Are we allergic to influence?
Just like in science, the idea of freedom is inextricably linked to art. We use the concept of “freedom of art” quite casually, and too often it’s expressed with a deliberately narrow interpretation. As attitudes towards the freedom of art are changing, and in some cases have already changed, all around us, it’s insidious to cling to old definitions or contents of these concepts.
There’s a great temptation to view the freedom of art as absolute, comparable to trust, for example. Reality doesn’t operate on this basis.
Despite all the economic cuts affecting the art field and culture more broadly in Finland, we still have freedom of expression. The freedom of art is not absolutely threatened. However, we must re-evaluate its meanings in relation to various phenomena.
The freedom of art has begun to come at a price. We’ve been able to rely on relatively predictable and diverse financial support from public authorities. Artists and other actors in the art field will increasingly have to create the financial frameworks required for their freedom themselves. Only those who are financially stable can be free. The cost of freedom is also increased by the greater amount of our own time, often uncompensated, that our goals require, which we must use to compensate for financial scarcity. This detracts from actual creative work or its support.
Freedom is brutally linked to money. Freedom is also linked to publicity. Can someone in the art field who remains outside or shies away from the currently popular trends be truly free? The same question can be asked of those riding the wave of art publicity.
The relationship between artists and art professionals and the business world has always been complex and even difficult. The fear of being influenced runs deep. If this relationship is built purely on economic considerations, the fear can also be justified. “Tainted” money is not seen as generating freedom but rather unhealthy gratitude or subservient power dynamics. However, being subjected to influence is different from being open to influences.
Businesses have always operated in conditions that the cultural field is only now heading towards. Could we learn from them? Or are we fundamentally allergic to everything characteristic of business: well-considered visions, strategies aimed at those visions, distinguishing oneself in competition, or meticulously thought-out goals and the tireless monitoring of their realization?
When business thinking is attempted to be brought as it is for the “benefit” of cultural actors or the public and third sectors, collisions are inevitable. In these collisions, we lose all the potential that the tools used by businesses could offer us. The core of the collision is not the tools themselves, but their application as they are to unsuitable operating environments. We lack the expertise and patience to tailor these tools to the needs of our own operations. However, our current and future funders expect similar competencies from us in the future as creditors and investors have required from Finnish companies for decades. Used correctly, these tools also help us to profile ourselves in relation to different audiences and media.
In business, predictability is valued. We, too, crave the same—perhaps even more than businesses. Business principles, of course, don’t put money in the bank, but they help us allocate our scarce resources more purposefully, whatever our core operational goal may be. Even a non-profit goal is already business-like in nature today.
It has been a pleasure to see how tailored operating models adapted from the business world have helped to bring to the surface and articulate skills and insights often hidden within art communities. This, if anything, supports the freedom of these communities.
Arto Jurttila
Forum Box Cooperative’s chair person 2018–2025
Read the Finnish version of the text “Olemmeko allergisia vaikutteille?” in Forum Box’s blog.
(Picture: Anna Autio, in picture: Paavo Räbinä’s work I am immortal – I am invincible, 2022 (detail))