The Social Role of Art and Culture: Choosing, Hesitating, and Taking a Stand
On the afternoon of Thursday, April 16, 2026, we gathered with cultural professionals with a single goal: to explore how art and culture relate to social and political issues, and what role you play in this as an organization or creator. Using current examples, an in-depth discussion emerged about taking a stand, responsibility, and the role of art in society.
Moderated by Karlijn Slegers—a facilitator, trainer, and strategic advisor for public and cultural organizations—the discussion was enriched by two speakers with extensive experience in addressing social issues and the choices involved. Saskia Bak, director of Museum Arnhem, shared the perspective of a major cultural institution that takes a visible stand on social issues. Merlijn Twaalfhoven, composer and founder of De Turnclub, spoke from his experience as a creator and initiator, in which art is used as a means for change and connection.
Art is never neutral
A key starting point for the session was the idea that art and culture are never completely separate from society. Ever since Roman times, art has been used to offer criticism, tell stories, or, conversely, to influence. That role shifts over time, but it never disappears.
“Art strikes a completely different chord than the forms of resistance we’re used to,” Merlijn aptly put it. Saskia added that institutions, too, cannot escape that dynamic. “With every exhibition you put together, you’re essentially making a statement. You can’t take a neutral stance.” It was precisely that last remark that sparked a lot of discussion in the room and served as the starting point for the conversation about neutrality.
Neutrality Under Pressure
The question of whether to speak out came up in various forms. As an organization, should you always respond to social developments, or is it sometimes better not to? The group recognized this tension: between external pressure and the need to proceed with caution.
One key insight that came up repeatedly: not choosing is not really an option. “Not taking a stand doesn’t mean you’re neutral,” someone in the audience pointed out. Merlijn offered a more nuanced explanation: “Neutrality exists only when the balance of power is equal. If the balance is skewed, by doing nothing, you’re implicitly siding with the stronger party.” At the same time, timing and context are crucial. As Saskia pointed out, sometimes you can listen and investigate first before taking a stand.
In practice, neutrality turns out to be less self-evident than it seems. Even without taking an explicit stance, you convey a message through your choices, programming, and collaborations. Art can help create space for multiple voices and complexity. It helps to leave room for nuance, rather than exacerbating contrasts. As Merlijn pointed out: “By portraying the opposing side as a caricature, you actually undermine understanding.”
“Choose your battles”
One of the most recurring principles during the session was consciously choosing what your organization focuses on. There is a vast array of social issues demanding attention—from international conflicts to local issues, from inclusion to sustainability. Everything calls for a response, but not everything calls for your response. “You have to be able to protect your attention from everything that cries out for it,” said Merlijn. “So that you can make an impact when it counts.” That requires making clear-cut choices that align with your mission and context.
💡 Tip: Decision-making frameworks can help structure your choices, such as Kunsten ’92’s guide to a resilient cultural sector, which offers practical tools for dealing with social pressures and dilemmas.
Individual vs. Institution
An important distinction made during the session is that between the individual and the institution. As an individual, you have relatively free rein to speak based on your own convictions, whereas as an organization, you represent a broader group. That makes it more complicated. Within an organization, there are often different perspectives, backgrounds, and interests, and taking a strong stance can create internal tensions. “At the institutional level, it’s more complex because you’re representing a group that may think differently,” Saskia explains.
For individuals, this often means striking a balance between personal beliefs and professional responsibility. When should you speak out as a creator, employee, or leader—and when should you refrain from doing so? And how does your personal stance relate to that of the organization you work for? External factors also play a role, such as reputation, partners, and the public. Organizations with a wide reach, in particular, feel pressure to engage with societal discussions, precisely because their position is so visible.
Working with frameworks and “basecamps”
To deal with this complexity, more and more organizations are working with internal frameworks and principles—not as rigid rules, but as guidelines. Merlijn used an image to illustrate this that really stuck with me: that of Mount Everest. “Instead of trying to reach the summit all at once, you can work with base camps. Move forward step by step.”
This means that, as an organization, you:
- makes your values explicit
- creates space for reflection
- and accepts that development happens in stages
💡 Tip: Efforts are also underway across the sector to address this issue. The Council for Culture published a recommendation on artistic freedom and the tension between autonomy and social pressure. In addition, the VNPF offers a decision-making framework to help organizations navigate these types of issues.
The Role of Art: To Challenge, To Connect, and To Represent
Finally, the discussion turned to the role of art itself. Should art be provocative and confrontational, or should it instead bring people together? The conclusion was that it can do both, depending on the context and intention. Art has the power to tell stories that would otherwise remain hidden, to evoke emotions, and to open up new perspectives. At the same time, there is also a difference between the artist and the institution. While an artist can often express themselves more explicitly, an institution must navigate broader responsibilities and interests. It is precisely in this interplay that they can reinforce one another.
What stood out in this regard is that doubt plays an important role. Many participants indicated that they consider when and how to express their views. That hesitation was not seen as a weakness, but as part of professional conduct. As Saskia said: “You can also say that you don’t know yet, because you haven’t looked into it thoroughly.” Making that process of exploration visible—including to the public—can contribute to greater understanding and trust.
👉 What should we bring?
By the end of the session, it became clear that there is no clear-cut answer to the question of when you should or should not speak up. What did become clear, however, is that it helps to:
- to make informed choices and justify them
- to make room for doubt and dialogue
- to operate based on clear values
- keep context, timing, and impact in mind
- and harness the power of art to spark conversation
Perhaps that is the most important takeaway from the afternoon: not so much greater certainty, but a shared understanding that exploring, weighing options, and maintaining dialogue are all part of professional practice today.