Sydney Festival boycott: what has been achieved?

 

This year's Sydney Festival boycott reminds us of the complexities around sponsorship and the arts, Karen van Ulzen writes.

This year’s Sydney Festival should have been an inspirational celebration of art and culture. Instead, it was overshadowed by controversy. The cause? A boycott in protest against the $20,000 sponsorship provided by the Israeli Embassy, which was listed as the festival's "star" partner. Despite this being the first time the festival had been staged since the devastation of lockdowns, 30 artists withdrew, sacrificing their chance to do what they do and perform for an audience. (Some went on with their shows, but not under the Festival umbrella.)

The sponsorship in question was for performances by Sydney Dance Company of Decadance, a work by Israeli choreographer Ohad Naharin, the former artistic director of Batsheva, the celebrated dance company based in Tel Aviv. Though the performances went ahead, the usual joyful spirit of the Festival was instead mired in controversy and division.

Whatever you think of the stance of the artists, the boycott highlighted the complex and often morally and ethically fraught relationship between artists and sponsors.

The Sydney Festival is by no means the first time artists have found themselves uncomfortably aligned with dubious benefactors. For example, in 2014 nine artists withdrew from the Sydney Biennale because of the presence of the chairman Luca Belgiorno-Nettis. Nettis had been a driving force behind the Biennale and principle sponsor for 41 years, providing millions of dollars, but his company was involved in the construction of the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres.

In another example, in 2003, Forestry Tasmania was forced to withdraw as sponsor of the then fledgling Ten Days on the Island Festival in Tasmania when artists threatened to boycott over its logging of old growth forests. The artistic director was the usually popular arts guru, Robyn Archer. She accused the artists of being “ludicrous, if not purely hypocritical”, for taking their stance. 

The Sydney Festival boycott was particularly acrimonious, thanks to its amplification on social media, and no doubt to the bitterness of the issue at stake. Pressure, and abuse, was applied to those who refused to participate. Behind the boycott was the group BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions), a "Palestinian-led movement for justice, freedom and equality", which claimed that by "making Israel’s far-right regime a 'star partner', the festival is consciously art-washing Israel’s war crimes and system of colonial oppression". They targeted Indigenous artists, in particular, calling on them to express their solidarity with the Palestinian people.

After two of the most difficult years for the arts, a boycott was an extreme action to take. Many of the Festival artists felt they were being asked to sacrifice their livelihoods for a cause that had nothing to do with the Festival and using tactics they did not agree with. They objected to being used as a political tool. In an open letter signed by 120 artists, they wrote: “While art can reflect politics, and artists can choose to reflect their politics in their own art, art should never become subservient to politics and artists and cultural events should never be forced to be politicised."

For its part, the Israeli Embassy responded: “Culture is a bridge to coexistence, cooperation, and rapprochement and should be left out of the political arena." 

But can you divorce art from politics, especially when you are accepting government money? Art festivals do bring people together and foster cultural understanding and friendship, something governments are all too ready to take advantage of. Special government organisations exist whose job it is to introduce their culture to the rest of the world, such as Germany's Goethe Institute, Alliance Francais, the British Council. The Australian Government regularly organises overseas cultural events, helping artists take part in global festivals and expos, and in so doing fostering trade and other connections. Such soft diplomacy is all a part of politics. Most artists are happy to play along.

Festivals receive government funding. They are a celebration of culture, showcases of homegrown as well as international talent. They are an opportunity to hear and experience different voices and views and discover new ideas from around the world. This contributes to our own culture as well expands our knowledge and understanding of other cultures. It cultivates tolerance and respect for other ways of doing things. It widens our minds.

Governments are fully aware of the power of art to influence public opinion – sometimes to cunning effect. Look at the persecution and manipulation of non-cooperative artists under various totalitarian regimes throughout history. Dance and music have been particularly useful forms of propaganda because they transcend language barriers. The Bolshoi Ballet, for instance, was used by the communist Soviet Union regime to demonstrate its superiority. Similarly, America's CIA sponsored festivals of experimental music to tell the public that America was a bastion of democracy and artistic freedom. Or as BDS would call it, “art washing”.

So what has the Sydney Festival boycott achieved? It was certainly successful in drawing attention to the Palestinian cause, much more effectively than demonstrations (which regularly take place when Israeli artists perform). It also delivered a painful lesson to the Sydney Festival, which should have realised that its choice of such a controversial sponsor forced the participating artists into an invidious position. Was it naivity on the Festival's part? Was the sponsorship unsolicited? If so, to refuse it would also have been a political gesture.

The Sydney Festival can find other sponsors, as have the Sydney Biennale and the Tasmanian festival. In the case of the Biennale, it is now sponsored by the philanthropic Neilson Institute; Luca Belgiorno-Nettis resigned from his chairmanship and went on to set up the newDemocracy Foundation, an organisation devoted to political reform. The Tasmanian festival is now sponsored by renewables.

And what of the dance? Is it okay for Israeli artists to perform here but not okay to accept Israeli sponsorship? Is participation different from sponsorship? Contemporary dance would be a much smaller place without Ohad Naharin and his Gaga movement language. Will Batsheva perform here again? The company has been a frequent visitor to Australia, a festival favourite, thrilling audiences with its dark dynamism and intensity. Gaga is a world-wide phenomenon, a vital force in contemporary dance, with teachers all over the world, as well as on-line workshops and classes. Year-long teacher-training courses are held in Tel-Aviv. Only just recently, Strut Dance in Perth collaborated on Decadance. Are those dancers complicit with Israeli politics through that collaboration? No doubt the dancers would say they just want to dance, like sports people just want to play sport. Unfortunately, it is never that simple.

Meanwhile, Tasmania has grown a new festival, MONA FOMA, partly at the initiative of a man who made his fortune through gambling.

The Jan/Feb/Mar issue of Dance Australia is out now! Buy from your favourite dance retail outlet or go here and never miss an issue!