Landscape Sketch of the Arts 2025: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

The strengths of the arts field in Flanders today

Art – the work, the creators, the art workers – has an important social role to play. This continues to evolve with society and the needs within it. In certain practices and scenes, it is very explicit. But even when it is less so, this social added value distinguishes art from many other creative practices and experiences. In every discipline, art can connect, comfort, delight, provide meaning and encourage doubt, empathy, reflection and a broadening of horizons. The strength of the arts field in Flanders is that it focuses on this social added value, partly thanks to the opportunities that public support offers.

You will find considerable solidarity and cooperation in every discipline. Organisations provide space to those who need it, detect needs and respond to them based on intrinsic motivation and commitment. People working in the arts share knowledge and focus on deepening and collaboration based on trust and loyalty. Artists follow and support each other in various circuits, scenes and networks, they form collectives for (co)creation, share space or organise the logistical, business or administrative aspects of the work together. There are effective advocacy groups, professional groups and advisory councils active.

There is not a wide gap between sector and policy. People consult, listen and search for solutions together. Decrees, funds, regulations at multiple policy levels, and fiscal incentives, among other things, provide support for the work taking place in the field. Where possible and appropriate, profit players are also involved. The Arts Decree operates from a strong bottom-up tradition: the funds work in consultation with the subsidising authorities but enjoy the autonomy to respond to developments in the field.

As a whole, our arts field is well developed. It is home to diverse players that collectively take on all ecosystem roles to a greater or lesser extent. In general, one does not have to travel far in Flanders to enjoy art or culture. The work that is presented internationally is well received. Professionalism is generally high.

Our art education programmes are also of a high standard and embedded in a broad and accessible educational offering. The democratic right of access to arts and culture is guaranteed for children and youth as best as possible through collaborations between arts, culture and education.

The democratisation of active art experience also continues. In many disciplines – music, spoken word, illustration, performative art forms, video – people can start creating with a modest investment. This promotes support for art, adding to the broad support already present in Flanders. The artwork certificate and the art sector work allowance make a significant difference to the socio-economic position of artists, enabling them to maintain the skills and knowledge their profession requires between projects.

The weaknesses of the arts field in Flanders today

Support for arts and culture is achieved through an interplay between policy levels and domains. This creates opportunities and versatility, but it sometimes leads to fragmentation, ambiguity and – if eligibility requirements and criteria are interpreted too strictly – creators and work that fall through the cracks.

Especially since the shift in responsibilities of the different policy levels, there is a need for a more overarching vision for arts and culture policy, and better coordination between policy levels. This need for vision formation also exists between cultural and non-cultural policy domains: the financing of cross-sectoral arts practices, strengthening cooperation between culture and compulsory education where there is a lack of time, resources and knowledge, or even the coordination between international cultural policy and foreign affairs.

The Arts Decree does not always encourage artists and organisations to combine funding sources. Sometimes secretaries or committees unnecessarily consider an additional source of funding as a double subsidy, while sometimes the rules discourage the search for additional resources by considering them as subsidies and not as own income. Not only does this make it more difficult to achieve the required percentage of own income, it also pushes the amount up. After all, the mandatory own income is calculated on the basis of the total subsidy amount with which an applicant works.

The work on implementing fair pay and fair practices is not complete. Sometimes invisible work is not or barely remunerated. Sometimes co-production contributions are under severe pressure, with an impact on what is made. For example, creators, performers and supporting teams work under greater time pressure, or sometimes share the risk for a project by making their remuneration dependent on expected returns. Sometimes presentation venues continue to consider the amateur arts allowance as a guideline for the fees of professional artists. This continues to be the case especially in non-classical music. Juist is Juist puts forward principles for transparent and equal negotiations, but for various reasons these are not always and everywhere applied. When budgets are insufficient to work in accordance with collective bargaining agreements, artists often look for ways to apply principles of fairness among themselves.

Many artists live in socio-economic insecurity. Their employment is often short-term and project-based, and appears to be becoming even more fragmented than before. This leads to fragmented planning, increased organisational workload, and extensive freelancing. The artwork certificate and the art sector work allowance make a difference in covering periods between projects and assignments, but are not yet well known everywhere.

In most disciplines there is great pressure to be visible. Our field is largely focused on the presentation of visible art, and on the support of demonstrable and concrete work. The artistic translation of this is development that is under pressure, and a lack of attention to process-oriented or immaterial practices.

There is a need for more places and structures that facilitate, support and provide frameworks for development and experimentation. In some disciplines there is a lack of solid development and production platforms (media art, audiovisual art, music), in others there is a lack of breeding grounds and workspaces (visual arts). Financial resources for development are available under the Arts Decree, from Flanders Literature and via the Flanders Audiovisual Fund (VAF). Within the Arts Decree, these instruments are not well known in every discipline.

In most disciplines, there is pressure to produce because creators – especially at the beginning of their careers – want to remain visible and also keep their heads above water. We already noted this in the previous Landscape Sketch of the Arts (2019). This production pressure persists, and is a key element in what is perceived as an overheating system. The high volume of production – especially in the performing arts and in combination with increasing budgetary stress more generally – is related to the pressure on co-production contributions.

The international instruments of the Arts Decree focus almost entirely on the presentation of art. A sustainable international presence of work and creators from Flanders requires more than this. It also involves international prospecting, participation in master classes abroad, travel expenses for cross-border consultations and networking, and so on. Applicants can budget for the costs for this, but this option is not very explicit and the applications are highly demanding. The international instruments of the funds (Flanders Literature and the VAF) have a broader scope. Our view of what art is, where and how it can be shared with audiences, and what an artist’s career can look like is limited. This makes it difficult to conceptualise the field correctly and completely, and to think about it creatively and in a solution-oriented manner. It also increases the risk of gatekeeping that inadvertently hinders innovation. There is a feeling that some genres or artistic practices could benefit from greater awareness among assessment committees in order to provide a sufficiently broad and up-to-date view of the practices they are assessing.

A narrow view of art, artists, and careers hinders inclusivity: a well-known challenge that is being worked on in almost every discipline, albeit at different speeds. This lack of inclusivity is partly related to dominant visions of what an artistic career looks like, partly to the cultural dominance of certain forms and frames of reference, but also to high entry barriers to certain educational programmes. These can reproduce barriers in the field, and they can also be financial in nature – think of architecture, or by extension any long-term study programme that requires time that students cannot spend on a job. To some extent it also has to do with the speed at which work is being done, which makes it more difficult to carefully consider which artist, performer, or art worker has which needs, and how to meet them.

Structural exclusion is a systemic problem that must be addressed step by step. The arts field is working on this, but there is still a long way to go. Among the strengths, we previously mentioned the access to art and culture on the part of the public. There is, however, a difference between access in the sense of proximity, and access seen more broadly. The latter refers to the physical accessibility of and circulation within venues, but also to cultural, financial and social access to these. Unclear codes of conduct and unwritten rules, unforeseen costs, and an atmosphere that is sometimes perceived as too restrictive all hinder this access. The accessibility of art and culture depends on the location of venues, the arrangement of public transport and the possibility of digital alternatives for those who have limited mobility. 

Shaping transition: Many opportunities available for the taking

Flanders Arts Institute is not an advocate and does not offer concrete policy advice, but rather explores future avenues that emerge from research and input from the sector, which we formulate here as opportunities. We have bundled concrete policy advice issued by interest groups on our online website.

These future paths are more abstract and systemic in nature. It is up to the sector and policymakers to choose whether or not to pursue them, to make this explicit in their plans, and to ensure long-term implementation.

Broaden the view on art, artists, artists’ careers and public

Art is constantly evolving. What can or cannot be considered artistic, let alone high quality, was never set in stone. But today, a growing multiplicity of voices is leading to an even greater diversity of frames of reference. It is important to give visibility and a voice to these diverse perspectives, because this contributes to a more complete and nuanced view of the field. We’re talking here about more than just taste preferences or content. It’s also about presentation contexts, forms, cultural codes, ways of working, and an eye for the many different ways in which art adds value.

Such a broader view can help to valorise practices that are not yet sufficiently visible or appreciated. This also means that (even more) care can often be taken as to who is responsible for selection, assessment and gatekeeping, and who else could or should have a say in this. This applies to juries, those who evaluate and select for organisations, competitions or prizes, and assessment committees.

There is also a need for a broader view of artists’ careers. There is no blueprint, although one sometimes seems to exist in the collective imagination. This is not inconsequential because success tends to be associated with a high rate of production, a high income or a large audience reach. This is unhealthy, especially in the context of overheating, both for the proper functioning of the arts field and for the people who work in it. To counterbalance this, more visibility can be given to the many different ways in which people give substance to their creative work. Especially for starting artists (consider also educational programmes), a broader horizon of future possibilities can reduce the pressure around visibility and production. The art sector work allowance is a good example of how such a nuanced vision can be translated into concrete and policy-related terms.

The audience for art is also more than just those who buy tickets for a performance, concert, film or exhibition, or those who buy a book or an art object. The public participates in participatory work, co-creates programmes, and learns from the results of cross-sectoral practices. Some art reaches many people over a longer period of time, for example long-tail models, or performances that remain in the repertoire for a long time. Other forms, by their very nature, reach only a small audience because they are presented one-on-one, because they concern buildings or sites (architectural culture), or because the work is so site-specific for other reasons that it can hardly or not travel at all.

People who supposedly never engage with art may still encounter a particular work on a daily basis, for example, because they live in a neighbourhood with art in public spaces. Some people appreciate a caring environment in the form of follow-up discussions, space and time for reflection and discussion about what they have experienced. Centres for arts and culture can have returning visitors who feel comfortable there but rarely participate in what is offered.

Meaningful audience engagement then concerns the question of how you involve people in a welcoming and mutually supportive manner in your work or in the creation of art, or not, if they do not feel the need for it. It’s about the impact you can have on people’s lives. Such nuances are important when juries or committees consider the vision of activities and practices regarding public outreach, and especially when the focus risks becoming too much on numbers.

In other words, these questions – what is art, who is an artist, what does an artistic career look like, what is an art audience – are not about definitions, but about assumptions that do not correspond well to reality and are therefore reductive. They place certain narratives, practices and logics at the centre, thereby relegating others to the margins.

Landscape care and landscape enhancement

When the Arts Decree was revised in 2021, two new concepts were introduced. From now on, assessment committees must carry out landscape care within a known budgetary framework. A Landscape Committee supervises landscape care across disciplines. Art organisations that want to be assured of support for two policy periods must take on a landscape-enhancing role.

The decree defines landscape care as “care for the field as a whole, including seeking a balance between, for example, disciplines, relative size, functions, geographical location, innovation and continuity, and the functional coherence between players.” This is a broad definition that touches on care for diversity on many levels. There is no point in specifying the concept with an exhaustive list of ‘criteria’, and this definition also does not do so. It is important, however, to take landscape care seriously when surveying the field, and to continually ask ourselves which dimensions deserve special attention at any given time. The above considerations regarding a broader concept of art can help in this regard.

Landscape care also involves a policy for inflow, advancement and outflow in the arts. In the field, this is given attention in different ways and to varying degrees. There is attention for incoming talent, but competition is fierce. Mid-career artists have specific needs regarding sustainability and continuity, which are not always well met. Especially in visual arts, they find it difficult to maintain a connection with the ecosystem. In music they need more sustained support.

There have also been calls for some time for the development of a policy on – the framework for – outflow: social and business support for organisations that are ‘forced’ to leave the Arts Decree, advice and support for those who decide themselves to no longer apply for the decree’s resources, or a retraining policy or support for career transitions for professional artists (dancers are often mentioned here, many of whom retire at a young age).

The landscape-enhancing role of organisations subsidised for two policy periods is not defined in the decree, but described as “the extent to which the arts organisation takes on a crucial and landscape-enhancing role within the ecosystem of its (sub)sector”. A specification for each of the first ‘batch’ of such structures is stipulated in their management agreements. This was not based on a substantive policy vision for landscape enhancement. Nor does it seem that the creation of this role takes into account the fact that many other arts organisations also have a significant impact on the landscape. A distinctive definition that starts from needs in the field, and from the added value that greater sustainable support can provide, would be useful. The organisations that are currently being subsidised for two periods are fully considering this for the future, but have not yet received a framework from policymakers.

Based on this ten-year guaranteed existence, needs in the field, and distinctive strengths and ambitions of each organisation, can be examined. Many examples can be imagined. Long-term partnerships with smaller or less robust practices could provide stability and support.

Long-term projects with artists potentially impose less time pressure and allow for more experimentation, as well as more room for development or more ambitious international projects. Organisations could engage artists in paid employment for long periods of time – across policy periods – and thus contribute to greater socio-economic security in the arts field. In terms of landscape care, these organisations could coordinate with each other on the artist profiles, genres, art forms or practices that they wish to provide with additional support.

As mentioned, landscape-enhancing work is not the domain of ten-year subsidised organisations alone. Organisations, creators and collectives form networks that have a strengthening and complementary effect in various ways. They share infrastructure, create space for preparing people for positions that are in high demand in the field, facilitate networking where necessary, and focus on knowledge sharing. There are therefore numerous landscape-enhancing initiatives that deserve our attention and support.

Well-being and slowing the pace, with an eye for the interests of artists

The numbers concerning the need for recovery in the arts as a predictor of burnout remain high. Tools, guidelines and regulations to address this exist, but are not implemented everywhere. There are many tasks, expectations, planning burdens and much administrative complexity, and not always enough people to do the work. Moreover, not every art practice has a professional framework or the budget to apply fair practices according to the prevailing standards – and the law. There is a great opportunity in completing what has already been started, namely the best possible protection of the well-being of arts professionals: artists as well as those in support functions. 

Reducing workload involves, among other things, reducing planning burdens and setting realistic ambitions. The latter is a responsibility of every organisation and every individual, but also a collective challenge related to a slowing of the production apparatus, greater depth and sufficient room for development.

A major concern here is that artists and freelance art workers should not be the victims of a necessary correction to the current system. ‘Doing less’ has no short-term impact on the income of a salaried worker, but it may well have an impact on that of an artist or freelancer. You could call it a double-edged sword: when it comes to artists, we hear stories about too much work and impossible schedules just as often as we hear stories about a lack of opportunities. There is no single solution, but we have suggested minor adjustments throughout this Landscape Sketch: more time for artistic development, more critical dialogue before work is created or presented, a broader view of art, distribution, audience reach, presentation contexts, and careers (including at art schools, since they help determine the expectations of incoming artists).

Doing less and working at a slower pace are not the same as blowing off steam or taking it easy. It’s about a better connection where necessary between workload, content and time. It sharpens our priorities as a field and policy: is the well-being of art workers and artists really a non-negotiable? If so, what are we willing to do about it? Are we prepared to bear the possible consequences in terms of quantitative output? Does Flemish arts policy also support this? And can we discuss this with international partners? After all, the problem does not stop at national borders: at European level too, attention is paid to issues such as working time and sustainable competition.

White space: Planned and budgeted

In various disciplines and in the context of multiple challenges, the need for white space is discussed. By this, people mean that they do not want to fully fill their schedules, but want to reserve a chunk of time and budget to give substance to them over the course of a policy or project period. It concerns time for renewal and consultation, experimentation with new ways of working, exchange with peers and colleagues, and more balanced support for creators. It’s always about the need to free up space and resources for what emerges from current events, self-reflection, new opportunities or emergencies. 

The intention to schedule white space emerged in various guises during our sector discussions. Some production or presentation organisations reserve space and resources for creators who require support at short notice. It’s their way of building in enough fairness if they choose to do less: even those who may lack the experience, professionalism or support to come up with artistic proposals well in advance are given a chance.

In addition, people are looking for time to think about the role they themselves, or the organisations they work for, can play in the transition of the arts field: more diverse and concrete implementations of principles such as solidarity, fairness, inclusive working, knowledge sharing and the like. In recent years, we have worked hard on a set of tools, but implementation has not always been easy. People work in diverse constellations, forms and contexts: with limited resources, limited support, focused on very specific needs. Then it’s important to consider for each of these situations which approach is feasible and acceptable to all involved – and that takes time.

There is a deep desire to engage with insights and ideas from reflection programmes: the insights of activists, scientists and experts in the arts field who speak on topics including ecological sustainability, decolonisation and anti-discrimination. People feel that reflective work in the arts too often stops at audience-oriented programmes. Art has the opportunity to play an active role in this. It can apply this knowledge and these insights to its own way of working, engage in strengthening or supporting civil society organisations that are active in this area, or take political and societal positions. Developing an organisational policy around this also takes time.

Knowledge sharing and retention

We identify a need for knowledge sharing and retention in various disciplines and practices. By knowledge we mean not only insights into a particular artistic practice, but also contacts, inspiration, funding sources and good practices. We find that this often involves new types of mediating roles: people with knowledge of art, education or other sectors who set up cross-sectoral projects, art in public spaces or architectural culture, and how to mediate between clients, artists and local residents.

Players in the arts and in compulsory education need exchange and inspiration. Cultuurkuur centralises relevant knowledge, and publiq organises knowledge circulation around informal cultural education. Missing in this, however, is a player actively committed to disseminating best practices, organising study or information days, or other inspiring events focusing on the collaboration between professional arts and compulsory education.

Actors in (supra)local arts and culture policy also need to exchange ideas and coordinate their plans. Local arts and culture consultations prove to be of great value for cohesion, as well as for consultation with policymakers and shared knowledge development. Where such consultation does not exist, inter-municipal collaborations (IGSs) may play a role. But the questions that cities and municipalities face also have a supra-local and Flemish dimension: in terms of landscape care, for example, and of overarching coherence around opportunities for creators and organisations depending on where they are located. 

Similarly, there is a need for up-to-date information on potential partners and funding sources for cross-sectoral practices, learning opportunities on these topics, and solutions to the challenges surrounding the documentation and archiving of this type of work. In collaborations between art and education as well as in cross-sectoral art practices, there is a demand for cross-domain vision development.

For participatory art practices, knowledge of and experience with methodologies are of great importance. Much of that knowledge can in turn be inspiring for the broader arts field. Today this is not yet being properly retained, documented or archived, even though there is a generational change underway, and therefore a sense of urgency concerning passing on this knowledge. 

Taking this one step further, we arrive at the need for a system for arts-wide, representative, and as accessible as possible, consultation on major shared challenges. This can raise important questions that everyone is grappling with – sustainability, justice, security, and the role of art as a civic actor in times of crisis. Such a system or platform can facilitate or support social or even political action, respecting the wishes, concerns, strengths and weaknesses of each player. From there, the ties between the arts sector and the broader civil society can be strengthened, with a view to greater complementarity and mutual reinforcement.

Threats to the arts field in Flanders

In what preceded we raised numerous opportunities and challenges. Sustainable responses involve choices, and most of these have consequences: budgetary, in terms of time and attention, sometimes also in terms of productivity. But time and resources are scarce.

The cost of living has risen sharply in recent years, impacting the purchasing power of people and organisations. How do you, as a producing, presenting or supporting structure, reduce the workload, while at the same time preventing artists from becoming victims of this? How do you make your infrastructure maximally available, while also deploying it to meet your own mandatory income needs? How do you weigh the maximum support for a limited number of artists against the needs of so many other artists? These types of questions will be familiar to many organisations. The more limited the budgets, the more difficult it becomes to find a good balance.

Freedom of speech and action is under pressure in several parts of the world. Despite the considerable autonomy that the arts field in Flanders still enjoys, we have seen examples of political influence or undue administrative interference in recent years. The political and social impact of art – the work, the players, the field – must be protected at all times. 

We hear stories about ‘too much’ from creators and producers, people in distribution, programmers and curators. Too large an artistic offering to be profiled and visible, too many proposals to maintain an overview and to plan artistically. Ways to address the feeling of overproduction were outlined above. In recent years, other – more drastic – ideas have been put forward, such as raising the barriers to an artistic career: think of stricter selection procedures or a higher threshold for access to the Arts Decree. These kinds of measures may seem clearer and more concrete, but that does not make them fair or even effective. Producers already suffer from too much administrative work, creators from too few opportunities to create. We assume that the intention is not to raise barriers, but rather to level the playing field with respect to access and opportunities.

Creators and producers of Flemish-subsidised work in the performing arts and music face challenges in terms of distribution in local cultural institutions. Since the shift in who is responsible for policy, the former cultural centres are no longer encouraged by Flanders to reserve budget and space for this. Similar challenges exist for exhibitions and film screenings. 

Today, the Flemish subsidised offering is an option alongside numerous other possible projects and ambitions around which cultural institutions develop their operations. For quite a few institutions this comes on top of the need for infrastructural renewal.

Especially in live arts, much depends on confirmed dates: assessment committees take this into account and buyout fees are crucial for the revenue models. The less secure the income, the greater the chance of fragmented employment of artists, with all the challenges that this entails as described above.

Internationally, Flemish art is facing increasing competition due to strong promotional support in some countries for the export and promotion of their artistic work, administrative hurdles and complexity, changing networks, and the evolving business models associated with, for example, digitisation of music and film. International co-productions in the performing arts are more difficult to achieve than before.

Quite a few of our art education programmes struggle with budgetary constraints and administrative inflexibility, partly because they fall under larger structures. They argue for more autonomy, partly to improve connections with the professional field.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats of our time. Although the arts field is unable to stop this, it still bears the responsibility to contribute to climate-conscious and ideally even climate-neutral actions. Some art forms (such as design, architecture, visual arts) are by their very nature consciously and explicitly concerned with reuse, circularity and sustainability. There are numerous specific policy interventions possible: from tackling noise pollution caused by cultural events in nature reserves, to subsidies for those who travel by public transport, to the reuse of cutlery and cups. Furthermore, ecological sustainability touches upon art practice in two very important ways: in terms of infrastructure (broadly speaking: buildings, ventilation, energy) and in the area of travel and mobility. Regarding infrastructure adaptation, renewal and reuse, policy is being closely examined because of the budgets and technicalities involved. In terms of international mobility, we are already looking more critically at distribution and tour plans, but more is possible. Sustainable travel – respecting the capacity of the planet and of people – goes hand in hand with tackling other issues, such as the pressure to be as visible as possible and the quantitative assessment of success. The Pulse Cultural Network for Transition, which works across sectors on sustainability issues, operates with budgets that are not in proportion to the severity of the challenges.

When developing this Landscape Sketch, Flanders Arts Institute sought support via hard figures for each frequently heard statement during sector sessions. In doing so, we encountered a weakness that, if not addressed, will become a threat: inadequate data collection. Certainly our data on art experience in education and dissemination, a topic that many people are concerned about, reveal gaps. Data in the UiT databank are not entered or are entered incompletely, just like in the (non-mandatory) local leisure monitor (lokale vrijetijdsmonitor), which data are also not very detailed. Our view of international distribution is – with the exception of subsidised performing arts – even more limited.

The reporting templates used under the Arts Decree are also very complex for many people, leading to varying ways of reporting and interpreting data.

Each additional survey, each new study and each new monitor means extra work for arts professionals. There is a need for consultation to develop a shared and supported vision on data collection and analysis in the long term. What information does the sector and policymakers want to obtain, how much work can they invest in collecting it, and how can the workload be kept within limits?

Discover the Landscape Sketch of the Arts 2025