“The arts and cultural sector is one of the bulwarks against illiberalism”

BÉTON BLEU MAGAZINE x ARTISTIC FREEDOM INITIATIVE

Hungary and Poland have curtailed the way artists and cultural institutions can work. Béton Bleu spoke with Artistic Freedom Initiative Co-Executive Director Sanjay Sethi about the challenges artists face in both countries and ways to reclaim artistic freedom in authoritarian environments. The artwork in the article was provided by Hungarian and Polish artists.

Béton Bleu: The Artistic Freedom Initiative published a report on the conditions for artists in Hungary in March 2022 and just released a report on Poland. What is the scope of your work?

Sanjay Sethi: Our mission is to protect and defend freedom of artistic expression. The way we started related mostly to artists at risk who are censored and persecuted in their home country or whose right to artistic and creative expression has been suppressed. We help artists with visas and asylum applications if they’re fleeing conflict zones, humanitarian crises, or authoritarian dictatorships. Since 2017, we’ve provided assistance in over 700 artists’ cases. While we started as an organization that provided direct services to artists, we also always wanted to get involved in improving the conditions in their home countries. For the vast majority of artists we’ve represented, their desire was not to end up in another country but to eventually return to their home country.

BB: Why did you decide to focus on these two countries in your reports?

SS: We wanted to shed light on a situation the public–the art-loving public in particular–didn't necessarily know about. It's easier to understand the situation artists face in Belarus or Cuba. But when it comes to Hungary and Poland, many people could be quite surprised at the level of suppression. The hope is that individuals and institutions understand the situation that artists and cultural institutions are facing and that maybe a critical mass starts developing where stakeholders in the arts and cultural sector realize this is a problem that we need to get involved in.

BB: What are the conditions contributing to the suppression of artistic freedom in these countries?

SS: There are similar challenges in Hungary and Poland: both underwent transitions to democracy, and both engaged in similar sorts of democratic backsliding that negatively impacted the arts and cultural sector. Also, in both Hungary and Poland the media is largely controlled by the state or state-affiliated groups. So reporting on artworks or exhibitions that are controversial or challenge nationalist narratives is not happening as much anymore. As the media and press have been consolidated, the governments have been able to use them to denigrate artists who challenge the populist nationalist narrative.

BB: What are some differences between the situations in Poland and Hungary?

SS: There is one central distinction. Hungary is much coyer and under the radar about its changes. They haven't been as obvious in their takeover of the arts and cultural sector. That may be one of the reasons that the international community has been slow to respond to Fidesz' takeover of the arts and cultural sector.

BB: What has this takeover looked like?

SS: First, they transferred the control over key national art institutions to the Hungarian Academy of the Arts, or MMA, a private right-wing arts and cultural institution. Then, the academy started appointing political allies to the boards of other major arts institutions. So all of a sudden most major art museums and institutions were controlled by this hardline, politically conservative organization. In addition, in 2010, they amended the constitution so that the status of the MMA was inviolable. This was astounding and somewhat incomprehensible at the time since, normally, a constitution doesn’t mention the importance of a specific art academy; it’s supposed to be a document that articulates fundamental rights. Even within Hungary, it wasn't necessarily immediately apparent what was going on.

BB: How is the situation in Poland?

SS: In Poland, the Minister of Culture already has the power to appoint and remove directors of museums and cultural institutions. Since the Law and Justice party took power in 2015, the Ministry has openly either let go directors of museums or declined to renew their contracts for ideological reasons and put in place far right-wing leaders with often disturbing views on LGBT rights or the Holocaust. So it's been a lot more open in Poland. I think the result is the same, which is the whole-scale change in the way arts and cultural institutions are being managed. That commonality is very important.

BB: How does the past of both countries in communism and authoritarianism play into these developments?

SS: The region obviously has a lot of experience with authoritarian regimes. It's only been roughly 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that's not a lot of time for civil society to develop and democratic institutions to be put into place. So I do think these countries can be subject to manipulation, and we’re seeing that right now.

BB: Both countries have been part of the European Union for years. Has that helped the arts and cultural sector in resisting attempts at suppression?

SS: During the communist time, it was normal for the government to censor the arts; it was up to the government to decide what could and couldn't be produced. But today, that would run afoul of the European Convention on Human Rights or any international treaties that cover the right of free expression. Now that Hungary and Poland are part of the European Union, they cannot censor the arts like they did before. They cannot say this can be published or that can't be published.

BB: Instead, they’re changing the cultural institutions from within.

SS: Correct. If the boards and the management of the institutions pick and choose the art they want to display, it’s their right to do so; in their minds, it doesn't overtly violate freedom of expression. The management structure that has been put in place by these right-wing governments ensures that the proper nationalist art is displayed in state institutions. If an artist wants to create a work that is not in line with their views, they can do it on their own. But what does it mean if there isn't a museum or gallery space that can host their art? At the end of the day, it's their way of controlling the arts and cultural sector under the cloak of legality.

BB: Is there any kind of resistance within the countries against this overhaul of the art and cultural sector?

SS: Yes, in both countries, there is enormous resilience and pushback. Especially in urban areas, you have an arts-loving public that is very incensed with the restrictions in the artistic and cultural sector and wants to ensure that plurality in the arts continues to exist. In Poland, there has been a very impressive backlash even on concrete incidents, like the “Banana-gate incident,” where feminist artworks depicting women suggestively eating a banana were removed from a major state museum. As it turns out, thousands of protestors showed up at the museum eating bananas. In the end, the works were brought back into the museum, so the act of censorship was reversed. I think incidents like that highlight the impact artist groups and arts consumers are having.

BB: So artists and their supporters are pushing back and finding ways to work around these suppression efforts?

SS: In a way, yes. For example, artist collectives are forming to create supportive networks for artists that aren't getting exhibited in galleries or museums to the same degree they were before and who aren't getting the funding or the grants. Unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of artists leaving both countries and going to places like Berlin because their livelihoods are on the line. As much as you want to get involved in fighting the good fight, at the end of the day, you have to pay the bills. And if the artwork is not displayed or they're not receiving money, if the international opportunities within the country don't present themselves, artists are going to go elsewhere. That’s why it is very important for arts funders and foundations to stay engaged in Hungary and Poland and ensure that artists in both countries continue to receive funding for their work.

BB: How can and should the international community react?

SS: I think in order to challenge the actions in Hungary and Poland, international legal advocacy groups need to do more in suing the Hungarian and Polish governments for restrictions on artistic expression. While it may not be what people consider traditional censorship, the law evolved at that point. If you're eliminating avenues of expression and only allowing one viewpoint to come out, there are ways to challenge that in international courts and forums, and I think it's important to continue to press the Hungarian and Polish governments. While they may be clever in how they are restricting expression in both Poland and Hungary, it doesn't mean that effective legal action can't be taken. Legal services and advocacy groups need to evolve their strategies in order to fight back.

BB: How hard will it be to reverse the changes you’re describing meant to suppress artistic freedom, assuming we will see a shift in power at some point?

SS: Hungary presents a unique situation because the Hungary Academy of the Arts, as a private right-wing foundation, has control over so many arts institutions. That won't reverse with a change in the administration, and that is precisely what Fidesz wants. By offloading arts institutions to a private foundation, they ensure that even with a political change, those arts institutions will still be controlled by a right-wing foundation. It would take legislation which is hard to imagine, particularly considering that Fidesz currently controls two-thirds of the seats in the legislative branch. That's why challenges in international courts like the European Court of Human Rights or the EU Court of Justice are so important. If those laws and the constitutional changes are deemed incompatible with EU law or the European Convention of Human Rights, that would be a much more effective way to ensure that art and cultural institutions become more independent.

BB: What about Poland?

SS: In Poland, the Human Ministry of Culture could theoretically return the arts and cultural sector fairly quickly to a state of normalcy. One of the challenges is that you would have to generally wait till a director's term is up to appoint an impartial director. It was customary when a directorship for a museum came up for there to be an open competition based on merit. So the most-qualified person would be appointed to the directorship of the museum. The current Minister of Culture in Poland, Piotr Glinski, has not done that because the law is unclear whether that competition actually needs to be held. Theoretically, if there is a change in administration, they can return to open competitions once those directorships are up. So I think it would be easier. But I also think a major reform is needed in Poland to ensure that this never happens again, whether it's a left-wing or right-wing government. There should always be an open, merit-based competition. The most qualified people should be in charge of the museums and the cultural institutions. It should never be based on political ideology.

BB: Has the EU underestimated what was happening in Hungary and Poland and the danger the arts and cultural sector was in?

SS: I would say they underestimated it, but I hope that underestimation is not going to continue for very long. To give them credit, the EU has been monitoring the rise of illiberalism and how it relates to democratic institutions. I think the arts and cultural component hasn't been on their radar very much, but I would like to think it will be. I think they can't look at it separately. If you look at Fidesz and their political goals, they want to recast Hungary as an ethnically Hungarian and Christian state. They see the arts and cultural sector as instrumental to this process. It’s very important to them. Otherwise, they wouldn't go to these lengths to take control of arts institutions. They are obviously important enough for the governments to restrict, so they should be important enough for the international community to defend. The arts and cultural sector may be one of the central bulwarks against illiberalism.

Thank you so much for your time.

About:

Led by immigration and human rights attorneys, Artistic Freedom Initiative (AFI) facilitates pro bono immigration representation and resettlement assistance for international artists at risk. Dedicated to safeguarding the right to artistic freedom, AFI was founded on the notion that artists are uniquely situated to positively and powerfully effect change, provided their voices can be heard.

Website: https://artisticfreedominitiative.org/

Interview: Thorsten Schröder

11/10/2022

FIND more curated content on instagram: @bétonbleumagazine