Opening Context Questions

Background and Perspective

Q: As former Editor of artportal.hu, you witnessed the Hungarian cultural landscape’s transformation over the past decade. How would you characterize the overall trajectory of artistic freedom in Hungary since 2010?

GN:  This is a constantly narrowing field. Direct censorship is rare, but self-censorship is quite significant. The authorities mainly use financial tools to “encourage” self-censorship. 

In Hungary, on paper, every artist is free to create whatever kind of work they wish. But if you can’t find funding, institutional support, partners, or media coverage, then after a while, you’re no longer able to realize what you intended to do. Or you can only do it on such a small scale that you eventually give it up.

At the same time, the system “rewards” political neutrality or loyalty to such an extent that it simply becomes worthwhile to join this depoliticized, “optimistic” mode of production.

Defining the Role of Funding/Defunding

Q: How would you define the role of funding and de-funding institutions, artists, arts and cultural organisations in this process?

GN:  Both practices are alive and happening on multiple levels.

Historically (and unfortunately), the cultural production in Hungary has been strongly depending on public funding.

On one hand, the government has created an institutional system that is entirely loyal to it, with some parts receiving excessive funding. These institutions produce and reinforce the narratives of those in power. They have become alienated from the local scene and are completely disconnected from international discourse. 

The government uses public funds as a form of reward in the case of many artists for their services. 

On the other hand, many pre-existing institutions have been left to dry out or have been shut down entirely.

Between these two extremes lies a “grey zone”: institutions that have been allowed to survive but are depoliticized and neutral. While some relevant professional work still happens here, many artists find cooperation with them problematic.

And then there is the independent scene, which can rely on small amounts of funding from certain municipalities, on foreign sources, and on private donors — though the latter is not particularly strong in Hungary. 

It is important to stress: local municipalities are still actively supporting their institutions, their cultural actors. Though cities here have limited amount of money for this, it is hard to compare to what they have in countries like Poland or even in some parts of Romania. (I do not talk about Vienna or even Prague here, it’s something else…)

Quite a few main cities are under opposition leadership (Pécs, Szeged, Győr, Budapest etc.). So, for eg. Budapest is supporting and funding the theatres here, and these theatres carry out very relevant work and serve a large audience.

Mechanisms of Control: The Hungarian System

Funding Conditionality

Q: How do the new thematic priorities emphasizing “Hungarian national identity” and “Christian heritage” translate into actual funding decisions? Can you provide specific examples of projects that were approved or rejected based on these criteria?

GN:  Funding bodies are not obliged to justify rejections—for example, the National Cultural Fund (NKA) does not provide any reasoning behind its decisions. Therefore, the reasons can only be speculated. Works (films, visual art pieces, performances, cultural journals, etc.) that are political, subversive, or even simply express dissent, criticism or give voice to ethnic or sexual minorities or touch upon certain topics (like gender issues) receive little to no public funding. And if they do receive any, it is often so minimal that it is insufficient to produce the work or reach a broader audience.

This can also be a gradual process: with each application round, the artist (or group, company, etc.) is able to go for less and less, until after one or two years, they understand that there is no point in continuing to submit applications.

Strengthening “national identity” and “Christian heritage” is a key goal of the government, and under this slogan, it funds large and expensive films and productions, as well as smaller projects. This happens regardless of the artistic quality of the works or whether there is any actual public interest in them.

Personnel Changes

Q: Over 40 senior curators and directors were dismissed or resigned between 2021-2023. From your network, what were the real stories behind these departures? Were they direct dismissals or did people leave due to impossible working conditions? Who are the new people taking over and how are these institutions funded after these takeovers? Is there a pattern?

GN:  Every story is a bit different, I guess. Lack of opportunities, financial difficulties, livelihood concerns, or the general oppressive atmosphere can all be reasons why someone leaves. There are, however, some patterns. 

The government mostly taking care of the illusion of legality: a new leadership tender, which is “interestingly” won by the candidate they prefer. A new governing organization, centrally controlled. Minor changes in the budget. Minor or major structural changes. These take place for months or years until, little by little, the work becomes impossible.

Practical Impact on Artistic Expression

Self-Censorship Mechanisms

Q: The document discusses “anticipatory compliance” where artists and curators internalize restrictions. How prevalent is self-censorship in Hungary? Can you describe how this psychological pressure manifests in practice?

GN:  There is a general atmosphere in every level of the society (15 years has been enough time to create this): it’s better not to speak up, not to go against the power, not to want anything. Or if we do want something, we “smartly” wrap it up—hide it between the lines. 

There were a few striking examples where people were fired, erased because of their opinions (for example, in cultural heritage protection, which stood in the way of certain real estate deals). These people were punished publicly, even their colleagues and relatives were fired from their positions. This has since been ingrained in people’s minds: if I speak out, they will destroy me.

Also, in education and academia: CEU was a huge example for everybody to understand that new times began after 2010. 

I would say that self-censorship is present everywhere except for the independent (which I prefer to call the critical) scene. Free press, free theatres, artist groups, creative communities, some civil art organizations, some universities—here there are no limits. However, everyone lives day-to-day.

The Grey Zone

Q: How does funding manipulation create a “grey zone” where artistic freedom is compromised through financial pressure rather than explicit prohibition? How does this ambiguity affect artists’ and institutions’ ability to challenge these restrictions?

GN:  I believe I’ve already described parts of this process above. The result is fatigue, passivity, and silence. 

But in reality, even the mere possibility of sanctions is enough. It’s no coincidence that in Hungary, we haven’t seen state cultural institutions publicly stand with Ukraine—there are no Ukrainian flags around. Not because it’s strictly forbidden, but because three years of intense government anti-Ukrainian propaganda has taught everyone the lesson.

Of course, institution leaders could be braver. But unfortunately, they were selected in the first place (see above) precisely because they lack that kind of courage.

Media and Documentation Challenges

artportal.hu’s Role

Q: As a platform documenting Hungarian contemporary art, how did artportal.hu navigate the changing political landscape? Did you face direct or indirect pressure regarding coverage of certain artists, exhibitions, or cultural policies?

GN:  First of all, Artportal is no longer available on the web, its content can only be accessed via the Wayback Machine. This is the result of an unfortunate situation: the owner of Artportal Publishing Ltd. passed away in 2023, and their heirs have shown no interest in managing Artportal’s affairs—they do not consider what was created there to be of value.

What I see is that this type of cultural and artistic content is extremely vulnerable. We have no structures to protect it. No major contemporary archives, no private grants to help preserve such material.

What I can talk about is 2013-2022 when I was the chief editor of Artportal.  From the very beginning, institutional critique was important to us. We wrote openly about our views on changes in cultural policy, and at times we were even able to publish investigative pieces about the system. 

From 2016, we have not applied for any funding from the National Cultural Fund (NKA), because from that point on, the professional decision-making process became completely unbalanced: in every board, government-appointed members formed the majority. In fact, before that we won less and less funding through NKA applications each year. It was maybe a way of sending the message that there’s no point in trying anymore.

From that time on we had market-based revenue, support from the owner, and international funding (including the Visegrad Fund, which was — at least in part — still is a very important organization).

I felt no serious direct pressure though, nor from authorities (maybe we were just under the radar) nor form our owner. We felt the marginalization though but that was quite familiar in a way and we always found some space to operate.

Of course, there has always been smaller or larger attempts of pressure—if you’re a journalist, this happens. But I consider it part of the job.

Documenting Cultural Capture

Q: What challenges do cultural journalists and critics face when reporting on funding manipulation? How has the space for critical cultural discourse changed in Hungary?

GN:  The space for free journalism is pretty limited, bit inside this area you can do whatever you want.
Fidesz was always keen on to keep this limited area for the free press to operate, as an optical illusion for the EU: look, here we have free press. But there are countless ways in which those in power can obstruct journalistic work: institutions don’t provide answers, you can’t access public interest data, there’s no dialogue, and due to the limited public sphere, your published articles rarely reach readers.

This also answers the second question: the space is becoming increasingly narrow, and we are mostly talking to each other. There are no consequences — the facts uncovered and the criticism voiced have no real impact. Much remains unacknowledged and unreflected. This is true in the art world as well: stories remain untold, articles and books are left unwritten due to a lack of opportunities.

International Awareness

Q: How well do international arts communities understand what’s happening in Hungary? What aspects of the cultural situation are most misunderstood or underreported abroad?

GN:  I think the international communities are now understand what is happening – partly because they see similar techniques in the US now and also elsewhere in Europe unfortunately. 

For many years here people felt that the World does not listen, EU does not really care or does not take seriously the harm of the legal state – culture, education, media, academia are areas that not as visible as for eg. economy. 

In the recent years organisations like AFI (Artistic Freedom Initiative) and Freemuse published reports on the situation here. AFI’s report and analysis is especially profound. And there is also a report by a Hungarian organization named OHA (Oktatói Hálózat / Network of Academics), which was presented in the EU headquarters as well.

These reports are precisely documenting the dismantle of the institutional and legal system around arts and culture in Hungary, so all the facts are finally known. 

What is uncovered and undisputed is: what happens in case of a change? First time since 2010, there is a chance that next year’s election will bring a change. How to reclaim and restore the legal state? How to rebuild democracy after an autocratic regime?  In Hungary we have an exciting though limited discussion about this, the knowledge and experience of the Western societies (and also their help) would be useful.

Resistance and Adaptation Strategies

Institutional Responses

Q: Have you seen successful examples of institutions maintaining artistic independence despite funding pressure?

GN:  Sure. As I mentioned above, the independent scene is still maintaining its autonomy, especially in the theatre field. Companies that rely on ticket sales and/or foreign grants, smaller organizations. Institutions like TRAFÓ which is funded by the Budapest city council and relies on EU grants. OFF-Biennale Budapest, the largest civil art initiative in the country and perhaps in the East-Central European region too. FreeSZFE, an organization of students and teachers who left SZFE (University of Theatre and Film Arts) after its forced privatization.  

The two main questions in all of these cases are sustainability and interdependency. Will these organizations be able to help each other, form alliances and build up networks, the so called “infrastructure of dissent”?  To what extent they can rely of foreign funding? Will there ever be solid structures here in Hungary for protecting these free organisations? 

Alternative Funding Models

Q: How are Hungarian artists and institutions adapting through alternative funding sources? What role do EU grants, private sponsorship, or international partnerships play in maintaining artistic freedom?

GN:  International connections, foreign grants, EU grants are essential. This is precisely why the government wanted to cut off these channels with the “sovereignty protection law.” This law was withdrawn at the last minute, but it has not been abandoned and will be brought up again in the fall.  The aim is to criminalize the acceptance of international financial resources and build a wall around the actors of the critical cultural scene (and free press and NGO’s, etc.).

Private corporate sponsorship in culture is not quite strong in Hungary. Partly: no serious tradition for this, and obviously because companies are also afraid of retaliation from the government.

Underground Culture

Q: Is there a thriving underground or informal cultural scene that operates outside the official funding system? How significant is this alternative cultural ecosystem?

GN:  The definition of underground is a question for me. Informal? Out of the structures? Self-organized? It exists but small, fragmented and fragile. But also resilient in some forms. The different art fields reacted differently. Young dancers, theatre people have a stronger self-relying network. Visual artists still maintain artist-run-spaces. LGBTQ art scene is pretty vivid though informal and random.  

The filmmakers seem resilient, they help each other and are able to make their films – although they do work for free. (Quite a few new and successful movies were made from practically zero budget, all by pro bono work of film professionals.)

I wonder if we could call it an ecosystem, because it is not particularly well organised, pretty occasional – but maybe that’s the appropriate form for it to survive and exist. 

Future Perspectives

Generational Impact

Q: How is the current situation affecting emerging Hungarian artists and the next generation of cultural workers?

GN:  There was a massive wave of emigration after 2010. Artists, dancers, theatre directors, curators, organizers, etc.  Interestingly, some of them have returned home recently. Some maintain their lives abroad but spend half their time in Hungary, while others return home completely, perhaps because they see dangerous trends in the West as well.

There is also a hope for political change – yet there is no sign that the various artistic fields are considering the future, the possibilities for a new beginning, or the rebuilding of institutions – only independent dance and theatre scene has concepts that even a new government could use.

Right now, I do not see who would facilitate a discourse on this topic.

Long-term Consequences

Q: Beyond immediate programming changes, what do you see as the most concerning long-term impacts of current cultural policies on Hungarian society and democratic discourse?

GN:  Perhaps more time will be needed to assess this. But what is already apparent in the arts is that careers are being interrupted, broken and works are not being realized. Projects that require institutional partners, serious technical support, and funding cannot be realized. Institutions are becoming disconnected from artists, and the country is excluding itself from international discourse. We are already far removed from the Czech or Polish contexts, while Vienna and Berlin are on another planet. 

There is a lack of research, certain books or writings cannot be published, and the art and cultural history of the 2000s is untold or fragmentary.

What happens in culture is not independent of what happens in society as a whole: spaces for democratic dialogue are disappearing, and we are unable to discuss things normally with each other. Self-reflection is disappearing, and art no longer plays a “mirror” role. 

Education and social policy (if such a thing even exists today in Hungary) do not use the tools of art to create opportunities or promote equal opportunities.

Art has mainly become a matter or a tool of power and business, and to a lesser extent, a matter of resistance. We hardly think about the social role of art anymore, and its innovative functions have been forgotten.

At the same time, however, small things and small gestures are becoming more important: music, for example, is much more significant among young people. More people are interested in events, readings, and books. (I don’t have any data on this, only my own experiences.) It’s a bit like it was at the end of state socialism in the 1980s: every word, every image and every gesture becomes more important, own a special added value, at least to those who pay attention, and they preserve these words, images and gestures.

Potential for Change

Q: What would need to happen politically or socially for Hungarian cultural institutions to regain their autonomy? What are the most realistic scenarios for positive change?

GN:  A political change on the first place. We live under an authoritarian regime (there are several definitions around, I use this one, which I feel the more appropriate). Legal state. Constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression. Stronger institutions and more conscious, responsible directors. 

For the first time in 15 years, there is a chance for change – a new party (TISZA) has swept away the apathy in the country. It is a center-right party, not my agenda, I miss a leftist-liberal party, but I accept that this is what we have now. They are pro-EU, anti-corruption, anti-Putin and that’s now enough for most of the people to support them. According to opinion polls, they are currently ahead of Fidesz. Elections will be in 2026, and anything can happen, including a huge win for TISZA. Not much is known about what they would do with culture, but perhaps they would be open to negotiating with people in the cultural sector. Recommendations are needed, policy making is needed, but I don’t see the actors, the agents who would do this right now.

Recommendations for European Action

Early Warning Systems

Q: Based on the Hungarian experience, what early warning signs should other European countries watch for? What could have been done differently in the early stages?

GN:  Every country is different. But there can be warning signs: replacement of leaders in institutions, weakening of freedom of speech, linking financial support to unusual conditions, strengthening of the nationalist agenda by the government.

Policy Recommendations

Q: If you were advising the Council of Europe on protecting cultural freedom, what specific mechanisms or policies would you recommend based on the Hungarian experience?

GN:  In the EU, culture is a so-called “national competence.” Certain aspects of this should be reconsidered—especially those related to fundamental freedoms.  

Strengthen the cities! Funding and applications should be rethought: cities should be given direct access to resources. It is absurd that for eg. Budapest as a city can only access certain funds through the government (which, of course, does not work).  Only larger organizations are able to apply for larger EU grants, and there are many small organizations and individual actors in the cultural sector—something should be figured out for them as well.

Personal Reflection

Q: How has this period affected you personally as someone deeply involved in Hungarian cultural life? What has been most challenging and what are your plans to overcome these?

GN:  The effect occurs on different levels. I am a journalist and I deal with culture, so I am affected by both the persecution of the free press and the attacks on culture.  If the country I live in were not an authoritarian regime, I would be able to do my job in better conditions, with more freedom and more opportunities. Obviously, my livelihood would also have been more secure. But that is not the most important thing. I was 20 years old in 1989 in the year of the regime change. That year defined my whole life. What has happened in the recent 15 years, in effect, a de facto reversal of the regime change. It may sound too simple, but I do not want my children to grow up in a country like this.

As for plans: one consequence of the past 15 years is that we don’t make plans. We don’t see any prospects or horizons—we just try to get through today and tomorrow. Life in this country is unpredictable; only those in power have plans. 

Hope and Resilience

Q: Despite the challenges, what gives you hope about the future of artistic freedom in Hungary and Europe more broadly?

GN:  We have seen this all before. State socialism wanted to eliminate critical culture in the same way – it failed. It won’t succeed now either. The leaders of Fidesz, including the prime minister, attended those underground, countercultural events in the 1980s, listened to that music, and read those samizdat newspapers and books that the regime wanted to ban.  So, they know very well that culture cannot be eliminated or erased. They try, but they will not succeed. It is small and fragile, but resilient, and it will survive. However, it is not certain that culture makers will survive.

Technical Follow-up Questions

Documentation and Evidence

Q: What documentation exists of these changes? How can researchers and advocates better track and evidence funding manipulation?

GN:  As I mentioned before: reports of AFI, OHA and partly Freemuse. (I can send links if needed.)
Articles of Magyar Narancs, Artportal, Műértő / A mű, partly ÉS, old-Index, 444, Telex, Népszabadság (shut down in 2016)

Measuring Impact

Q: How can we better measure the impact of funding manipulation beyond simple statistics? What qualitative indicators are most important?

GN:  Funding is only a consequence and that’s the end of the line. It all starts with the cultural policies.

Every decision of the ministry (from 2022 we have a cultural ministry again) and the NKA are available. We can follow how many performances are made, books are published, movies made, projects came to life. So anyone can do the maths if needed – but once again, in my opinion, this is not the most important point. The important thing is the reshape of the institutional and legal and financial context of the culture in Hungary in favour of the freedom of expression. Transparent, professional, accountable system.

Supporting Affected Communities

Q: What practical support do Hungarian artists and cultural workers most need from international colleagues and organizations?

GN:  Available grants, not only project funding but structural funding as well, knowledge sharing, institutional connections. Cities that are “safe havens” and can have access to EU money directly. Freedom of culture should be included in the rule of law conditionality regulation (I am referring to the procedure relating to frozen EU funds.)