By Ruth Skilbeck
One thing which has emerged from the heated and passionate dialogue on social media and amongst Biennale artists about the sponsorship of the 19th Biennale of Sydney (2014), was the absence of political debate on this issue, and the absolute lack of a political voice in power. The Greens Party spoke out in support of artists, but there was no arts and culture minister debating the wider and local issues in detail.
This is an extraordinary gap in Australian diplomacy and international relations. Arts and Culture is the field on which internationally the most significant representations of a country are made, and forged.
Yet in Australia, Culture is still politically equated with sport, and by sport is meant the kicking of balls, or hitting them with an implement, not the sport of rhetoric, which politicians have taken as their own, and chosen not to have a significant representation of arts culture.
What we need in Australia is good Arts and Culture ministers, who can provide leadership. Where are they?
The events surrounding and leading to the severing of ties between the Biennale of Sydney and now ex-sponsor Transfield due to controversial political allegiances and contracts to run detention camps which are in breach of human rights shocked and outraged visiting Biennale artists who withdrew in protest.
When international governments started to question the links between the Biennale and the detention camps profit connections to its controversial sponsor, the Biennale rapidly severed the ties with the sponsor, yesterday (as reported on this blog).
This shows that art and politics are inextricably linked, artists need political representation at high levels in Australia, beyond the arts administration which is not in this arena.
For example, we urgently need sponsorship for the arts which is not connected to dubious business ties and political allegiance.
It may seem like a contradiction to then call for political representation of artists but I believe that we do need strong leadership to connect Australian art to the wider world, and to champion the rights and needs of artists eg to cheap housing, transport, and to give artists liveable incomes. This has happened in Berlin, it can happen here.
Strong representation of art and artists, by those who are artists themselves, in politics, and a far more serious committment to the arts and culture in Australia, can only help to further the presence of art from Australian artists on the international stage, and strengthen cultural ties between arts bodies and artists in Australia and internationally.
Such a representation could forewarn, for instance, of the kinds of sponsorship that is likely to be considered controversial and unacceptable internationally and nationally by those who have a moral conscience, and act on it, which would save the kind of international embarrassment which this Biennale debacle has caused for the Australian government, and the Biennale itself.
Above all, the Australian government should not be pursuing policies of mandatory detention and cruelty which have made this such a controversial issue, which artists have had the courage and ethical sense to resist.
Ruth Skilbeck, 8.3.2014
Saturday 8 March 2014
Friday 7 March 2014
Sydney Biennale Board Severs Ties with Controversial Sponsorship
Today the Biennale of Sydney Board announced that is has severed the ties with immigration detention camp funding, which were highly controversial and contested as illegal, for breach of international law.
This is the outcome of a concerted campaign by the prominent international Biennale artists themselves, ten of whom withdrew their work from the Biennale (see Boycott the 19th Sydney Biennale )in protest.
When international governments questioned the links, (as reported in the Guardian today) the Biennale (see Biennale of Sydney) announced the resignation of chairman and major sponsor director.
You can read about the campaign by artists in their open letters on the Daily Fugue site, with commentary from an art critic and artist who supported Biennale artists who withdrew, through this difficult and challenging campaign, and wrote about it on this blog.
"I will be continuing to write about the Biennale, and the new developments in the context of the changing art world. I will be interviewing artists at the Biennale, about their ideas and works, and the changing art world in the contexts which are emerging."
Ruth Skilbeck 7.3.14
This is the outcome of a concerted campaign by the prominent international Biennale artists themselves, ten of whom withdrew their work from the Biennale (see Boycott the 19th Sydney Biennale )in protest.
When international governments questioned the links, (as reported in the Guardian today) the Biennale (see Biennale of Sydney) announced the resignation of chairman and major sponsor director.
You can read about the campaign by artists in their open letters on the Daily Fugue site, with commentary from an art critic and artist who supported Biennale artists who withdrew, through this difficult and challenging campaign, and wrote about it on this blog.
"I will be continuing to write about the Biennale, and the new developments in the context of the changing art world. I will be interviewing artists at the Biennale, about their ideas and works, and the changing art world in the contexts which are emerging."
Ruth Skilbeck 7.3.14
BIENNALE ARTISTS BOYCOTT SUCCESS- SPLIT FROM REFUGEE DETENTION CAMP FUNDS TIES
Biennale Boycott Success- Ties to 'Refugee Processing' Detention Funds Severed Today
The Biennale Boycott has been successful. Today the chairman of the Biennale and also chairman of the major sponsor detention camps management corporation, voluntarily resigned.
The Biennale Board and organisers made the announcement that Belgiorn-Nettis, has resigned his position from the festival, and effectively ties are now severed with the controversial funds, the outcome that the boycotting artists have been holding out for.
The Board statement says in part: "We have listened to the artists who are the heart of the Biennale and decided to end our partnership with Transfield effective immediately."
The chairman of the Sydney Biennale, who is also the chairman of Transfield, a contractor for immigration detention centres, has resigned.
It is now official the the Biennale of Sydney has ended its sponsorship ties with Transfield after 41 years. Today Luca Begiorno-Nettis resigned after 14 years as Chair of the Board of the Biennale.
This means that the artists boycott, and withdrawal, has been effective in making change, the result is clear: the Biennale will no longer be directly funded by profits of illegal mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and another strong message sent is that art and artists refuse to be co-opted 'to launder the reputations of companies who profit from Australia's racist border policies' as one social media artist post said today.
If anyone was in any doubt that art can be an effective force of change - and political action for the good of humanity, this proves otherwise. The art world is changing and this is the real evidence of its power for good.
On one of artist Boycott discussion pages, is the suggestion that: 'this is a great time to identify other pressure points in the supply chain of mandatory detention so we can work together to bring it to an end.' Showing the refocus of art on the real world, beyond postmodern theory, to address and engage with the most important and complex issues of our global time of rapid changes. And humanity at the centre of the art world beyond the recent theory of the "post-human" and "death of the author". This is a time for universal humanism in art and culture, to make change, to save the world and humanity.
This is part of a new movement in the art world and driven by artists that is happening around the world. Australia is now part- the centre of- of a historic moment.
This is the first time that artists boycotted and protested from a Biennale on political grounds.
This will set a precedent and shows what's more that Australia can lead the art world!
Whilst there is research to be done into what the actual separations mean, and what if any links are left, the symbolic resignation sends a clear message and shows that change has come.
Luca Belgiorno-Nettis himself said today, as published in the Guardian:
Thank you to Mr Belgiorno-Nettis doing the right thing and unlinking the difficult links. Perhaps the only graceful move that could save the day.
As an art critic and artist who was openly boycotting in support of the artists boycott, I shall now be accepting the art media writers invitation to preview the Biennale.
Ruth Skilbeck 7.2.2014
About the author:
Ruth Skilbeck, PhD, is an art critic, artist and writer. Her first book The Writer's Fugue: Musicalization, Trauma and Subjectivity in the Literature of Modernity, which is based on her PhD, will be available in 2016.
Her first novel The Antipode Room- Australian Fugue is available on Amazon.
The Biennale Boycott has been successful. Today the chairman of the Biennale and also chairman of the major sponsor detention camps management corporation, voluntarily resigned.
The Biennale Board and organisers made the announcement that Belgiorn-Nettis, has resigned his position from the festival, and effectively ties are now severed with the controversial funds, the outcome that the boycotting artists have been holding out for.
The Board statement says in part: "We have listened to the artists who are the heart of the Biennale and decided to end our partnership with Transfield effective immediately."
The chairman of the Sydney Biennale, who is also the chairman of Transfield, a contractor for immigration detention centres, has resigned.
It is now official the the Biennale of Sydney has ended its sponsorship ties with Transfield after 41 years. Today Luca Begiorno-Nettis resigned after 14 years as Chair of the Board of the Biennale.
This means that the artists boycott, and withdrawal, has been effective in making change, the result is clear: the Biennale will no longer be directly funded by profits of illegal mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and another strong message sent is that art and artists refuse to be co-opted 'to launder the reputations of companies who profit from Australia's racist border policies' as one social media artist post said today.
If anyone was in any doubt that art can be an effective force of change - and political action for the good of humanity, this proves otherwise. The art world is changing and this is the real evidence of its power for good.
On one of artist Boycott discussion pages, is the suggestion that: 'this is a great time to identify other pressure points in the supply chain of mandatory detention so we can work together to bring it to an end.' Showing the refocus of art on the real world, beyond postmodern theory, to address and engage with the most important and complex issues of our global time of rapid changes. And humanity at the centre of the art world beyond the recent theory of the "post-human" and "death of the author". This is a time for universal humanism in art and culture, to make change, to save the world and humanity.
This is part of a new movement in the art world and driven by artists that is happening around the world. Australia is now part- the centre of- of a historic moment.
This is the first time that artists boycotted and protested from a Biennale on political grounds.
This will set a precedent and shows what's more that Australia can lead the art world!
Whilst there is research to be done into what the actual separations mean, and what if any links are left, the symbolic resignation sends a clear message and shows that change has come.
Luca Belgiorno-Nettis himself said today, as published in the Guardian:
"Yesterday I learnt that some international government agencies are beginning to question the decision of the Biennale’s board to stand by Transfield [...].
“I have tendered my resignation from the Biennale board in the hope that some blue sky may open up over this 19th Biennale of Sydney,” he said
Belgiorno-Nettis said in the statement: “I wear two hats: one as chair of the Biennale of Sydney and the other as a director of Transfield Holdings; both organisations conceived by my father and nurtured by my family over many decades. (Guardian 7.2.2014)
Thank you to Mr Belgiorno-Nettis doing the right thing and unlinking the difficult links. Perhaps the only graceful move that could save the day.
As an art critic and artist who was openly boycotting in support of the artists boycott, I shall now be accepting the art media writers invitation to preview the Biennale.
Ruth Skilbeck 7.2.2014
About the author:
Ruth Skilbeck, PhD, is an art critic, artist and writer. Her first book The Writer's Fugue: Musicalization, Trauma and Subjectivity in the Literature of Modernity, which is based on her PhD, will be available in 2016.
Her first novel The Antipode Room- Australian Fugue is available on Amazon.
Kerbstone, or Single Mother Academic Curb Your Enthusiasm
Kerbstone: Single Mother Academic Curb Your Enthusiasm
Yesterday an incident occurred - in my short absence whilst I went to Sydney to hear the talk by international ex Sydney Biennale artists, Libia Castro and Olaf Olafsson who have withdrawn their work in protest to the ties to detention camps profit of the major sponsors, Transfield a construction and infrastructure corporation that is also involved in arts sponsorship. (Which I have been writing about on this blog).
When I returned after a busy day - 3 hours each way on the slow train (there is not fast train) 6 hours on the train in all and in between a few hours at the talk, at Sydney College of the Arts then talking with the artists, about their new and ongoing work that they are still making with Refugee Art Projects artists and a psychologist dealing with trauma- an exciting and significant work that I look forward to participating in and reviewing here soon, when I returned almost at midnight, I found an unpleasant surprise awaiting me:
A $1,212.00 fine, in two almost impossible to read ticket details under the windscreen wiper of my poor old car, that died many months ago and has been parked outside my house, as I cannot park it next to the house on the section of my property where I as a citizen should and could (if I had means) be able to park as I pay rates, for basic council service, and everyone else in my street and the surrounding street, has access to their own property/yards off the street but me. That is because the kerbstone is old- and over 100 years old- a 12inch deep solid convict hewn kerbstone between the gutter and pavement is too high for me to drive over, if it was not, I would have simply parked my car next to my house, and would not have this problem now, a problem of poverty which is recurring and seems to plague me.
But I am surprised and dismayed, I had spoken with a ranger a few months ago and explained that it was my house, my car, I have not used it unregistered, it is waiting until I can either afford to have it fixed and registered, or to have it taken away, by a wreckers yard and he said that was all right to leave it there, until I had been able to raise the money (thousands of dollars) to have the kerbstone altered myself, so that I could drive over it. He said the council it seems does not provide that service, although I certainly do not own the kerbstone in the public street, yet it seems I have to be the one to pay to have it modified. Why?
To make it worse, this is the second time that due to lack of money, I have been fined $1200 for having my own car parked- unused- outside my own house (the property I pay annual hefty rates to the council for), as I have not been able to afford to have it registered, and have not been able to afford to have the kerbstones, council property modified so that I can simply do what every other neighbour around here does, drive their car to sit next to their house.
I am the one who is now hit with massive fines because I have these massive problems of kerbstones on the street outside my property which I pay rates for and have done since 1995.
I wrote a short story based on this, and the impossible situation facing single women, older women, divorced mothers, and precarious workers in today's economy, when a resistant public thing, like the height of a kerb in a public street, can make it impossible for some to cross, and remain solvent.
Whereas for others, the men who are able to (illegally but they do it) make their own modifications to council kerbstones with hammers and tools put in their own kerb modification, and driveways, or find the metal plates that they use as ramps to drive up.
When I first had this issue, I rang the council and asked if they could help me, if they had any ramps I could use, or did they know where I could purchase those metal ramps, to drive my car up next to my house. I was told that these are illegal. But there are lots of them around here, I can see them!
Does not matter they are illegal.
Still it seems they are not fined.
Or they would not still be there in use on the same street I live on.
The response was a couple of days later- the first of $1200 fines, that I have been penalised with in the last three years. So far with yesterday's fine that makes almost $2,500 because I have not been able to drive over the council kerbstone and park the car next to my house, where it is allowed to sit unregistered until I have the means to fix it. Meanwhile it is sitting in front of the house, instead of the side of the house, on the public street, because I cannot drive up and over the public kerb which for some unknown reason the council has not modified, even though they have done works on the streets in this area for the past three years now including modifying the kerb just a few metres further up the street so that people can more easily and safely cross the road.
But not for me.
Even though they know of my problem as I have discussed it and they "gave me permission" to put in a driveway and have the kerb moderated so long as it was using the plans they specified. A council officer came out and measured the kerb and sent me the plans with the legal gradient.
This only for me of course. My neighbours next to me and all the way up and down the street, have done it, or someone has for them. At whatever angles they arrive at.
I was told the house over the road was illegally done,
Still I am the one who is penalised for staying within the law and not simply finding a way with metal or wood to make a ramp.
So it is a case of a single woman penalised for not having the balls to break the law which is what so many do, by having the physical strength and means of doing it themselves.
And in a place where the council does not help by modifying their infrastructures so that rate-paying citizens can access their own properties.
At least not for single women in precarious life positions.
Instead they fine them.
Huge fine which have the potential to break them.
It was the same when I was working as a casual and contract academic, never able to make ends meet year round, because they would never give enough work, to make this security- and to enable me to do things like put in a driveway and have the kerbstones in the public street modified so that I could have access to the yard of my own house which I pay for.
My story Kerbstones, Single Mother Academic Curb Your Enthusiasm, will appear in a collection of my short writings, Breaking Away to be published later this year.
It seems that it is still relevant.
Ruth Skilbeck 7.3.2014
Yesterday an incident occurred - in my short absence whilst I went to Sydney to hear the talk by international ex Sydney Biennale artists, Libia Castro and Olaf Olafsson who have withdrawn their work in protest to the ties to detention camps profit of the major sponsors, Transfield a construction and infrastructure corporation that is also involved in arts sponsorship. (Which I have been writing about on this blog).
When I returned after a busy day - 3 hours each way on the slow train (there is not fast train) 6 hours on the train in all and in between a few hours at the talk, at Sydney College of the Arts then talking with the artists, about their new and ongoing work that they are still making with Refugee Art Projects artists and a psychologist dealing with trauma- an exciting and significant work that I look forward to participating in and reviewing here soon, when I returned almost at midnight, I found an unpleasant surprise awaiting me:
A $1,212.00 fine, in two almost impossible to read ticket details under the windscreen wiper of my poor old car, that died many months ago and has been parked outside my house, as I cannot park it next to the house on the section of my property where I as a citizen should and could (if I had means) be able to park as I pay rates, for basic council service, and everyone else in my street and the surrounding street, has access to their own property/yards off the street but me. That is because the kerbstone is old- and over 100 years old- a 12inch deep solid convict hewn kerbstone between the gutter and pavement is too high for me to drive over, if it was not, I would have simply parked my car next to my house, and would not have this problem now, a problem of poverty which is recurring and seems to plague me.
But I am surprised and dismayed, I had spoken with a ranger a few months ago and explained that it was my house, my car, I have not used it unregistered, it is waiting until I can either afford to have it fixed and registered, or to have it taken away, by a wreckers yard and he said that was all right to leave it there, until I had been able to raise the money (thousands of dollars) to have the kerbstone altered myself, so that I could drive over it. He said the council it seems does not provide that service, although I certainly do not own the kerbstone in the public street, yet it seems I have to be the one to pay to have it modified. Why?
To make it worse, this is the second time that due to lack of money, I have been fined $1200 for having my own car parked- unused- outside my own house (the property I pay annual hefty rates to the council for), as I have not been able to afford to have it registered, and have not been able to afford to have the kerbstones, council property modified so that I can simply do what every other neighbour around here does, drive their car to sit next to their house.
I am the one who is now hit with massive fines because I have these massive problems of kerbstones on the street outside my property which I pay rates for and have done since 1995.
I wrote a short story based on this, and the impossible situation facing single women, older women, divorced mothers, and precarious workers in today's economy, when a resistant public thing, like the height of a kerb in a public street, can make it impossible for some to cross, and remain solvent.
Whereas for others, the men who are able to (illegally but they do it) make their own modifications to council kerbstones with hammers and tools put in their own kerb modification, and driveways, or find the metal plates that they use as ramps to drive up.
When I first had this issue, I rang the council and asked if they could help me, if they had any ramps I could use, or did they know where I could purchase those metal ramps, to drive my car up next to my house. I was told that these are illegal. But there are lots of them around here, I can see them!
Does not matter they are illegal.
Still it seems they are not fined.
Or they would not still be there in use on the same street I live on.
The response was a couple of days later- the first of $1200 fines, that I have been penalised with in the last three years. So far with yesterday's fine that makes almost $2,500 because I have not been able to drive over the council kerbstone and park the car next to my house, where it is allowed to sit unregistered until I have the means to fix it. Meanwhile it is sitting in front of the house, instead of the side of the house, on the public street, because I cannot drive up and over the public kerb which for some unknown reason the council has not modified, even though they have done works on the streets in this area for the past three years now including modifying the kerb just a few metres further up the street so that people can more easily and safely cross the road.
But not for me.
Even though they know of my problem as I have discussed it and they "gave me permission" to put in a driveway and have the kerb moderated so long as it was using the plans they specified. A council officer came out and measured the kerb and sent me the plans with the legal gradient.
This only for me of course. My neighbours next to me and all the way up and down the street, have done it, or someone has for them. At whatever angles they arrive at.
I was told the house over the road was illegally done,
Still I am the one who is penalised for staying within the law and not simply finding a way with metal or wood to make a ramp.
So it is a case of a single woman penalised for not having the balls to break the law which is what so many do, by having the physical strength and means of doing it themselves.
And in a place where the council does not help by modifying their infrastructures so that rate-paying citizens can access their own properties.
At least not for single women in precarious life positions.
Instead they fine them.
Huge fine which have the potential to break them.
It was the same when I was working as a casual and contract academic, never able to make ends meet year round, because they would never give enough work, to make this security- and to enable me to do things like put in a driveway and have the kerbstones in the public street modified so that I could have access to the yard of my own house which I pay for.
My story Kerbstones, Single Mother Academic Curb Your Enthusiasm, will appear in a collection of my short writings, Breaking Away to be published later this year.
It seems that it is still relevant.
Ruth Skilbeck 7.3.2014
Boycott/Withdraw/Protest/Dialogue- What's the Difference? An Art Critic's Diary
Boycott/Withdraw/Protest/Dialogue- What's the Difference? An Art Critic's Diary
Semantics has played quite a significant part so far in the volcanic eruptions which have rocked the 19th Biennale of Sydney on its foundations.
For a start there has been much discussion over the ambiguous title, which achieved a whole new, and seemingly alarming significance, once the revelations of the links to detention centre funding, and the implications of that reported in the media, recently became known by artists and audiences alike.
Since then there have been heated, passionate, emotional, and in some ways confused debates and arguments via social media and in meetings, which seem to pivot on and separate people on the meanings they read into the three key terms, boycott, withdraw, protest.
It seems that 'boycott' a word that is a common term in some parts of the world, is here greeted with great alarm, and incites strong and defensive reactions amongst some. Although the definition of boycott is "to abstain from buying or using" at least in the way I have been using it, and I assume many others, is not or should not be alarming. Simply abstaining from going to the Biennale, is hardly worth becoming defensive and even aggressive about, as I have witnessed.
I have used the term as I am showing solidarity and support for the artists who have chosen to boycott the biennale by abstaining from using the venue, and also not buying into less immediately obvious aspects to do with the exchange of their cultural capital, that as artists via their art works they have in large amounts, as the representatives of their countries in a large international exhibition. This is a choice based on ethical reasons, and it is also primarily perhaps too in the context of self critique and critique of the art world and its contexts which is part of being a contemporary artist, and also an art writer and critic. And for Olafur Olafsson and Libia Castro for example whose artist talk I went to today at the Sydney College of the Arts, after hearing them speak at a lecture of Tuesday evening at COFA, this is a main point. SInce 1913, Olafur points out , when Duchamp made his famous statement by inverting a common object, a urinal literally turning it into an 'art form'; it has been the context which is of prime significance in the art world, in understanding art.
It does not make much sense, in my view, to think about artists who are boycotting and art writers who say they are boycotting - as if they are outside the dialogue. They are framing the dialogue, in the sense of introducing the boycott as an intervention which then has compelled a debate which is a form of self critique and art world critique.
This is part of an international context of dialogue and critique, that seems to be perhaps not well known or widely known in Australia, which is to do with the ways that art is exhibited, and especially in the contexts of huge spectacular events which Biennales around the world have become over the years.
This is also in the context that was precipitated by the global financial crises and the astronomical prices that contemporary art was fetching before this happened, and still can fetch in some cases. And at the same time there has been a huge increase in precarious labour, in the art world, as everywhere. This calls for new critiques by artists and writers.
It is artists and art critics(some) who are responding to these changes, and driving the debates, in their works and most of all in the new way of their actions, and what is happening in Sydney has historical meaning in this context.
Meanwhile some artists are using the word 'withdrawn' though in effect it means the same.
And there are others, most perhaps who are not amongst the Biennale artists, who are talking about protest and protest from within.
This is all part of a wider dialogue that is happening now, in live action, amongst diverse groups of people.
But the main context of this is the Biennale itself, the art world event and so it is a form of critique of that engaged in by artists and art writers, such as myself.
For example, I say that I am boycotting the Biennale, but this does not mean that I am not participating in the Biennale debates, on the contrary I am writing about the Biennale artists who have withdrawn, boycotting or protesting. I have written about almost nothing else on this blog for weeks now, even though I have two books that I have written that are about to go up on Amazon - and I do have a lot to say about those too. Instead although I have said that I am boycotting, taking that position in the dialogue, I have engaged already to quite an extreme length with the debate of the Biennale.
I will also be writing and talking here about other events that are happening in Sydney, on these themes, for example Isaac Julien's exhibition on the themes, of Art and Corporate Sponsorship, which opens next week at Roslyn Oxley9 gallery. I will also be writing about the new exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales: Afghanistan: hidden treasures from the National Museum, Kabul, which opens tomorrow.
This is part of the wider context of the dialogue that is happening now on the links between wars, conflict, refugees, immigration policies, in the art world, where so many artists and audience are also affected, as refugees, exiles, and travellers and citizens. We are all involved in some way in this issue.
So despite using the words boycott, or withdraw, this does not mean being outside the debate, this is part of the dialogue, and it is historic dialogue.
The art world is changing, and it seems very likely that the huge art world events of Biennales, may well scale down, or even transform into some other form. Meanwhile there are plenty of alternatives that are emerging, all of which shows that the art world is undergoing a new phase, and changes, which means that however you call it, this is a very exciting and significant time- for artists, and art lovers from all backgrounds.
Ruth Skilbeck, 6.3.2014
Semantics has played quite a significant part so far in the volcanic eruptions which have rocked the 19th Biennale of Sydney on its foundations.
For a start there has been much discussion over the ambiguous title, which achieved a whole new, and seemingly alarming significance, once the revelations of the links to detention centre funding, and the implications of that reported in the media, recently became known by artists and audiences alike.
Since then there have been heated, passionate, emotional, and in some ways confused debates and arguments via social media and in meetings, which seem to pivot on and separate people on the meanings they read into the three key terms, boycott, withdraw, protest.
It seems that 'boycott' a word that is a common term in some parts of the world, is here greeted with great alarm, and incites strong and defensive reactions amongst some. Although the definition of boycott is "to abstain from buying or using" at least in the way I have been using it, and I assume many others, is not or should not be alarming. Simply abstaining from going to the Biennale, is hardly worth becoming defensive and even aggressive about, as I have witnessed.
I have used the term as I am showing solidarity and support for the artists who have chosen to boycott the biennale by abstaining from using the venue, and also not buying into less immediately obvious aspects to do with the exchange of their cultural capital, that as artists via their art works they have in large amounts, as the representatives of their countries in a large international exhibition. This is a choice based on ethical reasons, and it is also primarily perhaps too in the context of self critique and critique of the art world and its contexts which is part of being a contemporary artist, and also an art writer and critic. And for Olafur Olafsson and Libia Castro for example whose artist talk I went to today at the Sydney College of the Arts, after hearing them speak at a lecture of Tuesday evening at COFA, this is a main point. SInce 1913, Olafur points out , when Duchamp made his famous statement by inverting a common object, a urinal literally turning it into an 'art form'; it has been the context which is of prime significance in the art world, in understanding art.
It does not make much sense, in my view, to think about artists who are boycotting and art writers who say they are boycotting - as if they are outside the dialogue. They are framing the dialogue, in the sense of introducing the boycott as an intervention which then has compelled a debate which is a form of self critique and art world critique.
This is part of an international context of dialogue and critique, that seems to be perhaps not well known or widely known in Australia, which is to do with the ways that art is exhibited, and especially in the contexts of huge spectacular events which Biennales around the world have become over the years.
This is also in the context that was precipitated by the global financial crises and the astronomical prices that contemporary art was fetching before this happened, and still can fetch in some cases. And at the same time there has been a huge increase in precarious labour, in the art world, as everywhere. This calls for new critiques by artists and writers.
It is artists and art critics(some) who are responding to these changes, and driving the debates, in their works and most of all in the new way of their actions, and what is happening in Sydney has historical meaning in this context.
Meanwhile some artists are using the word 'withdrawn' though in effect it means the same.
And there are others, most perhaps who are not amongst the Biennale artists, who are talking about protest and protest from within.
This is all part of a wider dialogue that is happening now, in live action, amongst diverse groups of people.
But the main context of this is the Biennale itself, the art world event and so it is a form of critique of that engaged in by artists and art writers, such as myself.
For example, I say that I am boycotting the Biennale, but this does not mean that I am not participating in the Biennale debates, on the contrary I am writing about the Biennale artists who have withdrawn, boycotting or protesting. I have written about almost nothing else on this blog for weeks now, even though I have two books that I have written that are about to go up on Amazon - and I do have a lot to say about those too. Instead although I have said that I am boycotting, taking that position in the dialogue, I have engaged already to quite an extreme length with the debate of the Biennale.
I will also be writing and talking here about other events that are happening in Sydney, on these themes, for example Isaac Julien's exhibition on the themes, of Art and Corporate Sponsorship, which opens next week at Roslyn Oxley9 gallery. I will also be writing about the new exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales: Afghanistan: hidden treasures from the National Museum, Kabul, which opens tomorrow.
The media release states: "This exhibition will showcase more than 230 precious artefacts which were uncovered from secret vaults and revealed to the world in 2003. The treasures had been kept safe by a group of courageous staff from the National Museum to protect them from bombing and looting after years of war."
This is part of the wider context of the dialogue that is happening now on the links between wars, conflict, refugees, immigration policies, in the art world, where so many artists and audience are also affected, as refugees, exiles, and travellers and citizens. We are all involved in some way in this issue.
So despite using the words boycott, or withdraw, this does not mean being outside the debate, this is part of the dialogue, and it is historic dialogue.
The art world is changing, and it seems very likely that the huge art world events of Biennales, may well scale down, or even transform into some other form. Meanwhile there are plenty of alternatives that are emerging, all of which shows that the art world is undergoing a new phase, and changes, which means that however you call it, this is a very exciting and significant time- for artists, and art lovers from all backgrounds.
Ruth Skilbeck, 6.3.2014
Wednesday 5 March 2014
History of the Sydney Biennale Boycott
History of the 19th Biennale of Sydney Boycott.
The first open letter that opened the conversation about the ethics of funds from detention camps profits, funding the Sydney Biennale, via sponsor Transfield, was published on February 4 via a new research website, Cross Border Operational Matters. This is a website that posts on the 'most damaging of Australian policies'- mandatory detention research.
This dialogue on arts sponsorship and the Biennale, is now in live and constantly evolving action, with artists announcing they are withdrawing, and arts works and writers (myself) boycotting the Biennale, and almost every day a new letter is published on social media, through the public forum of blogs, and on facebook pages.
Crossborder Operational Matters, a research blog and website, is reporting on and publishing open letters and articles on the new conversations emerging around the artists withdrawal and boycott of the 19th Biennale of Sydney, on ethical grounds, in response to the news of the detention camp profit funding of art and artists, on the part of the major sponsor Transfield, a multi-national construction corporation, based in Sydney, which has been interlinked with the Sydney Biennale, through funding since its inception in 1973.
The Operational Matters media site published the first open letter calling for a boycott, by Matthew Kiem, design academic, based in Sydney, who objected to the thought of taking his students to the Biennale, when Transfield the major sponsor, was making profits, syphoned into the funding for the Biennale.
Open letter from Matthew Kiem on Operational Matters sites 4 February 2014.
Read the letter here:
http://xborderoperationalmatters.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/art-educators-biennale/.
Read the letter here:
http://xborderoperationalmatters.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/art-educators-biennale/.
This prompted arts writer Ben Eltham to approach the site and ask if he could reproduce the letter in an article that he wrote for Arts Hub (published 6.2.14).
At much the same time, on 8 February I wrote an open letter on my blog, here, announcing that I would boycott on ethical grounds, and outlining my reasons from the perspective of an arts writer and art critic, with a current invitation to preview the Sydney Biennale on the media tour, on 20 March. I will instead be writing about the alternatives, the many other arts events in Sydney at the same time, and most of all the artists who have withdrawn their works in protest.
I am boycotting the Biennale, as outlined on this blog, and so will not be accepting that invitation. Instead I am writing about the alternatives that are rapidly coming into being, and the dialogue that is emerging around this complex issue. This is a live issue, and I am reporting on it and commenting, as it unfolds. Later this year I will publish a book which will reflect on what is happening now.
Meanwhile, here is some information (at his link) about the groundbreaking Cross Borders Operational Matters site, that started the dialogue in publishing the first open letter, the form through which this dialogue has taken place, and continues to unfold. The researchers can be contacted at:maschine.research@gmail.com.
Ruth Skilbeck 5.3. 2014
NB This is provisional of course, to keep the record as events unfold, and will be updated on this blog.
Mandatory Detention Research contact:
maschine.research@gmail.com"
Why I Will Be Boycotting the 2014 Sydney Biennale- Protest Refugee Detention Centre Profiteering in Corporate Sponsorship by Ruth Skilbeck, Feb 8, 2014maschine.research@gmail.com"
http://ruthskilbeck.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/why-i-will-be-boycotting-2014-sydney.html
Biennale Boycott: Starting the Conversation- a Research Resource- XBorders Site
"Linking practical efforts and changing the conversation on Australian border politics.
For information and comment on specific actions linked to on this website, please contact the relevant person or group via the comments section on that item.
General enquiries can be made via Twitter: @xborderOps
For specific comment on infrastructure and supply-chain information, contact the research group, Mapping Supply Chains & Infrastructure Networks (MaSChINe) via: maschine.research@gmail.com"