Scotland's artists need freedom, not just a basic income

Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Being an artist and working in the arts are two very different things. As the SNP commit to introducing a Basic Income scheme for the former group, it's worth reflecting on the cultural atmosphere this move is being suggested in. There's no denying any recipient would be grateful. Receiving a year's worth of income and being told to get on with it is the dream. Money affords freedom - a prerequisite for any artistic pursuit. Here's where things get trickier. Over the past decade, there's been a rise in mandatory codes of conduct and speech-curbing directives from artistic organisations – for writers and artists, not employees - plus snooty entitlement from young arts graduates demanding immediate access to an artistic 'career'. There's also been an exponential rise in foot-stomping cultural commissars; people unconcerned with the freedoms necessary for good art or literature to flourish. Some declare a writer identity, with dubious evidence for the claim. Arts administrators at publicly-funded institutions routinely forget their role is not to curate culture, but to ensure others can create art. Meanwhile, there's been a palpable decline in believing in 'art for art's sake.' If it's suggested not all art need have 'social change' or a political agenda as its aim, bafflement results from many administrators and practitioners alike. Extolling beauty, joy, or dark human complexity; exploring contentious subject matter – these used to be standard in any 'artist's statement.' Now, the former is routinely dismissed as 'conservatism' or 'elitism', the latter as 'culture warring.' If there's a war in culture, who better than artists to explore that? Not these days. This heady combination of factors - alongside our collective failure to acknowledge the destructive force of social media – makes artistic life far more unfree than in more analogue days. Take it from me, kids, if you're too young to remember: things really haven't always been like this. Hiring a venue? A formerly simple process: the manager checked dates rather than administering a social media scan for potential thought-crimes. Programming a literature festival? Bums on seats prioritised; 'provocative' content welcomed. Refusing to work your shift at the comedy venue because you don't like Jewish comedians? A shocked rebuke from management about antisemitism, followed by an immediate P45. Want someone's book taken off an award shortlist because you disagree with the author on some unrelated political issue, besides the point of the literary excellence such prizes used to be awarded for? Unthinkable, mortifying behaviour for any writer. It used to be viewed with the universal contempt it still deserves to be. The questionable mission of too many contemporary writers and artists: avoid being labelled 'controversial'; distance yourself from those who are; police every fellow creative for mandatory alignment with gender-identity ideology and other contentious worldviews; make sure you align with funding bodies' Equality, Diversity and Inclusion principles. In practice, 'inclusion' has led to banning some people from opportunities and bookings – just ask any gender-critical feminist artist. 'Equality' in practice became 'equity', an insensible, non-artistic value. 'Diversity' on class or political thought is not prioritised or actively frowned upon. In the literary 'workplace' many poets and writers 'labour' in, they've taken to demanding their bosses (programmers, directors) do the equivalent of firing anyone 'problematic' immediately. They – the Nice and Correct People – must not be sullied by 'association' with anything that doesn't 'align with their values.' Said values never seem to be literary merit, tolerance of others, or artistic freedom. The bureaucratic language is repellent to many. But it's undeniable: this has become the dominant way of thinking in the Scottish arts. Worse, there's genuine fear, uncertainty – or apathy - about challenging it. Into this world, then, a guaranteed income for freedom-seeking writers and artists, wishing they were unhindered by the constant hustle; bone-tired from dealing with the hostile behaviour of their fellows? That would be very nice indeed. But, realistically, who will decide which lucky writers and artists are put forward for what will be an opportunity by lottery-draw? If it's peer-nomination, many will be screwed, for ideological - not artistic - reasons. If it's nomination-by-arts-organisation, the same may apply. Q Manivannan of the Scottish Greens, a strong supporter of the policy, says it'll be a 'truly inclusive' scheme. Unpicking what's meant by that is a necessary endeavour. Are our MSPs capable of higher levels of scrutiny of this proposal than has been demonstrated on every other contentious policy this past decade? They'll need to be. Using lotteries to decide who is awarded public funds for artistic pursuits is a relatively new – but controversial - practice in the arts. In recent years, for example, Literature Alliance Scotland have used a Random Number Generator to award their author bursaries. After assessing eligibility, all applicants are assigned a number, with the 'winners' decided purely by chance. The argument is this removes favouritism, or unconscious biases. Judges also cannot be berated by frisky culture warriors if the neutral, incapable-of-wrongthink generator plops out the number of someone known for 'controversy.' As a response to the genuine problem of nepotism, bias, or downright cowardice in the tiny idiocracy Scottish letters has felt of late, this cannot possibly be the answer. Do we really want to leave opportunities for succeeding as a writer to dumb luck? Is everyone really incapable of judging literary merit objectively? I say no. Rescuing standards of artistic beauty, joy, truth, and art for art's sake from the acid bath is both vital and possible. But, the problems are numerous; the bathtub is deep. Public opinion is split over the introduction of a basic income for artists. Solid legislation will take time to hone. During that process, perhaps artists and cultural organisations might interrogate what artistic freedom means. What the point of the arts actually is.