The arts and culture grantmaker Arts Council England has been forced to clarify its position on freedom of expression after sector backlash to updates to its guidelines for funded organisations.
ACE, which currently funds 985 organisations through its 2023-26 Investment Programme, faced criticism from across the arts and culture voluntary sector after updating its funding guidance with new context on managing the reputational risk caused by “political” or “controversial” statements.
The updates to the relationship framework, published on 25 January, said that the funder defines “reputational risk” as any activity or behaviour, including about matters of political debate, that may breach the terms and conditions of the funding agreement or that is likely to result in “negative or damaging reactions or coverage from the press, public, partners and/or stakeholders”.
This includes “activity that might be considered to be overtly political or activist and goes beyond your company’s core purpose and partnerships with organisations that might be perceived as being in conflict with the purposes of public funding of culture”.
It added: “Risks posed by negative press or social media coverage in relation to any of these issues, or to whistleblowing or similar concerns, should also be taken into account.”
The grantmaker said that reputational risk can be generated not just by an organisation itself, but also “by staff and other individuals associated with the organisation acting in a personal capacity”.
“A chilling effect on artistic expression”
The updates sparked a backlash on social media, with one of ACE’s grantees, English PEN, posting on X, formerly Twitter: “We are very concerned about the updated ACE policies on ‘reputational risk’ and the chilling effect it may have on artistic expression.”
The funder today responded with a statement to clarify the reason behind the changes and its position on freedom of expression for artists and organisations.
It said that freedom of expression is “indisputably vital” for the cultural sector, adding: “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.”
But it said that the context in which artists and organisations are working is “more polarised than ever before”.
It said that in recent years, individuals and organisations have been subjected to “aggressive attacks” in response to their art and statements they have made.
“In this context, and in response to requests for guidance on navigating this environment from a number of leaders of cultural organisations, we refreshed our framework on managing reputational risks,” the funder said.
ACE said the guidance aims to set out steps for organisations to help them mitigate risks associated with activity that might be viewed as controversial.
The funder also addressed the sector’s concerns about the impact on individuals, particularly artists. It said: “We fully respect and defend the rights of individual artists to freedom of expression, political or otherwise.
“However, in practice, we understand that some individual artists – for example, artistic directors – are strongly associated with the organisations for whom they work, and as a result, their personal positions may be taken to be those of the wider organisation.”
ACE said that if individuals working in public-facing positions in cultural organisations are planning activity that may be viewed as controversial, its guidance advises them to discuss this with their organisation’s board to mitigate risks that might arise.
It said that these decisions are “matters for organisations and their boards or leadership groups, not for the Arts Council”.
“This policy needs urgent review”
A spokesperson for ACE told Third Sector that the grantmaker “won’t play a role in the judgements about what is political and what is controversial”.
Instead, they said the funder will look at what policies and processes an organisation has in place to help manage those risks.
The spokesperson said: “It’s just to make sure that they are thinking about the implications and that there are processes in place to keep everyone safe.”
But Sue Tibballs, chief executive of the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, said that while ACE’s clarifying statement has “warm words about artists’ freedom of expression”, the framework is “not as clear as the reassurances that accompany it”.
She told Third Sector: “It seems likely to make arts organisations over-cautious, forcing many artists out of political discourse.
“In its 10-year strategy, the Arts Council’s own chair celebrates that creativity allows us to ‘reflect and comment on society’ – this policy needs urgent review if that’s to remain part of their vision.”
Sarah Vibert, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said: “We are clear that the voluntary sector shouldn’t shy away from raising our voices, it is a vital part of our role in a healthy democracy.
“Indeed, for many charities, campaigning is the best way of achieving our charitable objectives. Arts organisations have a particularly important role in supporting the freedom of expression of artists, including free speech.”