WHO IS an “Artist at risk”?

An artist at risk should not be understood solely as an individual threatened by political power, war, or authoritarian regimes. Such a definition, while partially accurate, remains incomplete and at times misleading. Risk is not only external; it is also internal, cumulative, psychological, and temporal.

At risk, first and foremost, is a human being whose inner balance has been destabilized by prolonged exposure to danger, fear, displacement, silencing, or rupture. Political risk often manifests long before it becomes visible through exile, asylum, or emergency relocation. It inscribes itself in the artist’s psyche, self-perception, trust mechanisms, and relationship to institutions, authority, and collective life.

Artists at risk are not a homogeneous group. Their backgrounds, trajectories, and forms of exposure to danger differ significantly, and these differences shape their personalities, expectations, vulnerabilities, and modes of interaction.

Artists at Risk due to Force Majeure and extraordinary circumstances:

Some artists are forced to leave their countries due to overwhelming external circumstances such as war, armed conflict, economic collapse, or generalized insecurity. In these cases, exile is not necessarily the result of their artistic production, political engagement, or personal activism. Their risk is situational rather than targeted, sudden rather than cumulative. Psychologically, such artists may carry acute trauma, shock, and disorientation rather than long-term patterns of distrust or confrontation with authority.

Others leave after years or decades of sustained repression, censorship, surveillance, professional marginalization, or direct punishment linked to their ideas, writings, artistic practices, or political positions. These artists often arrive with deeply ingrained defense mechanisms: hyper-vigilance, skepticism toward institutions, sensitivity to power asymmetries, and a heightened awareness of symbolic violence. Their risk is not only historical but ongoing, even in spaces that claim to offer protection.

There is also a third category: artists who flee under combined pressures where war, authoritarianism, personal persecution, and political struggle overlap. In such cases, risk is multidimensional, and identity itself becomes fractured. These artists often navigate complex emotional states: moral exhaustion, survivor’s guilt, defiance, anger, and profound ambivalence toward both their countries of origin and host institutions.

Recognizing these distinctions is not a matter of classification for its own sake. It is an ethical necessity. Understanding an artist’s background, how long the risk lasted, how it manifested, and how it shaped their inner world is essential for determining appropriate forms of support, communication, boundaries, and institutional engagement.

Crucially, the temporal dimension must never be ignored. Time spent under repression, time spent in fear, time spent silenced, and time spent in exile all leave different psychological imprints. Treating all artists at risk as if they emerge from the same conditions erases these realities and risks reproducing harm under the guise of protection.

To host an artist at risk responsibly is therefore not merely to offer shelter, visibility, or legal assistance. It is acknowledged that risk is a lived condition, embedded in memory, personality, and behavior and that ethical hosting requires attentiveness not only to political contexts, but also to psychological histories and human complexity.