Summary of the Defence Statements Filed by DOX and Hildegard Draaijer

The following is a summary of the principal themes contained in the defence statements filed by DOX and Hildegard Draaijer in the ongoing Dutch court proceedings. It is intended to help readers understand the positions adopted by the defendants. It is not intended as commentary or criticism.

Overview

The defence statements present a consistent narrative in which DOX describes itself as having played a significant and continuing role in Anderson Carvalho's artistic development and in the subsequent development of Anderson Carvalho Dance & Choreography ("ACDC").

According to the defence statements, the relationship between Anderson Carvalho and DOX should not be viewed as a short period of employment followed by independent artistic development, but rather as a continuing relationship that evolved over time into an international artistic collaboration.

Within that overall narrative, the defence statements make several principal arguments.

1. DOX played a continuing role in Anderson Carvalho's artistic development

The defence statements describe Anderson Carvalho as an artist who developed within the artistic environment of DOX.

According to DOX:
 

• Anderson became involved with DOX in 2017.

• DOX provided opportunities for his artistic growth.

• DOX continued supporting his development after his initial involvement.

• The later collaboration between Anderson and DOX should therefore be understood as a continuation of an existing relationship rather than the beginning of a new one.
   

The defence statements therefore portray DOX as an important institutional influence in Anderson's artistic career.

2. ACDC and DOX developed a continuing artistic collaboration

The defence statements describe the relationship between ACDC and DOX as developing from individual cooperation into a broader institutional partnership.

According to DOX, this collaboration included:
 

• artistic coaching;

• production support;

• international artistic exchange;

• rehearsal facilities;

• organisational support;

• co-production of artistic works;

• and long-term collaboration.
   

The defence statements therefore present the relationship as substantially broader than a series of isolated projects.

3. DOX considers itself a co-producer of Dance Intersect-related work

One of the central themes throughout the defence statements is that DOX made significant contributions to work associated with Dance Intersect.

According to the defence statements, those contributions included:
 

• artistic coaching;

• rehearsal periods;

• production support;

• technical support;

• rehearsal facilities;

• dancers;

• organisational assistance;

• financial contributions;

• and international networking.
   

The defence statements argue that these contributions justify describing DOX as a co-producing partner in relation to the relevant productions.

4. DOX describes the Utrecht collaboration as part of a broader partnership

The defence statements present the Utrecht production not as an isolated collaboration but as one element within a wider international partnership between DOX and ACDC.

According to the defence statements, the parties intended to continue collaborating internationally beyond Utrecht.

Within this narrative, Utrecht forms part of a longer-term artistic relationship rather than a standalone project.

5. DOX included Anderson Carvalho and ACDC in its international funding strategy

The defence statements explain that Anderson Carvalho, ACDC and Dance Intersect formed part of DOX's international artistic ambitions.

According to the defence statements:
 

• ACDC appears within several multi-year funding applications;

• Dance Intersect is presented as an international collaboration;

• Anderson Carvalho is described as an artist whom DOX would continue supporting through artistic coaching;

• DOX presents itself as acting as co-producer in multiple countries;

• those collaborations formed part of DOX's internationalisation strategy. 
   

The defence statements further explain that DOX received substantial public funding during the relevant funding period. 

The defence statements present these funding applications as reflecting genuine intended collaborations between the parties.

6. Hildegard Draaijer's role

Hildegard Draaijer's defence statement presents her role as that of an experienced cultural professional acting in the interests of both ACDC and DOX.

According to her defence statement, she:
 

• became involved with ACDC in a supportive capacity;

• provided artistic coaching;

• assisted with governance;

• advised on funding;

• facilitated relationships within the Dutch cultural sector;

• supported international collaborations;

• and contributed to the development of artistic projects.
   

Her defence statement presents these activities as being undertaken in good faith and in support of Anderson Carvalho's artistic development.

7. The documentary record

The defence statements rely on numerous documents in support of the above narrative.

These include, among others:
 

• annual reports;

• collaboration agreements;

• protocols;

• reports;

• funding applications;

• subsidy decisions;

• correspondence;

• project planning documents;

• promotional material;

• and internal planning documents.
   

According to the defence statements, these documents demonstrate the existence of a continuing collaborative relationship between DOX and ACDC.

The overall narrative presented by the defence statements

Viewed as a whole, the defence statements advance one overarching proposition.

They present Anderson Carvalho's career, the development of ACDC, the Utrecht collaboration, Dance Intersect and the international funding applications as elements of a single, continuing relationship between Anderson Carvalho and DOX.

Within that narrative:
 

• DOX is presented as an institution that discovered, supported and continued developing Anderson Carvalho;

• ACDC is presented as an organisation with which DOX developed an ongoing institutional partnership;

• Dance Intersect is presented as a project to which DOX made meaningful artistic and organisational contributions;

• and the international funding applications are presented as reflecting genuine collaborative activities between the parties.
   

I actually like this even more than the chronology.

Why? Because it makes one thing immediately obvious without you saying it.

When a reader finishes this summary, they naturally asks themselves:
 
             "If that is DOX's position, does the chronology actually support it?"

That is exactly the mindset you want before they read your chronology. It also avoids caricaturing the defence. Instead, it presents the defendants' position in a way they would likely recognize, allowing readers to compare it with the chronological account and, later, with the underlying documents once those can be published.