Politicians must protect the art they disagree with

Musicians operate in a tense industry where politics, attitudes and harsh rhetoric are more prevalent than ever before. They need the politicians’ support, not their criticism, writes the spokesperson for the Danish Artists’ Association in a commentary in Kristeligt Dagblad.

By Sara Indrio, spokesperson for the Danish Artists' Association.

When artistic expressions have consequences

The past few weeks have shown how quickly political statements can have concrete consequences for artists. In the US, our own Lukas Graham withdrew – after Macklemore had done the same – from Ed Sheeran’s tour, after the owner of several stadiums refused to let Macklemore perform because of his pro-Palestinian statements.

Ed Sheeran subsequently faced a failing ticket sales and apologized crying as the big loser of the big political game he had ended up in the middle of.

At home, we have seen politicians demand that certain artistic expressions be removed from cultural institutions, songs be tried to be removed from the “High School Songbook,” and financial support be taken away from festivals that gave the stage to expressions that were not in line with the opinions of the municipality’s politicians. All of the examples show a slide in some of the fundamental principles that hold together a healthy democracy.

Fortunately, most politicians in Denmark respect the principle of the arm’s length principle and freedom of expression. And this is not just a good cultural policy tradition based on conventions. It is a necessary democratic safeguard. When the artist enters the public sphere, it does so without mandate, party, or political apparatus behind them. It is on their own account and at their own risk, but it is part of the “social contract” some artists may feel bound by.

And the price can be high, as we see in the examples above and in many studies. Therefore, a society has a special duty to protect its artists and their freedom of expression, as stated in the UNESCO “1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist: promoting the professional, social and economic rights of artists”.

The commitment of politicians stands, even though what the artist expresses does not decide the voters, the organizers, or the politicians themselves.

In reality, Macklemore’s message was more about peace than about influencing the audience to take a stand in a global and historical conflict. But perhaps fewer have taken the time to watch the controversial speech than the many who have expressed their opinions on social media about the conflict itself.

When the debate reaches the person behind the art

Social media is not the cause of all our conflicts, but it is an uncensored infrastructure for the exchange of opinions. Three out of four Danes find the tone in online debates harsh, and two out of three find the conversations polarizing.

Politicians and artists – and others with large public followings – therefore enter into a market of attention, where nuance is rarely the most valuable currency. Hatred, harassment, and ridicule can strike with great force.

In a Nordic study among more than 3,000 artists, 61 percent of Danish performing artists responded that they had experienced threats, violence, or harassment at some point in their work. One in four had experienced it within the last year. Some stated that the experiences had limited their artistic freedom.

We have seen how concrete the price can be. When Mads Geertsen, known as the character Onkel Reje, faced coordinated hate, severe threats and harassment in 2023, he went on sick leave and cancelled a number of performances. DR police reported the threats. The public conflict did not take place on stage; it hit the person behind the character.

It is difficult enough to use one’s public voice in such an environment. Therefore, formal political power comes with a special responsibility. Politicians and artists both have a responsibility for their rhetorical tone. But politicians also have a responsibility not to use their power and reach to discipline the art. And when artists are subjected to pressure, elected officials should uphold the principle – not because they have to agree, but because in that way they uphold their part of the “contract” with the artist, who has no protection, no protection in the form of years of pension and a party behind them.

Art as the fifth pillar of democracy

As a safeguard against the abuse of power, we divide the public power into three: the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. In democracy, we often talk about the press as the fourth state power. I believe we overlook another democratic counter-power: art. Let's call it the fifth pillar of democracy.

Art has no formal power, and precisely because of this it can do something different. From the artist’s subjective position, it can point to the idea of what human beings and society are – and what it could become. Throughout history, this characteristic has made art the framework for communities, a source of cultural breakthroughs, and a catalyst for society’s development.

It is also here that I believe a social contract exists. Society must protect a free cultural space and accept that art can provoke, criticize, and challenge. In return, society gains a place where experiences, ideas, and possible futures can be tested on different premises than in parliament, the market, or journalism.

A survey of 224 Danish cultural institution managers shows that 63 percent perceive the arm’s-length principle as under pressure, while 34 percent consider avoiding certain topics out of concern for political reactions to be at some extent or very much so. This shows that artistic freedom in a democracy is not just about formal prohibitions. Political pressure, self-censorship, lost collaborations, and public criticism can have real consequences for working life and income.

Artistic freedom requires economic independence

The music industry, from which I speak, has become ultra-capitalized in recent years. In the live market, we still see strong, locally rooted initiatives, but at the same time a movement towards larger, capital-rich and internationally organized players. On other premises, we have already seen the same concentration change the market for recorded music.

When fewer actors control access to major venues, audiences, and the economy, the consequences are greater when one of them says no. Therefore, as a society, we should ensure a counterweight to a development where the market alone determines the terms, and where economic vulnerability makes the artist’s freedom less real.

It requires both independent cultural institutions and a safety net for individual artists, which makes the artistic community more robust and economically independent. Our elected representatives must ensure that this is in place.

And the commitment should extend beyond Danish democracy. In working on the global agenda after 2030, Denmark should work towards an independent global goal for culture that both ensures people’s access to free art and the right of artists to express their artistic opinions freely.

For a democracy to be able to bear seeing itself reflected in the mirror that artists leave behind. Whether one agrees with that or not. Politicians should always protect the task that the artist rightly undertakes.