We live in a free society: we have free speech, freedom of association and autonomy of action, within the rule of law. Artistic freedom is a much-cherished aspect of that society, hemmed in though it often is by censorship, civil actions for blasphemy and the like. As far as it’s possible to say, artists are exactly as free as they ever were to do whatever they see fit according to their creative impulses.
The announcement by Creative Scotland that “artists themselves will have the freedom and power to determine their own creative direction” and that “this Government … will not interfere in artistic decisions” should therefore be extremely welcome. However, many in the arts world are becoming uneasy about the extent to which strategic and funding decisions by UK, national and regional government are affecting the type of art that is able to flourish. This is not a quality issue, it’s an ‘issue’ issue. Creative Scotland will not be dictating what kind of art their citizens may decide to produce, but they will be setting the framework within which those artistic decisions are being made. Both Wales and Scotland have indicated that cultural life is important in redefining and shaping their national identity – they would not be human if that did not affect their funding decisions. The English example is the Cultural Olympiad, where the wish to promote art which bigs London up, for two brief weeks, as the hub of the world, is only hampered by the fact that there’s no specific money available. Theatre companies have wondered whether to change their normal programming to include Shakespeare, because that’s what will be smiled upon in 2012. The new youth dance strategy is another case in point, this time with millions in cash attached. The aim to engage all young people in dance can only be agreed with as a Good Thing. But the establishment of Youth Dance England, mirroring Youth Music, is another indicator that things are going to be done the way Government wants them done. Some organisations either have refused or are thinking of refusing some sources of funding, because the demands placed on them, whether by quango or government department, would push them too far from their original purpose and practice. Is ‘joined-up thinking’ mutating into ‘getting everyone to toe the party line’?
Catherine Rose, Editor