ESSAY: DIAMOND INVESTMENT & THE NEW OIL
by Rosa te Velde
Around 1960, Dutch television broadcast its first talent show, a concept imported from America. ‘Nieuwe
Oogst’ (New Harvest) was initially made in the summer months on a small budget. It turned out that talent
shows were a cheap way of making entertaining television: participants seized the opportunity to become
famous by showcasing their tricks, jokes, creating entertainment and spectacle — in return for coffee and
Talent shows have been around since time immemorial, but the concept of talent development
— the notion of the importance of financial support and investment to talent — is relatively new. Since the
rise of the information society and knowledge economy in the 1970s, the notion of ‘lifelong learning’ has
become ever more important. Knowledge has become an asset. Refresher courses, skill development and
flexibility are no longer optional, and passion is essential. You are now responsible for your own happiness and
success. You are expected to ‘own’ your personal growth process. In 1998, McKinsey & Company published
‘The War for Talent’. This study explored the importance of high performers for companies, and how to
recruit, develop and motivate talented people and retain them as employees. In the past few decades, talent
management has become an important element in companies’ efforts to maximise their competitiveness,
nurture new leaders or bring about personal growth. Sometimes, talent management is aimed at the company
as a whole, but it is more likely to focus on young, high-potential employees who either are already delivering
good performances or have shown themselves to be promising.2
It was social geographer Richard Florida who made the connection between talent and
creativity, in his book ‘The Rise of the Creative Class’ (2002). In this book, he drew the — irreversible — link
between economic growth, urban development and creativity. A hint of eccentricity, a bohemian lifestyle
and a degree of coolness are the determining factors for ‘creativity’ that provide space for value creation.
His theory led to a surge in innovation platforms, sizzling creative knowledge regions and lively creative hubs
and breeding grounds. The talent discourse became inextricably linked with the creative industry. The Global
Creativity Index, for instance, set up by Florida (in which the Netherlands was ranked 10th in 2015), is based
on the three ‘Ts’ of technology, talent and tolerance. The talent phenomenon really took off in the world of
tech start-ups, with innovation managers fighting for the most talented individuals in Silicon Valley. ‘Talent is
the new oil’.
The idea that talent can grow and develop under the right conditions is diametrically opposed
to the older, romantic concept of a God-given, mysterious ‘genius’. The modern view sees talent as not
innate (at least, not entirely so), which is why giving talent money and space to develop makes sense. Like the
Growing Diamond (groeibriljant), the Dutch diamond purchase scheme in which diamonds can become ‘ever
What is the history of cultural policy and talent development in the Netherlands? Whereas
before the Second World War the state had left culture to the private sector, after the war it pursued an
active ‘policy of creating incentives and setting conditions’.3 The state kept to the principles of Thorbecke
and did not judge the art itself.4 But literary historian Bram Ieven argues that a change took place in the 1970s.
It was felt art needed to become more democratic, and to achieve that it needed to tie in more with the
market: “[…] from a social interpretation of art (art as participation), to a market-driven interpretation of the
social task of art (art as creative entrepreneurship).”5 The Visual Artists’ (Financial Assistance) Scheme (BKR)
and later the Artists’ Work and Income Act (WWIK) gave artists and designers long-term financial support if
they did not have enough money, provided they had a certificate from a recognised academy or could prove
they had a professional practice.6
It was Ronald Plasterk’s policy document on culture, ‘The Art of Life’ (2007), that first
stressed the importance of investing in talent, as so much talent was left ‘unexploited’.7 Plasterk called in
particular for more opportunities to be given to ‘outstanding highly talented creatives’, mainly so that the
Netherlands could remain an international player. Since then, ‘talent development’ has become a fixture in
cultural policy. Halbe Zijlstra also acknowledged the importance of talent in ‘More than Quality’ (2012), but he
gave a different reason: ‘As in science, it is important in culture to create space for new ideas and innovation
that are not being produced by the market because the activities in question are not directly profitable.’8
This enabled the support for talent to be easily justified from Zijlstra’s notoriously utilitarian perspective with
its focus on returns, even after the economic crisis. Jet Bussemaker also retained the emphasis on talent
development, and talent is set to remain on the agenda in the years ahead.9
The Creative Industries Fund NL first gave grants to a group of talented creatives in 2013. As
in the Mondrian Fund’s talent development programme, the policy plan for 2013–2016 opted for a single, joint
selection round each year. While the emphasis was on individual projects, it was noted that a joint assessment
would be more objective and professional and that this would facilitate the accompanying publicity.10
Who is considered a possible talented creative? To be eligible for a grant, you have to
satisfy a number of specific requirements: you have to be registered with the Chamber of Commerce, have
completed a design degree less than four years ago and be able to write a good application that persuades
the nine committee members from the sector that you have talent. Based on the application, they decide
how much potential, or promise, they see in your development, taking into account the timing of the grant for
your career. While there are many nuances in the application process, these factors make sure the concept
of ‘talent’ is clearly defined.
If you get through the tough selection process — on average ten to fifteen per cent of the
applications result in a grant — you enjoy the huge luxury of being able to determine your own agenda for
an entire year, of being able to act instead of react. It seems as if you have been given a safe haven, a short
break from your precarious livelihood. But can it actually end up reinforcing the system of insecurity? What
should be a time for seizing opportunities may also lead to self-exploitation, stress and paralysis. In practice,
the creative process is very haphazard. Will the talented creatives be able to live up to their promise?
One of them went on a trip to China, another was able to do a residency in Austria, while yet
another gave up their part-time job. Many have carried out research in a variety of forms, from field studies
and experiments with materials to writing essays. Some built prototypes or were finally able to buy Ernst
Haeckel’s ‘Kunstformen der Natur’. Others organised meetings, factory visits, encounters, interviews and
even a ball.
Is there a common denominator among the talented creatives who were selected? As in
previous years, this year the group was selected specifically to ensure balance and diversity — encompassing
a sound artist, a filmmaker, a design thinker, a researcher, a cartographer, a storyteller, a former architect
and a gender activist-cum-fashion designer. Given the diversity of such a group, a joint presentation may feel
forced. But presenting them to the outside world as a group enhances the visibility of these talented people,
and this is important, because how else can the investment be vindicated?
These are the questions that the Creative Industries Fund NL has been debating ever since
the first cohort: how to present this group without the presentation turning into a vulgar, unsubtle spectacle
or propagating a romantic notion of talent, and at the same time, how to show the outside world what is
being done with public money. And what would benefit the talented individuals themselves? In the past few
years, various approaches have been tested as ways of reflecting on the previous year, from various curated
exhibitions with publications and presentations to podcasts, texts, websites, workshops and debates.
The Creative Industries Fund NL operates as a buffer between neoliberal policy and the
reality of creativity. The fund provides a haven for not-yet-knowing, exploration, making, experimentation
and failure, without setting too many requirements. It is a balancing exercise: how do you tone down the
harsh language of policy and keep at bay those who focus only on returns on investment, while still measuring
and showing the need for this funding, and thereby safeguarding it?
Following input from the talented creatives themselves, a different approach has been
chosen this year: there will be no exhibition. Most do not see the Dutch Design Week as the right place
for them; only one or two are interested in presenting a ‘finished’ design or project at all, and they do not
necessarily wish to do so during the Dutch Design Week. What is more, many of the talented individuals have
used the grant for research and creating opportunities. Therefore, instead of a joint exhibition, the decision
has been made to organise a gathering and to publish profile texts and video portraits on ‘Platform Talent’,
an online database. This will put less emphasis on the work of the previous year and more on the visibility of
the maker and the process they are going through, marking a shift away from concrete or applied results and
towards their personal working methods. Will this form of publicity satisfy the general public’s appetite and
curiosity and will it meet politicians’ desire for results? Has it perhaps become more important to announce
that there is talent and not what that talent is? Or is this a way of avoiding quantification and relieving the
Perhaps what unites the talented creatives most is the fact that, although they have been
recognised as ‘high performers’, they are all still searching for sustainable ways of working creatively within
a precarious, competitive ecosystem that is all about seizing opportunities, remaining optimistic and being
permanently available. So far, there is little room for failure or vulnerability, or to discuss the capriciousness
of the creative process. The quest for talent is still a show, a hunt, a competition or battle.
2 Elizabeth G. Chambers et al. ‘The War for Talent’ in: The
McKinsey Quarterly 3, 1998 pp. 44–57. This study was published
in book form in 2001.
3 Roel Pots, ‘De tijdloze Thorbecke: over niet-oordelen en
voorwaarden scheppen in het Nederlandse cultuurbeleid’ in:
Boekmancahier 13:50, 2001, pp. 462-473, p. 466.
4 Thorbecke was a mid-nineteenth-century Dutch statesman.
5 Bram Ieven, ‘Destructive Construction: Democratization as a
Vanishing Mediator in Current Dutch Art Policy’ in: Kunstlicht,
2016 37:1, p. 11.
6 The Visual Artists’ (Financial Assistance) Scheme was in force
from 1956 to 1986 and the Artists’ Work and Income Act from
2005 to 2012.
7 Ronald Plasterk, ‘Hoofdlijnen Cultuurbeleid Kunst van Leven’,
2007, p. 5. The Dutch politician Ronald Plasterk was Minister of
Education, Culture and Science from 2007 to 2010.
8 Halbe Zijlstra, ‘Meer dan Kwaliteit: Een Nieuwe visie op
cultuurbeleid’, 2012, p. 9. The Dutch politician Halbe Zijlstra was
State Secretary of Education, Culture and Science from 2010
9 Jet Bussemaker is a Dutch politician who was Minister of
Education, Culture and Science from 2012 to 2017.
10 Creative Industries Fund NL, policy plan for 2013/2016.