into play, an open discussion about basic agreements around fairness can make a big difference. 

Organisations can also struggle with implementing fair practices. Formally, Social Bureaus for Artists (SBKs) and producers who do not fall under Joint Industrial Council 304 are not obliged to apply these CBAs. This also applies to international collaboration partners. A producer with a budget that is too tight can still plan a production, for example by falling back on minimum wages or by significantly fragmenting employment. Or one may scale back a production.

In efforts to balance budgets, business managers focus on diversifying revenue sources. They compile dossiers, follow up on requests, fulfil administrative obligations, juggle different timelines and reporting deadlines, or organise side activities for extra income. Keeping the organisation financially healthy, maintaining production levels and at the same time being a good employer sometimes clashed with the limits of what was feasible.

The most recent survey on work experience in the performing arts sector (De Meyer 2022a) indicates that 90.6% of respondents enjoy their work, but that 51.8% also have a need for recovery. Temporary employees experience more emotional stress, but also more learning opportunities and personal growth than permanent employees. The question is whether the high scores on engagement and enjoyment at work sufficiently counteract the sources of stress and the need for recovery.

A specific source of stress is unwanted behaviour at work: bullying (1.4%), aggression and conflict (1.4%) or unwanted sexual behaviour (6.6%). Zero tolerance applies here across the board (De Meyer 2022a). Since its inception, the Flemish Reporting Centre for Transgressive Behaviour has received 89 reports from the cultural sector (in the period from 25 September 2023 to 13 March 2025) of which 2 concern physical violence, 47 concern psychological violence, 17 concern bullying and 42 concern unwanted sexual behaviour (Meeting of the Committee for Culture, Youth, Sport and Media 2025). In 2024 alone, several stories about problematic leadership in the performing arts appeared in the media.

The key positions of successful artists with a charismatic personality, high competition for a limited number of jobs, and the importance of personal contacts for work are risk factors here (Willekens, Siongers and Lievens 2018). The reliance on an artistic director to whom one looks up also partly explains the culture of silence that often affects the sector. 

There is a collective responsibility here. Employees have rights and protection mechanisms to break this culture of silence. The Culture Governance Code also provides principles for structurally distributing power between the board and management. It is up to managers to facilitate a psychologically safe working environment and to break the culture of silence surrounding abuses (De Prins 2023).

Regardless of their position or role, people testify that high levels of involvement are self-evident. This intrinsic (work) motivation is both a strength and a weakness. The unpredictability of an artistic process and its uncertain financing sometimes require more flexibility than is healthy. Setting physical or mental boundaries and requesting time for work meetings or further training remains a challenge for many. The generally high workload also doesn’t help.

In a recent study (Marinus and Van Assche 2025), dancers were interviewed who had just gone through a creative process that had explicitly and rigorously implemented fair practices. Respondents found the transparency regarding fair compensation and working conditions an exceptional experience. They shared numerous examples of previous experiences of long rehearsal days and unpaid work, and of a sense of hierarchy between dancer and choreographer, further reinforced by an age difference. The dancers share how they were pushed from a young age to excel in a culture of uniqueness and competition. At the same time, some dancers had to get used to the time taken away from rehearsal time for fair practices, or from time they would have preferred to spend on body work. All interviewees found the opportunity to discuss frictions and tensions with each other important. Their recommendation is to practice such conversations during their studies because of their emancipatory power.

Transition in the performing arts requires time and commitment from all involved. There is no shortage of ideas, tools, guidelines and legislation for a fair performing arts sector – but the implementation is the challenge. Applying the tools for change can confront actors in a harsh way with previously learned values and practices. Dealing with such discomfort is part of a process of change, and each journey follows a different rhythm.

The audience

The composition of the population has changed significantly since 2004: diversity and education levels continued to increase, and in addition to the ageing population, healthy life expectancy also increased. These trends are included in the five-yearly Participation Survey for the arts. Within the performing arts, based on these studies, we see a distinction in audience participation between sub-disciplines. For theatre and dance, this rose to 36% in 2020 (compared to an average of 30% in previous studies), mainly due to frequent visitors who participate even more. In the previously popular genres such as musicals, circus or stand-up comedy, there was a decline in the 2014 survey, especially among young people and the middle age group, while the figures for those over 65 remained stable. In the 2020 results we see a general increase for those sub-disciplines from 26% to 35% (De Baere 2021d).

To encourage participation on the part of the public, producers and organisers are working on their communication. In addition, leisure time communication specialist publiq is working on collective promotion on behalf of the Flemish government. Theatre houses and producers see their offerings there amongst a much wider range of leisure offerings, and therefore indicate that they have little motivation to enter data into the associated UiT databank. Their own communication channels give them more visibility and lead visitors directly to their own ticketing and reservation modules.

Our own population survey (Flanders Arts Institute, BPact and Indiville 2024) also provides insight into the drivers and barriers to public participation in the arts. The experience is an important motivator, and it can be both emotionally moving and intellectually challenging. Artists and art workers are working on deeper contact between their work and the public. They organise public activities in the name of substantive audience engagement and artistic mediation: guided tours, studios, or pre- and post-show discussions with artists or critics. Feeling welcome at the location, social contact with other audience members, or a personal connection with the art workers involved are also important motivators. Clear and accessible information is of course also a motivator.

Most barriers to theatre participation have to do with travel, making reservations, coming home late, or not being able to find someone to attend with. These are mainly practical considerations. The importance of these practical barriers has been decreasing in recent years, while the importance of the motivational barriers has increased. The interest threshold is mentioned more often by those with a short-cycle education, while non-participants with a long-cycle education more often mention time pressure. “No time” can also be the more socially desirable expression of “not interested” (Beunen et al. 2015).

In addition to the travel, financial barriers also play a role: the cost of access to art, and concerns about unexpected additional costs. Research conducted in the context of the 2009 Participation Survey (Vekeman et al. 2011) showed that price reductions would not lead to a strong increase in reservations by a new audience. For financially disadvantaged audience members, a non-stigmatising price differentiation would be helpful, and this is possible thanks to the UiTPAS in Flanders (Paspartoe in Brussels).

A recent example of price differentiation for tickets is “pay what you can”. Kaaitheater launched this experiment in 2021, giving the audience a choice of different rates. Each ticket is available at different prices. You can choose between a suggested price or, depending on your financial possibilities, a higher or lower price. Anyone who can pay a higher price knows that this will ensure that others can pay less. Traditional discount rates no longer apply, with the exception of those entitled to a reduced rate. During the 2021-2022 season, a short survey was administered with every online reservation to gather information about experiences with this system. Analysis of the responses provided sufficient reasons to continue with the system and refine it. For many, this makes theatre more accessible – so the intended solidarity principle seems to work. Total ticket sales remained stable, since enough audience members appear willing to pay the suggested price (or more). Since September 2022, this system is no longer an experiment – other organisers have followed suit and more audiences have now gained experience with it.

The examples above assume an offering for which an audience is actively recruited. In addition, there are also examples of audience engagement and mediation where the audience itself impacts this offering. In participatory art practices, participants actively contribute to the artistic creative process. In various cities, artists, youth workers and other committed people are developing initiatives together. In the Kroniek Publiek series, Flanders Arts Institute collected inspiring ways to bring art and the public closer together. Examples of this can also be found in our field sketch on participatory art practices (Coussens 2024b).

Young people

In this Landscape Sketch we devote a thematic chapter to art for young people. There is a rich tradition in the performing arts around this: there are important structures for production and presentation specifically for work aimed at young people, and there is an extensive practice of school performances, mainly in the former cultural centres.

The motivations for creating performing arts and involving young people actively or passively in this vary. There are artistic drivers, such as the great creative freedom that creators can take with an audience without pre-formed expectations. And of course there is the commitment to working for young people. Theatre makes certain issues discussable, dance allows us to express something that isn’t quite expressible in language. It can provide a safe place to encounter other perspectives, or even to recognise your own situation. Young people who have impactful and positive experiences with art – for example by experiencing it in a well-structured environment or by creating it themselves – also participate more frequently at a later age (Beunen, Siongers, and Lieven 2016; De Baere 2021d).

Especially in the performing arts, there is a focus on productions that have an intergenerational effect. Children as well as adults will find something to enjoy here. This intergenerational reflex and the focus on co-creation between youth and creators distinguish Flemish performing arts from the international offerings and contribute to their success. For performers too, the difference in audiences can be inspiring and shed new light on their work.

But there are also obstacles. In the chapter on art for young people, we examine in detail the wide range of art for, by, and with young people in Flanders, the problems that arise, and possible ways to address them.

Download the Landscape Sketch of the Arts 2025

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Strengths

• The performing arts sector is well-developed and organised, with a diverse range of support and guidance in many forms and structures, and with art workers who engage with a high level of commitment.
• There are organisations that offer an integrated framework in the areas of development, production and presentation. Other organisations specialise, for example, as a management agency, production platform or festival.
• There is a great awareness in the areas of inclusion, good governance, integrity, transgressive behaviour, and other social themes. Numerous initiatives exist around knowledge sharing and formal training, and concrete measures for prevention and recovery are being implemented step by step.
• Established practices and standard ways of working are constantly challenged to renew and improve. This includes collective self-organisation, participatory practices, cross-sectoral collaborations, transdisciplinary forms and digital media.

Weaknesses

• The strong focus on production – for financial reasons and for visibility – is not in balance with other functions, including development in the first place.
• There is a desire to focus more on development-oriented work, but there is a lack of sufficient supporting and guiding organisations for this. At the same time, many creators feel that they need to be permanently visible through new productions.
• Competition among creators is a growing problem in a system where presentation is also under pressure due to financial constraints, market-based thinking, and a sometimes limited view of what constitutes artistic success and which venues one ‘should’ be represented in.
• The fragmented employment of creators, players and art workers puts pressure on artistic development (fragmentation of performance series) and social protection (extensive flexible work). It is also a heavy administrative burden for the supporting organisations and does not promote the transition to fair practices.
• (Co)production constellations and distribution logics are changing. Alternative methods of financing (for example, without relying on income from distribution) are not always feasible.

Opportunities

• The current way of producing and presenting is mirrored by a strong desire to work in a less production-oriented way and to leave more room for development. The tools for this (such as space or subsidy instruments) are available, but time and resources are lacking.
• Artistic selection is accompanied by a growing culture of transparency and substantive feedback.
• Cross-sectoral art practices not only challenge established practices, but also our view of art, the audience, and artistic production and presentation contexts.

Threats

• The performing arts sector relies heavily on opportunities to showcase its work in locally governed cultural institutions. These have recently evolved independently of Flemish arts policy, and the objectives of the two policy levels are not aligned.
• Conventional production methods come with high costs, but budgets for these are becoming increasingly difficult to secure.
• In the performing arts sector, a large number of flexible workers are active in short-term employment. Arts organisations are faced with bureaucracy. There is also an administrative burden for creators who sometimes see no other option than to be the driving force behind their own productions.
• The collaboration between the arts and education needs to be strengthened, especially in the performing arts.