You may have noticed interest in the general media in May concerning an auction of Indigenous art in Sydney. A number of works classified as secret sacred by some Indigenous art experts were included in the sale, on display during the pre-auction viewing period and in some cases reproduced in the auction catalogue. Dealing with secret sacred works in these ways can be disrespectful and offensive to Aboriginal communities.
Alerted to this serious breach of protocol, a protocol that has existed in Australia for many, many years (our major public museums have had policies of holding secret sacred material in special storage areas and not making them publicly viewable since 1983), NAVA wrote to the auction house and asked that the works be withdrawn from display and sale until their status as ceremonial items could be confirmed.
Through a media leak the conversation was made public and after some coverage, and more behind the scenes conversations between NAVA and the auction house, all but one of the works were removed.
This was a victory of sorts, although it reminds us all of the need to educate, and re-educate, the art marketplace about respectful ways in which the financial and cultural interests of two different cultures can be accommodated.
Commercial conflict and unfair power balance between the art market and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and their communities, who so successfully produce work for it, has been much on NAVA’s mind of late. Our focus has been intensified by consultations undertaken for the development of an Indigenous Australian Art Commercial Code of Conduct (IAACCC), which is a joint initiative between NAVA, Desart, and the Association of Northern, Kimberley and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists (ANKAAA). Developed as a best practice guide for an ethical and sustainable Indigenous art sector, topics covered in the IAACCC include: Artists; Community and Culture; Art Centres; Exhibiting and Selling; Agents and Dealers; Buyers and Collectors. We are also focused on this issue by our involvement in the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Indigenous Art Industry. The outcomes of these two major projects, one industry driven, the other driven by the Commonwealth government, are both now open to further comment.
This text appears in a regular monthly column NAVA writes for Arts Hub, the online home for arts workers. To read the full column visit Arts Hub News, Analysis and Comment
