The Danish Arts Foundation is facing criticism for a system that allows members of its Visual Arts Project Grant Committee to receive funding for their own projects or institutions. Since January 2022, the four members of the committee have collectively received 1,612,000 kroner, raising concerns about impartiality and fairness.

The controversy stems from the fact that committee members, including chair Jakob Fenger of the art collective Superflex, can apply for and receive funds from the same committees they oversee. Fenger’s committee granted 100,000 kroner to his own project, “Foreigners, please don’t leave us alone with the danes!” Other members, such as artist Molly Haslund, have also received multiple grants.

This practice has drawn criticism from artist Christian Tangø, who accuses the foundation of being an “elitist gang” that distributes state funds to its own members. He suggests that the assessment criteria are subjective, leading to decisions based on merits and connections rather than purely artistic quality. Tangø, whose application for a provocative art project was rejected, believes the system lacks transparency.

According to the Danish Arts Foundation, there are no restrictions on committee members applying for project funding, but they are advised to consider the external perception. The foundation argues that it is essential to have industry professionals on the committees and that preventing them from applying for funds would deter qualified candidates. Fenger defends the practice, stating that the committee processes around 2,000 applications annually and prioritizes impartiality, with a representative from the foundation’s secretariat present to address any potential issues.

However, Jesper Olsen, chairman of Transparency International Denmark, argues that the system is vulnerable to criticism and undermines public trust. He questions whether the current setup, where impartiality is not an exception but a regular part of the process, is appropriate. Olsen believes that even with impartiality rules in place, committee members can still indirectly influence decisions in favor of their own projects.

While the foundation maintains that all applications are assessed equally based on artistic quality and application criteria, the controversy highlights the challenges of ensuring fairness and transparency in arts funding. Olsen suggests that the final decision on funding should be separated from professional assessment to avoid the appearance of impropriety and strengthen the integrity of the system. He emphasizes that while individual committee members may be trustworthy, the overall system is perceived as conspiratorial and weakens public confidence.