ARTICLE: The Rise of the Displaced Artist in Europe: Does the Arts Sector Share a Collective Responsibility?

25 Sept. 2024

Artists and thinkers have been targeted for centuries for speaking truth to power, from the Greeks ostracised from Athens as dangerous to democracy, to the 14th century Hurufi Sufi poet of Azerbaijan, Nesimi, executed for his free expression. Since the 1940s and 50s, the concept of speaking truth to power, based on the Greek parrhesia, or candid speech, has been used in civil rights and political spheres. Popularised in a series of lectures by the French philosopher Michel Foucault at the University of California Berkeley in 1983  ^1  1  Michel Foucault, „The Meaning and Evolution of the Word Parrhesia”, In: Discourse & Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia (1983; 1999), https://foucault.info/parrhesia/foucault.DT1.wordParrhesia.en/, [accessed: 2018]. ↩︎, it has increasingly been adopted to refer to artists. Arguably, the concept of the ‘artist-at-risk’ was inspired by the first Scholars at Risk conference at the University of Chicago in 1999 and likely first used to describe artists from 2005 by Todd Lester, founder of freeDimensional, a time-limited initiative (2006–2014) that matched artists needing temporary protective relocation from persecution in their countries with the growing number of artist residencies.

This paper is based on an intervention prepared for the Warsaw Cultural Observatory (WOK) on the occasion of the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR), held in Warsaw on 21 August 2024. My observations are based on 14 years of experience, 2009 – 2023, when I acted as a case worker and advocate for artists persecuted in their countries and seeking assistance, including protective relocation to the European Union (EU). During this period, I advocated to European cultural networks and policymakers to raise awareness of the increasing number of cases of artists relocated to Europe for protection. My position is that the arts sector in Europe has a responsibility towards these artists who arrive to our countries as newcomers, to welcome them as full colleagues in an international but often marginalised cultural sector.

This paper discusses some aspects of the context faced by artists and arts workers such as curators, theatre directors, publishers and others who face persecution due to their artwork or practice in their home countries and who therefore need assistance including protective relocation. It defines key terminology, key international legislation and key actors. It describes common obstacles faced by these artists and points to possibilities for the sector as a whole to provide more equitable support and solidarity towards them.

Freedom of expression is one of the most widely known human rights. Its international legality is established in the United Nations treaties on human rights and free speech such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These are legally binding for the 174 countries that have signed them. Although journalists are targeted for telling the truth to the public and rightfully supported by protective and campaigning initiatives, it is only relatively recently that the situations of artists have been specifically addressed. But artists and their work are not always straightforward. Artists use metaphor, multiple meanings, poetic allusion and irony; they may provoke to elicit reaction and thought beyond the status quo. Freedom of artistic expression, or artistic freedom, is a growing terminology, well defined by Farida Shaheed, the first United Nations Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights. Her 2013 report ‘The Right to Freedom of Artistic Expression and Creation’ stated some of the reasons why artistic freedom may seem complex, but is crucial:

Artists may entertain people, but they also contribute to social debates, sometimes bringing counter-discourses and potential counterweights to existing power centres. The vitality of artistic creativity is necessary for the development of vibrant cultures and the functioning of democratic societies. Artistic expressions and creations are an integral part of cultural life, which entails contesting meanings and revisiting culturally inherited ideas and concepts. The crucial task of implementation of universal human rights norms is to prevent the arbitrary privileging of certain perspectives on account of their traditional authority, institutional or economic power, or demographic supremacy in society. This principle lies at the heart of every issue raised in the debate over the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity and possible limitations on that right.

Shaheed, 2013: 3

Organisations such as PEN International since 1921 and the UK’s Index on Censorship since 1972 were founded to support persecuted writers. In 1998, Freemuse was founded, initially only for musicians and as of 2014 for all artists, researching cases, advocating on behalf of censored, persecuted and imprisoned musicians and artists and negotiating behind the scenes for their freedom and safety. Freemuse is the only organisation that publishes annual statistics on violations of freedom of artistic expression. Active since 1993, ICORN (the International Cities of Refuge Network) was formally established in 2006, initially only for writers but is now an international network of over eighty cities that host writers and other artists fleeing persecution.

Artists-at-risk are those whose work speaks truth to power, upholds social justice ideals and exercises human rights, and whose human rights are directly threatened, abused or violated as a result. We use the blanket term “censorship,” but there are several degrees, from annoying to deadly. Attention to artists-at-risk is slowly growing globally. Although established in Finland in 2013, the generically named Artists at Risk (AR) moved to Germany and expanded considerably in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Artists who apply are matched with short-term temporary relocations available in a global network of residencies. In 2017 the Artists at Risk Connection (ARC), initially a project of PEN America, was initiated to assist artists-at-risk by connecting them to a global database of organisations and institutions with resources to assist them. It currently has four regional representatives and organises actions to raise the visibility of artistic freedom. There are now many others, such as the individual residencies that specialise in or accept at-risk artists, as well as regional initiatives such as al Mawred al Thaqafy’s programme Stand for Art in the Arab-speaking countries, support networks of residencies in Africa and Latin America and increasing activities in the USA.

I prefer to use the term displaced artists rather than persecuted artists or artist-at-risk. They are artists in the first place, whose situation may or may not have a temporary or profound influence on their artmaking. They are:

 [A]rtists whose displacement, a result of their strong artistic engagement, has largely been involuntary as the only reasonable option open to them. They are artists in exile, constrained to move from their home territory, socio-cultural environment and usual artistic activities due to a number of factors. These may include armed conflict; natural disasters and severe climatic changes; violations against recognized human rights such as those protecting and defending free expression, the rights of women, the rights of children, the right to education, religious freedom, freedom of sexual orientation; as well as circumstances depriving them of their recognized economic rights and cultural rights. With legal status in their new host country denied or postponed, their civic status may be in flux: they may be seeking asylum, have gained (or not) refugee status, be clandestine or simply classed as a migrant. Because their art works often speak truth to power, repressive elements in their societies want them silenced. Due to their art practices, they encounter censorship, persecution, violations of basic human rights, imprisonment, physical and mental harm, even death. These are artists who, when lacking a civil status in their new host country, cannot enjoy the same rights as other artists who are citizens or have a similar legal status.

DeVlieg, ‘Bridging Citizenship’, 2022: 91

Whereas Freemuse and others attempt to identify the numbers of concerned artists, it is a difficult task, as Freemuse’s 2024 ‘The State of Artistic Freedom’ reminds us:

The nature of censorship, and in particular self-censorship, makes it impossible to attempt to have a comprehensive picture of the full extent of repression of artistic freedom. In authoritarian countries where physical threat, imprisonment and legal actions are among the censors’ tools, these act as clear deterrents. In notionally democratic countries, ‘under the radar’ censorship serves to stop artists’ expression. By touching on contentious topics, they can risk losing essential funding and sponsorship, which in a financially precarious sector can serve to chill creativity.

Freemuse, 2024:11

Freemuse’s 2020 annual report, The State of Artistic Freedom cited 711 acts of violence of artistic freedom in 93 countries. Nine artists were killed (in eight countries); 71 imprisoned (in 16 countries); 85 detained (in 27 countries); and 23 prosecuted (in 13 countries). 57 were persecuted (in 20 countries); 44 threatened (in 22 countries); 28 artworks destroyed or damaged (in 15 countries); 22 artists banned from travelling (in 11 countries); 10 artists abducted (in two countries)… and 352 acts of artistic censorship  ^2  2  Freemuse. “The State of Artistic Freedom” (2024), https://freemuse.no/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SAF-Report-2024-small-1.pdf, [accessed: 08.11.2024]. ↩︎.

These numbers are considered the tip of the iceberg. Many artists do not report their persecution, choosing instead to merely leave. As of May 2024, the UN reports 43.4 million refugees and 6.9 million asylum seekers fleeing conflict, poverty and climate disasters, with Europe hosting 36% of refugees  ^3  3  USA for UNHCR, “Refugee Statistics”. https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics/, [accessed: 08.11.2024]. ↩︎. Undoubtedly some of these will be artists whose cases are not recorded by the few organisations monitoring the phenomenon.

Regular reports of the UN Special Rapporteurs in the Field of Cultural Rights, especially the Shaheed report mentioned above and others mentioned in this paper, define the rights of artists in a variety of situations, for example covering employment and legal status. However, the basic framework for artists discussed here is that of freedom of expression. Article 19, the article guaranteeing this in the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), as well as the two binding conventions cited above that followed it, the ICESCR and the ICCPR, states that everyone, everywhere, no matter what their political or religious beliefs, has the right to:

• Hold opinions,
• Receive and share information and ideas,
• Express, seek out, find and access opinions (in certain conditions, including those which others might find offensive).

But nation states, the legal guarantors of internationally legislated human rights, are also the majority perpetrators of abuses. Abuses are sometimes categorised, as discussed in the Council of Europe’s report on artistic freedom, as ‘above the radar’ or ‘under the radar’  ^4  4  Council of Europe, “Free to Create: Report on Artistic Freedom in Europe”, 15.02.2023, https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/free-to-create-report-on-artistic-freedom-in-europe. [accessed: 08.11.2024]. ↩︎.

Censorship Above the Radar is that which is publicly visible, for example:

• A gallery or theatre decides to cancel an event due to public or private pressure.
• A sponsor withdraws a prize for an artist’s controversial work; public funding is cut or a city council cancels permission to use a studio or rehearsal space.
• A group threatens or destroys artwork, or blocks public access to a theatre performance. The police use the excuse of protecting the public to force the closure of an event.
• There is increasing danger to artists on social media, with threats coming from those who disagree with them on issues their work speaks to (such as women’s rights, religion, rights of minorities, or political affiliation).
• Social media platforms themselves are guilty of censoring work that should be legally shown.

Censorship Under the Radar, or Indirect Censorship can include loss of subsidy or sponsorship, loss of premises, loss of exhibitions or bookings, and lack of police protection. In Europe, it can include frequent harassment by local authorities or police for dubious reasons, unpredictable new demands by funders such as recurrent audits, or changes in funding criteria that make some groups’ access impossible. Censorship of the market happens when publishers are afraid to publish, or when developing new audiences are obstructed due to bans on the work. Some examples are when:

• Freedom of movement is threatened when artists are denied visas, banned entry, or face aggressive interrogation at airports.
• The artist is put on a secret blacklist by the public authorities.
• Artists or their loved ones are threatened or physically harmed putting pressure on the artist
• Artists are arrested as a warning, put in prison, or left in prison for years in the hope that the public will forget them.
• Or the artists are simply murdered.

In her 2017 Statement at the Seventy-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the second UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Karima Bennoune, stated that abuses:

Often involve attempts at cultural engineering aimed at redesigning culture based on monolithic world views, focused on ‘purity’ and enmity toward ‘the other,’ policing ‘honour’ and ‘modesty,’ claiming cultural and moral superiority, imposing a claimed ‘true religion’ or ‘authentic culture’ along with dress and behaviour codes often alien to the lived cultures of local populations, stifling freedom of artistic expression and curtailing scientific freedom  ^5  5  United Nations, “Statement by Karima Bennoune, Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights at the Seventy-second session of the General Assembly Item 73 (b & c)”, 25.10.2017. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2017/10/statement-karima-bennoune-special-rapporteur-field-cultural-rights-seventy [accessed: 08.11.2024]. ↩︎.

Bennoune, 2017

The nation-state, charged with protecting and defending the rights it has put into law, may fail to enforce the international laws they have signed, fail to protect artists, or fail to punish those who repress artists. Governments use various laws as pretexts to silence artists:

• Sedition, anti-discrimination or hate speech,
• Terrorism,
• Disturbance of the public order,
• Blasphemy,
• New laws against fake news
• Obscenity.

Non-State actors may also be perpetrators, for example:

• Educational institutions (firing teachers)
• Mass media, broadcasting, telecommunications, and production companies (not diffusing work)
• Unions (prohibiting an artist from working by denying membership)
• Armed extremists, organised crime (drug mafia and gangs)
• Religious authorities, traditional leaders
• Corporations, distribution companies and retailers, sponsors (big multinationals suing artists for breach of copyright)
• Civil society groups, associations (censorship of the mob, street censorship)

There are various explanations such as widespread ignorance of what is actually permitted or prohibited legally. Artists and arts professionals do not fully understand the law or, due to legal costs or fearing intimidation, do not defend their rights. States, police or other public services responsible for protecting freedom of expression often demonstrate ignorance of the law, wrong interpretation, or wilful transgression. Imprecise and undefined legal concepts such as insult, glorifying terrorism, or blasphemy are cited inaccurately. Although Iceland, Malta and Denmark have all recently removed their national laws against blasphemy, UNESCO reports that ‘…insult to religion and blasphemy, as well as perceived transgressions of traditional and conservative values, accounted for over a third of court cases against artists worldwide in 2016.’  ^6  6  UNESCO. “Re | Shaping Cultural Policies. Advancing Creativity for Development”, In 2005 Convention Global Report, (Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018). https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/reshaping-cultural-policies-2018-en.pdf, [accessed: 08.11.2024]. ↩︎

Often international law has been ratified by a country but is not enforced, or there are still national laws on the books that contravene international law—which takes precedence over national legislation when ratified by the country.

And, of course, the general public hardly ever understands what is legally permitted and because arts organisations have not worked to deepen their understanding, the public may be unsympathetic to the artist or artwork. In almost all cases of public demonstrations against an artwork, the demonstrators have not read the book, nor seen the play or movie, nor taken the opportunity to understand the artist’s intention in making the work. The general public can be the arts’ biggest threat or most solid support. When incited by populists, they can protest blindly, manipulated by fear, hatred or their existential frustrations. Yet they can also stand up for their local arts organisation. Dialoguing deeply with audiences well before controversy arises is a responsibility of arts organisations all over the world today.

There is a need for trained artistic freedom watchdogs in each country, very few exist, such as the French Observatoire de la liberté de creation  ^7  7  LDH – Ligue des droits de l’Homme. “Observatoire de la liberté de creation”, https://www.ldh-france.org/sujet/observatoire-de-la-liberte-de-creation/, [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎

Lawyers and judges who can appreciate the specificities of art cases are generally lacking.

Boards and staff of arts organisations need training to handle, or better yet prepare to avoid, situations that put artists and artistic freedom in danger.

The general public, including the art public, also needs to be better informed to understand the law and the reasons for artistic freedom.

In a few countries, specialist lawyers, associations, or organisations defend the arts and artists against illegal violations of freedom of expression. If an artist or arts worker is in serious danger and legal defence is unavailable or not realistically feasible, the human rights defender practice of temporary relocation is one pathway. In my practice, I have most often liaised with international human rights NGOs as they have established practices, knowledgeable staff and resources such as funding for medical, legal or relocation assistance.

Every situation and every individual is unique. Numerous factors can dictate the choices an artists must make, such as conditions in their own country, their practice and artwork, the type of accusation or degree of persecution they face, the perpetrator of the accusation, whether the artist already has an international artistic profile and allies, if they are travelling with a family, how relatively vulnerable or secure they temporarily are. However, some of the more common challenges facing artists choosing relocation are laid out below.

In today’s nomadic, economically and socially globalised world, borders are an outdated concept. Anyone who leaves their home country, for any reason, to settle elsewhere is a migrant, but those who are fleeing human rights abuses and seeking the human right to international protection are considered asylum seekers until the state grants them refugee status. For the philosopher Giorgio Agamben, the ‘refugee [i]s a limit-concept’, …that…deserves to be regarded as the central figure of our political history … that at once brings a radical crisis to the principles of the nation-state and clears the way for a renewal of categories that can no longer be delayed’.  ^8  8  Giorgio Agamben, „Radical Thought in Italy”, In: Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics, eds. Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 163, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttssjm, [accessed: 15.11.2019]. ↩︎ In reality, borders are ‘mirrors that reflect and represent exclusionary attitudes and racialised anxieties’.  ^9  9  European Network Against Racism, “Policy Briefing: The New European Pact on Migration: Racializing Migration to and In Europe” (Brussels: ENAR, 2023), https://www.enar-eu.org/policy-briefing-the-new-european-union-pact-on-migration-racializing-migration-to-and-in-europe/, [accessed: 8.08.2023]. ↩︎But they reinforce the power of a state to grant or to refuse citizenship or another legal status, which is a determining factor for someone seeking a new home. Despite legally binding UN treaties and legislation on migration and refugees, the state has the authority to decide who can enter or be kept out.

Getting a visa can be problematic or even impossible if the artist does not qualify for a so-called talent visa or is an artist of renown. Humanitarian visas are difficult to obtain. In some cases, the national authority granting the visa disregards the recommendations of its own cultural embassy. The visa granted may be very short-term, causing stress and anxiety for an artist who is in grave danger and cannot return home. Visas can be expensive, and sometimes the artist has to travel to a third country to apply for a visa that might not even be granted. Sometimes it is a long process, while the artist is in continued danger, possibly having to move from one temporary safe house to another. If there is a family involved and at risk due to the artists’ work, they may all need visas. If the visa is refused another potential solution has to be researched and attempted.

The international human rights defender (HRD) sector has been facilitating temporary relocation for HRDs in danger by supporting them to relocate within their country, within their region or abroad in case of an urgent threat and, where appropriate, by issuing emergency visas and facilitating temporary shelter in other states. A HRD can be anyone who defends a recognised human right and accepts that all such recognised rights are valid. In some cases, an artist can be considered as a HRD and benefit from available resources such as medical and legal assistance and temporary relocation. This would be when the artist’s work expresses universally recognised human and cultural rights such as (but not limited to) expressing in their own language, behaving according to their own customs, upholding the rights of women or minorities, expressing a political preference, associating with others, and so on. Note that this is not limited to political or religious artwork; the artist may be ‘performing’ or embodying their rights or the rights of their community in their art practice.

At the same time, as noted above, the provision of artists’ residencies has grown and some are even specialised as at-risk artists’ residencies. A residency is a facility, such as a studio, offered to an artist for a specified period to work on artistic projects. The organisation or a third party may provide a stipend or scholarship or may require payment by the artist. Accommodation may or may not be included. The residency may or not include materials appropriate to the artist’s work. At-risk artists’ residencies offer time out and a safe space for an artist who is persecuted, but they are often short term. What happens when the residency is over and it is still too dangerous for them to go home? As their numbers have risen, so too has the knowledge of the specific needs of relocated artists who may still be in danger or traumatised while abroad, and the corresponding professional needs of those in the residencies who host or accompany them, who may feel overwhelmed.  ^10  10  Human Rights Defender Hub, “The Wellbeing of Human Rights Defenders”. www.hrdhub.org/wellbeing, [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎

In my work, the artist and I attempted to find a pathway to safety that seemed legitimate and would not jeopardise the artist if they ever wanted to return to their own country (some countries do not allow anyone who has sought asylum in another country to return). Potential pathways included scholarships, professional training courses, invitations to festivals, performance tours or exhibitions and, of course, artists’ residencies.

But the artist has to apply for these opportunities. If the artist is in a conflict or disaster zone, or on the run:, how do they put together a portfolio? Next, who evaluates the application and on what basis? Is the evaluator familiar with the aesthetics of the artist’s country? Or do they judge according to the artistic canon of their own country? Does the residency need to accept only those artists they feel will be successful in Western terms, to reflect the success of the residency and maintain their own reputation with funders?

If the artist is seeking support from human rights NGOs, foundations or organisations that support a specific target group such as women or queer people, there is a question about identity and to what extent an artist wishes to be narrowly labelled. Proof of persecution is also required, which can be difficult to obtain or put together if not fully documented and stored.

Will the artist be welcomed with hospitality or what Jacques Derrida has called hostipitality”, the inherent hostility in all hospitality?  ^11  11   Jacques Derrida, “HOSTIPITALITY”, In: Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 5, nr 3 (2000): 3–18, doi:10.1080/09697250020034706; Derrida, „Hostipitality”, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 5, no 3 (2000): 3–18, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09697250020034706, [accessed: 25.09.2020]. ↩︎

How does the artist prove they are an artist? In certain countries there are tests such as membership of the country’s artists’ union, evidence of a recognised university degree or training in the arts, or proof of a percentage of income from artwork or art practice. If the artist has just arrived or is waiting for legal status, such as refugee status, these are impossible to achieve if the artist does not have the legal right to work or earn money, and if they do not have the right to professional level education or training as happens in some EU countries. Work is not merely a right, it is a form of dignity, to be visible as one’s preferred identity and to develop in that identity.

The artist will eventually face another dilemma – who is their audience, the one at home or the one in the new host country? What are they saying to their audience and will they be understood? Will their home audience think they are still represented? Will the new country’s audience understand the artist’s intentions, the underlying images and metaphors in the work?

Other obstacles may be aesthetic differences or trends that curators, programmers and publishers are promoting but that the artist from another artistic milieu is not producing. Their own aesthetics, even if of high quality, may not be recognised by arts gatekeepers.

Depending on how the arts and culture are organised, the incoming artist may have to understand and navigate a heavily bureaucratic context of public funding and fixed application deadlines, or a competitive environment of arts entrepreneurs already linked to valuable sponsors or influential politicians.

It is quite common for an exiled or persecuted artist to be fetishised. People want them to be a victim or a hero, and as one artist I worked with told me, “I don’t want it; I hate it, but it’s what they pay me for, and I need contracts like anyone else”.  ^12  12  Personal Communication, Anonymous, 6.07.2018. ↩︎ Such artists are often expected to be representative of every other artist who has a similar lived experience. It can become a trap that is difficult to get beyond if they are making a living and a career in this way. And artists, like any refugee, want to work and earn; to be independent.

Another expectation of artists who are offered protective relocation is to be eternally grateful to the host or institution that ‘rescued’ them.  ^13  13  Marion Schmidt and Rana Yazaji, “An Exercise in Sitting with Discomfort: Towards More Equitable Support for International Relocation in North-South Contexts” (Stuttgart: Martin-Roth-Initiative; ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen, 2022), https://opus.bsz-bw.de/ifa/frontdoor/index/index/docId/872, [accessed: 31.07.2023]. ↩︎ This is another violation of the dignity of the person. Relocation programmes exist not because they are saviours, but because what they do is just. According to the philosophy of care ethics, we are all interdependent and equally vulnerable in the world, and we all need the temporary care of someone else in our lives. It is a reciprocal action based on respect and human nature, not charity.

The artists often face racism and exclusion – I have seen this manifest in the artists’ difficulty in renting a place to live and, once they are allowed to work, not receiving equal pay for equal work, a documented and common practice in some places.

Finally, we have to look at cultural policies—are they enacted? In other words, do they actually work and demonstrate values such as equality, cultural diversity and access for all? Or are we in the cultural sector betraying our own words by using them merely rhetorically without translating them into real action?

Migration authorities should have an updated and realistic set of guidelines against which to assess cases. The concept of the so-called ‘talent visa’ does not reflect the reality of artists, their practices and their working lives. The arts sector could work with migration authorities in their countries to develop these.

Guidelines, such as the Barcelona Guidelines mentioned above or the Artists at Risk Connection’s Safety Guide for Artists, should be discussed by the arts sector, adapted to local contexts and made available to all artists’ residencies hosting or likely to host an artist impacted by displacement  ^14  14  Gabriel Fine and Julie Trébault, eds., Susan Chumsky. “A Safety Guide for Artists”. Artists at Risk Connection (ARC), January 26, 2021, https://artistsatriskconnection.org/guide, [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎.

Importantly, these discussions and any localised adaptations should be discussed with artists who have the lived experience of relocation or exile.

We have all seen the cartoon – the little boy on the box with two others looking over a high fence at a football match. The shortest cannot see over the fence, even if they are all standing on a bench of the same height. What is needed is for the shortest person to have a step that brings their eyesight to the same level as the others, in other words a higher step.

Although each country or location will have differences in cultural policy and available resources for the arts, equity in cultural policy ensures that an incoming artist has support to enable them to reach the same general plateau that artists born or settled in the country can reach to access the support available to all artists in that country. Not special, but equitable. Philosopher Nancy Fraser calls this ‘status equality’ or ‘parity of participation’ and she considers it nothing less than a component of justice.  ^15  15  Nancy Fraser, “Recognition without Ethics”, In: The Turn to Ethics, red. M. Garber, B. Hanssen and R. Walkowitz (New York: Routledge, 2000), 89, 95–126. ↩︎ When the plateau is reached, all the artists can similarly strive for their goals.

So what do artists need? Training and education; a place to work and materials to work with; access to other artists or networks of other artists; access to other artists’ work; access to the gatekeepers – the producers, programmers, curators. Incomers need recognition as full members of our artistic community. All artists need equitable access to the whole production chain: education and training, creation, production, diffusion, and documentation.

The systems and situations in different countries mean that achieving equity in cultural policies and practices on national levels will differ. Highly structured bureaucratic countries such as France present one model, and countries where support for arts and culture is less developed may actually be easier if there are fewer licences or requirements needed to produce and present artworks (but possibly fewer subsidies).

The limited research I have found on artist migration indicates that newcomer artists have a positive impact on the existing arts community, helping to create a visibly dynamic arts location.  ^16  16   Karol Jan Borowiecki and Kathryn Graddy, “Immigrant Artists: Enrichment or Displacement?”, In: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 191 (2021): 785–797, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268121003863?via%3Dihub [accessed: 04.09.2023]. ↩︎ Migration researchers see them as agents of change:

[W]hat we observe is a struggle between agents of change and those who oppose them. The agents of change adapt, transform or reinvent official narratives to reflect the fact that European societies have become migration societies – they have experienced immigration for decades and an increasing number of people, especially among the younger age groups, are the descendants of migrants.

Sievers, 2024: 2

In some places, the arts sector is already interacting with and supporting newcomers. Kunstenpunt (Flanders Arts Institute) has, since the Russian land invasion of Ukraine in 2022 organised weekly Zoom meetings for artists and arts organisers to discuss, share needs and opportunities, and generally reflect on the many issues raised by the phenomenon of newcomer artists of all nationalities. Since 2019 On the Move, a network of national cultural organisations with a mandate to address artist’ mobility issues, has organised meetings of its (En)forced Mobility Working Group to share initiatives and good practice regarding support to newcomer artists.  ^17  17  On the Move, “(En)forced Mobility”, https://on-the-move.org/network/working-groups/enforced-mobility, [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎ There are certainly opportunities for more research on the phenomenon of artists relocated and affected by displacement, particularly by the artists themselves, based on their perspectives and told in their voices.

There is an opportunity, especially for Poland, to conduct a two-year review of a key document when Poland holds the EU Presidency from January–June 2025

 At the end of the six-month Swedish Presidency of the EU in Spring 2023, Sweden’s Minister for Culture, Parisa Liljestrand, convened the culture ministers from the EU’s twenty-seven member states. Their meeting of 16 May 2023 published its ‘Council Conclusions on At-Risk and Displaced Artists’, noting:

[t]he significant role, historically and today, of exiled artists in promoting peace, mutual understanding, freedom, democracy and cultural diversity, and the importance of at-risk and displaced artists being given the opportunity to continue their artistic work and to continue to bear witness to ongoing events … [reaffirming] the need for preparedness in Europe to offer support to at-risk and displaced artists in both the short and the long term, through the appropriate institutional and legal frameworks.

Council of the European Union, 2023: points 10, 12

Significantly, the text explicitly calls for not only recognition but also ongoing support for displaced artists, addressing their human, social and professional development and asking member states to:

[C]onsider taking further measures to enhance the capacity to offer safe havens and so-called cities of refuge for at-risk and displaced artists … and to contribute to networking for such artists … consider applying a long-term and holistic approach when welcoming at-risk and displaced artists and their families, complementing the urgent need for a safe haven with possibilities to become a part of the local community and cultural life and to remain artistically active and heard.

Ibid.: points 14, 16

The political theorist and feminist sociologist Iris Marion Young developed a ‘social connection model’ alongside her concept of ‘collective responsibility for social injustice’.  ^18  18  Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 96. ↩︎ She thought that, however indirectly or remotely, due to our hyperconnected world, we are all complicit in structural injustices. Young spoke of the community as ‘not simply membership [but] active relationships…’.  ^19  19  Ibidem, p. 137. ↩︎ In her book, Responsibility for Justice, she wrote:

This responsibility is not primarily backward-looking, as … guilt or fault is, but rather primarily forward-looking. Being responsible … means that one has an obligation to join with others … to transform the structural processes to make their outcomes less unjust.

Ibid.:96

Does the arts sector in Europe have a collective responsibility for artists who have been relocated or displaced due to persecution or abuse of their human rights? I would say yes, the arts sector everywhere is vulnerable and often marginal, relative to other sectors. Yet is it also highly internationalised, with exchanges, producing collaborations, education, productions, exhibitions and performances now commonplace. Moreover, while the arts sector professes high values, our colonial and other histories inextricably bind us together culturally, politically and economically in ways that are complex, still unfolding and being analysed. We need each other, whether near or far, to create and maintain a strong interlinked community that understands the values and value of art and artists, of art as a meaningful and shared human experience.

There is a need for more interdisciplinary research, especially by researchers with lived experience of exile, linking migration, human rights and arts policy.

Not only barriers but also key success factors should be researched; this may require long-term studies and analysis of structural inequalities.

Similarly, the impact on the local arts community hosting artists affected by displacement should be studied.

The 2023 Council Conclusions on At-Risk and Displaced Artists should be monitored in each of the member states of the EU.

For the arts and culture sector, the Special Rapporteurs have been extremely knowledgeable and helpful, listening, advising and reporting problems to the UN and other countries. They are not UN staff, and their natural allies are civil society. They have other jobs and usually are busy keeping their ‘real’ jobs and also doing their work as a Special Rapporteurs. The arts and culture sector, globally, appreciates their work. Some of the landmark ‘Special Reports’ are listed below. It is worthwhile to see all of their Reports  ^20  20  United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights, [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎.

All UN Special Rapports in the Field of Cultural Rights to date: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/annual-reports.

Farida Shaheed (2009 – 2015) UN SR, shedding light on the right to freedom of artistic expression and creation.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/artistic-freedom

Karima Bennoune (2015 – 2021).

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/universality-and-diversity

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/cultural-rights-defenders

Alexandra Xanthaki (2021 -)

Report on Cultural Rights and Migration, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g23/008/22/pdf/g2300822.pdf

Report on Development and Cultural Rights, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/214/75/pdf/n2321475.pdf

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, is non-binding but normative in the sense that it creates international standards: codification of customary international law or a reflection of the general principles of international law. (To create binding legislation, the UN and its member states have created the two conventions listed below).

The UDHR is a landmark document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and has been translated into over 500 languages. The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired and paved the way for the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today permanently at the global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).

Important for us:

 Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 Article 27 states that everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

From the outset, there was general agreement that the substance of the Universal Declaration should be translated into the hard legal form of an international treaty. The General Assembly reaffirmed the necessity of complementing traditional civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights since both classes of rights were “interconnected and interdependent. Two treaties were drafted: a Covenant setting forth civil and political rights (ICCPR) and a parallel Covenant providing for economic, social and cultural rights (ICESCR). Contrary to many pessimistic expectations, they have mostly been ratified simultaneously. The United States has not ratified the ICESCR, and China has not found it convenient to ratify the ICCPR.

The International Bill of Human Rights comprises the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)  ^21  21  United Nations General Assembly (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III). http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/  [accessed: 21.05.2021]. ↩︎, the ICESCR  ^22  22  United Nations General Assembly (1966b). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 993, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx  [accessed: 15.01.2021]. ↩︎ (and its Optional Protocol)  ^23  23  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Press/OP_ICESCR.pdf [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎ and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  ^24  24  United Nations General Assembly (1966a). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, 171.  https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx html, [accessed: 15.01.2021]. ↩︎, including its first  ^25  25  https://web.archive.org/web/20081220175814/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-one.htm [accessed: 8.11.2024]. ↩︎and second  26  ²⁶  http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b5ccprp2.htm [accessed 8.01.2024]. ↩︎Optional Protocols.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, is binding legislation for countries that have ratified it.

It commits the states that have ratified it to the right to self-determination, privacy, liberty and freedom, fair treatment under the law without discrimination, and against arbitrary arrest and detention. It prohibits torture, cruel punishment and slavery, and protects free assembly and association.

As of June 2022, the Covenant has 173 parties and six more signatories without ratification, notably the People’s Republic of China and Cuba; North Korea is the only state that has attempted to withdraw.

Important for us:

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, is binding legislation for countries that have ratified it.

 It commits its parties to work towards the granting of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) to territories under the control of another state, and individuals, including labour rights, the right to health, the right to education and the right to an adequate standard of living. As of July 2020, the Covenant has 171 parties. A further four countries, including the United States, have signed but not ratified the Covenant

Important for us:

 Article 15 recognises the right of everyone to participate in cultural life, enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, and to benefit from the protection of the moral and material rights to any scientific discovery or artistic work they have created. Also Article 15 states that the States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity.

The principle of “progressive realisation” acknowledges that some of the rights (e.g., the right to health) may be difficult in practice to achieve in a short period of time and that states may be subject to resource constraints, but requires them to act as best they can within their means. The requirement to “take steps” imposes a continuing obligation to work towards the realisation of the rights. It also rules out deliberately regressive measures that impede that goal. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also interprets the principle as imposing minimum core obligations to provide, at the least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights. Where resources are severely limited, this should include the use of targeted programmes aimed at the vulnerable. Some provisions, such as anti-discrimination laws, are already required under other human rights instruments, such as the ICCPR.

1. Agamben, Giorgio. “Form-of-Life” and “Beyond Human Rights.” In Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics, edited by Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt, 151–158; 159–166. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttssjm [accessed: 15.11.2019].
2. Borowiecki, Karol Jan, and Kathryn Graddy. “Immigrant Artists: Enrichment or Displacement?” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 191 (2021): 785–797. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268121003863?via%3Dihub [accessed: 04.09.2023].
3. Butler, Judith. Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? London: Verso Books, 2009.
4. Derrida, Jacques. “Hostipitality.” Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 5, no. 3 (2000): 3–18. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09697250020034706 [accessed: 25.09.2020].
5. Derrida, Jacques. Of Hospitality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.
6. Derrida, Jacques. “The Principle of Hospitality.” Parallax 11, no. 1 (2005): 6–9. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1353464052000321056 [accessed: 25.09.2020].
7. DeVlieg, M.A. “Bridging Citizenship.” In Art, Migration and the Production of Radical Democratic Citizenship, edited by Anna Czajka and Aidan O’Brien, 91–122. New York and London: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2022.
8. European Network Against Racism. Policy Briefing: The New European Pact on Migration: Racializing Migration to and In Europe. Brussels: ENAR, 2023. https://www.enar-eu.org/policy-briefing-the-new-european-union-pact-on-migration-racializing-migration-to-and-in-europe/ [accessed: 08.08.2023].
9. European Union Council of Ministers. Council Conclusions on At-Risk and Displaced Artists. Council of the European Union, General Secretariat of the Council, 16 May 2023, 9260/23. 2023/C 185/09. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023XG0526(02) [accessed: 03.08.2023].
10. Fraser, Nancy. “Recognition without Ethics?” In The Turn to Ethics, edited by M. Garber, B. Hanssen, and R. Walkowitz, 95–126. New York: Routledge, 2000.
11. Foucault, Michel. “The Meaning and Evolution of the Word Parrhesia in Discourse & Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia.” https://foucault.info/parrhesia/foucault.DT1.wordParrhesia.en/ [accessed: 2018].
12. International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies (IFACCA). “Artists, Displacement and Belonging.” International Arts Federation Services Pty Ltd., Surrey Hills, Australia, 2019. Unpublished. https://ifacca.org/media/filer_public/a2/80/a28099fc-8bfd-40f5-85de-5653be5b463d/abridged_artists_displacement_and_belonging_english.pdf [accessed: 15.10.2019].
13. Shaheed, Farida. The Right to Freedom of Artistic Expression and Creativity: Report of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/23/34, 2013.
14. Sievers, W., ed. Cultural Change in Post-Migrant Societies: Re-Imagining Communities through Arts and Cultural Activities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39900-8 [accessed: 15.01.2021].
15. Sønderby, “Mapping of Temporary Shelter Initiatives for Human Rights Defenders in Danger, In and Outside the EU,” 2012.
16. United Nations General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, 171. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx [accessed: 15.01.2021].
17. United Nations General Assembly. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 993, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx [accessed: 15.01.2021].
18. Yazaji, Rana, and Marion Schmidt. An Exercise in Sitting with Discomfort: Towards More Equitable Support for International Relocation in North-South Contexts. Stuttgart: Martin-Roth-Initiative; ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen), 2022. https://opus.bsz-bw.de/ifa/frontdoor/index/index/docId/872 [accessed: 31.07.2023].
19. Young, Iris Marion. Responsibility for Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.