Pro Helvetia has examined the flow of funds in connection with the exhibition by Christoph Büchel at Wiener Secession and ascertained that no public funds from Pro Helvetia went to the privately run swingers club located in the basement of the exhibition hall.

Christoph Büchel’s controversial «Raum für Sexkultur» (room for sex culture) installation at Wiener Secession caused an international flurry. An analysis of the flow of funds conducted by the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia has ascertained that no public funds are going or have gone to the swingers club run by a private association called «Element 6» in the basement of Wiener Secession.

Wiener Secession is a successful exhibition hall for contemporary art. It approached Pro Helvetia to request support for the first solo exhibition in Austria of renowned Swiss artist Christoph Büchel. In autumn 2009, the visual art specialists on Pro Helvetia’s Board of Trustees decided to contribute CHF 15,000 to the overall project budget of CHF 150,000. In accordance with its legal mandate, Pro Helvetia supports artists who convince by their talent and international appeal. Both these criteria apply in the case of Christoph Büchel. His track record includes exhibitions at numerous major museums and art venues such as Fridericianum in Kassel, Palais de Tokyo in Paris and the Sydney Biennale.

As long as art does not go against the law, it is one of its tasks to raise critical questions and trigger controversial discussions. Pro Helvetia adheres to the principle of artistic freedom and therefore does not interfere with the contents of an exhibition. In the case of Wiener Secession, Basel-born artist Christoph Büchel was, moreover, given free rein by the exhibition’s organisers. The result is not identical the project outline submitted in the application for support. Understandably so, since the very nature of art makes the outcome of an artistic project foreseeable only to a limited degree. At Pro Helvetia, the case has triggered an internal debate on how the Arts Council is to react to strongly provocative content in the grant applications it receives without resorting to censorship or bloating its bureaucracy. This question will also be discussed with the relevant parliamentary commission.