Arts Council England (ACE) is an interested organization. Find out what we care about by searching the hundreds of documents on our website. Diversity, racism, and inclusion. Class and disability. environment and climate crisis. There are tens of thousands of words outlining the idea of granting access to a £500m budget. If you want ACE money, you better convince them that you think the same way.
But the flip side of that is that there are some issues that ACE doesn’t seem to care about, such as freedom of expression. ACE now warns funded organizations that it will “monitor artistic and creative output that may be controversial” and that it “will “The views and perceptions of the public” are requested to be taken into account. The next page of guidance lists sanctions threats ranging from “increased oversight” to “withdrawal of funds.” This is an objective lesson in how it has a chilling effect on British culture. It is welcome that Culture Secretary Lucy Fraser announced a full-scale independent review of the organization this month. It is necessary to consider the role of arts councils in restricting artistic freedom.
The review could highlight the poor treatment of dozens of artists. For example, in 2022, gender-critical ceramicist Claudia Clare was invited to exhibit at Berg House in Hampstead, funded by ACE, but her exhibition was later cancelled. Berg House director Mark Francis explained to Clare in an email: “We respect the right of individuals to hold their beliefs, but once it has been made public by the individual, we must consider all stakeholders in the charity and their right to hold their beliefs. ” Feel included and safe. ” This is his ACE’s pragmatic approach to freedom of expression.
Freelancers working in the arts are often reluctant to document their experiences for fear of losing their jobs, but Claire is far from alone. Several programming staff at major ACE-funded organizations recently told me how they were investigated by human resources departments after inviting gender-critical artists to speak. Their work is now under question because they “exposed viewers to dangerous ideas.” Similarly, a dance company’s tour was canceled in 2023 after multiple venues recognized that the work contained gender-critical feminist content. Those involved do not want to risk further damage to their careers by being quoted here.
The same hostility can be traced back to the Arts Council itself. Last June, Dennis Fahmy, who had been an ACE employee for more than 15 years, won a harassment lawsuit over his remains. (She co-founded Freedom in the Arts with choreographer Rosie Kaye.) Her case led to an ACE grant (later suspended) to the gender-critical organization LGB Alliance -It was connected to another labyrinthine bureaucracy called the Community Fund. After an internal meeting in which Mr Fahmy was the only one to challenge the view that the LGB Alliance is anti-trans, colleagues accused “discriminatory transphobic staff” and said the LGB Alliance was “neo-Nazi, homophobic”. person, Islamophobic person [sic]”People in the art world, especially women, are facing a tide of bullying from spurious accusations of transphobia…I hope my case will raise awareness in the art world about what is going on,” Fahmy said in her victory. I hope that the leaders will wake up.”
That’s certainly a change from ACE’s initial vision. When I first started working in the arts grants field in 1996, ACE modestly referred to itself as a “vital arts funding organization.” And this was consistent with the founding principles dreamed up in the postwar moment of cultural democratization. Evolving from the wartime Committee for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA), the Arts Council was established in 1946 with the aim of “developing and improving knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts” and disseminating them as widely as possible. Established by Royal Charter. All over the country. John Maynard Keynes chaired both CEMA and the new organization, and his vision of great art for all remained steadfast for 60 years.
But by the mid-2000s, something had changed. By then, ACE had become the “National Development Agency for the Arts,” and this signaled a change in attitude. Rather than just a funding organization, we began to see ourselves as sponsors and benefactors of the kind of art we wanted to see. Over time, the desire for artistic influence turned into an activity. Last year, the agency renamed itself the “National Development Agency for Creativity and Culture” and announced a new agenda for its 10-year plan, “Let’s Create,” which retreats further than ever from Keynes’s original principles.
Rather than its historical core business of increasing access to dance, literature, music, theater, etc., ACE now subordinates “art” within a grand, utopian social concept of universal creativity. The activities and cultural experiences of all people in every town, village, and city of this country. ” Who could disagree with that? Unlike “art,” which is more divisive, creativity is a nice, non-threatening word. Some people aren’t interested in art, but being against “creativity” is like being against a puppy.
However, this dilution of ACE’s original efforts was accompanied by a politicization of its internal culture. The Nolan Principles (established in 1994 as a code of ethics for public life) require that ACE be objective and “make decisions based on fairness, equity, and merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.” requesting. But ACE’s impartiality is clearly under intense pressure from many of its own staff. Last year, for example, ACE’s own Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Review found that some Arts Council staff identified themselves as members of the arts profession rather than government employees. He warned that a lack of understanding of responsibility was widespread.
“Arts organizations are increasingly thinking of themselves as activists.”
Dennis Fahmy saw this firsthand when he was at the body scene. “Arts councils have a hard time being just funders,” she said. “They see their work as something much bigger than that.” She explains how the Arts Council will develop a new environmental responsibility policy and initially contribute to the government’s net zero policy. Describe whether we asked our funded organizations to provide candid data on their fuel usage. This developed into a new “investment principle.” Applicants for the funding are now asked to consider “how creation, programming and partnerships can support your efforts and help spark discussion.” Mr Fahmy said: “If you wonder why there are so many programs about climate change, check out each organization’s funding requirements. Arts organizations increasingly see themselves as activists, and Arts Councils are ensuring this through their funding criteria. We are promoting.”
I contacted ACE and asked where I could find the Arts Council’s policy on freedom of expression. Being kind, he consulted the ACE staff, but they couldn’t find anything. He promised to consult his colleagues “to see if anyone is hiding any information.” in fact, two The guidance for organizations includes text on freedom of expression. “For the avoidance of doubt, we expect all NPOs to support freedom of expression. We believe this is essential to the flourishing of this country’s cultural sector.”
It is not difficult to glean the consequences of such half-hearted support. As the need for government review attests, the original organization is being torn apart by the competing demands of political trends, a leveling attitude toward the arts themselves, and the increasing control of activist staff. After all, it appears that ACE is not only ignoring the ongoing crisis in the free expression of art, but actively promoting a culture of intolerance. “Don’t think of art councils like school teachers,” Keynes wrote in 1945. “Arts are not bound to take an oath of obedience”—his words implying obedience to government. I meant it. What he didn’t expect was that after nearly 80 years, the Arts Council would be the principal and disciplinarian, preaching orthodoxy from above.