Statement by Bremen’s Independent Cultural Institutions on Freedom of Art
We are observing current developments in cultural policy with growing concern, as they extend far beyond individual cases: the exclusion of three bookstores from the German Bookstore Award, allegations against the Bremen cultural center “Kukoon,” and the announcement by Minister of State for Culture Wolfram Weimer that he intends to expand the application of the “Haber-Verfahren” and incorporate it into funding decisions.
What is emerging here is a paradigm shift: toward a creeping restriction of the freedom of artistic expression guaranteed by the Constitution, toward the erosion of minimum standards of the rule of law, toward the establishment of political litmus tests—and, not least, toward the narrowing of spaces for free public discourse, which are indispensable as the foundation of a pluralistic and vibrant democracy.
Freedom of artistic expression is unconditionally guaranteed under Article 5, Section 3 of the Grundgesetz. What constitutes art is determined by the discourse within the art world itself—not by government agencies or security authorities. To undermine this principle jeopardizes the very foundation of our democratic culture.
We strongly endorse the criticism voiced by numerous institutions: decisions regarding funding and awards must be transparent, verifiable, and based on professional criteria. Procedures whose underlying principles remain secret and do not give those affected an opportunity to comment violate the minimum standards of the rule of law.
We consider the inclusion of security clearance checks in cultural funding to be highly problematic. It amounts to a form of ideological screening and opens the door to political pre-selection. Such a development would cause lasting damage to trust in government cultural policy.
Particularly alarming is the prospect of expanding these procedures while simultaneously compiling lists of jury members. Even if this is formally justified on the grounds of transparency, it creates the impression of structural control and potential influence. The independence of juries—a central prerequisite for art’s autonomy from the state—must not be undermined, either in fact or in appearance.
Anyone who retroactively corrects or politically overrides jury decisions not only undermines the legitimacy of individual proceedings but also undermines the sanctuary of free art as a whole.
We firmly oppose any form of ideological screening and a culture of suspicion and non-transparent scrutiny. Art and cultural venues are not security risks, but spaces for open—and even controversial—exchange. Their role is not to smooth over social conflicts, but to bring them to light.
Of course, all cultural institutions operate within the framework of the Constitution. However, the evaluation of their work must be based on their cultural contribution—not on sweeping generalizations or secret assessments.
We firmly oppose any form of ideological screening and a culture of suspicion and opaque scrutiny. Art and cultural venues are not security risks, but spaces for open—and even controversial—exchange. Their role is not to smooth over social conflicts, but to bring them to light.
We demand:
– full respect for artistic freedom
– an end to non-transparent review processes and secret evaluations
– no ideological screening in cultural funding
– the consistent safeguarding of jury independence
– and the protection of the autonomy of cultural institutions
When government agencies begin to filter cultural practices based on political expediency, the principle of art independent of the state is undermined. Democracy, however, thrives not on conformity but on open debate: art creates a public sphere—and the public sphere needs freedom, dissent, and a diversity of voices.
In times of profound social change, it is precisely the open, unregulated spaces of art that provide a sense of direction. Protecting these spaces is a central task of democratic politics.
Statement by Stadtkultur Bremen e.V.
