People who work in art say they might be banned because of “controversial opinions,” new research reveals
Eight out of ten employees in the arts or culture section said that according to a new survey, sharing controversial opinions could be “professionally banned” or bullied.
These revelations are said to be the result of a growing culture of self-censorship and a fear of a backlash from colleagues about views that may be politically incorrect.
Freedom of expression research conducted by ArtsProfessionals, a British art publication, received responses from more than 500 people in the field, many of whom pointed to the risks that can come with speaking freely.
Some of these topics include expressing support for right-wing ideologies and conservative political parties.
A ArtsProfessional study found that 80 percent of art workers said they shared controversial opinions
A respondent said: ‘It would not be advisable to point out that the arts usually do well among the [conservatives]. ”
Another said: “Our sectors of art, culture and education should fearlessly think freely and be open to a wide range of challenging views.
“However, they are now dominated by a monolithically politically correct class (usually by the way, of privileged white middle-class people), who impose their intolerant views in those sectors.”
Showing sympathy for movements such as Brexit was also mentioned as controversial and isolating.
Conversations about religion, gender and sexuality also turned out to be a ‘minefield’ for many surveyors.
“Anything that has to do with gender issues, especially trans issues, will get a lot of anti-aircraft guns because they are not adequately on message, or not on message, or also on message,” one person said.
A surveyor doubled those claims and noted that the sector was not nearly as open as they claim to be, there is a lot of congestion and underhand.
Only 40 percent of people said that “personal views and opinions are respected by others working in the arts and cultural sector,” and only two percent said they felt free to speak on issues that plague the field.
“This drives people who disagree, risks increasing support for precisely those things that this culturally dominant class opposes, and slowly destroys our society and culture from within,” one person wrote.
Physician-professional editor Amanda Parker said the findings show “a deep separation between public perception and the reality of working in the art and cultural sector.”
‘Our research sheds a destructive light on the coercion, bullying, intimidation and intolerance that is active in a community that regards itself as liberal, open-minded and just.
Physician-professional editor Amanda Parker (photo) said the survey showed a gap between perception and reality
Parker adds that although the survey does not represent everyone, it is a “sad” revelation because public conversations about collaboration and inclusiveness are raging.
However, almost all respondents agreed that “the arts and culture sector has the responsibility to use its unique talents to speak on matters that matter, regardless of the potential consequences.”
The survey indicates that censorship is imposed itself, but one in six respondents revealed that they had received money to sign a confidentiality agreement.
Examples of this were a person who “was offered money to remain silent about corrupt practices in art financing at EU level” and “got a whimpering order about a colleague’s sexual harassment case and the illegal trials of a board.”
Another point that emerged in the survey was that several respondents had a ‘don’t bite in the hand that feeds you’ mentality.
Nearly 70 percent of people said they would not criticize a financier for fear of blocking future investments, and 40 percent said they were pressured by financiers to speak out.
On the basis of responses, financiers seemed to carry an atmosphere of immunity and had a certain level of perceived power over others.
Showing sympathy for traditionally conservative movements, such as Brexit in the UK, was also reported as divisive
One person compared the relationship with that of a parent and a child.
“It’s hard to challenge them or to enter into a dialogue with them, even if there are genuine concerns,” they wrote.
Yet two-thirds of the respondents said that the pressure to remain silent came mainly from colleagues.
The effect of censorship on the art community has permeated the decision-making process of the organization, according to the research.
The majority said, “organizations that do not risk controversy do not deliver the most exciting creative work,” but acknowledge that the political boards must navigate to stay afloat.
A third thought their boards diligently looked for potential controversies, but 45 percent said they were “pressured, intimidated, banned, forced, forced, harassed or bullied, either in person or on digital media,” about creative choices.
The general public also plays a role in the art sector by inadvertently controlling freedom of expression.
“There is a culture of inviting and then overreacting to complaints when they actually represent only a small part of the opinions,” one person wrote.
In the end, one person said it was “a matter of picking battles.”
They said: ‘I sometimes have to consider whether what I really have to say requires the element that others will reject. If it’s important to me, I stick to my plan, but sometimes it’s not the most important thing and I choose to tame my ideas. “
“I have felt like a traitor to my own self-expression, but I have to ask if anyone should hear from me at all.”