CULT

Committee on Culture and Education (CULT)

Introduction 

Humans have been creating art for much longer than recorded history. Art happens as a part of life. It reflects, it observes, it comments. Great art is, by definition, complex. It expects work from us when we engage with it –to think about it, reflect on it, and relate it to reality again. Artists have historically often taken radical positions in society, pioneering new ideas and critical voices, something which often stands contrary to systems of power. However, to ensure artistic expression, one must also ensure artistic funding. States commonly support the cultural scene through governmental funding, supporting artists, artistic expression and also in return the economy through for example jobs and tourism. This inherently makes cultural funding a political matter –funders hold power over the livelihood of the arts and have the opportunity to, at the same time, push or suppress certain narratives. This raises the question: Can art be truly autonomous, and when does external influence compromise its integrity?

Governments try silencing critical voices through their funding in increasingly blatant and subtle ways. The lawsuit Kneecap recently won against the UK government³ highlights the need for an autonomously governed system for artistic funding across the EU. In this case, a minister blocked the art grand which had already been signed off on by an independent selection board.

“We fully support freedom of speech, but it’s hardly surprising that we don’t want to hand out UK taxpayers’ money to people that oppose the United Kingdom itself.”

Spokesperson of Kneecap⁴

The UK government has since conceded the refusal of £14,250 in funding as “unlawful”. Kneecap has always been politically outspoken, in their music and their stances, heavily featuring themes relating to Irish republicanism and opposition to British rule in Northern Ireland. This was a clear example of censorship, but of course, with governments funding the majority of art across the EU, similar instances of suppression occur, giving more power to the money and quietly shaping the direction of artistic expression.

Censorship and attacks on artistic expression have a long history in Europe, influencing the ongoing debate on the balance between free speech and security. An event which heavily influenced this is the 2015 attack on the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo⁵. It starkly illustrated the conflict between the extremes of absolute artistic freedom and ideological extremism. This set a precedent for the broader debate on the need for limits of free expression in the face of terrorism. 10 years later, in the face of growing systematic censorship, digital infrastructure interference and legislative loopholes such as the misuse of anti-terror legislation, threats to artistic freedom are emerging more across the continent.

In times of massive disinformation, increasing censorship on the internet, the spread of far-left and far-right movements, and growing social and economic inequality, art holds the crucial position to stimulate critical discourse. Art has always been a powerful tool for social and political change. Similarly, art and culture have long been used by governments as a strategic tool for cultural diplomacy and exercising soft power. Countries with long-term stability—both economically and democratically— have added advantage to this. With consistent resources and overall attention to the need to support cultural initiatives, these nations can use art to strengthen diplomatic ties, enhance their global image, and project their influence more effectively.

a brief explanation of the history of the Troubles in Northern Ireland

What were The Troubles? | Northern Ireland spotlight

See more

A (art)historical perspective on socio-politically influential artists

Art as Activism: How Protest Art Challenges the Status Quo

Read more

Key Stakeholders

Cultural policy is one of the supportive competencies of the EU, meaning that it supports, coordinates or supplements the actions of the Member States and aids in areas e of transnational importance. The current European legal frameworks on fundamental freedoms and rights are put in place by the Council of Europe (CoE)⁶. The CoE’s Steering Committee for Culture, Heritage and Landscape (CDCPP)⁷ oversees the CoE’s intergovernmental work and runs cultural policy advisory missions through which they advocate for freedom of expression. 

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) plays a big role in fostering peace and security through culture. They do this through capacity-building, policy advice, international cooperation, and monitoring to ensure fundamental freedoms are protected online and offline, in line with international standards. Within the UN, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights⁸ is tasked with promoting and protecting cultural rights at local, national, regional, and international levels. 

Within international treaty frameworks, Member States largely determine the direction of their cultural policies. This varies greatly between states, but largely they are structured through governmental (eg. Ministries of Culture) and non-governmental (eg. Art Councils or Foundations) structures. These may work alongside regional, international and non-governmental organisations who work to further promote and protect freedom of expression, artists’ rights and cultural plurality. Large, pan-European examples of this are: European Cultural Foundation (ECF)Freemuse, and Cultural Action Europe (CAE)

Measures in place

Our fundamental freedoms are protected in all Member States through both core EU, the European Convention on Human Rights and United Nations (UN), 2005 UN Convention on the protection and promotion of cultural expressions documents. Whilst these frameworks are in place, there is inconsistent application across Member States, leading to discrepancies in how freedom of expression is safeguarded. They outline the fundamental protection of freedom of expression, but they also include exceptions. Consequently, these protections are open to legal interpretation and have repeatedly been misused to target protesting voices, justifying prosecution under claims of national security, religious or political defamation, or terrorism threats. Local and international organisations are doing a great deal of work in advisory roles, policy promotion, and defending human rights. However, these efforts lack specific legal frameworks to rely on, leading to significant gaps regarding implementation and enforcement.

The EU is working on this within the scope of its competencies. For example, the CoE’s Steering Committee for Culture, Heritage and Landscape (CDCPP) published a Manifesto in 2020 urging for a redirected focus on the importance of freedom of artistic expression. Additionally, a new resolution on the EU’s Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026⁹ was adopted, outlining priorities to address challenges in the cultural and creative sectors.

Fundamental Challenges

Who should fund the arts?

The funding systems for art and culture vary across Member States. They are generally funded through public or private support. These could be divided up into:

Governments, both local and central, continue to be the largest structural supporters of culture compared to other sectors. Public funding is essential, providing long-term stability for arts, whereas private investments are mostly project-based and require major effort to source autonomously. On the other hand, public funding is often only reserved for large institutions or projects politically well-connected enough to get a grant. Especially in countries with stable political climates, governments can strategically use their funding to promote specific narratives. As such, the relationship between the funding of arts, and its artists is complex and reciprocal. Artists, cultural institutions and the public all rely on a structural financing system to continue the free creation and access to art, but is there such a thing as money with no strings attached, or is every form of funding inherently tied to certain interests, expectations, or limitations?

Art as money

Money –or the lack thereof– influences everything. In the cultural scene, this is most noticeable in the shift which is moving away from politics and risk and towards safe artistic territory: art as money. Culture is becoming more and more a vector for economic growth. We saw this with the media circus around ‘the banana’ which was sold for a humble 5.9 million euros¹⁰. On the one hand, a profitable cultural scene translates to jobs, tourism and innovation. Also, on a municipal level culture plays a big role in engaging citizens with their communities and governance. On the other hand, when financial gain –or stability– becomes the first incentive, art loses its ability to be critical, take risks and claim accountability. We see this reflected in the restructuring and redirecting of many cultural institutions which are becoming profit-seeking spaces rather than spaces for reflection and dialogue. How should cultural institutions participate in public discourse? How autonomous can cultural organisations be?

Censorship in many forms

The systematic targeting of artists and cultural workers takes different forms. “Above the radar” censorship is often linked to unstable political environments and can be evidenced through legal cases, imprisonment, the removal of work from public spaces and physical attacks. On the other hand, the increasing complexity of the creative, political, and financial aspects of art leads artists to  “under the radar” censorship: self-censoring. Here, artists preemptively alter their work, steering clear of controversial topics that might alienate audiences, threaten funding, or affect their safety as it provokes backlash from political or social groups. The most difficult aspect of tackling this is that, by its nature, is impossible to measure.

The big gap

There is a discrepancy between the legal obligation to protect artistic freedom, and its practical implementation. On paper, everybody supports freedom of expression, yet public funding still largely depends on political alignment or promoting the ‘right’ narrative. There is a big grey area of self-censorship or self-alignment and restricting freedom of expression. The legal frameworks designed to protect the arts are, ironically, enforced by the very governance structures that are in conflict with the messages being censored. This largely stems from a history of neglect and the underdevelopment of cultural rights. Efforts through policy initiatives and the work of human rights organisations are trying to address this systemic imbalance. However, these solutions often struggle to keep up with the evolving tactics of censorship. One popular method is the exploitation of legislative loopholes, such as the expansion of anti-terrorism laws, which rely on vague definitions, making it easier to silence critical voices. The digital age also continues to create new challenges for artistic freedom through infrastructural interference, the strategic use of algorithms and the dominance of tech giants. Can the theoretical idea of artistic freedom become a reality whilst it is constrained by the realities of funding, political influence, and institutional power?

FOOTNOTES

1. Marija Pejčinović Burić (2021) STATE OF DEMOCRACY,  HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW. Link ↩︎
2. Council of Europe (2020)  Manifesto on the Freedom of Expression of Arts and Culture in the Digital Era. Link ↩︎
3. Una Mullally (2024) ​​Kneecap win legal action over UK funding refusal: ‘This was never about £14,250. The motivation was equality’. The Irish Times. Link ↩︎
4. The Guardian (2024) Kneecap: UK government acted illegally in withholding funding from Irish rap trio. Link ↩︎
5.  Le Monde (2025) France remembers ‘Charlie Hebdo’ attacks 10 years on. Link ↩︎
6. The Council of Europe. (20 jan. 2025) Link ↩︎
7. CDCPP. (20 jan. 2025) Link ↩︎
8. The UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights. (20 jan. 2025) Link ↩︎
9. Council of Europe (2022), Council of Ministers agrees on new EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026. Link ↩︎
10. The New York Times (2024) Who’s laughing Now? Banana-as-art sells for 6.2 Million at Sotheby’s. Link ↩︎