“This is bad for the arts, bad for art funding and bad for the artists.”
So says investor and philanthropist Mark Carnegie (in The Australian Financial Review) of the decision by the Biennale of Sydney to dump sponsorship partner Transfield Holdings after weeks of pressure and boycott threats from artists. It’s hard to disagree.
A group of vocal artists and activists got their victory on Friday when the Biennale severed its decades-old ties with the group, forcing Transfield boss Luca Belgiorno-Nettis out of the Biennale chairmanship. Why the fuss? Because Transfield Holdings has a 12% stake in Transfield Services, which won a contract to operate the Manus Island detention centre. In his statement, Belgiorno-Nettis noted:
“Biennale staff have been verbally abused with taunts of ‘blood on your hands’. I have been personally vilified with insults, which I regard as naive and offensive …”
Naive would certainly describe many campaigners, who are seemingly happy to exhibit work in exhibitions funded by governments that legislate offshore processing but not from the businesses legitimately contracted to carry it out. Not to mention the litany of other corporate backers with their own less-than-holy pursuits.
And as Carnegie notes, the arts community isn’t in a position to be picky with its benefactors. The Belgiorno-Nettis family are generous supporters of the arts; others will now think twice about putting their money on the table.
Artists had a much more powerful platform to protest: take the cash of the company they hate and inspire protest on the canvass. Instead they’ve hurt an important exhibition, set back an already poor culture of corporate philanthropy in Australia, and demonstrated the sort of righteous hypocrisy that damns the Left and so many of its causes.
I’m actually quite surprised at the number of voices (ones I normally respect) saying take the money and shut up.
[the arts community isn’t in a position to be picky with its benefactors.]
That way madness lies.
I always *try* to be picky about who I support. The artists and activists who called for the boycott are entitled to do the same.
Sadly, in the mad unequal world of today, philanthropy is more often than not, the first refuge of the scoundrel.
I’ve become quite bored with Crikey telling me about the various failures of “the Left”.
Summing up this editorial in one word? BULLSH=T!!!
Artists having anything to do with ‘tainted’ money is behaving as badly as those who offer it. They (artists) will just have to find more creative ways of exhibiting their art! Preferably without said benefactors or the government, as the policies they both engage in regarding refugees are beyond the pail!!
Who cares if your dubious assessment says it will backfire – for who? Its the right thing to do. Keep up these editorials circkey – and I’ll take my subscription elsewhere. Clearly the editorial team seems to have joined the conga line of suckholes, and is more intent on preserving and enhancing the privileged elites (using ‘rational’ and ‘balanced’ and ‘nuanced’ arguments) than defending human rights. Real journalism = standing up power, not defending it.
Sorry Crikey, but as a performing, not visual artist, I applaud the stance taken by these artists. One commentator says: Take the money & shove it back in their faces with your Art! . . hmmm? Ethical positions need to be taken to assert – Not In My Name, & I believe this is one such laudable attempt? x0x