Art, Associations, and the Misunderstanding of Responsibility
In the arts and cultural sector, associations are a dominant organisational form. This is not accidental, nor merely administrative convenience. Artistic work is inherently uncertain, experimental, and often financially unpredictable. The association structure exists to protect this kind of activity.
Problems arise when associations are evaluated using the wrong model of responsibility. In the arts, discussions about accountability, power, and funding often borrow language from corporate or institutional management, even though the legal reality of associations is fundamentally different.
Board members of associations are not employees, nor do they operate under entrepreneurial risk. They are not personally responsible for the financial success of projects, nor do they act as representatives of funders. Their role is defined by law and by the association’s statutes.
When artists or board members begin to believe they are personally liable for funding decisions, grant conditions, or project outcomes, the result is over-responsibilisation. This manifests as fear, withdrawal, and reluctance to participate in governance roles.
This is particularly damaging in the arts sector, where work is often voluntary, resources are scarce, and funding is conditional and externally steered. The association form is not a way to avoid responsibility, but a way to limit it appropriately. It enables activity without exposing individual participants to institutional or financial risk with their personal assets.
Crucially, this misunderstanding does not occur randomly. It appears repeatedly in moments of failure — when projects falter, mistakes are made, or outcomes fall short of expectations. When things go well, the structure of responsibility is rarely questioned. It is precisely at moments of imperfection that associations are retrospectively judged by standards they were never designed to meet.
This reveals a structural problem: volunteer-based associations are evaluated using governance models that belong to entirely different legal and cultural systems.
Responsibility in Associations: Finland, Germany, and the United States
Expectations around responsibility in associations are not universal. They are shaped by legal frameworks, political culture, and assumptions about the relationship between citizens and institutions.
In Finland, associations are primarily instruments of civic participation. They are independent legal entities, and responsibility is directed toward the association itself, not individual board members. Personal liability arises only in exceptional circumstances, such as intentional unlawful conduct or personal guarantees.
In Germany, associations are more formally regulated. Board members have clearly defined duties of care and legal compliance. Personal liability may arise in cases of gross negligence or statutory violations, but personal assets are generally protected. The German model sits between the Finnish civic model and the American institutional model.
In the United States, nonprofit organisations operate much closer to corporate structures. Boards carry extensive fiduciary duties, and personal liability is a realistic risk. Litigation, insurance, and active risk management are integral to the system.
When Finnish associations are judged as if they operated under German or American responsibility models, expectations become distorted. The result is misplaced blame and fear — particularly acute in the arts sector.
Responsibility in associations is not a moral abstraction but a legal and cultural construct. When these constructs are conflated, we lose sight of what can reasonably be expected from volunteer-based civic organisations.