“BREAKING NEWS: ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND DECIDES IT WILL NO LONGER FUND ART” the poet Polly Atkin wrote on X, formerly Twitter, earlier this week.
The post garnered more than 700 likes, and became one of a chorus of voices criticising the arts and culture funder after a story published in the sector journal Arts Professional revealed new updates ACE had made to its funding relationships framework.
The updates, published on 25 January but seemingly unnoticed until the beginning of this week, focused on how recipients of funding should manage the reputational risk caused by “political” or “controversial” statements.
ACE defined “reputational risk” as any activity or behaviour that might breach the terms and conditions of its funding agreements or that could result in “negative or damaging reactions or coverage from the press, public, partners and/or stakeholders” – which the funder said included “activity that might be considered to be overtly political or activist”.
Risks posed by negative press or social media coverage in relation to such activity should also be taken into account, the guidance said – and such reputational risk was not just a matter for the organisations to consider but something that could be created by members of staff or individuals associated with the grantee that acted in a personal capacity.
The backlash was swift and widespread.
“Don’t often get opinionated on here any more but it looks like the Arts Council are planning to cancel people’s funding if they say ‘political statements’. Not illegal statements. Not discriminatory ones. Political statements. The kind artists have made through history. Scary,” the author Matt Haig posted on X.
Debra Allcock Tyler, chief executive of the training and publishing charity the Directory of Social Change, used LinkedIn to warn against organisations allowing themselves to be gagged by funding clauses
“Charities are allowed to speak out, provided they are operating within the law,” she reiterated.
“Just be even-handed and definitely don’t promote one particular political party or candidate. And challenge any clauses in any grant or contract that requires you to be unreasonably silent! I know it’s hard to do when you’re threatened with the withdrawal of funding – but if we don’t the rot sets!
“Please don’t be gagged, colleagues. Charities are a critical part of the democratic space and we need to hear their voice.”
Outsourcing risk
For Ian MacQuillin, director of the fundraising think tank Rogare, the problems with the guidance boiled down to the fact that “ACE asked the organisations it funds to be aware of reputational issues from their activities that might impact on ACE”.
While acknowledging that he is not a specialist in the arts funding scheme, he says that, when it comes to controversial or political art or statements by artists, the funder appears to be “in effect putting the onus on arts organisations to second guess whether those things would have a reputational risk for ACE and to try to mitigate those risks”.
MacQuillin points out that the majority of arts organisations likely have risk management processes in place to identify, assess and mitigate risks to their own organisations.
“But reputational risks to ACE are ACE’s own concern,” he says. “It is up to it to identify, manage and mitigate the risks it perceives to its own organisation, but not outsource that to others.”
With the wording of the guidance evidently striking a nerve for a sector that is already feeling the chilling effects of the current political environment, the funder released a statement the following day that sought to clarify its position.
But Sue Tibballs, chief executive of the campaigning charity the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, says that while the release includes “warm words about artists’ freedom of expression”, the framework itself remains “not as clear as the reassurances that accompany it”.
Speaking yesterday on BBC Radio 4’s The World At One programme, Jack Gamble, chief executive of the arts charity Campaign for the Arts, echoed this, arguing: “It matters not just that the top-line messaging is encouraging freedom of expression but that also the detail with which organisations have to work is also reflecting this.”
Gamble added that it would be good for the organisation to clarify why it felt the need to make the changes – “that do seem to be more cautious and risk-averse”.
He said: “Given that they have said this is something they will be in dialogue about [this] with the arts sector and artists, it would be good to know what scope there would be for the clarification of the principles and adjustment of the details of this policy so that organisations can feel confident expressing a wide range of views and the artists working for and within them can also feel that confidence.”
Reviewing the language
Laura Dyer, deputy chief executive of ACE, also appeared on the programme, reiterating that the funder believed in the freedom of expression of artists and that the guidance was not in any way ‘intended to curtail’ the work that artists do.
She said: “What we’re asking and supporting organisations to do is make sure that as a leadership team and with their board they talk that through and have a plan in place on how they will manage those issues, should they arise.”
Was there any risk that organisations would lose funding if they made a statement that was deemed too political? “Absolutely not,” Dyer said.
“We support organisations and we fund organisations to do challenging work, to express difficult views and to challenge authority and to do political work. We just want to ensure that they are prepared when that creates concern and creates issues within their communities.”
This line was reiterated when ACE released an additional update on the evening of 15 February that committed to a review of the framework and the publication of an updated version “as soon as possible”.
“It’s very apparent from what we’ve heard that the language we used in our update was open to misinterpretation,” the statement said.
“We’re looking again at some of the language we’ve used, and will clarify it to fully reflect our original intention.”
While ACE may now be working quickly to mitigate the reputational harm it is likely to have suffered in the past week, the initial updates to the framework and the subsequent noise about them may already have affected current or potential grantees.
Outsourcing the risk of reputational harm, says MacQuillin, “is almost certain to result in arts orgs thinking about self-censorship to protect their income source – and once they start wondering about whether they should self-censor, there’s a good chance they will”.
Paul Streets, chief executive of the Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales, says that clarity of guidance is vital.
“As funders we should stand behind those we support seeking to speak up for people and communities they serve and know – particularly in the current climate, where too often this is under attack,” he says.
“It is also important that, as funders, any guidance we issue to those we fund or who are seeking our funds is clear and not open to confusion or misinterpretation, and so it is good to see the Arts Council seeking to clarify their position.”
Whether ACE will take up Gamble’s suggestion of engaging in dialogue with its community over updates to its funding relationships framework remains to be seen.
But as MacQuillin points out, art is often about taking risks and being controversial.
“Any funder that is scared of any reputational risks that might arise from this probably shouldn’t be in the business of funding the arts,” he says.