Saturday, 7 November — close to a couple of hundred local and international artists, cultural funders, administrators, curators and writers are seated in a convivial setting around the red and white checkered tables in Stockholm’s stadsteater. We’re at an intimate distance from the stage, from one another. In their introduction, the curators of the event Maria Lind and Anna Livion point to the levels of intimacy between funders and contemporary artists: this kind of intimacy is what Maria calls schmoozing, a word that suggests intimacy and manipulation at the same time. And wonderfully onomatopoeic somehow. But it’s a dogged reality: private funding involves a constant amount of schmoozing, and arguably the schmooze factor to procure public funding is on the rise too. Having an amiable relationship with the secretary of a fund gives you a distinct advantage, networking has become (or perhaps always been?) a categorical imperative.

Some words of caution, however, as Maria warns first and foremost against over-polarisation: that public funding is somehow good and private funding is bad or vice-versa. The situation today is much more complicated. Secondly she cautions about the passion for artistic autonomy, for is art ever entirely free? Rather than talking about freedom of art we should talk about space of manoeuvre, and is this space of manoeuvring shifting, shrinking. 'Elephant in the room' (or on the coffee table) is an idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored, or problem that no-one wants to discuss. Maria Lind makes a plea to acknowledge this big looming elephant — this 'elephant' are the complicated and sometimes camouflaged conditions of art funding — “let’s talk with him, dance with him and even attack him for he’s definitely here to stay”. If we ignore the elephant our space of manoeuvre will certainly shrink. The first step is to address the elephant and stare him in the eye.