Protocol 03: Intellectual and Ideological Independence of the Hosted Artist

Including changing their opinions…

Artists hosted under protection or residency programs must retain full intellectual, ideological, and expressive independence. Hosting does not constitute, imply, or justify any form of ideological alignment, institutional loyalty, or representational obligation.

A hosted artist is not required to engage in lobbying, advocacy, or public positioning on behalf of the hosting organization, its founders, donors, partners, or institutional worldview. The artist remains an autonomous individual whose ideas, positions, and expressions are not subject to institutional endorsement, correction, or guidance.

No contract of intellectual guardianship, moral trusteeship, or ideological supervision is entered into by virtue of hosting alone. Hosting organizations must therefore exercise particular caution when engaging with the intellectual autonomy of artists under their protection.

Institutions must recognize a fundamental distinction:

“They may establish the space that hosts artists, but they do not create the artists themselves.”

Respect for the hosted artist’s intellectual agency is essential to the ethical legitimacy of any protection program. An organization cannot credibly claim to protect an artist while simultaneously reproducing mechanisms of instrumentalization, propaganda, or ideological conformity that the artist originally fled.

Any attempt to condition protection on ideological compliance, public alignment, or symbolic usefulness constitutes a violation of ethical hosting standards.

This protocol is directly linked to Protocol 2: Priority of the Artist Over Institutional Authority, as intellectual independence cannot be preserved where institutional interests take precedence over artistic autonomy.

Safeguards for Intellectual Independence

• Explicit contractual clauses affirming freedom of expression and ideological autonomy
• Clear prohibition of informal or formal lobbying expectations
• Separation between institutional communication strategies and artists’ public voices
• Protection against retaliatory measures following disagreement or dissent
• Internal training distinguishing support from ideological appropriation