 |
| State Hermitage Museum |
I follow intensely the
news about the invasion in Ukraine, thinking of ways in which we could
contribute and be useful, both as individuals and as professionals in the
cultural sector. My starting point is that Culture is anything but apolitical
and, within this context, one of the most controversial topics is that of the cultural
boycott.
Things are moving fast. Just three days ago, I wrote that I wasn’t aware of any formal action to cancel Russian artists just because they were Russian or to remove Russian composers from concert programmes. Then, on Saturday I read Javier C. Hernández’s article in The New York Times about Russian artists being expected to “clarify their position” regarding Putin; about young pianist Alexander Malofeev’s concert being cancelled in Vancouver “for his own safety”; or the Polish National Opera dropping a production of Mussorgsky’s “Boris Godunov… This is definitely how things can get out of hand. Malofeev himself wrote on Facebook that “The truth is that every Russian will feel guilty for decades because of the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict.” I wonder whether it was “satisfactory” enough…
At the same time, a colleague brought to my attention the appeal of the
Ukrainian Cultural Foundation, asking us, among other things, to “Cancel any
cooperation with russian artists, no matter how great or famous, as long as
they openly support putin’s regime, silence its crimes, or do not publicly and
directly oppose it.” I won't be insensitive to the suffering and anger of all
Ukrainians, and especially our colleagues in the cultural field. But we need to
pursue ways of pressuring that will not indiscriminately target “anything Russian".
This wouldn't be fair, respectful or efficient. We shouldn't also demand of
other people, cultural professionals and everyone else, that they do things
that we don't do ourselves, namely calling out on bad, corrupt or useless
political leaders - we all have them and, if we did, we wouldn't face the kind
of repression the Russians face.
Another point my
colleague brought up is that, at the time of the war in Yugoslavia, nothing
reinforced Milosevic in his crazy war frenzy as much as the cultural boycott
and the total isolation of Serbia. "It nourished and encouraged
nationalism and made it OK for normal people to just hate, fear and distrust
anything coming from the West, even until today." This is a real
possibility, of course, especially if we consider that Putin’s regime is
exercising an absolute control on media. Many, too many Russians have no idea
about what’s going on, because “it wasn’t on TV” and I´ve read more than one
report about older people getting upset with their children who are telling
them a different story. At the same time, even at this point, before the
consequences of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) are actually felt by common
Russians and before the bodies of Russian soldiers start coming back to be
buried, fueling anger against Ukrainians, many, too many Russians come out to
defend their President’s decisions and to show that they trust his judgment. I felt outraged when I read that Russian gymnast Ivan Kuliak placed the letter “Z” on the front of his outfit (a symbol of support for Russia’s invasion ) as he stood on the podium next
to Ukraine’s Illia Kovtun, who won the gold.
Thus, we need to think
carefully about ways of not indiscriminately ostracising Russian artists and
other cultural professionals just because they’re Russian, of keeping channels
of collaboration and support open, of helping spreading the news and also of
pressuring the regime in whatever way we can. And one option is BDS (Boycott,
Divestment, Sanctions), currently used against Israel and before that in South
Africa. Its aims should be explained publicly and widely in the clearest
possible way. Last year, journalist Chris McGreal, who served both in South Africa
and Israel, wrote in The Guardian about how BDS helped raise awareness worldwide and pressure the Apartheid
regime, until South Africans managed to get rid of it.
Some colleagues believe
that, in front of a strong and generalised BDS movement against Putin’s regime,
culture, and especially the arts, are exceptional. They say that culture is about
collaboration, respect, values and understanding between people. Jacques Marquis, from
the Cliburn Foundation, was quoted in the New York Times article saying
that his organisation felt it was important to speak out as it watched Russian
artists come under scrutiny. “We can help the world by standing our ground and
focusing on the music and on the artists”, he said. I wonder, isn’t this what
we´ve been doing all along? Is he suggesting we should carry on as if nothing
happened? Is he prepared to collaborate with an organisation funded by Putin’s
regime as if this was all very civilised, for the sake of art and the artists? And
what kind of art would that be when artists and everyone else in Russia are not
even allowed to speak in favour of peace or to mention the word “war”?
There was one more
point in Hernández’s New
York Times article that reminded me of how unprepared we are to acknowledge
that culture and the arts have a political role and discourse, even when
claiming neutrality. One reads that “The tensions pose a dilemma for
cultural institutions and those who support them. Many have long tried to stay
above the fray of current events and have a deep belief in the role the arts
can play in bridging divides. Now arts administrators, who have scant
geopolitical expertise, find themselves in the midst of one of the most
politically charged issues in recent decades, with little in the way of
experience to draw on.” Really? Aren’t arts administrators citizens as well? Do
they live on a remote island, cut off from the world? What are their
organisations for then?
Another point we shouldn’t forget is that Culture
has always been important for dictators and autocrats. They use it in their
propaganda of normality and civility. In her article How the Hermitage Museum Artwashes Russian Aggression,
Rachel Spence reminds us that “long before the Ukrainian invasion, there were
reasons to query foreign partnerships, most of which are utterly uncritical,
with Russian state institutions.” She specifically refers to the Morozov collection
being currently on display at the Louis Vuitton Foundation, exhibiting works on
loan from the State Hermitage Museum, as well as the State Tretyakov Museum and
the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. Although this is a private foundation, both
Macron and Putin contribute texts to the catalogue and Putin writes eloquently
about the power of cultural diplomacy. The Hermitage director, Mikhail Piotrovski,
is proud to be Putin’s man in this “cultural offensive” (Putin’s words) and vice-versa.
Where do I stand and what do I suggest at this point?
- I believe we all need to be very careful and
vigilant and not to allow for any acts of discrimination against Russian
cultural professionals or artists (dead or alive) on the basis of their
nationality.
- Russian cultural professionals must not be
forced to express their political views or clarifying their position in order
to participate in international projects.
- At this point, we must not collaborate with Russian state cultural organisations or present works that have received funding from it. This is not about individuals, although they will be affected (like many more good people in other professional areas). This is about who these organisations represent and get their money from, this is about the way they use culture in order to minimise or even cover their brutal actions, both within Russia and in Ukraine.
This cannot be
irrelevant to us, otherwise what culture are we talking about? And what values?
Where do we draw the line? And what are we supposed to say to Ukrainian artists
and cultural professionals who won’t be attending any conferences or artistic
residencies any time soon because they are fighting a war defending their
country, either because they have been conscribed or because they volunteered?
BDS can help raise
awareness worldwide and within Russia. It can send a message of support and
solidarity to Russians who find the courage to confront a regime that punishes
dissent. It can send a message of support and solidarity to the Ukrainian
people, fighting a brutal war defending their country. And, finally, it may
send a message and perhaps pressure the silent majority, those who often feel
impotent and rightfully scared when dealing with a totalitarian regime. Noone
is in a position to ask for or expect heroic acts, it wouldn’t be decent. But
we all need to understand that, although we are not to blame for the brutal or immoral
acts of our rulers or governors, we have a responsibility towards our country,
our fellow citizens and to the world.
Read also
Pjotr Sauer and Andrew Roth, Empty galleries and fleeing artists: Russia’s cultural uncoupling from the west. In The Guardian, 17.4.2022
Still in the blog
regarding the political role of cultural organisations:
No comments:
Post a Comment