Biennale boycott misses the mark
By Richard Glover
March 13, 2014 — 3.00am
There's one question every activist should ask before suggesting a boycott: ''What do I hope to achieve?''
Often that's easy to answer. A big company is using its muscle to shame mothers in Africa to switch from breastfeeding to the use of formula. If Westerners boycott its products, the company might leave the African mothers alone. Or a soap manufacturer uses unsustainable palm oil in its products. A threatened boycott might force a shift of suppliers. Some forest won't be logged. Orangutans will live.
Which brings us to the campaign against Transfield Holdings and its role in the Sydney Biennale.
A group of artists worked for the resignation of the Biennale's long-term chairman, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, and severed the 40-year link between the Biennale and his family.
The Biennale, the argument ran, was being run on the profits of human suffering - this due to Transfield Services' role running the asylum-seeker centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
I understand the point about the misery of the asylum centres: it was on my radio program that the Iranian translator Azita Bokan spoke at length about the terrible violence she had witnessed on Manus.
The images she recounted still circle in my mind. Mind you, so do images of the 1200 people who have died at sea, also part of the miserable arithmetic of this debate.
So, still we ask: What was the plan? Did the activists hope that Transfield would be shamed into refusing this work? Unlikely. And even if that did occur, what then? Other companies would be contracted to do the work: companies such as G4S, which ran Manus at the time of the riots.
So what then? Do we target G4S, hoping it too will refuse the contract, thence for the work to be taken over by an even less experienced outfit?
It is almost impossible to imagine any of these outcomes. Even if they did occur, they would likely make life even more miserable for those in the camps.
This is a government policy, that's the reality. The only way to change it is by lobbying the government and the community. Among the methods: voting, lobbying, petitioning and - yes - artworks at places like the Biennale.
So what have they achieved?
The main impact is that Australia's major companies have been made sharply aware of the corporate risk involved in funding the arts. One moment you are signing a cheque; the next you are being publicly vilified on front pages of the newspaper.
For all the Australians who have worked for decades on the boards of small arts companies - theatres, galleries, dance companies - that's terrible news. The ''corporates'' are like timid forest animals - they need to be coaxed through the door. They'll now be running for cover.
Every successful company is involved in something that somebody doesn't like. They're having a stoush with their employees over penalty rates; they've invested in a mine overseas; they supply parts to the coal-seam gas industry.
Somewhere, on every balance sheet, there are the makings of a name and shame campaign. Best, really, to keep a low profile and steer clear of helping out.
That's a terrible result for the arts. It also represents a shameful dividend for the Belgiorno-Nettis family after decades of generosity and vision.
And yet it does nothing to achieve the change the activists sought. As a political strategy goes, it's nuts.
Richard Glover
Richard Glover is the author of 12 books, including the prize-winning memoir "Flesh Wounds". He presents "Drive" on 702 ABC Sydney and the comedy program "Thank God It's Friday" on ABC local radio. For more: www.richardglover.com.au