Director of Rein issues statement amid row over £85,000 Creative Scotland funding

The director of an explicit arts project involving non-simulated sex performances has defended her work, saying it has been “misunderstood and misrepresented” and “would not qualify as pornography” as it is not intended to elicit sexual arousal.

Leonie Rae Gasson has denied misleading Creative Scotland amid an ongoing row over £84,555 of public funding awarded to the development of Rein.

The arts body has since U-turned on its support following a public outcry and has clawed back most of the money granted.

Creative Scotland claimed the intention to include real sex, as opposed to a performance depicting simulated sex, had breached the contract conditions and was “inappropriate for public funding”.

However, freedom of information documents released on Tuesday showed that an application in March 2023 outlined plans for a “sex scene with genital contact with three of the cast” and a “sex party”.

Culture Secretary Angus Robertson has since requested an urgent meeting with Creative Scotland to discuss how confidence in the organisation can be “restored”.

First Minister John Swinney also said it must be “open and transparent” in the way it conducts its work.

‘Rein would have been an artistic film’

Glasgow-based Ms Gasson, who had remained silent as her project hit the headlines, has now issued a statement defending her work.

Ms Gasson said: “Rein would have been an artistic film exploring themes of sexuality set in the Scottish landscape.

“The sexual elements were an integral part of the project’s artistic vision.

“They would have challenged regressive and exploitative attitudes towards women and queer people.

“The allegation that this project would have been harmful or abusive in nature is untrue and highly damaging to the individuals involved in this project.”

The project had been billed as a 45-minute multi-screen moving image installation that “immerses audiences in a raucous communal exploration of dyke sexuality”.

As well as inviting the audience to “come see the daddies lurking in the woods”, the show’s “climax” was advertised as a “secret cave sex party” that will be “exploding onto the screens”.

In a callout for participants over the age of 18, budding performers were offered £270 per day and advised: “Some roles will involve just snogging, others will involve vanilla sex and others more hardcore acts.”

Those with previous sex work experience – “particularly in porn contexts” – were encouraged to apply.

‘Rein has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented’

Ms Gasson said: “The parties involved have remained silent as this issue has been co-opted by many groups, individuals and the media for aggressive political, anti-trans, and anti-sex worker activity, alongside attacks on arts and culture.

“They do not wish to participate in this. This statement is being issued because the project Rein has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented.”

Ms Gasson said there is a “long history” of sexually explicit and sex-positive queer art.

She added: “The work fused choreographed dance and choreographed sex to immerse the audience in a fantastical otherworld.

“Rein was conceived by and for lesbian and queer artists to express lesbian and queer sexuality, on their own terms with sex-positive narratives.”

‘Rein would not qualify as pornography’

Ms Gasson said the project was pitched as an art installation.

She added: “Rein would not qualify as pornography because it was not intended as a way to elicit sexual arousal as the outcome.

“Performers were to be paid for the purposes of collaboratively creating the artwork, and not for a client.”

Ms Gasson described those involved in the project as “queer neurodiverse artists with strong track records”.

She added: “Throughout the development, due care and attention would be paid to all participants and contributors to create a consensual, safe, legally compliant and professional environment in which the artwork would be made.”

In a letter to Holyrood’s constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee last month, Creative Scotland’s chief executive Iain Munro said £67,741 had been recovered from Ms Gasson.

Combined with the 10% of the award which had not yet been paid, a total of £76,196 had been withdrawn – 90% of the original award.

Mr Munro explained that Ms Gasson had incurred legitimate costs of £8,359, mainly to subcontracted freelancers, by the time she was informed of the U-turn.

Creative Scotland said it did not intend to recover the fees already paid to third parties “in the interests of protecting the, often precarious, income of these subcontracted freelancers”.

The arts body also confirmed it did not intend to recover £23,210 it awarded to Ms Gasson in August 2022 for the research and development phase of the project.

Read more from Sky News:
Ex-model accuses Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs of sexually assaulting her
‘Dangerous’ paedophile who raped one girl and sexually assaulted another jailed

Ms Gasson claimed she had proposed plans for one scene with “three consenting performers” where “genital contact could be part of the performance of (non-simulated) sex choreography and dance choreography”.

She said the term “real sex” was never used in any callout, process, documentation or application – and more than 40 applications were submitted by people wishing to take part.

Ms Gasson claimed that the artists had been “transparent about the nature of the work” with Creative Scotland, which had been “consistent” throughout the two applications.

She stated: “The artists do not agree that they misled the funding body.”

Ms Gasson added: “The project has been misunderstood and misrepresented.

“Everyone involved in the project is deeply saddened that the funding body did not seek clarification with the artists, or suggest working together to elucidate to third parties that the project is an artistic moving image film and not what has been widely reported or claimed.

“No opportunity was given to the artists to work towards a joint resolution or alternative outcome prior to the funding body’s decision to defund the work.”

A Creative Scotland spokesperson said: “We were always aware the project would be explicit and creatively challenging, but it was not clear until the project issued the callout for participants on its website that the project was moving from performance to unsimulated sex.

“It was at this point that Creative Scotland felt that there had been a breach of contract, and this breach of contract was not disputed by the applicant.

“Creative work, across many art forms, can feature explicit depictions of sex. But there is a difference between that depiction and actual sex, which is not appropriate for public funding.”

The arts body added that the information contained in the FOI response featured details relating to “two separate but related applications”.

It noted that the research and development phases of a project often explore elements that then “do not feature” in subsequent substantive applications or actual execution.

The arts body said: “That is the case in this instance”.

The spokesperson added: “No reference to ‘non-simulated sex acts’ was made in the substantive application for funding for the project.

“When it became clear that this was a feature of the actual project execution, the funding was withdrawn, and this withdrawal was not disputed.”