| Most Read Arts Report of 2025 |
Arts Policy Report |
| Afraid to Speak Out: Organisational Culture Survey and Report , Arts & Culture in 2025 , January 5, 2026 |
One report on the arts stood out for the extent of the reporting and commentary that it elicited. Its title was “Afraid to Speak Freely” by Denise Fahmy, Rosie Kay and Professor Jo Phoenix. 17 pages in length its central parts were: “Freedom of speech and artistic expression are widely considered cornerstone values of the arts and our democratic society. The ability to challenge orthodoxies, explore controversial ideas and perfect ground-breaking expertise has historically fuelled artistic innovation. In principle, the UK’s arts and cultural sector espouses these liberal ideals. “Yet, in reality, a troubling set of double standards exists. In 2020, less than a fifth of 512 respondents to an Arts Professional (AP) Pulse survey said that they did not feel free to speak publicly on heated social and political debates of the day. “New research conducted by Freedom in the Arts (FITA) demonstrates that in the 5 years since the AP survey, freedom of expression in the arts sector is in an even more perilous state. Today the majority of 481 respondents asked whether they speak freely, claimed they never or rarely did.” * * * * Confomity “Artists and art professionals talked about a pervasive culture of ideological conformity to a relatively small set of ‘hot’ political and social debates. Nuance and dissent about topics identified as ‘taboo’ is met with professional and social reprisals, cancellations and bullying and harassment, the fear of which generates widespread self-censorship. “This report presents that research and paints a damning picture of what life is like for artists and arts professionals working and practising in the UK in today’s arts sector. “Freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity is a fundamental tenet of democracy, enshrined in UK law (Human Rights Act Article 10 1998). Without it, notions of ‘free speech’, ‘artistic expression’, ‘political freedom’ or ‘academic freedom’ ring hollow. “Yet, what happens when a professional culture permits only a limited range of viewpoints on urgent matters of social and political debate? Or when there is an assumption that some debates are ‘settled’ because ‘everyone knows’ that there is a right and wrong side to the debate? These are not esoteric questions. They cut to the heart of the processes that threaten freedom of expression in any professional culture or institution.” * * * * One-sided Perspective “The finding of this research is that there is a widespread, deeply held perception that it is political closure and ideological orthodox that governs the arts and questioning it, adding nuance or rejecting it risks grave career and personal consequences. The starting point is the fact that so few artists and art professionals feel free to speak publicly about their opinions . A shocking 84% (n=390) respondents claimed that they never, rarely or only sometimes feel free to speak publicly about their opinions. “It is often used to denigrate those who dissent, offer nuance or express any doubt about what are perceived to be, in the industry, the prevailing ‘progressive’ views on social, political and even geo-political issues of the day. Hundreds of survey respondents referenced the dominance of a singular viewpoint in the sector. “Respondents described arts institutions as “oppressively politicised” with a “very one-sided view of social issues [that] stifles debate, humour and nuance in the arts,” as one survey respondent commented. Opinions that deviate from or even explore the prevailing consensus in the sector are met with hostility or silence rather than open discussion. Respondents described an arts culture that represented only a fraction of the wide variety of views held more generally within society. * * * * Intolerance “Respondents described this as a dogma or groupthink that discourages viewpoint diversity or pluralism. “The arts sector is intolerant of opinions and attitudes outside of the accepted consensus,” one survey respondent warned. This results in viewpoint diversity intolerance: that is, an implicit (sometimes explicit) gatekeeping of acceptable viewpoints. One respondent quipped that the sector “believes it is owed artistic freedom but doesn’t tolerate freedom of speech within its own ranks.” “This irony was not lost on FITA’s research participants. Another survey respondent observed: “Artists are instantly isolated when they fail to speak the currently accepted line. Even completely run-of-the-mill opinions can find an artist blacklisted. It’s now the ‘right-on’ crowd (colleagues, institutions, even government) vs. the isolated heretic”. “These perceptions were strongly reinforced by the interview respondents, who provided concrete anecdotes of how this orthodoxy manifests. “The arts world now wants everyone to have the correct political art – the correct opinion – that makes them feel comfortable,” explained a visual artist who has faced backlash for her views. She contrasted the present climate with a decade ago, noting that previously people didn’t care about an artist’s personal views as long as the art was good, whereas now “if they find out you’ve got the wrong opinion, they don’t want to know about your art.” * * * * Institutional Orthodoxy “Interviewees pointed to institutional complicity in enforcing the orthodoxy. An arts curator described “the growth of the politicisation of arts institutions” such that programming now “illustrates a particular political position.” “Another interviewee – a novelist – noted that many of her fellow writers “show very little spine” in part because key literary festivals and media are themselves aligned with those stances and narrow range of viewpoints. The consequences of this orthodoxy extend beyond mere disagreement – they shape careers and creative choices. An academic and poet observed that this “has an impact on what people are producing” as artists, arguably, increasingly “write to the brief”. He even remarked that in contemporary literary critique, “good…translates as ‘I agree with you’ rather than actual quality”. “Such a dynamic, if widespread, would indeed create what he called a “crushing influence on the creative process” – a sentiment that echoes the findings of the survey. In summary: despite the public facing account of itself as open-minded, the reality of the arts sector is now one of viewpoint intolerance, policing of ideological orthodoxy and increasingly politicised artistic programming. Most arts professionals and artists in our study feel there is one ‘correct’ line on major issues – a line one crosses at one’s peril.” * * * * No Crtique of Funders Artist: “I would not publicly criticise the actions of funders for fear that it would jeopardise my future funding”; “We all know which topics will upset [major funding bodies], so we just steer clear of them in our programming.” “Maintaining public funding was used as an excuse for unlawful action”. “I’ve seen colleagues removed from projects, funding quietly withdrawn, and careers stalled because they ‘rocked the boat’. It sends a clear message: stay in line or be forced out.” Far too many survey respondents and interviewees, however, talked about the reprisals meted out to them by colleagues. “Atists and art professionals are experiencing intimidation, pressure, bullying, ostracism, “harassment by those most closely connected with them and their practice. “Institutions have abetted this peer-driven bullying by capitulating to disproportionately low levels of relatively weak complaints. Interviewees and respondents cited examples like that of Jess de Wahls’, when in 2021 the Royal Academy (RA) precipitously dropped her work from its shop having received only eight accusations. “Institutions fold at the slightest sign of controversy – they’d rather sacrifice one person than face collective anger.” * * * * Caution & Self-censorship “Respondents used words like “hesitant,” “cautious,” “anxious,” or “afraid” in describing their approach to potentially controversial discussions. When facing an environment where four in five have experienced or witnessed retaliation for speaking, it is logical that many decide it’s safer to say nothing. “One interviewee (a theatre director) recounted how a private conversation in his own home led to grievances from colleagues and his eventual resignation – an example of how even personal spaces are not truly “safe” for free discussion. The result is what the respondent above called “self isolation”: people withdraw and avoid colleagues for fear that any real talk could become fodder for a campaign of bullying.” “Self-censorship manifests as artists avoiding certain topics, using guarded language, or entirely refraining from public discourse about anything that might provoke potential controversy. One respondent confessed that “people are scared to say what they really think”. “Conclusion This study describes the perilous state of freedom of expression in the arts sector because of viewpoint intolerance, ideological orthodoxy, bitter, punishing reprisals against those who do dare to speak out and the corrosive effects of self censorship. “The result is a sector that, in the words of one respondent, “champions artistic freedom in theory but doesn’t permit real freedom of speech in practice.” * * * * Careers Played Out in the Public Eye “Those working in the arts are much more likely to be impacted by orchestrated attacks because their careers are played out in the public eye. It is worth reflecting on why this matters. If artists are creating in an atmosphere of fear, if certain stories aren’t being told or perspectives shared because they are deemed unacceptable, then the cultural sector risks stagnation. “Innovation often comes from challenge and debate – from the mixing of different viewpoints and the bravery to offend or surprise. Moreover, as a publicly funded sphere (in part), the arts have an obligation to represent and engage a wide public. If they become an insular echo chamber, they risk alienating audiences and supporters. “Those who engage in unlawful behaviour do so with impunity in the arts. This is why the role of institutional leaders in the arts is so critical. They could start by making clear policy statements affirming employees’ and artists’ right to express lawful opinions, even if contentious. Arts organisations and funders must restore impartiality, and be seen to act impartially. “Our research reveals an arts sector grappling with a conflict between its liberal ideals and illiberal realities. The freedom to imagine and express is the lifeblood of the arts. Safeguarding that freedom, even when it leads to uncomfortable conversations, will ultimately enrich the arts and maintain its relevance as a space for all voices and stories.” |
Reviewed by: Adam Somerset |
This review has been read 154 times There are 23 other reviews of productions with this title in our database:
|
