Supporting and promoting art and culture is an important role of the national and local governments.

To perform the role, they need to secure opportunities to exhibit artistic and cultural creations while supporting and fostering creators.

Recent developments concerning this matter, however, have cast doubt on the government’s recognition of the importance of this role and commitment to performing it properly.

This is an issue that is also deeply related to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. We need to keep close watch on any such move without underestimating its implications.

Last month, the Tokyo District Court handed down a notable ruling concerning the government-affiliated Japan Arts Council’s policy decision. The court said the council, supervised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, violated the law when it reversed its informal decision to provide 10 million yen ($90,000) in subsidies for a film.

The ruling invalidated the abrupt policy change made by the council’s president.

Defending its move, the council said a member of the cast of the movie was convicted of illegal drug use after it had been decided to subsidize the film. Providing tax-financed subsidies to the film is “not appropriate from the viewpoint of public interest,” argued the body, whose mission is to “preserve and promote traditional performing arts, and to promote and popularize modern performing arts in Japan.”

But the court rejected the council’s argument. The ruling cited several reasons for deciding that the council president’s decision to withdraw the subsidies amounted to overstepping and abusing the discretionary power invested in the president.

The court pointed out, for example, that the decision to provide subsidies to the film was made by experts through a multistage selection process focused on artistic value. The actor in question did not play a major role, and the cancellation of the subsidies would deliver a heavy blow to the producer, the ruling added.

It was a fair and well-thought-out ruling.

The ruling also reflected on the history of art, which it said reflected numerous cases in which the freedom of artistic expression was restricted by society’s lack of understanding or political pressure. That is all the more reason why opinions of experts should be respected in making policy decisions concerning a state subsidies program for art and culture, it maintained.

The ruling also pointed out that public interest is an idea that can have various meanings, issuing an apparent warning about using the concept as a convenient rationale for restricting artistic freedom.

Many new cultures and arts were born out of attempts to question the values and views of the majority. The ruling recognized this essence of artistic creation and cautioned the powers that be against casual intervention in artistic activity.

Koichi Hagiuda, the education and culture minister, said his ministry is considering the development of guidelines for deciding whether to provide public funds to specific art and culture projects. This idea should be weighed carefully in line with the spirit of the ruling.

Soon after the ruling, the operator of an Osaka prefectural facility revoked permission to use the facility for an exhibition of artworks that were removed temporarily from display at the Aichi Triennale 2019 international arts festival in Nagoya.

The operator has said the decision was due to a potential safety risk to visitors. But the organizers of the exhibition did not buy the explanation and filed a lawsuit on June 30.

In similar past cases, the Supreme Court ruled that a public facility can take such a step “only when a specific danger can be clearly anticipated.”

The operator of the Osaka facility will face the question of how much effort it made to enable the event to be held safely through such possible steps as holding discussions with police.

Freedom of expression is an integral part of the foundation of a democratic society.

The government has a duty to act as a bulwark against any move to undermine artistic freedom and thereby protect creators and their activities. Policymakers should deal with related issues and challenges while keeping the importance of this responsibility in mind.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 3