SASOL snuffs Wax Award

By Johan Myburg

The visual arts have always benefited from patronage.

In Medieval times the church was the grand patron. Many papal whims contributed to some of the greatest art ever created by Michelangelo and his peers. And during the Renaissance flamboyant individuals and or families such as the De Medici’s became synonymous with the proliferation of the visual arts. Today corporate sponsorship has taken over the role of institutions offering vital support for the visual arts.

Although these tokens of support and patronage are laudable and indispensable, determining the nature of the relationship between the benefactors and the arts become increasingly important. To what extent have patrons of the arts become patronising? Would one be able to speak of a truly symbiotic relationship between sponsorship and the arts? What constitutes the mutual benefit of this relationship? And is reciprocity regarded important at all?

In South Africa we have witnessed the devastating effects of the abrupt end of the Brett Kebble Art Awards. And recently we have witnessed the end of the Sasol Wax Art Award. No self-respecting corporate institution would operate oblivious to the importance of
sustainability.

But when it comes to support for the arts, sustainability seems to become a fickle enterprise. Support for the arts could be dished out and cancelled at the drop of a hat, so it seems. If the chair of the board has a flair for the arts, sponsorship becomes an avenue for corporate social investment. Should the chair retire, the support dwindles or dries up completely.

If one takes into consideration mutual respect (from the sponsor towards the arts and artists, and from the art world towards the sponsor) the question arises whether the patron is consulting the art world in establishing sponsorship and in withdrawing sponsorship. This could be the case in establishing the award or competition or form of support. But the termination of support seems to be a unilateral decision.
The pope has another scheme in mind and the work on the Sistine Chapel comes to a halt.

In an age with accountability and transparency as buzzwords, it seems odd that the visual arts have to be treated as a minor – sponsorship will decide what is beneficial for the arts. They will decide the amount of pocket money that could be allocated to the arts. While the arts sheepishly do their best to promote the image of the sponsor, honouring the obligation to produce quality work so that the sponsor could cash in on publicity and a polished profile as ‘supporters of the arts’.

Perhaps the time has come for the art world to enter proper negotiations with sponsors to secure a fair deal for both. The arts need sponsors. Sponsors need an aesthetic quality to be associated with.
No one needs to be reliant on the other.

Artists are professional people
and need to be taken seriously.