On House Of Narratives assistance of Badhuistheater Amsterdam in grant writing, a glimpse into the world of cultural funding and how it compares to other countries.
Since 1983, the Badhuistheater is known as an accessible, community-centered creativity serving a multicultural audience and offering a space for young theatre makers to experiment. This small yet impactful theater in Amsterdam Oost located in a former bathing house has carved out a space that bridges local and international cultures. While both programming professional productions and community activities, it has fostered cultural exchange while embracing its role as a low-barrier space for art. In a city renowned for its cultural diversity, the theater's mission to make theater accessible mirrors Amsterdam's own identity—a city where local tradition meets global influence. However, this role presents challenges: the theater’s independence from large-scale subsidies, while a key feature of its ethos, also puts pressure on its financial sustainability. The 2025 proposal addresses this by introducing a hybrid co-creation model, which shifts the theater’s operations toward a more market-driven approach. This evolution, while necessary, raises questions about balancing financial necessity with the preservation of its grassroots, community-first spirit.
A central theme of the proposal is financial sustainability. With a modest annual budget that cannot be compared to the bigger theaters in the city, the Badhuistheater is heavily reliant on ticket sales, small subsidies, and partnerships. The co-creation model introduced in 2024 has been a game-changer for the theater, reducing financial risks by sharing costs and profits with theater companies. The proposal outlines a plan to further diversify income through partnerships with local businesses, sponsorships, and an expansion of the theater's food and beverage services.
Yet, in an increasingly competitive cultural landscape, where even larger theaters struggle for funding, the question remains: Is this enough? While the theater's strategies show promise, the broader issue of sustainable funding for the arts in Amsterdam cannot be overlooked. The Badhuistheater’s financial model may offer a blueprint for smaller cultural institutions, but it also highlights the fragility of such organizations in a system that heavily relies on public funding and shifting cultural policies.
For the theater to truly succeed, it must not only secure the necessary funding but also remain steadfast in its commitment to localism while embracing the opportunities of international collaboration. This balance, if struck correctly, could position the Badhuistheater as a leader in both the local and international theater scenes—a model for how small, independent theaters can thrive in a rapidly globalizing world.
When compared to other European countries, the Dutch approach stands out for its emphasis on self-sustainability and reduced reliance on public subsidies. Countries like France and Germany, for example, maintain robust public funding models that prioritize state support for the arts. In France, cultural funding is deeply ingrained in the national identity, with a strong tradition of state patronage. French theaters benefit from stable, long-term public funding, allowing them to focus more on artistic innovation without the immediate pressure of financial survival. Similarly, Germany’s federal structure supports a well-distributed network of theaters, with local governments providing substantial funding for both large and small cultural institutions.
Further south, countries like Italy and Spain have long-standing traditions of cultural funding, but with different challenges. While both countries provide significant public support for the arts, the bureaucratic processes for obtaining funding can be slow and inefficient. In Italy, many small theaters rely on regional or municipal funding, which is often subject to political changes and budget cuts. Similarly, Spain’s cultural institutions face long wait times for grant approvals, which can delay or even halt projects.
In stark contrast to many European countries, the United States provides minimal public funding for cultural institutions, making the arts scene there a very different landscape. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the primary federal funding body, operates on a comparatively small budget, especially when held up against the substantial state-supported programs seen in countries like France, Germany, or the Netherlands. This limited financial backing from the government forces most arts organizations—including theaters, galleries, and performance spaces—to rely heavily on private donations, corporate sponsorships, and, of course, ticket sales to make ends meet. As a result, the U.S. cultural scene has become increasingly commercialized, where projects with guaranteed mass appeal, celebrity involvement, or blockbuster potential are often prioritized. The pressure to generate immediate revenue often sidelines riskier, more innovative, and experimental works.
On the bright side, culture can actually thrive faster when it’s not tied to funding bodies. When relying on public funding, every step, every show, and every decision has to be documented, reported, and aligned with the funder’s requirements. Your artistic direction ends up shaped by their guidelines, which, some argue, can dilute the authenticity of the work. When you’re less dependent on external financial bodies, there’s more freedom to create without those constraints—allowing art to evolve more organically, without having to tick every bureaucratic box. Another argument for a culture with less funding is that it becomes more aligned with what the public actually wants, which some believe is the true essence of culture—reflecting the desires of the people rather than the abstract, niche creations of artists who, thanks to funding, may prioritize artistic expression over public engagement.
In this context, the Netherlands occupies a middle ground in the cultural funding spectrum. It offers more public support than countries like the UK or the U.S., providing a safety net for cultural institutions that might otherwise falter in a fully market-driven environment. At the same time, there is a strong expectation for these organizations to be financially self-reliant, requiring them to diversify revenue streams beyond government support. This dual approach brings both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it drives cultural organizations to become more entrepreneurial, encouraging them to adapt to market forces and explore innovative ways to generate income. On the other hand, it forces them to devote significant energy to securing funding, which can take away from their focus on artistic pursuits. Moreover, it demands that every cultural maker also be a savvy businessperson. Without strong entrepreneurial skills and grant-writing expertise, maintaining financial stability—and ultimately thriving—in such a competitive cultural landscape becomes increasingly difficult.
The Badhuistheater, for example, is constantly balancing its mission of providing accessible theater with the need to generate sufficient income to stay afloat—a challenge that is less pronounced in countries where state support remains more generous. During the fall of 2024, House Of Narrative worked upon a fundraising proposal for the "Subsidie Periodieke gebiedsgebonden kunst- en cultuuractiviteiten Oost," in which we tried to push an ambitious case for growth and professionalization, aiming to redefine its role in both the local community and the broader international theater scene.
On House Of Narratives assistance of Badhuistheater Amsterdam in grant writing, a glimpse into the world of cultural funding and how it compares to other countries.
House Of Narrative in conversation with professor Daniel Barber, Chair of Architecture History and Theory at TU Eindhoven.
On House Of Narrative delving into the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to uncover untold stories about the Netherlands' role in international development over the decades.
