Freedom in the Arts

Rosie Kay discusses the UK-based organisation Freedom in the Arts, and how arts professionals can help by completing this survey by 8 December 2024.

Arts professionals are increasingly horrified by the unending affronts of cancel culture and identity politics. Eminent institutional directors, artists, curators, musicians, producers, and authors gather in secret across Britain to share problems and solve them. Meetings are often hush-hush, and held under the Chatham House Rule, as if we’re the new counterculture.

One year ago, closed-door conversations entered the public domain when a pair of courageous figures founded Freedom in the Arts (FITA). These individuals are award-winning choreographer Rosie Kay and arts administrator Denise Fahmy, a duo who both suffered under the unforgiving force of cancel culture after they, separately, expressed gender-critical beliefs.

FITA was founded as a five-year emergency project with three main objects:

(1) “to tackle the culture of fear and intimidation artists are facing for expressing their legal views”
(2) “to slow down and halt institutional capture”
(3) “to question imposed ideological decision making”

The constructive approach of FITA is striking. Rosie Kay and I discussed FITA in anticipation of their Freedom in the Arts Survey, closing on 8 December 2024:

Courage.Media is a positive platform. It champions people who have not only diagnosed malaise but are also generating solutions. How do you see FITA as fitting into this model?

While we are clear-eyed about the challenges facing the arts — censorship, ideological conformity, and institutional mission drift — our focus is on proactive solutions and empowering change. FITA doesn’t just diagnose the problems; we provide direct support to artists, advocate for systemic reforms, and create opportunities for open dialogue.

Our advocacy campaigns, such as calling for the Arts Council England to reinstate impartiality and transparency, are practical steps to create a more inclusive, fearless arts sector. FITA also champions solutions like diversifying funding sources, reducing administrative waste, and embedding freedom of expression clauses in funding agreements.

We believe in building bridges and fostering collaboration. Partnerships with UK-based organizations, such as the Free Speech Union, along with the development of American and European networks demonstrate our commitment to actionable change, while our public engagement projects, such as debates and participatory performances, empower communities to champion artistic freedom.

What gave you the courage to found FITA?

The courage to found FITA came from a deeply personal and professional crossroads. Both Denise Fahmy and I, as co-founders, experienced first-hand the devastating effects of censorship, ideological conformity, and cancel culture within the arts. These challenges struck at the core of our values, not just as professionals, but as individuals who believe in the transformative power of art and its fundamental connection to freedom of expression.

For me, it was the culmination of years of advocating for bold, boundary-pushing creativity, only to find the space for such work increasingly constrained by fear and orthodoxy. When I faced backlash for defending women’s rights and my creative integrity, I realized the problem wasn’t isolated to my experience. Countless artists and organizations were grappling with the same pressures but felt voiceless and unsupported.

The tipping point came when Denise’s victory in her employment tribunal against Arts Council England (ACE) highlighted how deeply ingrained these issues are within the institutions meant to uphold creative freedom. Instead of succumbing to disillusionment, we turned our shared frustration into action, knowing we had the expertise, experience, and networks to make a tangible difference.

FITA was born out of necessity but also out of hope: the hope that by standing together, artists and institutions can reclaim their autonomy, foster a thriving arts sector, and ensure that creativity remains fearless and diverse. Courage for us wasn’t optional; it was essential.

Courage.Media speaks to an international audience, many of whom are American. Describe the arts scene in the United Kingdom.

The arts scene in the United Kingdom is vibrant and historically celebrated for its diversity, creativity, and boldness. From our globally renowned theatres and dance companies to our cutting-edge visual arts and music festivals, the UK’s creative industries are a cornerstone of cultural innovation.

In recent years, the British arts sector has become increasingly politicized, creating what many describe as a politically charged environment. Artistic decisions — what gets funded, programmed, or even who gets hired — are often influenced more by ideological priorities than by artistic merit or excellence. Public funding bodies like ACE have introduced targets and criteria that prioritize identity, political alignment, or specific social narratives over creativity or innovation. While tackling inequality is vital, this has led to a narrow definition of inclusion, often stifling artistic freedom and sidelining those whose views or work don’t align with current orthodoxies.

For example, many artists feel pressured to self-censor, fearing backlash or loss of opportunities if their work or personal views are deemed controversial. Organizations face similar challenges, with boards and leadership often choosing “safe” programming over work that might provoke critical dialogue or risk offending particular groups. This has created an atmosphere of fear, where challenging norms or exploring uncomfortable truths — historically a strength of UK art — has become increasingly difficult.

Identity politics is an important contention in FITA’s manifesto. How does this affect the arts industry?

Identity politics has significantly influenced the arts industry, particularly in how funding, programming, and opportunities are shaped. While the intent to create a more inclusive and equitable arts sector is important, the current emphasis on identity politics often narrows the definition of diversity, focusing primarily on visible traits like race, gender, or sexuality. This approach can overshadow broader aspects of diversity, such as diversity of thought, artistic styles, or experiences, which are equally crucial to fostering creativity and innovation.

In practical terms, this has led to a shift where funding bodies and institutions prioritize meeting voluntary (but incentivized) quotas or adhering to ideological frameworks over supporting artistic merit or creative risk-taking. Artists are increasingly evaluated based on their identity or alignment with a specific narrative, rather than the quality or originality of their work. As a result, many feel pigeonholed into producing art that fits predefined themes tied to their background or political stance, limiting their creative freedom.

For organizations, identity politics can lead to a form of “groupthink”, where dissenting perspectives are discouraged, and programming decisions cater to ideological conformity rather than artistic exploration. This stifles the challenging, thought-provoking work that has historically defined the arts. It also risks alienating audiences, who often seek art that entertains, inspires, and challenges; not art that adheres to a single ideological narrative.

How do you distinguish artistic “excellence”? And how does “identity” differ from, for example, the artist “genius” introspective stereotype that identity politics often react against?

At FITA, we believe that artistic excellence is rooted in creativity, originality, and the ability to provoke thought, evoke emotion, or inspire action. It is about the quality of the work itself — its craftsmanship, vision, and impact — rather than the identity or background of the artist. Excellence is not tied to perfection or a single definition but reflects a standard where art challenges, transforms, and connects with audiences in meaningful ways.

Identity politics, as it is often applied in the arts today, emphasizes the traits or lived experiences of the artist — such as their race, gender, or sexuality — over the work they produce. While identity can undoubtedly enrich art by bringing unique perspectives to the table, its overemphasis risks narrowing artistic expression. Instead of supporting work for its creative merit, institutions may prioritize it to meet ideological or political and internal quotas. This approach can diminish the diversity of thought and ideas that a thriving arts sector needs.

The artist-as-“genius” stereotype, often critiqued by identity politics, is seen as introspective, self-centered, and disconnected from broader societal issues. FITA, however, rejects both extremes: we value the richness of identity and the power of collaboration, but we also hold that art transcends the individual. What distinguishes excellence is not the artist’s background or adherence to a particular narrative but their ability to produce work that resonates universally, challenges norms, and speaks to the human condition.

We advocate for an arts sector where identity is celebrated as part of the creative process, not as a determinant of an artist’s worth or the value of their work. By prioritizing excellence, we aim to create a space where all artists — regardless of identity — are free to explore their fullest creative potential.

Should we abandon our already existing arts institutions or try to reform them? If the latter option, what would “reforming” look like?

FITA believes we should reform rather than abandon our existing arts institutions, as they remain vital frameworks for fostering creativity and ensuring public access to the arts.

Reform begins with restoring impartial governance rooted in the Nolan Principles, ensuring decisions are transparent and focused on artistic excellence rather than ideological targets. Institutions must reconnect with audiences by creating work that balances innovation with entertainment, responding to survey data that shows public fatigue with perceived ideological messaging.

To protect artistic freedom, a Freedom of Expression Protection Clause should be introduced in funding agreements, ensuring institutions uphold the right to explore challenging ideas. Administrative waste must be reduced, redirecting public funds toward the making and presenting of art rather than excessive bureaucracy. Reform also requires diversifying funding models, encouraging private investment and philanthropy alongside public funding to foster financial independence.

Above all, institutions must prioritize skill, expertise, and creative innovation, moving beyond an overemphasis on identity politics or voluntary quotas. By addressing these issues, we can reinvigorate existing institutions and ensure they remain leaders in inspiring, challenging, and engaging society.

Why should someone who doesn’t usually follow the arts, or believe that it is their duty to protect creative expression, care?

The arts matter to society because they are more than entertainment. They are a reflection of who we are, a means of exploring complex ideas, and a driver of innovation and connection. Art transcends language, culture, and ideology, offering a universal platform for dialogue, empathy, and understanding. It challenges norms, asks difficult questions, and allows us to imagine new possibilities. Even for those who don’t actively engage with the arts, its impact is felt everywhere: in the stories we tell, the design of our cities, and the way we understand ourselves and others.

Creative expression is also essential to a thriving democracy. It holds power to account, celebrates dissent, and ensures a diversity of voices and perspectives. Without it, we risk losing one of our most powerful tools for societal progress. Moreover, the arts have tangible benefits. They contribute significantly to economies, support millions of jobs, and enhance education, mental health, and community cohesion.

For those who feel the arts are not their duty to protect, consider this: a society that neglects its arts loses its soul. It becomes less dynamic, less creative, and less able to adapt to change. Protecting creative expression ensures that future generations inherit a world rich in ideas, culture, and inspiration. The arts matter to everyone because they shape the society in which we all live, whether we actively participate or not.

The arts have always been deeply personal to me. As an artist, I’ve had the privilege of traveling the world, connecting with diverse cultures, and sharing my work with audiences from all walks of life. It’s been an exhilarating journey, not just creatively but intellectually and emotionally. Throughout my career, I’ve been able to tackle some of the most challenging and important topics — war, identity, conspiracy, and beauty — and explore them in ways that resonate universally. These experiences have shown me first-hand the transformative power of the arts to spark dialogue, bridge divides, and inspire change. It’s this passion and belief in the arts’ potential that drives my work with FITA, ensuring that others can have the same freedom and opportunities to create, challenge, and connect.

To finish, a call to action to those working in the arts sector in the UK. FITA are currently collecting data to assess the current state of freedom of expression in the arts sector. What are you hoping to discover from the survey and why does this matter?

We want to understand how censorship, self-censorship, and ideological conformity are affecting artists, organizations, and audiences. Specifically, we’re looking to identify the extent of these challenges, how they manifest, and their impact on creativity, diversity of thought, and public engagement with the arts.

This builds on the findings of the 2019 Arts Professional Freedom of Expression Survey, which revealed significant concerns around censorship and self-censorship in the sector. By making this survey comparative, we aim to explore how these issues have evolved over the past five years in a rapidly changing cultural and political environment. The 2019 survey highlighted pressures related to funding, public criticism, and institutional policies, and our updated survey will investigate whether these trends have deepened or shifted.

The results will provide evidence-based insights into how these constraints are shaping the sector, offering a clearer picture of where reforms are needed. By highlighting these trends, we aim to advocate for changes that restore artistic freedom, prioritize merit and creativity over ideological compliance, and reconnect the arts with their audiences. This survey will help FITA develop targeted support for artists and organizations, ensuring that the arts remain a space for fearless exploration and dialogue.

The deadline for the survey is 8 December 2024. All responses are anonymous unless indicated otherwise. Findings will be published on FITA’s website in Winter/Spring 2025.