[ad_1]
On 1 May 2020 the Australian performance artist Casey Jenkins received a $25,000 grant from the Australia Council to present a work, titled Procreate, at festivals in the UK and Chile.
But as the pandemic spread, international borders closed, and Jenkins – who uses they/them pronouns – sought a variation to the funding, proposing a new Covid-safe project instead: Immaculate. The work would feature a live stream of Jenkins – who hopes to fall pregnant – self-inseminating with donated sperm, while discussing their past experiences with conception.
Jenkins is known for work that explores bodies, biology and social expectations, which has been exhibited in Venice, London and Berlin. A 2013 performance, Casting Off My Womb, featured an extended exercise in knitting yarn that had been inserted into their vagina. In the case of Immaculate, the performance – which had the donor’s consent – would take place once a month for four months, or until conception; the aim was to confront stigmas against queer pregnancy and parenting in the art world, while documenting what Jenkins calls “the simple, common and loving ways that we live our lives and create and nurture our families”.
This variation was also approved by the Australia Council. And then the word got out.
On an 18 August episode of Sky News, Peta Credlin criticised the project as a “sheer abuse of taxpayer grants” and Dr Bella D’Abrera, of the Institute of Public Affairs, called it “outrageous” and “incredibly offensive to Catholics”. The Australia Council sent Jenkins a transcript, and a request for further details: what ethical considerations had been made? Did the performance contravene Victorian assisted reproduction law?
“I’m not getting pregnant for art but rather documenting the process I am already undertaking for the purpose of art,” Jenkins replied. It did not contravene the law, Jenkins said; indeed, Victoria’s legislation does not govern home insemination.
And yet, just hours before the first performance on 19 August, the agency told Jenkins they were suspending the funding while they sought legal advice. On 21 September, after negative articles about Australia Council’s politicised grant allocations had appeared in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, which both led with Jenkins’ work, Jenkins received a letter from the Australia Council CEO, Adrian Collette, officially rescinding the grant.
“We cannot be party to any act that could result in bringing a new life into the world,” Collette wrote, explaining that the project “exposes the Australia Council to unacceptable, potentially long-term and incalculable risk.
“The possible current and longer-term consequences for the child, the child’s parent and the child’s donor are inappropriate for a corporate government entity to accept.”
In a public statement, the Australia Council denied that government intervention or negative media coverage were factors in the decision. “Legal advice identified the possibility that a legal claim could be brought in the future, and the Council determined this was not an acceptable risk for a corporate Commonwealth entity,” it said. Explaining the backflip, the statement said that the influx of variation requests in the wake of the pandemic led to Immaculate being “approved before being sufficiently reviewed”.
But the decision to kill the contract raises worrying questions about the potential government overreach and the possibility of censorship in Australian cultural policy at a time when the financial crisis in the sector is already threatening to shut out marginalised voices for good.
‘They have grossly and insultingly mischaracterised my artwork’
Jenkins told Guardian Australia that the Australia Council has “grossly and insultingly mischaracterised my artwork”. The fact that it has “aroused discussion and confronted and moved people” simply shows that it is “effective”.
“I am troubled by the prospect of a future in which the only art supported in this country is that devoid of these results,” they said.
Indeed, if federally funding pregnancy is legally risky, the former treasurer Peter Costello must be terrified. Beginning in 2003, the Coalition government’s “Baby Bonus” policy paid a lump sum of $3,000 to parents on the birth of a child. Costello openly encouraged potential parents to have “one for the country”. A study by three economists in 2017 estimated it led to at least 24,000 extra babies being born. That’s an awful lot of “long-term and incalculable risk”.
Perhaps the Australia Council’s lawyers identified a very specific risk related to arts funding associated with donor insemination. But we don’t know; they are refusing to release the legal advice, as “to do so would waive legal professional privilege”, they told the Guardian.
What we do know is that small grants of this nature are not normally escalated to the CEO of the agency, let alone its board. But after Credlin raised her concerns on Sky, that’s where the decision landed.
The Australia Council’s board is chaired by the former mining magnate Sam Walsh, previously reported to be a devout Christian, and also includes Rebecca Weisser, a cultural conservative who is a former opinion editor at The Australian. Collette’s 21 September letter to Jenkins states that “after careful consideration, the Chair of the Australia Council’s Board and I have decided to rescind the decision to fund Immaculate”.
The Australia Council has denied that the political or religious beliefs of any board members played a role in the decision; when questioned about the consultation with the board, it said: “We do not provide details of discussions between the Board, CEO or Chair which are held in confidence.”
There is no doubt Jenkins’ performance is controversial. The ethical implications of the work are complex. Some Catholics and other people of faith do find it offensive. So do many in the donor-conceived community.
The musician Katherine Vowles is a child of donor conception. “Being a donor-conceived person is like being a living experiment,” she said to Guardian Australia, over email. “Human rights are stretched and it can be a battle to access information and know who both of your biological parents are, to access medical history and not to be used as an item for sale as a solution for someone else’s needs.”
Vowles argues that “for a government-funded body to provide funding to create a human being is unethical”.
But Jenkins denies that this is what they’re doing. They maintain that the grant would have funded the performance, not the insemination itself; and that no money is changing hands with the donor, who was informed of the project and consented to it.
Uncomfortable questions about the future of arts funding
In their statement, the Australia Council said it was “committed to supporting challenging works that push the boundaries of artistic expression … Our decision not to support Immaculate is informed by the potential legal risk it presents. It is not a statement on the project itself.”
But the cancellation of Jenkins’ funding contract poses some uncomfortable questions that have not been answered. What is the nature of the legal objection to Jenkins’ project? To what extent and why was the board involved? And what are the implications for future projects that are this controversial?
If the Australia Council starts rescinding funding projects that become flashpoints of controversy, the future of cultural policy in Australia is in bad shape – and with much of the industry in effective shutdown, and artists desperate for grants, the potential for a further chilling effect is obvious.
One of the legislated functions of the Australia Council under its act is “to promote the appreciation, knowledge and understanding of the arts”. It is more important than ever that it continues to fulfil that goal.
[ad_2]
READ SOURCE
