This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/12/sydney-biennale-transfield-sponsorship

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Sydney Biennale and a question of corporate sponsorship Sydney Biennale and a question of corporate sponsorship
(7 months later)
Sydney design academic, Matthew Kiem, recently penned an open letter to visual arts teachers to Sydney design academic, Matthew Kiem, recently penned an open letter to visual arts teachers to send a strong, public message to the Biennale that association with a company like Transfield was ethically unacceptable. He wrote in part:
send a strong, public message to the Biennale that association with a company The most appropriate response to this situation is to boycott the Biennale. While this may feel as though we are giving something up, it is in fact one of the best opportunities we have to make a material impact on the supply chains that permit the detention industry to work. We are in a particularly strong position here given that our decisions could have the effect of redirecting a significant number of students, income, and kudos away from [this event] and towards other kinds of experiences and discussions ... A strong response this year is the best way to ensure that future Biennales are not funded through [companies associated with asylum seeker detention].
like Transfield was ethically unacceptable. He wrote in part: Kiem told artsHub that “we can and should be putting pressure on the Biennale organisers to find other ways of funding art.”
The most appropriate response to this situation is to boycott the In the last week I’ve seen countless high profile refugee activists writing on Twitter that they intend to boycott the event and will encourage supporters and the public to follow suit.
Biennale. While this may feel as though we are giving something up, it is in Thus far the Biennale has stayed relatively quiet on the matter, though last Friday tweeted:
fact one of the best opportunities we have to make a material impact on the
supply chains that permit the detention industry to work. We are in a
particularly strong position here given that our decisions could have the
effect of redirecting a significant number of students, income, and kudos away
from [this event] and towards other kinds of experiences
and discussions ... A strong response this year is the best way to ensure that
future Biennales are not funded through [companies associated with asylum seeker detention].
Kiem told artsHub that “we can and should be putting pressure on the Biennale
organisers to find other ways of funding art.”
In the last
week I’ve seen countless high profile refugee activists writing on Twitter that they
intend to boycott the event and will encourage supporters and the public to
follow suit.
Thus far the
Biennale has stayed relatively quiet on the matter, though last Friday tweeted:
RE: comments on BOS sponsors: BOS brings attn 2 the ideas & issues of our times – objectors only deny the legitimate voice of BOS artistsRE: comments on BOS sponsors: BOS brings attn 2 the ideas & issues of our times – objectors only deny the legitimate voice of BOS artists
Naming and Naming and shaming corporate sponsors of cultural events and products has a long and noble history. London’s Tate Modern is backed by BP, causing British activists to stress the corporation’s questionable environmental practices. This year in Australia the Minerals Council, in an attempt to sex up and soften its image, is sponsoring a popular commercial radio program. Online protest was guaranteed.
shaming corporate sponsors of cultural events and products has a long and noble Actor Scarlett Johansson recently found herself in the crosshairs of pro-Palestine advocates because she backed Sodastream, a company with a factory in an illegal settlement in the West Bank. Her reputation has taken a hit and the role of Palestinian workers under occupation received global attention. Other firms operating in the West Bank, while brazenly saying they don’t fear future boycotts, are naive if they don’t think similar actions will soon affect them.
history. London’s Tate Modern is backed by BP, causing British activists to In America recently the gender equality organisation Catalyst awarded weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin for “supporting women’s advancement”. I know there were a number of employees at Catalyst who expressed dismay at the tragic irony of praising a corporation that sells technology to some of the worst abusers of women in the world, such as Saudi Arabia. Separating politics from ethics is impossible.
stress the corporation’s questionable environmental practices. This Meanwhile, back in Australia, a critical social media campaign against the Biennale, currently developing organically, has the potential to embarrass the event and highlight the often vexed question of corporate sponsorship of artistic and cultural events. If the boycott grows, it won’t be the first time that these tactics have been employed in Australia over funding.
year in Australia the Minerals Council, in an attempt to sex up and soften its image, is sponsoring a popular commercial radio program. Tasmania’s Ten Days on the Island festival faced outrage in 2002 when it was announced that Forestry Tasmania would be a sponsor in 2003. Artists boycotted, including novelist Peter Carey, and the move caused a vital debate about the ways in which organisations, often with a problematic public image, aim to alter perceptions by backing arts events. Principled participants have a potential choice; be involved and risk being seen as complicit or remove themselves and remain pure. In the real world, such decisions, especially for artists who need and crave exposure, are not easy matters.
Online protest was guaranteed. Although it’s true that Transfield has a long history of backing various artistic forms, the last years have seen a conscious choice to enter the world of asylum detention. Both Serco and G4S know how financially beneficial this is.
Actor The exact nature of Transfield’s work is mired in mystery - a press release on 29 January merely referred to Garrison Support Services and Welfare at both Manus Island and Nauru - but it’s clear that management sees further opportunities with Tony Abbott’s government; Canberra has a bottomless pit of money to “stop the boats” and punish refugees.
Scarlett Johansson recently found herself in the crosshairs of pro-Palestine advocates The links between the Biennale and Transfield are not hidden - the chairman of the Biennale, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, is also an executive director at Transfield.
because she backed Sodastream, a company with a factory in an illegal Is this really the kind of corporation to which a leading arts event wants to be associated? What message does this send to the wider community? Should it be acceptable to earn money from the grubby business of imprisoning asylum seekers while at the same time backing glittering artistic works?
settlement in the West Bank. Her reputation has taken a hit and the role of Palestinian I’ve asked the Biennale to address these contradictions. “Our understanding”, they write, “is that the detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru are run by the Serco Group, which is not a Biennale sponsor.” This is incorrect; Serco has no known involvement.
workers under occupation received global attention. Other firms operating in “If any sponsor were found to be directly involved in the abuse of refugees, or anyone else for that matter, we would naturally reconsider our relationship.”
the West Bank, while brazenly saying they don’t fear future boycotts, are naive if The statement continues: “Transfield Services has been a long time supporter of the Biennale. They supply food, clothing and other provisions to a number of industries and government projects. They are a listed company with high ethical standards and a publicly stated code of conduct.”
they don’t think similar actions will soon affect them. Addressing the call to boycott the event, “we believe that the campaign is well intentioned but misguided.” I ask about the potential social media campaign against them. “Many of us at the Biennale hold strong views on the refugee issue,” they argue. “We would not knowingly associate with the abuse of a disadvantaged group like the refugees. We believe that any action to hinder the Biennale would damage the ability of 94 artists to exhibit their work and gain exposure for their talent. That would be regrettable.”
In America How the Biennale and related events are funded should be key public questions, especially in an age where far too many companies want to mask their dirty profit-making with shiny, artistic treats. It is our responsibility to demand better.
recently the gender equality organisation Catalyst awarded weapons manufacturer
Lockheed Martin for “supporting women’s advancement”. I know there
were a number of employees at Catalyst who expressed dismay at the
tragic irony of praising a corporation that sells technology to some of the
worst abusers of women in the world, such as Saudi Arabia. Separating politics from ethics
is impossible.
Meanwhile, back
in Australia, a critical social media campaign against the Biennale, currently
developing organically, has the potential to embarrass the event and highlight
the often vexed question of corporate sponsorship of artistic and cultural
events. If the boycott grows, it won’t be the first time that these tactics
have been employed in Australia over funding.
Tasmania’s Ten
Days on the Island festival faced outrage in 2002 when it was announced that
Forestry Tasmania would be a sponsor in 2003. Artists boycotted, including novelist Peter
Carey, and the move caused a vital debate about the ways in which
organisations, often with a problematic public image, aim to alter perceptions
by backing arts events. Principled participants have a potential choice; be
involved and risk being seen as complicit or remove themselves and remain pure.
In the real world, such decisions, especially for artists who need and crave
exposure, are not easy matters.
Although it’s
true that Transfield has a long history of backing various artistic forms, the last
years have seen a conscious choice to enter the world of asylum detention. Both Serco and G4S know how financially beneficial this is.
The exact
nature of Transfield’s work is mired in mystery - a press release on 29 January merely referred to Garrison Support Services and Welfare at both Manus Island and Nauru - but
it’s clear that management sees further opportunities with
Tony Abbott’s government; Canberra has a bottomless pit of money to “stop the
boats” and punish refugees.
The links
between the Biennale and Transfield are not hidden - the chairman of the Biennale, Luca
Belgiorno-Nettis, is also an executive director at Transfield.
Is this really
the kind of corporation to which a leading arts event wants to be associated? What message does this send to the
wider community? Should it be acceptable to earn money from the grubby business
of imprisoning asylum seekers while at the same time backing glittering
artistic works?
I’ve asked the
Biennale to address these contradictions. “Our understanding”,
they write, “is that the detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru are run by
the Serco Group, which is not a Biennale sponsor.” This is incorrect; Serco has no known involvement.
“If any sponsor were found to be directly involved in the
abuse of refugees, or anyone else for that matter, we would naturally
reconsider our relationship.”
The statement continues: “Transfield Services has
been a long time supporter of the Biennale. They supply food, clothing and
other provisions to a number of industries and government projects. They are a
listed company with high ethical standards and a publicly stated code of
conduct.”
Addressing the
call to boycott the event, “we believe that the campaign is well intentioned
but misguided.” I ask about the potential social media campaign against them.
“Many of us at the Biennale hold strong views on the refugee issue,” they
argue. “We would not knowingly associate with the abuse of a disadvantaged
group like the refugees. We believe that any action to hinder the Biennale
would damage the ability of 94 artists to exhibit their work and gain exposure
for their talent. That would be regrettable.”
How the
Biennale and related events are funded should be key public questions,
especially in an age where far too many companies want to mask their dirty
profit-making with shiny, artistic treats. It is our responsibility to demand
better.