Arts Council England's crackdown on political statements

An Arts Council England (ACE) warning that "political statements" by artists could break funding agreements has been criticised as akin to censorship. 

In an update to ACE's "relationship framework" policies made in January, the new guidelines warned that organisations receiving ACE support that make "overtly political or activist" statements might create "reputational risk" and endanger their funding arrangements.

The changes, first reported by cultural journal Arts Professional, were met with anger by artists, writers and musicians on social media.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

"We better all just shut up, make art that's as interesting as a sack of porridge and hope nobody asks us any questions about our politics, principles or convictions," wrote poet Anthony Anaxagorou on X. The move was "yet another step to further censor freedom of expression" and was "the antithesis of art and literature", he said.

A framework for managing risk?

Within hours of the row erupting last week, ACE appeared to backtrack on its policy change, publishing a statement that apologised for its lack of clarity and stressing its commitment to freedom of expression. The funding body said the framework for managing reputational risks had been "refreshed" in response to requests for guidance from leaders of cultural organisations on how to best navigate the current "polarised" environment in which they work.

"For the avoidance of doubt, our guidance does not seek to stop any artist or organisation from making the art they want to make, or speaking out in any way they wish – including in ways that challenge institutions and authorities," said ACE. But the guidance does set out "a series of steps" for organisations to follow if they are "planning activity that might be viewed as controversial", the statement added.

Or a threat to artistic freedom?

London's ACE-funded Soho Theatre recently "had to deal with the fallout" of a show by comedian Paul Currie in which he allegedly "verbally abused an audience member who objected to him displaying a Palestinian flag", said The Telegraph. In a statement, Soho Theatre said that Currie was "aggressively demanding" that Jewish audience members leave the theatre and that this was "unacceptable and has no place on our stages, now or ever".

Currie certainly "went too far", said the paper. But what if he had left it at displaying a Palestinian flag? "Would Soho Theatre – which over the years has hosted political firebrands of every flavour, from Alexei Sayle to Jerry Sadowitz – have had to act then to protect their funding?"  This is the kind of "febrile atmosphere" that ACE has "provoked" with its policy update. The implications seemed to be that "whether you're on the Left or Right, if you're in any way connected with Arts Council funding and want it to continue, you'd better keep your opinions to yourself".

Arts producer and musician Jonny Best said he contacted ACE to ask whether it had a policy on free expression. It turns out that there are "just two" sentences about free expression in the guidance for organisations, he wrote on UnHerd. "For the avoidance of doubt," said ACE, "we expect all NPOs [National Portfolio Organisations] to support freedom of expression. We see this as essential for a thriving cultural sector in this country."

The evidence that ACE can be trusted to support free expression is not at all convincing, said Denise Fahmy, founder of Freedom in the Arts, on The Critic. The threat to artistic freedom is "rarely intentional in a democratic society", but censorship "creeps in through a diffident failure to protect it". In this case, she wrote, "it is the unintended consequence of a flawed body that has abandoned artistic freedom".

The policy update is "alarming", said art historian Katy Hessel in The Guardian. ACE is "supposed to be an arms-length organisation that distributes funds, not one that seeks to make political interventions into what artists do". In times of crisis, artistic expression is sometimes "all we have to hold on to".