Embedded Files
For this toolkit, we looked at tendencies in Poland that have happened in the past, but also phenomena that are still happening today. This article is based on the conversation with Agata Grenda, Director of The Gdańsk Shakespeare Festival (February 2025) and additional sources. Her input is based on her work as director at The Gdańsk Shakespeare Festival and her other work experience in the cultural field in Poland and the USA.
Photos: Dawid Linkowski
“Why do we censor ourselves? Sometimes we do it out of fear because we rely so much on public funding.”
“Why do we censor ourselves? Sometimes we do it out of fear because we rely so much on public funding.”
Social/political context
Poland has a long history in dealing with undemocratic tendencies. Being part of the Soviet Regime till 1989, where cultural organizing dealt with various forms of censorship and suppression of a diverse and Polish cultural identity. During the socialistic period (1945-1989), the society and the cultural sector, was marked by centralization and institutionalization, with the state controlling almost all parts of the cultural sector. Developments in culture was characterized by a strong politicization and political censorship[1]. Poland shifted in 1989, with the arrival of a first non-communist government winning the first elections in Poland after the rule of the Soviet Union. The period that follows opened up for more freedom of artistic expression, new legal frameworks for cultural organizing in a market economy and decentralization of institutions. Even though some have raised criticism, mentioning changes were not implemented thoroughly enough, overall, Poland seemed to make a turn towards a more democratic system and society[2]. When in 2015 the PiS government (2015-2023) won elections, the question of democracy was again on the table in Poland. With a far-right and more conservative government taking the lead, various non-democratic ideas have been implemented and it was often thought Poland would take similar direction as Hungary. However, in 2023 the liberal civil party leader Donald Tusk took over again, shifting once again to democracy direction.
Key concepts:
Centralization and political censorship in Socialist Poland
Democracy
[1] https://www.culturalpolicies.net/database/search-by-country/country-profile/?id=30
[2] Ibid.
Cultural and Festival Field
Today, the Polish cultural and festival sector can largely be described in democratic terms, with open conversations happening between festivals, cultural organizations, governmental institutions and the Polish society. Debates can, however, create friction especially when it touches upon religious and moral matters. As the Polish governmental entities in the cultural sector have a high level of decentralization, relations between the cultural sector works and governmental bodies can have large differences between regions.
The Polish cultural sector (mainly theaters, museums and cultural centers) remains heavily dependent on public funding, primarily sourced from local and national government budgets. This financial model makes cultural institutions vulnerable to political fluctuations, as changes in governance directly impact funding streams. Agata Grenda critically notes, “systems in which culture is almost entirely subsidized by the state are structurally fragile—even in democratic contexts.”
Poland and most other European countries are in sharp contrast with for example the USA, where artists often have second jobs in order to sustain themselves financially. Financial dependency can potentially create friction and unhealthy relations between funders and funded.
Grenda advocates for a more diversified financial model that includes alternative funding sources such as private philanthropy, audience-generated income (box office, memberships), international foundations, and corporate sponsorship. Diversification not only lowers risks but also strengthens the sector’s resilience and capacity for democratic discourse. By reducing overreliance on governmental funding, cultural organizations can gain more independence and institutional integrity. On the other hand, Grenda is aware that such diversified forms of cultural funding in Poland—given the lack of a philanthropic tradition and the legacy of a non-democratic system that lasted for half a century after the war—still remain a utopia. Cultural institutions do their best to make use of grants and private support, but without systemic state co-funding, they are unable to continue their works.
Key terms:
Democratic conversation
Decentralization
Alternative (independent) funding models
Healthy democracy
Threats and Struggles
Despite operating within a formally democratic system, the Polish cultural field exhibits patterns that reflect residual of authoritarian tendencies. Grenda highlights how both historical and contemporary pressures contribute to a culture of self-censorship—particularly among institutions dependent on public funds. This self-censorship is deeply embedded in Poland’s social culture, influenced by a legacy of political suppression, religious conservatism, and constrained public discourse. These dynamics can manifest in curatorial decisions, risk aversion, and withdrawal from controversial topics. A notable example includes the cancellation of a theatre performance following protests by religious groups, underscoring how social pressure can dominate artistic events.
But this goes further than canceling plays out of self-censorship, theatre director Krzysztof Głuchowski was fired in 2022 by the regional government. “To me, this decision, to dismiss me, is punishment for staging Dziady. There is no other reason,” Głuchowski mentions in the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza[1]. As a newer phenomenon, occurrences of cancel culture have popped up in the Polish cultural field too, with a theater director firing actors for their political views. The critiquing and firing of cultural directors for political reasons is not an uncommon procedure in Poland, more cases linked here.[2] [3]
Additionally, Grenda points out the lack of knowledge and education for artistic and cultural professionals with regards to funding and their positions in society. She advocates for more education for the cultural sector; to understand culture’s, artists and cultural professional’s importance and role in society, but also practical knowledge on funding and management. By gaining more knowledge, not only their position in society becomes more firm, but also in practical terms this could be beneficial; applications for funds can become stronger and better formulated and culture can become less dependent on public funding and other parties.
Key concepts:
Self-censorships
Social censorship
Cancel culture
Political interventions
Knowledge and education
[1] https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/02/18/polish-theatre-protests-removal-of-director-after-anti-government-play/
[2] https://artreview.com/news-5-dec-2016-too-much-jewish-content-director-of-berlins-polish-institute-dismissed/
[3] https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/poland-acquisitions-1907310
Tools, Strategies and Positions
‘’Let's go to dinner, so nobody knows about that’’
‘’Let's go to dinner, so nobody knows about that’’
Poland’s unique political and historical trajectory places cultural actors in a liminal space—where democratic freedoms coexist with systemic vulnerabilities. Grenda recounts the legacy of informal resistance during the communist era, in which artists and cultural organizers learned to navigate and sometimes outsmarted restrictive systems.
“We treated it like a game,” she says. “If officials said no, I acted as if I agreed—but found ways to make it happen anyway.”
“We treated it like a game,” she says. “If officials said no, I acted as if I agreed—but found ways to make it happen anyway.”
Such tactics of adaptive resistance remain relevant today, particularly under administrations with autocratic leanings like Law and Order Party (PiS), which formed the government in the years of 2015-2023. Grenda underscores that many cultural workers must have balanced ethical convictions with personal survival—providing for their families while operating within compromised institutions. She refuses to moralize these choices, instead recognizing them as pragmatic responses to complex conditions.
“If 95% of your work is publicly funded, you adjust to survive. I was personally dismissed from my position as Director of the Polish Cultural Institute in New York by the Law and Justice government, because I was not willing to follow their agenda. However, many of my colleagues kept their positions. I believe that making any moral judgments when people working in culture have children and mortgages to pay is not my place.’’ Grenda notices that many reports in the American media confirm that since Donald Trump returned to power in 2025, scientific and cultural institutions in the U.S. have been experiencing pressure leading to self-censorship, reduction of programs, and avoidance of topics considered controversial.
Nevertheless, she argues that cultural organizations must not only adapt but also engage in proactive bridge-building. This includes creating platforms for politicians and the public to experience and understand the value of cultural work firsthand. Strategic programming that opens dialogue, rather than provokes immediate backlash, may be more effective in the long-term transformation of public attitudes. She mentions: “if I stage a provocative play that dominates headlines and outrages my audience, have I truly educated them—or have I just alienated them?”
This approach calls for carefully curated strategies that both challenge and invite. It assumes that cultural change requires empathy, timing, and institutional foresight.
Education and participation play important roles, as through this we can create better understandings of culture for cultural professionals and politicians. In places and contexts where this is possible, Grenda advocates for politicians to become more actively involved and attend cultural activities in order to better understand what culture and art can mean. But she also realizes that this bridging requires efforts. We need to create pathways and openings to culture that are approachable and accessible while also educating or facilitating them to new perspectives and (potentially) critical narratives.
Key concepts:
Adapting to the system and outsmarting the system
Education and participation
Careful curation
Curation and Organisation
Grenda and the international Shakespeare Festival in Gdańsk she leads, actively position themselves against authoritarianism, using its freedom to support colleagues in more restricted contexts. This includes establishing partnerships with theaters and institutions abroad, offering platforms for exchange, and taking public stances on geopolitical issues—such as the implementation of artistic boycotts in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Their actions are rooted in the belief that cultural institutions have a responsibility to defend democratic values, both at home and abroad. At the same time, these organizations explore legal and structural models that can help secure their autonomy in the face of future political shifts. This includes the formation of foundations, cooperative networks, and cross-sector alliances to strengthen long-term sustainability.
Key Words:
- International collaboration and solidarity
- Artistic boycott
- Legal frameworks and organizational models.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse