How to Get a Party Started

# 628

DJ Haram warms up the crowd at the Biennale opening party

Well, that didn’t take long. Approximately three hours into the 26^th Biennale of Sydney, one of the contributing artists launched a withering antisemitic outburst from her platform as DJ for the launch party, and battle lines were drawn up. There’ll be plenty of excuses offered, but when DJ Haram of New Jersey, denounced the “Zio-Australian-Epstein empire” and led a chant of “From the river to the sea”, it was clear that the worst expectations of the Biennale’s detractors had been realised.

Prior to this evening, Biennale CEO, Barbara Moore, had taken pains to assure us the exhibition was free of prejudice and there for everyone. Moore was speaking at the press launch on behalf of Artistic Director, Sheikha Hoor Al Qasimi, who had opted to stay away, so we could “focus on the artists.”

You may think it’s a peculiar strategy for an Artistic Director to avoid addressing the media at the launch of a Biennale for which she has selected the theme and the participants. When Juliana Engberg decided to take an overseas junket rather than be present for the launch of her program for the one-and-only Melbourne International Biennial of 1999, it was widely believed her absence contributed to the failure of an event that ended in a financial sinkhole. As Al Qasimi is experienced, intelligent, and not at all the shy-and-retiring type, one can only wonder what she was thinking.

What’s more surprising is that a large section of the media bought this explanation. Linda Morris, in the Sydney Morning Herald, took her usual option of reporting whatever she was told:

It was a deliberate curatorial choice, a spokesperson said, to platform the artists whose works are installed across five primary exhibition venues.

“Hoor felt strongly that the media preview must be about the individual artists who make up this edition,” the spokesperson said. “She has chosen to let their work, their histories, and their voices take centre stage…” The Biennale said Al Qasimi’s decision not to attend was driven entirely by this artist-first philosophy, rather than a reaction to any external events or commentary.

Really? Even the most trusting of journos might suspect Al Qasimi was anxious to avoid awkward questions about her political beliefs at the start of the show. She was far less reticent in Nagoya last year, when fronting a press conference in her role as Artistic Director of the Sixth Aichi Triennale. On that occasion Al Qasimi wore a T-shirt with the word “Palestine” emblazoned across it; denounced “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza, and railed against “colonialism and occupation”.

She might have done the same in Sydney, had the Bondi massacre not changed the equation, blurring the lines between legitimate compassion for the sufferings of the Palestinians, and mere antisemitism.

Over the last few months that distinction has only grown more problematic, as hate speech has become more widespread, and government efforts to rein in pro-Palestinian demonstrations have inflamed protesters’ anger.

During these months, the Biennale has drawn unwelcome attention to itself by allowing participating artists to post outrageous messages on social media. It began with ‘ArtSeen ambassador’ Bhenji Ra gifting us a picture of a rabbi in a bloodstained smock, treading on a baby doll; and continued with Biennale artist, Feras Shazeen, posting an image on Instagram that equated Jewish philanthropists, John Gandel and Morry Schwartz, with the leader of the Australian Neo-Nazis. Schwartz wrote to the Biennale in protest, but as of this moment the post is still extant, and Shazeen is taking his place in Biennale events.

The excuse is that old chestnut, “freedom of speech”, which often seems to work in only one direction.

Now, DJ Haram (“haram” in Arabic means “forbidden” or “sinful”), has pushed that excuse to the limits. In response to the predictable outcry, we find:

Biennale management on Saturday confirmed a review of DJ Haram’s performance was under way, while issuing a statement that she did not “represent the views of the Biennale of Sydney, our board, or our government and corporate partners”… “The Biennale of Sydney did not commission, approve, or have prior knowledge of these specific remarks,” a spokesperson said on Sunday, adding “each project undergoes a risk assessment reviewed by a dedicated committee to ensure legal and operational obligations are met”.

Only a conspiracy theorist would suggest that the Biennale commissioned DJ Haram’s remarks or had any advance warning of what she was about to do, but the merest glance at the artist’s track record should have set alarm bells ringing.

I wrote last month about receiving an analysis of Biennale invitees that argued: “70 of 175 participants, or 40 percent of the program, engage directly with anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian narratives at a high or moderate level.” If a critic of the Biennale can make such an analysis, was it too difficult for the organisation itself to calculate the degree of risk involved? What was the relevant committee doing? Was it inconceivable that a few of these politically engaged artists might engage in activities that damaged the show’s standing?

For the Biennale, at this juncture, the chief concern is not whether this year’s offerings attract audiences or not - it’s whether ongoing funding and sponsorship take a hit. The danger is a rerun of 2014, when Artistic Director, Juliana Engberg, sided with a group of disgruntled artists and succeeded in severing the Biennale’s ties with founding sponsor, Transfield. The loss of that dependable revenue was bad enough, but the example it set was even worse. The Biennale had shown that a loyal sponsor could support the show from the very beginning, only to be dumped because of the poorly researched political grievances of a handful of artists.

I’m not about to dwell on the events of 2014, but the outcome created a financial headache for every Biennale that followed, and this year has the potential to do the same. After Jewish sponsors and sympathisers withdrew their support because of their mistrust of the Artistic Director and her choice of artists, it was left to Al Qasimi to arrange the necessary sponsorship through family companies.

Not only is it unlikely such arrangements will continue into the future, it’s unlikely that Jewish sponsors will come running back. Worst of all, the anger over DJ Haram’s diatribe has resulted in numerous calls for federal and state governments to reassess their funding of the Biennale. The Australian quoted David Ossip from the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, who argued:

the government had to “put in place measures to avoid the festival being infected with further hate.”

“It is also imperative that governments stop issuing blank cheques to festivals, implement a robust code of conduct which festivals need to abide by and implement accountability measures for events which receive public funds and fail to meet the standards of decency most Australians would expect,” he said. “Receiving public funds is a privilege, not a right.”

The funds in question amount to $1.6 million from Create NSW, and a further $879,000 from the federal arts agency, Creative Australia. Remove almost $2.5 million from the budget and it’s hard to see how the Biennale could continue.

DJ Haram may feel pleased with herself for torpedoing the Biennale with her aggressive actions, but she won’t have to suffer any consequences. Ferocious calls to revoke her visa are of no account, as she has already left the country. It’s the Biennale – chiefly Hoor Al Qasimi and Barbara Moore, who will have to face the music.

Can you hear any violins being tuned? If this latest scandal follows the usual pattern there will be critical reports and commentary in the Murdoch press and the Australian Financial Review, and virtually nothing from the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC, Crikey and other mastheads. Kelly Burke got there a day late for The Guardian. The great silence will allow state and federal governments to believe that – as usual – they only need to keep quiet for the scandal to quickly blow over. It’s amazing there has been no mention of the DJ Haram performance in these outlets.

Dee Jefferson set the tone in The Guardian, in an article that passed a benign judgement on the Biennale even before it had opened. She began by listing fears that this year’s exhibition was destined to be a “hate Israel jamboree” at worst; a hotbed of pro-Palestinian politics at best.” She quickly assured us these concerns “are not borne out by the festival itself.” (festival?)

Instead, the show is “complex and nuanced. It’s light on spectacle and slogans; not a political chant but rather a polyphony of voices – more than 80 artists from 37 countries – singing their own songs.”

Good call, Dee! With a bit of luck you won’t have to retract anything, just so long as The Guardian doesn’t take the DJ Haram story any further.

Meanwhile, my old stomping ground, the SMH, keeps distinguishing itself as one of the most “supportive” papers in the business. It’s offering 2-for-1 tickets to subscribers to the Biennale’s Art After Dark; it has published two anodyne previews by Linda Morris, and a tiny review by Joanna Mendelssohn (a real vote for the future of art criticism here!), which told us: “Ignore the carping critics. Look at the art.”

Ah, those carping critics. I’d happily ignore them if they could be located. All I can find at most outlets are cheerful propagandists who don’t accept that a string of antisemitic comments from the Biennale DJ on opening night might be at all newsworthy.

The impression this sends is that antisemitism is just another one of those things the nasty Murdoch mob likes to beat up out of nothing. Surely there’s nothing antisemitic in referring to the “Zio-Australian-Epstein empire”? Those Jews are awfully touchy. It’s not much of a story is it? Not like a 2-for-1 ticket offer.

Pardon the sarcasm, but one gets tired of art scandals being swept under the carpet again and again. The SMH may prefer to believe there’s nothing wrong with artists exercising their ‘freedom of speech’ in a forceful manner, but to allow such blatantly hateful public outbursts to go unnoticed, is to keep pushing the threshold of acceptability a little further each time, until “Jew hatred” has become socially acceptable. This is the term the Jews themselves prefer, even though their opponents insist on calling out “Zionists”. Beyond the choice of words, the effect is much the same: a growing wave of hatred that fosters division in a country that prides itself on being easy going and open-minded.

To allow people in public positions, including artists, to make hateful statements about Jews, Muslims, or any other group, with no pushback, is not a sign of open-mindedness, it’s pure cowardice. Hatred breeds hatred, in a relentless cycle, until something terrible takes place. The fact that we’ve already seen something terrible, at Bondi, has done little to cease the flow of vile commentary. I’m not suggesting we throw opinionated people in gaol or ban them from public events, but it’s essential that extremist views (on all sides) not go unchallenged by the media or the politicians. Disagreement is healthy, but conspiracies of silence only make a bad situation worse.

For the Biennale there is a real danger that even the most supportive governments will come under sufficient populist pressure to pull or seriously reduce funding. The organisation should be still more anxious about losing the trust of corporate sponsors who don’t wish to be involved with ugly, self-generated scandals; and private donors who don’t expect their money to support political positions they find abhorrent. It’s the Biennale’s responsibility to keep its participants in line when it is allowing them a public platform. It’s not sufficient to play Pontius Pilate and wash one’s hands of a disturbing incident.

[This story is moving fast. As I write, consulting firm, PwC has just announced it’s pulling its sponsorship from the Biennale immediately, saying: “We condemn the comments made and reject antisemitism and all forms of hate.”]

Following DJ Haram’s opening night antics, it’s astonishing to read what Barbara Moore told Linda Morris before the show opened:

In response to heightened tensions following the December Bondi killings, Moore has personally vetted every work in the exhibition. “Multiple times over, in fact,” Moore says. “This is a culturally diverse program rooted in community care. We want to ensure everyone feels welcome and safe. Our commitment to artistic freedom is a commitment to exploring difficult ideas, but our process ensures an environment free from harassment, discrimination, and racism. We ensure that line is never crossed.”

Perhaps Barb might like to revisit that “personally vetted” comment. Or the bit about everyone feeling welcome and safe. Or that line about freedom from discrimination. The tacit support of a spineless media is not the kind of support that will pay the Biennale’s bills when it has alienated the trust and good will of its financial backers. This is the time for Biennale management to step up and take charge before another great Australian institution is brought down by the weight of its own hypocrisy.

So much for the Biennale’s tortured politics, I’m saving a review of the art for a later date and working on other projects this week. In recognition of the latest Academy Awards, I’ve reviewed Sinners, the film that scored a record 16 nominations, for four wins. I wasn’t entirely surprised the movie didn’t measure up to the lavish praise it has received from all quarters, but still taken aback by the way director, Ryan Coogler, combined several different genres in a manner that never allowed a plausible relationship to develop. Can 97% of critics be wrong? You bet.