When nine artists pulled out of this year’s Sydney Biennale in protest at the main sponsor’s connections with the Manus Island dentention centre, they caused a furore. Newly appointed Federal Arts Minister Senator George Brandis wrote to the Australia Council asking it to develop a policy that would deny funding to events or artists that refuse private sponsorship. Others argued that the boycott achieved nothing – except to jeopardise the existence of the Biennale and, moreover, the relationship between all art companies and sponsors.
Whatever you think of the stance of the artists, it can’t be denied that they did achieve something – they highlighted the complex and often morally and ethically tenuous relationship of arts and sponsors. The more dependent arts companies have become on corporate sponsorship, the more we have turned a blind eye to its implications.
Sponsorship has become an increasingly important part of arts funding.
I have often argued for greater generosity from business, as good public citizenship from entities that have profitted enormously from this nation’s healthy government, stable political environment, labour and resources. But sponsorship – whether from business or in the form of private philanthropy - can lead to tricky relationships.
In 2003, Forestry Tasmania was forced to withdraw as sponsor of the then fledgling Ten Days on the Island Festival in Tasmania when artists boycotted the festival, driving artistic director Robyn Archer to accuse the artists of being “ludicrous, if not purely hypocritical”. The artists were objecting to the company’s poor environmental record. Yet not much has been said about the sponsorship from mining magnate Andrew Forrest (who donates to the WA Ballet and others). He was a prominent campaigner against Julia Gillard’s mining “Super Profits” tax. In Sydney, the Sydney Eisteddfod years ago lost Peter Stuyvesant as a sponsor when Government policy banned tobacco sponsorship. It now enjoys the support of fast food company McDonalds.
These are all examples of companies whose activities are well known and already open to public scrutiny. However, large businesses these days are complex, octopus-like organisms with many tentacles, possibly in areas we might not know about (or might rather not know about). After all, most of us, whether through our superannuation or banking or shopping, are probably investing in or supporting some kind of practice we don’t agree with – such as banks with investments in dubious mining practices, clothing made by poor Bangladeshi labourers – and it gets to the point where we feel helpless to object. The financial system is too big and too complicated to follow. Most of us give up – or choose one or two select causes.
The biennale artists haven’t given up. They chose a cause which meant a great deal to them, and in so doing sacrificed their place in an important international showcase. Perhaps they were naïve, but I say good on them. It’s by challenging the status quo that we bring about change.
How much an arts organisation depends on private sponsorship goes arm and arm with government funding, the less you have of the latter, the more dependent you are on the former. Compared to many countries in Europe, Australian governments are mean with arts funding. Our arts companies are always struggling, and are increasing urged by government to turn to other sources. The current government clearly thinks that is the way to go: it recently reversed the gains made by Gillards Creative Australia and has cut $87.1m over four years to the Australia Council for the Arts, Screen Australia and Ministry for the Arts. On the other hand, it has boosted Creative Partnerships Australia, a body charged with boosting private-sector arts support, by $5.4m over four years as operational funding.
Arts companies are in an invidious position. When it comes to survival, how far should it take the high moral ground, especially when artists’ livelihoods depend on it?In the Biennale’s case, the board accepted the resignation Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, the director of Transfield Holdings and the target of the boyotters. But the Australian Chamber Orchestra, which also benefits from his sponsorship, reaffirmed its gratitude for his generosity.
If you think the Australian arts scene has some tricky ethical battles, spare a thought for US, where “government funding is philosophically abhorrent”, according to the artistic director of American Ballet Theatre, Kevin McKenzie. ABT receives only one per cent of its annual from government sources. Because of its tradition of low government arts funding, the US arts sector is very dependent on private philanthropy. One of the key financial supporters of American Ballet Theatre is David H Koch, who has been a trustee for 25 years and has contributed more than $6 million to the theater. He also contributed $100 million over 10 years to renovate the New York State Theater in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts (now called the David H. Koch Theater in recognition of his generosity).
David Koch is co-owner of Koch Private Industries, the second largest business in the United States, and the second wealthiest man in New York. He is also a Tea Party sympathiser and a right-wing political lobbyist, donating millions to many anti-Democrat causes. For example, he is co-founder and chairman of the Board of Trustees of Americans for Prosperity, an enormous conservative “think tank” and political advocacy organisation that campaigns against climate change tax and Obama’s universal health carescheme and advocates limited government regulation and intervention in domestic, social and economic policies.
Presumably that also includes limited government support of the arts.
An uncomfortable bedfellow for a ballet company, I would have thought.
- KAREN VAN ULZEN
This article first appeared in the Aug/Sep 2014 issue of 'Dance Australia'.