The last common ground: supporting the arts in a world gone mad
4 March 2025
Elena Polivtseva
When the world feels like it’s spinning off its axis and global politics is increasingly uncertain, the arts often fall to the bottom of policymakers' priorities. Yet, in a time of deepening divides, rising tensions, and growing militarisation, culture - in the words of Pascal Gielen - ‘is perhaps one of the largest common pool resources still available to us’. Culture may even be the last remaining common ground for humanity, no matter how dramatic it sounds. In an era of dwindling resources and uncertainty, how can international cultural collaboration not only survive but flourish? What does a sustainable and equitable cross-border collaboration in the arts look like in 2025?
We recognise that as global and national priorities shift, cultural investment is being pushed further down the agenda. While more funding is undoubtedly needed to sustain the arts, simply advocating for more money is not always the answer. In times of financial constraints, the real challenge is ensuring that available support fuels meaningful transformation. This article, based on the IETM (International network for contemporary performing arts) report The New International: Against All Odds, offers policymakers fresh ideas on how to safeguard and strengthen international artistic collaboration, even in an era of shrinking resources.
Why do artists work internationally?
People in the arts are genuinely curious about the unexplored. Just like the art itself, which is, by nature, a never-ending quest to explore the unknown or even what has yet to exist, expanding the boundaries of what is reachable and visible. This quest can never stop at a national border. Therefore, cultural workers continue to engage with the diversity of the outside world and to engage with the ‘different’.
At the same time, building relationships with peers across borders allows artists to engage in conversations and levels of understanding that may be difficult to find in their local environments. International collaboration provides a space for sharing thought, values, doubts, and ideas with like-minded people, transcending national borders. At a time when nationalism and isolationism are on the rise, the need for a global artistic community has never been more urgent.
“People in the arts are genuinely curious about the unexplored. Just like the art itself, which is, by nature, a never-ending quest to explore the unknown or even what has yet to exist, expanding the boundaries of what is reachable and visible. This quest can never stop at a national border. ”
Interestingly, in cross-border work, artists seek both difference and challenge, even friction, but also safety and shared values. This might seem contradictory, but it is not. Engaging with an international community provides the tools and courage to face local realities - some of which may even be hostile to diversity of ideas.
There is also an existential dimension. Many arts professionals are concerned about the political shift toward nationalism and its impact on funding. Some feel disconnected from national conversations and wary of relying solely on local support. This drives them to seek international partnerships, apply for global funding, and build cross-border networks. By doing so, they strengthen solidarity, expand their audiences, and push back against exclusionary politics, democratic backsliding, and social polarisation.
And let us not forget - many of today’s biggest challenges, from climate change and artificial intelligence to migration and conflict, are global in nature. They cannot be solved within national or local frameworks alone. The arts community understands this and is forging cross-border collaborations to share knowledge and develop new strategies. More than that, international engagement amplifies voices, strengthens advocacy efforts, and drives real change. Whether it's promoting disability justice in the arts, advancing Indigenous rights, or decolonizing cultural relations, international networks give these movements momentum when such conversations are not advancing at a national level.
Cultural policy in times of mistrust
We live in an era when trust is dwindling across different dimensions: between countries, citizens and institutions, as well as among citizens themselves. This trend contributes to a hyper-competitive society, a sense of powerlessness, and ultimately, the weakening of civic engagement and democracy (1).
In the meantime focus points within the art field are slowly shifting, with commoning and building trust emerging as key priorities in response to the world’s radical transformations. While solidarity has long been a value in transnational artistic work, it is increasingly becoming more important, surpassing traditional patterns of transactional connections in the arts. Policymakers should therefore focus on nurturing these emerging, often self-organised models of commoning and solidarity practices.
As Pascal Gielen, professor of sociology at the Antwerp University, stresses in his book Trust. Building on the Cultural Commons:
A common-proofed cultural policy (and regulation) can only be built inductively. A government does not act as an initiator or regulator but as a facilitator of civil initiatives and bottom-up practices. [...] An indicative policy means that the government creates space to [...] ‘tailor’ conditions so that commoners can set their own rules.
In short, a cultural policy in times of polycrisis and growing mistrust, both within societies and globally, can focus on two key elements (read more about each in the following sections):
The first one is strengthening the foundational resilience of the arts sector - networks, practices of sharing resources and knowledge, commoning practices, long-term relationships - and of its international dimension, rather than driving the field to prioritise visibility through growing numbers of short-term and output-driven activities.
The second approach is acting from a place of support, partnership, and trust toward the sector, instead of exerting pressure or perpetuating stifling practices of control.
Supporting relationships, not transactions
Today, the arts sector is stuck in an exhausting project-based cycle, where artists must constantly justify their worth and promise impact to secure funding. Market-driven systems push artists to shape their work into tradable, measurable products. But real sustainability lies in the structures and practices that allow art and collaboration to thrive - long-term networks, alliances, cooperatives, rituals and platforms for commons, and cross-border safety nets. These communities pool resources to provide mutual support in times of crisis, learn from each other, and build resilience. International collaboration is not a transaction - it’s a relationship. Moving beyond a rigid, output-driven framework fosters deeper, fairer exchanges of resources and ideas. Prioritising mutual support, generosity, and shared goals over the scarcity of competitions can lead to more meaningful collaborations.
Bojana Kunst, in IETM’s publication Which Side Are You On? Ideas for Reaching Fair Working Conditions in the Arts, asserts that an artistic performance is not a singular act but rather ‘a dense environment, where multiple practices are enmeshed and at home together’. She refers to this as the ‘biosphere of a performance’, encompassing the structured processes and operations that sustain the organisations and individuals involved. However, policy and funding often focus solely on delivering a single performance to the world, leaving the underlying fabric of this biosphere increasingly frazzled and precarious. Kunst advocates for cultural policies to establish more sustainable models of resource redistribution, ensuring balance among various elements - basically, not only focusing on initiatives and projects aimed as a visible output, but on the foundational links and relationships within the art ecosystem. This call is especially urgent in today’s climate of economic cuts and diminishing public support, where ‘less loud’ yet essential practices - integral to the ongoing reproduction of life and activity - remain invisible and struggle for recognition. When it comes to international partnerships, this means shifting the focus from prioritising the final output to taking care of the partnership itself.
As Kunst highlights, ‘projects somehow destroy the time for political alliances and complex social processes, and erase durations of alliances’.
Indeed, the ‘projectification’ of the arts sector and an overemphasis on product over process exacerbate the fragmentation and atomisation of the field. Engaging in a constant project mode - typically a transition from A to B, artists remain less open to current impulses and arising needs within a community, having little space to change course and engage in something that emerges as essential. Moreover, hopping from project to project forces them to treat their foundational, day-to-day operations as lesser priorities.
These trends affect artistic quality, audience relationships, well-being of arts professionals, sustainability or careers and organisations, environmental responsibility, and the time and resources required to develop innovative collaboration models. In times of hardship, art workers could instead embed themselves in a stronger and more resilient ‘art biosphere’. Shifting focus and funding toward more process- and practice-oriented activities - rather than project sprints and marathons centred on producing end products - would make the art community more connected and resilient, no matter what crises may arise.
“The ‘projectification’ of the arts sector and an overemphasis on product over process exacerbate the fragmentation and atomisation of the field. Engaging in a constant project mode, artists remain less open to current impulses and arising needs within a community, having little space to engage in something that emerges as essential”
Foster redistribution of power
In cross-border collaborations that thrive for a better world, it is crucial to address injustices and advance decolonisation processes. Funding strategies and policies are well placed to support the art field in the redistribution of power in favour of those who have been deliberately and systematically oppressed and excluded. This requires a much bolder and more transformative rethinking of collaboration structures, rather than merely adding criteria such as ‘fairness’ and ‘inclusion’ to existing mainstream funding programmes, or simply requiring to include people from certain countries or minority groups in the partnership. In doing so, funders must be vigilant to ensure that resources are not shifted in ways that replicate outdated governance and leadership patterns elsewhere, thereby creating new inequalities.
When working globally and aiming to engage underrepresented communities, it is essential for cultural funders to refrain from exporting and fostering unsustainable practices and approaches. These are practices of hyper-mobility, project-based and highly competitive funding models, quantification of culture’s value, and more. On the contrary, funders can explore learning more sustainable approaches from other contexts, for example, the Indigenous peoples’ relationships with nature, place, community, generations and ownership.
Rather than being forced into predefined structures and dominant notions of power, success, quality, sustainability, and resources, underrepresented communities could be supported in creating their own spaces, amplifying their narratives, and taking control of their agency.
At the level of funding programmes, the redistribution of power means allowing and encouraging diverse partners to be fully represented in the project and contribute on equal terms. Fairness and equity are not only about what you get (fair and equitable remuneration); but also about what you bring (equity of perspectives, values and voices within a partnership).
Reinventing funding models in more fair terms is about shifting from simply inviting ‘margins’ into the existing ‘mainstream’ to rethinking the very notion of the ‘mainstream’. People who are typically marginalised and not heard should be empowered to contribute their systems of knowledge, notions of quality, and artistic relevance, and be supported to lead cross-border partnerships.
“Fairness in an international partnership is not only about what you get - fair and equitable remuneration, but also about what you bring - equity of perspectives, values, and voices within a partnership.”
Politics of trust and partnership
Some funding programmes - especially those focused on promoting fair practices - monitor how project partners from different countries distribute resources. However, this oversight can become overly controlling or top-down when funders do not trust that their beneficiaries’ can ensure fairness on their own. A more effective approach would be to start from a place of trust, acknowledging that international partners genuinely strive for fair collaboration but may need guidance in defining, measuring, and applying fairness in practice. Understanding each other's unique contexts - and how these differences should shape resource distribution - can be challenging and burdensome for arts professionals.
So, what role should the funder play beyond merely giving money and monitor its distribution? To begin with, the funder should avoid advancing unfairness, for example, by distorting the balance within the partnership, giving too much power to the ‘lead partner’ or forcing it to assume disproportionately large responsibilities; installing exclusionary payment procedures; or imposing non-transparent communication flows. Funders should also move away from pushing for fierce competition that hinders sharing knowledge and resources within the sector. Implementing these measures can be a challenge within existing funding programmes that are under-resourced but oriented towards large-scale outputs and visibility, and often a speedy production. Therefore, we may need to rethink the very foundations of these programmes and possibly test new ones.
The role of the funder, then, would shift from prescribing protocols and controlling their execution to providing applicants with sufficient time to get to know each other and helping them develop relevant roadmaps to define the parameters of fairness within their specific project. Funders’ support can be implemented through actions such as collecting and analysing good practices from the field of international collaboration, gathering and pooling data on various aspects of local contexts, and guiding beneficiaries on how this information can help them develop agreements and fair practice codes for their specific collaboration. The funder can propose several basic blueprints for sharing resources and let applicants choose and adapt the one that fits best - or come up with their own.
Reframe the art & money relationship
Trust or mistrust towards the art field are clearly reflected in how funders understand, frame, and influence the relationship between artists and (public) money. This is about which activities are funded, how artists are expected to prove they deserve the funding, and how they report about its use.
On the one hand, the relationship between the artist and money is clear: in the world of the money-driven economy, financial resources are essential for securing a decent living and for sustaining one’s artistic practice. Economic precarity ultimately leads to social, mental, and political precarity of the art field and prevents artists from developing civic agency.
On the other hand, art workers tend to prioritise intangible values over financial gains. This is one of the factors making the art field precarious.
But if we shift the perspective, could this focus on intangible rewards serve as a basis for granting them the trust necessary to receive a basic income from the state? Several studies have shown that artists benefiting from basic or guaranteed income schemes continue to work just as much as before and invest more in the quality of their work. Furthermore, those on guaranteed income are more likely to attract grants and awards, advancing in their careers. Establishing basic income schemes for artists would have a transformative effect on the field and international cultural collaborations would then stem from artistic relevance and values, rather than being distorted by an unbalanced distribution of available funding.
However, when it comes to international partnerships, it is hard to imagine a world in which every artist from every corner of the world would get a basic income. Nonetheless, this should not prevent funders supporting international cultural collaboration from incorporating the most beneficial elements of basic income frameworks into their programmes. This means striving for ‘no strings attached’ funding - low thresholds for accessing the scheme, minimal requirements, fewer priorities to tackle, fewer boxes to tick, and reduced expectations regarding deliverables. Following the conclusions of research on basic income, this should lead to a more thriving and quality result (2).
Furthermore, reporting and application tasks are too laborious and disproportionately focused on meeting funders’ requirements rather than benefiting artists, organisations, or audiences. As budgets tighten and competition intensifies, activities like preparing funding applications and reporting are likely to become even more time-consuming, leading to unpaid labour or the need to spend money on external fundraising and reporting support. This way, access to funding programmes can evolve towards being ever more exclusive and draining people’s resources, taking energy away from creating art, engaging with audiences, and building a meaningful relationship within a cross-border partnership.
What could alternative application processes for a cross-border funding scheme look like? First, they should provide enough time for the development of genuine, long-term partnerships, foster deeper exchanges, and enable collaborative work and bottom-up co-creation. A more effective application mechanism would allow applicants to define their project as much as possible on their own, rather than in response to the funder's priorities, starting with values, priorities, and purpose. This approach would enable artists and organisations to be proactive, bringing their ideas and needs to the table, rather than forcing them to fit into a rigid framework dictated by the funding stream.
Examples of alternative funding models are open calls for project pitches, two-stage applications, long-term structured support for individual artists and small organisations (not only large institutions), or subsidies allowing institutions to employ artists for extended periods instead of engaging them on project-specific contracts. Other models include seed grants for testing new ideas and approaches. Moreover, some art professionals recognise the value of random or semi-random selection methods, such as a lottery system, that can reduce the burden of endless applications, rigid funding requirements, and constant competition for public money. It is important to test these and other alternative models and learn from the results of these pilots to shape a more relevant funding system - one that embraces diverse funding modalities and does not drain resources meant for creating art on writing applications or force the sector to fit its creativity into predefined boxes.
Rethink impact
Revolutionising the relationship between funds, funders, and beneficiaries starts with rethinking evaluation. Instead of rigid, funder-driven reporting that prioritises short-term, quantitative results, evaluation should focus on meaningful impact, learning, and long-term contributions to partnerships and local art scenes.
Key questions - such as how collaborations evolved, what challenges arose, and whether the project sparked further artistic impact - are often overlooked. Evaluation should be a mutually-beneficial dialogue, fostering trust and reflection rather than a bureaucratic exercise. Applicants should be able to propose their own assessment methods, shaping evaluation as a tool for improvement rather than compliance.
Beyond measuring outcomes, evaluation can itself create impact by capturing valuable insights and shaping sustainable collaboration models. Funding schemes should encourage beneficiaries to reflect on their processes and explore whether their working structures could serve as prototypes for fairer partnerships.
In international collaborations, evaluation should also involve local communities, ensuring their perspectives and experiences contribute to the process. Importantly, different projects require different evaluation methods - one-size-fits-all approaches fail to capture the diversity of artistic work, and attempts to compare evaluation results across different art projects can be misleading. Alternative models, such as developmental evaluation, offer more flexible, real-time feedback, allowing projects to adapt and evolve effectively.
***
The arts are facing too many pressures today - budget cuts, attacks on artistic freedom, and political manipulation. Despite this, the arts community remains committed to global solidarity, resisting local pressures, and fostering meaningful relationships over mere transactions. This commitment also means rebalancing power dynamics, practicing justice and trust, and ensuring fair resource distribution. A sustainable arts ecosystem depends on recognising that art is work, and artists deserve dignity and support.
If we fail to uphold the international dimension of the arts today, we risk losing their vital role in fostering cross-border trust and environmental care - losses that will be felt for generations to come. Whether power-holders realise it or not, culture and the arts play a tremendous role today.
Download the full report on the website of IETM.
(1) Gielen, P 2024, Trust. Building of the Cultural Commons, Valiz, Amsterdam, pp. 16, 18
(2) Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Ireland 2023, Basic Income for the Arts Initial Impact Assessment (6-month); Wijngaarden, Y., Berkers, P., Kimenai, F., & Everts, R. (2024). Basic income, post-precarious outcome? How creative workers perceive participating in an experiment with basic income. Cultural Trends, 1–16. Link; Creatives Rebuild New York, Guaranteed Income for Artists: Preliminary Findings.
Picture: To go around the world [False Start] - Gil Heitor Cortesão (1967) by Pedro Ribeiro Simões.
