Dutch art criticism is under serious threat. Existing funding opportunities prove ill-suited, and several journals are on the verge of collapse. Current policy does not appear to recognise or sufficiently support the reach and relevance of publications that engage in critical reflection on art. Mister Motley recently gave a clear signal: after 22 years, the magazine is facing potential closure. In response to this call for help and broader unrest in the field, Platform BK asked art critic Laurens Otto to speak with ten journals and online magazines. What’s going wrong, and what is needed to improve the situation?
What is Art Criticism?
Art criticism began in 1747, when someone in Paris suggested that art should no longer be displayed in a palace but in salons, accessible to the public.[1] This marked a shift in which it was not the court, the guild, or the state, but the public who could judge art. Not the funder, nor the market, nor the museum itself, but… the public. Whereas communications departments target specific audiences, art critics – just like artists –address an undefined public. Art criticism enables people to constitute themselves as a public, thereby making art a public matter; it makes art public. That is the democratic function of art criticism.
Where Do We Stand Now?
Until the cuts imposed by then-State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra in 2011–2012, the Mondriaan Fund (then still the Mondriaan Foundation and BKVB Fund) provided around €400,000 annually to art journals. After the prohibition of government subsidies for journals during Zijlstra’s infamous austerity round, it was announced in 2015 that from 2017, journals could once again apply for funding from cultural funds — though no additional budget was allocated.[2] Minister Jet Bussemaker followed advice from the Council for Culture, which stressed the importance of supporting professional journals for their role in debate, reflection, and cultural development.[3] For some publications, this came too late: Mister Motley had already gone digital in 2013, and Kunstbeeld ceased to exist in 2015 after 39 years. The new scheme allowing journals to apply for structural support quietly disappeared at the end of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when attention was elsewhere. Over the same period, space for art reviews and in-depth reflection in mainstream media has also declined.
A parallel development is the discontinuation of the Prijs voor de Jonge Kunstkritiek (Young Art Criticism Prize) after 2022. When the Mondriaan Fund took over part of its organisation in 2008 (it was originally established in 1995 as the Jan Bart Klaster Prize), the name was changed to place more emphasis on nurturing “young” talent. Every two years, prizes were awarded in categories such as Essay and Review, with occasional extra categories for online criticism or “innovative critical practices”. Winners were mentored by professionals and published in newspapers and journals, helping to build their profiles. The prize was widely supported; at its final edition in 2022, it was backed (also financially) by de Appel, Kunstinstituut Melly, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Van Abbemuseum, M Leuven, Flemish Cultural House de Brakke Grond, Mu.ZEE and Z33.
Art journals (including online magazines, which I will collectively refer to in this text as “journals” for readability) currently depend on a fragile mix of subscriptions, individual sales, advertising revenue, institutional partnerships, sponsorships, donations, unpaid labour, and (potentially) project funding. Of the journals distributed in the Netherlands, only De Witte Raaf receives structural funding — albeit from the Flemish government. The most relevant project grant in the Netherlands is the Kunst Media scheme at Mondriaan Fonds, which supports “publishers or individuals working as curators, critics, social content creators or journalists”.[4] Funding can not be used for regular operations or ongoing costs. In addition to artistic quality, “innovative quality” is a key selection criterion. Individual “art observers” may also apply for research support for up to six months — previously twelve.
Meanwhile, calls are growing louder to reverse a cultural policy trend that is increasingly neglecting art criticism. At the end of 2022, Platform BK published Who’s Paying the Art Writer? by Jue Yang, which mapped the precarious conditions of art writers and highlighted the absence of fair practice.[5] In November 2023, nine platforms for art criticism sent an urgent letter to the Council for Culture, calling for the safeguarding of the reflective function in the new cultural policy framework from 2029 onwards.[6] There is concern that there may no longer be room for critical reflection. The letter remains unanswered.
Following Mister Motley’s urgent message regarding inadequate funding, the magazine co-hosted a discussion with De Balie last month to explore structural changes in the art field.[7] Editors, writers, artists, curators, directors, fund representatives, and chairs of the Boekmanstichting, Akademie van Kunsten and AICA Netherlands[8] When Joke de Wolf, chair of AICA Netherlands, pointed out that the Prijs voor de Jonge Kunstkritiek is no longer awarded and there is no longer any structural support for art criticism, a Mondriaan Fund representative replied: “That ship has sailed.”
To continue that nautical metaphor: what winds are blowing, and which course should we chart? But more importantly: who exactly is the ship?
Research Method and Timeline
On 13 May 2025, eleven journals were approached with a questionnaire to identify the problems and opportunities they perceive. The questions focused on positioning, collaborations, funding and subsidies, remuneration, distribution, and recognition. Ten journals –De Witte Raaf, Glean, Hard//hoofd, kunstlicht, Metropolis M, Mister Motley, Museumtijdschrift, Simulacrum, Tangents, and Tubelight –responded, mostly with three-page answers. Based on their input and unresolved questions from the 22 May discussion at De Balie, Platform BK submitted specific follow-up questions to the Mondriaan Fund. These responses were also included in this report. Additional missing information was gathered through conversations with individual art critics, journalists, policy officers, and board members. On 16 June this article was shared with the Mondriaan Fund to verify the accuracy of the depiction of their previous input.
Findings
The study was prompted by Mister Motley’s urgent message about its own uncertain future. The broader inquiry revealed a more systemic problem: four journals indicated they could only operate for a few more months, and might soon cease to exist. This includes long-established journals with seemingly robust models.
For instance, kunstlicht, which celebrates its 45th anniversary this November, lost key funding when a supporting research institute was dismantled. The Vrije Universiteit has not yet promised continued support. Three other journals face such uncertain income that they can only plan a few months ahead. Even within this precarious field, there are disparities. Two journals report healthy operations with paid editorial teams, and four others, though they also pay their editors, are overburdened – particularly when editors-in-chief must also handle communications, marketing, distribution, and fundraising. Of the four journals where editors are not compensated for core work, Tangents and Tubelight are run by editors with other professional jobs. The pro bono work at kunstlicht and Simulacrum is rooted in their academic embedding – where experience in writing, editing, and publishing is seen as the primary reward. Their main vulnerability lies in the continual need to find new unpaid volunteers.
Nearly all journals combine print and digital formats. Museumtijdschrift even has a website and a dedicated app with its own publication rhythm. Some also produce podcasts, with Mister Motley’s Kunst is Lang being the most prominent. The extra effort required to maintain multiple media platforms is not always acknowledged by funding bodies. As Metropolis M editor-in-chief Domeniek Ruyters notes:
“Digital requires far more production. We’re doing more with less money. Managing all channels demands enormous effort from shrinking teams. Digitisation hasn’t replaced print; it has been added on top. That’s something funders, so focused on innovation (rather than quality and content), struggle to accept. ‘Old media’ are just as relevant as ever, if not more.”
Despite growing pressure, many journals strive to maintain existing publication rhythms. Metropolis M reports publishing three times more content than 15 years ago, when it still received structural support from the Mondriaan Fund. To fairly pay contributors, Tangents now publishes just one article per month.
Across the board, the ten journals raise two key alarm bells:
1. The value of journals is widely recognised by readers, artists, institutions, and academies, but funding is often inadequate. Existing project grants rarely match the needs of journals.
2. There is a noticeable decline in critical art writing, particularly in-depth analytical work.
Alarm Point 1: Project Grants for Art Criticism — A Poisoned Gift
The editors of Tangents summarise the biggest need succinctly:
“There should be structures of core funding available for publications.”[9]
Especially the six journals that are able to pay their editors and writers stress the need for structural funding above all else. Existing project-based grants do not fit their core mission, which is publishing journals. The call to change this is emphatic:
“Although we at Tubelight operate without subsidies, we find it important that more structural funding opportunities become available. This would allow platforms to build sustainable networks rather than jump from project to project.” – Jip Hinten, editor at Tubelight
“Project-based funding doesn’t suit us. We don’t plan a year in advance. We respond to what’s on offer, that has been our approach for decades. Reintroducing structural support would therefore be very welcome.” – Domeniek Ruyters, editor-in-chief at Metropolis M
“We’re hampered by the fact that we have limited access to funds that support our fixed operational costs. The grants that suit us tend to be project-based and expect programming beyond our usual four issues per year. We don’t have the time or space for that. A fixed monthly sum to cover core costs (printing and back-office) is our greatest priority.” – Vita Ostendorf, co-editor-in-chief at Simulacrum
“The time-bound nature of project funding doesn’t match the real rhythm of a journal trying to build a sustainable readership. ‘Project’ implies you’re funded for something in addition to the core operation—meaning extra work.” – Kathleen Weyts, editor-in-chief at GLEAN
When the Mondriaan Fund discontinued structural subsidies for journals in 2020, the Kunst Media scheme was introduced. Twice a year, funding may be requested for “series of articles, long reads and podcasts that are published in/on (online) magazines, newspapers, social media channels or other online platforms.”[10] The biggest issue with this scheme is its requirement for “innovative quality”. It cannot be used for core activities like continuing an existing project or routine editorial work. This is a strange and arguably unsustainable hoop to jump through.
“Kunst Media, the largest national scheme Motley can currently apply to, reveals the lack of a proper foundation for art criticism. It’s a project-based grant that doesn’t support the basics needed to even submit an application. And once funding is granted, managing it becomes yet another burden.” – Laure van den Hout, editor-in-chief at Mister Motley
Journals are forced to churn out experimental ideas, while the foundations of their operation remain unsupported. The three editors of Tangents — Becket Flannery, Annie Goodner, and Isabelle Sully — articulate this tension clearly:
“The format of the subsidies that are applicable—in particular we’re thinking of the Mondriaan Art Media grant, which we are grateful to have received—often requires art writing platforms to come up with a fun, kooky idea for the distribution of their work (so many first-time podcasts come out of this grant category, for instance). What this is means is that we are forced to be busy thinking up ideas and building temporary skill sets that end up distracting from the core task of properly commissioning writing, and therefore focusing properly on the fostering of a strong art writing practice in the Netherlands. Project grants such as the Art Media grant fail to understand that a publication is often long-term and requires support for the same operational costs that an institution or organization faces. Instead, funds like Mondriaan seem to punish publications for the same long-term planning that they look for in institutions. Instead, we are asked to come up with innovative (short-term) projects that undermine our abilities to support the day-to-day work of the publication, the support of writers, editors and designers. We need fewer podcasts, fewer buzzy symposia that 25 people attend. We need subsidies that understand and value the behind-the-scenes creative and editorial work that happens inside a publication. Publishing platforms are organisations that need structural grounding, full stop. Yet, in the Netherlands it often feels that the (aggressive) push to professionalise on [the] part of art presentation organisations is not directed towards art publishing. This can only lead one to think that it is not taken seriously. The irony here being that striving for art institutional growth (and growth only) goes hand in hand with a strong writing scene. How do our international peers and audiences first learn about the shows that are happening in the Netherlands? Through writing—it actually travels.”[11]
The Kunst Media scheme’s focus on “innovative quality” may make sense for individual authors, but it disrupts the core activity of journals. In a recent interview, Laure van den Hout, editor-in-chief of Mister Motley, compared it to a beautifully furnished house; with curtains and a cosy sofa but with no foundation.[12] A hollow push for innovation ends up blocking real innovation, which is inherently part of art criticism. As Boris Groys argued in his essay “On the New”, the new does not appear from scratch, it emerges through the mediation of the museum (i.e. the art world as a whole).[13] Radical ideas already exist in studios, archives, and collections awaiting critics and curators to contextualise them as new. How can we encourage funders to support the very platforms that have already proven they can do this?
Alarm Point 2: A Lack of Criticism
The issue is not only how art criticism should be funded, but also what kind of criticism is being written. What is missing? From conversations with ten journals, it is clear that in-depth critical reflection – that is: art criticism – is lacking in visibility. There is too little space for thorough yet accessible art reviews; too little critical reflection on broader, current themes within the art world. There is a lack of agenda-setting criticism: writing that not only engages existing discourse but also shapes it. There is also insufficient interest or capacity from journalistic outlets to address institutional issues. Writers are often encouraged to stick to “purely” artistic themes. Systemic problems, like structural misconduct or boundary-crossing behaviour have therefore remained unspoken for too long.
There is a vast underutilised space between academic journals and public magazines; a space that connects current events with broader art history to show that everything new has a backstory. Media that bring together artists, academics, historians, curators, policymakers, critics, and literary authors, and connect them with a public.
Conclusion
Perhaps the two alarm points can be summarised in one conclusion: current funding mechanisms are inadequate, and the essential mission of art criticism, in-depth critique, is eroding.
“Art criticism has long been the neglected stepchild of the Dutch cultural system. Discourse is not seen as a natural part of the arts field, but as a by-product and is treated accordingly by funders. Other countries see things differently.” – Domeniek Ruyters, editor-in-chief at Metropolis M
The Mondriaan Fund refers to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, stating that it has not been explicitly tasked with supporting art criticism: “Art criticism is not part of the Ministry’s mandate to the Mondriaan Fund.”[14] However, there is room for support within the operation of the fund.[15] Statutorily, the Mondriaan Fund has a fairly broad task: to promote visual arts and cultural heritage in the broadest possible sense.[16] There is no clear reason why this mandate should exclude sustainable support for art criticism, especially since the Mondriaan Fund is currently the only national body providing funding for specialist arts writing. Other cultural funds offer multi-year grants for architecture, design, and literary criticism.
So why was the Prijs voor de Jonge Kunstkritiek suspended, despite wide institutional support and a proven track record of launching careers?[17] The Fund explains:
“The Mondriaan Fund organises the Prize on its own initiative to encourage new voices in the arts, and we want to continue doing that. In 2022, the number and quality of entries were disappointing. We entered discussions with our partners about the future of the Prize.”
Partners say they had not heard these concerns before. Nonetheless, the Fund states: “The Mondriaan Fund, as initiator, wants a solid and sustainable future for the Prize.”
There is cautious hope that the Prize will return. But since the 2022 edition, no external coordinator has been involved, the website (including the archive) is offline due to unpaid bills, and there has been no public announcement about its future. While this article was still under embargo, Eelco van der Lingen, director of the Mondriaan Fund, expressed his reservations about this sketch in a personal statement on social media. He stated the Prize ended due to low participation and a jury decision that submissions did not reflect the diversity of the field. AICA Netherlands refutes this claim and its board states that attempts to discuss the Prize’s future with the Fund have so far been fruitless.
Given how widely supported this initiative was, it would be a shame if it vanished. Previously, eight different museums and institutions collectively provided 75% of the budget. The worst-case scenario is that the whole prize disappears if the Mondriaan Fund withdraws without a proper handover. When asked what would be needed to reinstate the Prize, the Fund did not respond. Later, it stated it hopes to award the Prize again in 2026, without specifying the format.[18] Since the Fund has expressed a clear desire to support art criticism via project grants and this Prize, it is important that this is followed up with real commitment.
What Next?
Who in the end is “the ship” in the statement “That ship has sailed,” when we questioned the absence of structural support for art criticism? It is comforting to realise the Mondriaan Fund is not the only ship, nor is the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. We are all the ship together as art critics, artists, curators, policy officers, administrators.
Perhaps in recent years, the art world has focused too much on le politique (the political) and has lost sight of la politique (the practice of politics). A needless wall has arisen between a field full of radical ideas rendered toothless and a seemingly technocratic politics: both worlds a little out of touch. That wall must come down, or at least be made transparent. A bridge must be built so that policy better meets the needs of the field.
This is precisely the role of intermediary institutions such as the Boekmanstichting, AICA, and especially the Raad voor Cultuur (Council for Culture). Bureaucratic pressure from funding bodies has caused institutional departments for business control, fundraising, and marketing to swell, leaving less money for programming, reflection, and research.
Artists are supported to develop their work, and institutions are supported to present it. But the final step, the journals that bring that work to the public, is not sufficiently covered. Exhibitions are abundant, but channels to discuss and contextualise them are too few. As funds begin to reposition themselves in anticipation of a possible new cultural policy from 2029 onward, there is a real risk that art criticism will be wrongly dismissed as niche and further marginalised. The opposite is true: supporting art criticism is a logical and vital investment in the democratic foundation of culture.[19]
This is not merely a call for more money, but an invitation for funds, institutions, and journals to find a shared path out of the current impasse. “Lobbying” may be a dirty word in the Netherlands, but it is exactly what will be needed in the coming years to protect and promote the value of art criticism. More of us should stand in that doorway before the doors quietly shut leaving us out. Readers, writers, journals,[20] institutions,[21] and funding institutions[22] all have an essential role to play. In a democratic society, art criticism is indispensable — as a vibrant discursive culture of writing that secures art as a public good.
Laurens Otto is an art critic, curator, and policy adviser, and a member of Platform BK.
Footnotes
[1] This was Étienne La Font de Saint-Yenne (1688-1771), with the publication of Réflexions sur l’état de la peinture en France, published in The Hague in 1747. For an excellent reflection on this period, see Thomas E. Crow, Painters and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Yale: 1987).
[2] The full explanation from the Mondriaan Fund: “In 2013, the fund was ordered by the ministry to stop supporting journals. Support was later permitted, but without budgets being made available. In 2020, the possibility of structural subsidies for journals ended. Journals were previously awarded within the multi-year funding for presentation institutions, which came at the expense of awarding a grant to an institution.” The Mondriaan Fund in response to questions from Platform BK, May 28, 2025.
[3] “Dutch art magazines: inventive”, Arjen Ribbens, NRC, June 24, 2015.
[4] “Deelregeling Kunst Media”, Staatscourant van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, December 31, 2024.
[5] Jue Yang, “Who’s paying the art writer?”, Platform BK, November 1, 2022.
[6] The letter was sent by nineteen editors from Archis/VOLUME, De Reactor, Filmkrant, Hard//hoofd, Metropolis M, Mister Motley, Schokkend Nieuws, Theaterkrant, and Tubelight.
[7] A recording of the full event ‘Niet klagen, maar vragen: hoe bouwen we aan een duurzaam kunstenveld?’, that took place on May 22, 2025, at De Balie, Amsterdam, can be viewed on this link.
[8] AICA (Association internationale des critiques d’art) was founded in Paris after World War II to revitalize art criticism, which had been severely weakened by repression under fascist regimes. AICA now has over 5,000 members in 95 countries.
[9] Direct quote by the editors of Tangents
[10] https://www.mondriaanfonds.nl/en/apply-for-a-grant/grants/art-media/
[11] Direct quote by Annie Goodner of Tangents
[12] Jorne Vriens, “In gesprek met Laure van den Hout: Om ons heen kalft het culturele veld steeds verder af,” in Mister Motley, May 16, 2025.
[13] Boris Groys, “On the New,” in Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics, no. 38 (2000): 5–23.
[14] The Mondriaan Fund in response to questions from Platform BK, May 28, 2025.
[15] “Although it is not a direct mandate, the Mondriaan Fund considers art criticism in a diverse range of magazines, online platforms, social media, and newspapers an important element within the sector. The Mondriaan Fund also recognizes that technological and social developments necessitate looking beyond traditional views of art criticism, the media in which it is expressed, and the audiences it serves.” Ibid..
[16] “Maintaining, social and geographical dissemination, or otherwise expansion, the demand for and production of visual art and cultural heritage […] by, among other things, promoting supply and demand and fostering a climate receptive to visual art and cultural heritage, and everything related to this or that can contribute to it, all in the broadest sense of the word.” See: “Statuten Mondriaan Fonds,” Staatscourant, no. 3455, February 12, 2012.
[17] An impact study was also conducted a few years ago that demonstrated a causal link between winning the prize and further commissions and professional development for art critics. For me, receiving this prize in 2014 was a defining moment, especially since I was still a student at the time. The prize also included a commission from the Mondriaan Fund to write essays about Rana Hamadeh and Saskia Noor van Imhoff as part of the Prix de Rome: precisely the incentive that makes further steps in the “real” professional field possible.
[18] The Mondriaan Fund in response to a preliminary version of this piece, June 16, 2025.
[19] This was also acknowledged in a recent policy plan of the Mondriaan Fund: “Connection requires reflection and mediation, such as in the form of art books and magazines or in the form of (museum) research […]. The Fund wants to […] stimulate experimentation and art criticism at a time when these are under pressure.” Beleidsplan 2017–2020. Verdieping en versterking van de vrijhaven van verbeelding, pp. 11, 30.
[20] Meanwhile, magazines are trying to consolidate. At the initiative of Simon van den Berg (editor-in-chief of Theaterkrant) and Jochum Veenstra (editor-in-chief of Hard//hoofd), various magazines for visual arts, film, performing arts, and literature were brought together on June 17th at Theater De Richel (Amsterdam) to jointly discuss pressing challenges.
[21] It is also up to institutions to contribute to an ecosystem that values and supports art criticism beyond simple reviews. This can be done, for example, by ensuring that art criticism is available in the museum shop, or by giving all staff a free subscription. Journals can also be supported in establishing joint public programs if they lack the resources to do so themselves, especially smaller, student-run journals.
[22] An interesting new step was recently taken by Adyen’s Sub3 Foundation, which explicitly strives to build trusted relationships with its beneficiaries and multi-year supporting initiatives.