Behind Every Fortune Lies a Great Crime
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
A couple of days ago this article appeared in ArtNet magazine. It's a scandal alright, and really does bring home the compromised nature of a lot of African money. But what I found most interesting was the way the article ended, with the insight that many American fortunes and art collections are based on just as much blood but with the rider: "What seems different in the case of Sindika Dokolo Collection is not just the scale of the alleged plunder behind the art, but the fact that numerous NGOs and human rights organizations have called attention to the depredations." I wander though how the artists, and I know more than a few prominent SA artists are represented, on the collection are feeling? Does it make a difference? Or is it worth it to get to Venice?
posted by Robert Sloon at 5:25 PM
5 Comments:
The ArtNet piece implies that SINDIKA DOKOLO is himself a shady operator. Is this true? What we do know is that he controls vast amounts of money. We have now heard something about the genesis of this fortune. Does the ‘truth’ make any difference, too you or me?
When Brett Kebble’s Art Award Scheme was announced I asked myself the same question: does it make a difference where the money is coming from? Now, what was really interesting about the Kebble Art Awards (and the subsequent slow fade up of light on the circumstances of his end) is that almost everything we now know to be probably true was already well known as ‘allegations’ made week after week by various reputable sectors of the press. So one had a simple choice: believe or ignore the allegations. If one believed the worst then Kebble Art was not only run on stolen money, but also was a pretty cynical scheme intended to whitewash Brett in the public eye, to enable him to steal more. It is really very difficult to get folk to part with their money, particularly if one is bankrupt. They far prefer to get in with a winner. Hence his desire for The Michaelis Most Famous Visiting Artist to curate the 2007 awards. The fee would have been enormous, but hey that too would have been stolen money, so actually it would have been a great investment.
Obviously most artists thought otherwise. Whether they thought that Brett as a fuckin’ capitalist pig owed them one, or that they had paid their dues and could not be held to account for the details of other’s problems - perhaps they thought it made no difference, I don’t know.
If a factory is using child labour, or pumping out poisonous waste, or using raw materials & minerals extracted by labour pressed to work by force of violent threat, would you buy their products? I don’t except sometimes when I am not thinking, or don’t know. Not because I believe my boycott will close them down (I wish it would), nor because I think my example will lead them to change their wicked ways (I wish they would): I don’t associate with them because I don’t want to. It is my choice - they make me uncomfortable.
So, yes I believe that to me it does make a difference where the money comes from. The scale and place and time of the Crime are vitally important to me. It is through this reckoning that I am able to understand my relative freedom. Which is fundamentally important to me, as a person, as an artist, as human being (one of the others, you know?).
All the major players in the art world managed to forget extremely quickly where Brett Kebble's money came from. They are still around. Get a programme with their names on. Off the top of my head I can think of people like Sue Williamson, James Webb, Ralph Borland, Ed Young, Ruth Sacks, Cameron Platter, Katherine Smith, Paul Edmunds (current Artthrob editor), the list goes on. Ask one of them how they managed to overlook something that big.
Perhaps I was wrong but I thought that was what she was contextualising in "Don't Panic".
Who's she? Ruth? Contextualising what? Her part in the Brett Kebble show? Was there a subheading in the sky that I didn't see?
preciisely -
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home