Article 5 and the chilling effect
What is art allowed to do, and what is it not allowed to do?
And what happens when that’s no longer entirely clear?
Freedom of artistic expression is once again a hot topic this year in Germany. Not least due to the last-minute cancellation of Danger Dan’s appearance on ZDF’s “Die Anstalt,” the public debate has been heated. The question at the heart of the discussion was whether canceling an appearance on public television constitutes an infringement on freedom of artistic expression, even if the content itself was not banned and remains available. The performance was to feature a song offering guidance on resisting right-wing extremism. ZDF had concerns about an implicit call for violence – find more insights in the (German) article here. While the cancellation has been viewed differently from both legal and moral perspectives, one thing is certain: it is a prime example of the topic I explore in my current painting – the so-called 'chilling effect'.
A short history of artistic freedom
But let’s start at the beginning. What exactly is artistic freedom, and how long has it existed? Today, artistic freedom is a right to free artistic expression enshrined in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Along with other freedoms, it was enshrined in the Basic Law in 1949:
Basic law – Article 5 (1) Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinions in speech, writing, and images, and to obtain information without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and film are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights are subject to the limitations set forth in general laws, statutory provisions for the protection of minors, and the right to personal dignity. (3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not exempt one from loyalty to the Constitution. (No guarantee of the accuracy of the translation!)
Like so many things we grew up with, artistic freedom seems self-evident to us, yet historically speaking, it is not that old. Internationally, the first movements and laws against state control of artistic work emerged around the 17th and 18th centuries. In Germany, it was first enshrined as a fundamental right in the constitution in 1919. Yet by 1933, it had already become obsolete, as art and culture were severely restricted during the Nazi era: At that time, all cultural practitioners were required to be members of the “Reich Chamber of Culture,” which exercised strict control over creative content. Exclusion from the chamber was tantamount to a professional ban. Non-conforming and Jewish authors and artists were defamed (or worse); many fled into exile.
In the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, freedom of art was then enshrined in 1949 in the aforementioned article. Although Article 34 of the 1949 GDR Constitution formally contained a similar provision, it existed only on paper –in practice, critical viewpoints were not permitted. Consequently, it was even completely removed from the GDR Constitution in 1968.
Sources on the history:
The question
For years, I’ve been grappling with the question of free artistic expression, especially in the digital context. Not just for myself, but more generally, I ask how we can express ourselves authentically without putting ourselves at risk. How much of ourselves do we reveal – voluntarily and involuntarily? Artists often lead semi-public lives. It’s part of the creative process to bring one’s own personality into the work, take a stand, and be seen.
In my exploration of this topic, I came across, among other things, the “chilling effect.” It describes what happens when people feel they’re being watched: they censor themselves and outwardly conform to the majority opinion. This means that opinions deviating from the mainstream are expressed less frequently, critical reports are published less often, and controversial positions are less frequently expressed through art.
While, on the one hand, healthy skepticism and protecting one’s own information – especially online – make perfect sense, on the other hand, we must be careful not to succumb to self-censorship but to remain true to ourselves.
The call for artists
Early this year, the Frankfurt BBK issued a call for artists. The theme: the German Basic Law. We were asked to submit concepts that each addressed one article of the Basic Law and illustrated what happens when the rights guaranteed therein are restricted.
And I am proud to announce that my entry on Article 5 was selected by the expert jury, allowing me to contribute the image on the topic of freedom of expression and artistic freedom!
The concept
I submitted and implemented the following concept:
In my artwork, I explore the question of what happens when the freedoms guaranteed in Article 5 are gradually eroded. Restrictions rarely begin openly or completely. They often arise from vaguely worded or overly broad laws, from unclear boundaries, and from prohibitions that appear arbitrary. The result is deterrence. This mechanism is known as the “chilling effect.” Out of fear of sanctions, legal consequences, or social disadvantages, people begin to censor themselves. Expression is held back before it even emerges. It is not the ban itself that paralyzes culture, but the uncertainty about what is still permitted. The progression of the image illustrates the transition from a free, vibrant culture to monotony and this “frozen” standstill.
And this brings us full circle: Even if one were to argue that ZDF’s decision to cancel Danger Dan's appearance is understandable from an editorial standpoint, the consequences are incalculable. Artists might come to the conclusion that, in today’s climate, it is safer to exercise greater caution when making political statements in their work – or to refrain from making them altogether. This is understandable on a personal level, but dangerous for society. Because regardless of how this case is assessed, one thing is clear: We need critical engagement on both a substantive and an artistic level – especially in these politically challenging times. That is why it is all the more important to me to participate in this exhibition with this painting.
The process
The call for entries specified that the idea had to be realized on an 80x80 cm canvas. That wasn't a problem for me, since I enjoy working in that format anyway. The concept itself hardly changed during the development process, as I had a pretty clear vision of the final result from the very beginning.
The biggest challenge in the process was therefore to paint the “freezing” moment convincingly. Did I succeed? See for yourselves when I unveil the painting for the first time at the opening!
Opening
September 18, 26, starting at 7 p.m.
I will, of course, be there to answer any questions you may have.
Exhibition
September 19–November 1, 26, Thu–Sun, 3–6 p.m.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS –
Artistic Perspectives on Articles 1 through 19 of the German Basic Law.
An exhibition as part of the “WORLD DESIGN CAPITAL” Frankfurt 2026 project “DEMOCRACY – THE ARTS CORNER.”
More info: World Design Capital | The Arts Corner – BBK Frankfurt
P.S. Be sure to check out the rest of the upcoming events – there’s an art fair, an art market, and (just announced!) participation in another exhibition. With a brand-new painting. More on that soon!
Comments