When Governments Demand Artists Stop Being Political I Raise One Finger

A blog about the intersections of art, politics and censorship.

As I am exploring the ways in which I want to be online in terms of sharing my creativity and art, I am coming up against a LOT of advice, rules and, frankly, privilege. There’s a lot of advice that says don’t be political, and I find this especially ludicrous when it comes to artists and art. I have been ruminating in my drafts on this for a while, and then last week the Arts Council England published an update to their policies that just floored me.

It probably didn’t floor the type of people giving out the “don’t be political, be Nice” advice, quite the opposite, they will have relished it, if they even noticed.

Before I go on, and go on I will, I am not in England, and our Arts funding is devolved, however that is not to say the shenaningans of the Westminster suits doesn’t affect us. If artists are being censored anywhere, we are all losing.

First, here’s what happened with the Arts Council England policy updates:

ACE advised the organisations it funds to be wary of “overtly political or activist” statements made in a personal capacity by people linked to them.

The guidance stated: “Reputational risk can be generated not just by the organisation and its decision but also by staff and other individuals associated with the organisation acting in a personal capacity.”

ACE included the following statement regarding activity that might increase “reputational risk”, and therefore breach the funding agreement, leading to a loss of funding for the organisation:

“activity that might be considered overtly political and 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”.

A simple translation goes something like this – Arts Council England have decided they are no longer simply a funding body tasked with supporting cultural output, they are now the arbiters of what creatives can say. In other words, if an artist doesn’t tow the government line, funding will be halted, or denied.

This is censorship.

Of course the timing is very precise, and I am quite sure they have a very specific form of political activism in mind, but as I said earlier, if artists are being censored anywhere, we are all losing. The problem with this type of far-right policy is that once it is in place for one group, it can easily be applied to any group.

Any creative person engaging with social media will not go long before coming up against arguments like “this group is not a place for politics”, or demands that artists “don’t be political”. I have seen this in everything from knitting groups, to mixed media journaling groups, and I have left numerous groups because I just don’t think that’s how the colour beige, or the vanilla flavouring, is best used.

The people who tell you not to be political are being very political. It is a political act to punch down and silence a person who is marginalised in some way, and demand that they not express their whole self. It is a political act to demand that allies speaking up for marginalised communities be silent. It is a political act to demand a space can only contain white abled conservative heteronormativity.

“Don’t be political” translates as “don’t challenge my comfort, or my privilege”.

It’s bad enough when this goes on in a social media community for artists and creatives, but when it is handed down from a Conservative government who have branded themselves as far-right ideologues, it’s about much more than a disagreement that eventually results in the comments being turned off.

I mean I could write reams about this. In this world where misogyny is running rampant, and worryingly so in the realm of young men and teenage boys, it is a political act for a woman to simply have a creative interest. I don’t think I need to wax lyrical about the ways in which women’s interests are policed, we cannot even buy big cups to simplify our water consumption goals without pushback from fragile men who think we are taking up too much space, how dare we consider using time they deem is better spent pandering to some bloke to express ourselves, how dare we hydrate in bright pink.

The patriarchy seeks a defined gender binary, with women in their place. Of course it doesn’t mind if women are doing creative work that serves the home. Under the Tory Arts Council England guidelines, making quilts is possibly fine, but making quilts like THIS is not, thank you.

Are they going to ban embroidery?

Taking the politics out of art – whether it is embroidery, writing, film, theatre, art – would leave us with not very much to enjoy, which I suppose is in line with a pair of poltical parties intent on keeping us working until we drop dead, given the concept of having a retirement is going the same way as the freedom to express oneself in art.

This is a long blog, so I will close here by stating that anyone with a critical eye knows precisely which political activity this new policy is aimed at. The timing couldn’t be more obvious.

The specific translation, the quiet part, is “Arts Council England will cease funding any arts organisation or project if persons linked to said outfit express solidarity with Palestinian citizens”.

I’m being generous, they don’t actually believe the people being subjected to ethnic cleansing and genocide are citizens, some of them don’t even see Palestinians as human beings.

Suffice to say, if you are here for my art, it is made by hands that are pulsing with politics, hands that hold their own marginalisation in fists while doing their best to be an ally to those more marginalised.

In numerous ways, my very existence is political, and I punch up, not down.