Early Warning Signs: Funding as a Control Mechanism

Katalin Krasznahorkai (KK): In your work with art academies across Europe, what patterns have you observed in how funding and defunding mechanisms are being used to influence or control artistic expression?

Christiane Lötsch: In the five years since the network has existed, we have never observed a sudden stop, but rather a slow and gradual decline in the funding of cultural organisations or institutions. In the initial phase, affected cultural workers try to get the best out of the worsening financial situation: giving up the rented office and work from home, call off contracts and employ freelancers as needed, starting crowd-funding campaigns. Year after year, the financial situation gets worse: The “boiling frog” effect. Eventually, the gradual loss of own funds restricts the ability to submit and secure (European) funding applications – a development that deepens the financial crisis.
Ferenc Czinki: Early warning signs on many occasions are so early that it is even hard to recognize them. Seemingly unrelated events, such as changes in some minor positions related to education and culture, a new director here, a new head teacher there, some changes in cultural laws and regulations that only professionals will recognize. But in retrospect, they all point in one direction: increased control by the leading party. These events after a while will create a general disturbance in the cultural field, professionals in higher positions start to worry about their future, openly oppositional artists get fewer invitations which all will lead to some kind of self-censorship that even those will not admit who are already doing it. But by the time we detect the clear and present danger, the state has already created its instruments (laws, majority in decision making, etc) to execute the complete takeover of independent culture.

The Autonomy Challenge: Protecting Institutional Independence

KK: The European Alliance of Academies brought together over 60 institutions in the 2020 Berlin Manifesto calling for solidarity. Since then, how have funding structures evolved in terms of protecting – or threatening – the autonomy of art academies? What are the most significant challenges institutions face in maintaining their independence while relying on public funding?

Christiane Lötsch: I think it is crucial to distinguish between the different levels of funding structures: local, national and European. While the European level is gradually integrating mechanisms to safeguard artistic freedom within their policies and funding structures, the national level (and now I’m talking about Germany) constructs a narrative of necessary cost-cutting measures which targets the arts and culture sector first. And that is a political decision, not an economic one. Regarding the second question: Public funding executes cultural policies. As long as cultural policies and public funding defend a pluralistic and heterogenous definition of arts and culture, there is no problem. The problem arises in the moment when politics begin to instrumentalise art and culture for the political narrative of a united and homogenous national society – mostly in contrast to diversity. Then, the definition of what is considered part of the cultural canon – and most importantly, what isn’t – becomes the basis for deciding which projects are funded and which are not. In this sense, the main challenge for art academies and cultural organisations is to uphold their artistic independence while navigating funding frameworks that gradually prioritise conformity over an open, critical discourse.

Best Practices: Resilient Funding Models

KK: Based on your experience across different European contexts, what best practices have you identified for protecting artistic freedom within funding frameworks? Are there specific governance structures, funding diversification strategies, or policy mechanisms that have proven particularly effective in safeguarding institutional autonomy and academic freedom?

Christiane Lötsch: I see a great potential for independent funding at the local and municipal levels, where grants can be allocated through less complex administrative procedures, even if the funding sums are generally smaller. Our network partner in Poland reported that during the previous government, they mostly reached out for funding from local and municipal sources, as larger cities openly expressed political opposition to the PiS central government and were able to act with greater autonomy. Consequently, funding conditions were less politically tainted.
I also observe that public institutions would increasingly seek private funding – when both sides can find a shared interest and common goal, this collaboration could offer a viable alternative path.

Ferenc Czinki: In general, an independent cultural institute relies on three different incomes:

1. local/state funding,

2. international projects,

3. crowdfunding, membership fees, and private donors.

If these three are balanced, when the state funding is lower for some reasons, or completely cut, we still have the chance to push the other two more. Since in countries where the cultural life is directly influenced by the political power, independent cultural institutes do not have real political instruments to act (they are not involved in decision making and planning) the only way is to have an effective and successful communication strategy. We need to win the local independent public for our case and attract? international attention at the same time. It will lead to a surprisingly significant amount of cooperation offers, project partnerships, and even direct donations. For a while.

Collective Response: The Power of Networks

KK: The European Alliance demonstrated the impact of collective action among cultural institutions. How can transnational networks like yours strengthen the position of individual academies facing funding pressure? What role should European-level solidarity play in defending institutions under threat, and what practical support mechanisms are most needed?

Cécile Wajsbrot: A European Alliance of Academies allows us to shift our focus from our own institutional problems and issues to see the overall picture. Confronting ideas in order to find solutions together. What has worked, what has already been successfully tried in a country could be tried in another country. Maybe it is hardly a trust to know we are not the only ones to be confronted with the lack of money, with a growing lack of interest in culture. But still… At an Alliance event about Poland in Berlin, we learnt what resistance in difficult times means. At Alliance events in Budapest or Bratislava, we could encourage artists and cultural institutions there as well as recognise warning signs in our Western European countries, suggesting we are starting to follow the same path… We need to exchange; we need to meet. Not only per zoom but to be on site, to get an idea, a feeling from what is going on, how institutions are organised there, what problems and restrictions they are facing and how do they answer. (…) The lessons we drew from the Second World War – lessons of peace and democracy, lessons of culture and education against barbarism – do not work anymore.

The waving scarecrow doesn’t frighten anymore. That is why we decided to build a European Alliance of Academies, and that is why we wanted to build a cultural European network upon a new basis. Not only upon values such as – no more war, no more dictatorship. (…) But also, upon positive values and actions such as exchanges – Erasmus, having been a first step. There should be many more Erasmus. For instance, artists’ residencies should be reflected and organised on a European level. Bookshop networks could be created on the model of the Europa Cinemas network, where books in each country would be sold in different languages. There is much to do to revitalise, to consolidate a Europe of cultures – even in times of money sparing.