3.0 Sporting Events & Cultural Programming (Olympic Games): Opportunities and Challenges

Nishimura (2015) analyse the contrasting approaches taken by Angola and Kenya to their 2013

National Pavilions at the Venice Biennale. Angola – as ‘one of the few countries in sub-Saharan Africa

with an independent pavilion’ (Zaugg & Nishimura, 2015:140) – attracted a huge amount of positive

attention and went on to win the coveted Golden Lion for best national pavilion. On the other hand,

Kenya’s Italian curated display offered exhibition space to a preponderance of Chinese artists,

creating a spectacle which met with criticism and confusion both at home and abroad (Zaugg &

Nishimura, 2015: 139-142).

Major sporting events are inseparable from their predecessors – World Fairs and Expositions – as

they represent invented traditions (Hobsbawn, 1983a) that enabled 'developed' nations to demonstrate their cultural (political and economic) strengths. In some respects, the first ‘mega sport event’, the Olympic Games, replaced the World Fair as the platform upon which nations could present themselves to the world. The Modern Olympics were, for their founder, Pierre de Courbetin,

as much a cultural as a sporting festival. Numerous authors discuss the variety of approaches taken

to the cultural programme which accompanies the Olympic sporting festival (i.e. Inglis, 2008; Garcia,

2003, 2004, 2008; Lander & Crowe, 2010; Low & Hall, 2012; Moragas, 2008; Panagiotopulou, 2016

Pappalepore, 2016). The cultural and arts focussed elements of Olympic events have received

variable levels of attention and investment but have remained as a consistent presence on the Olympic schedule since the turn of the 20th century. After initial failure to include arts alongside

sports in the Olympic cycle prompted de Coubertin to intervene, enthusiasm for the artistic

competition which paralleled the sporting rivalry in the form of the ‘Pentathlon of Muses’ was, to begin with, muted (Garcia, 2008:368). While progress has been made, the integration of the two

compulsory Olympiads – one sporting the other arts-focussed – has remained challenging for those

charged with delivering contemporary Olympic events. One reason for this may lie in the differing

perceptions of art and sport prevalent in ancient Greek and modern society, whereby drastically

different social and philosophical approaches to art and sport meant that the two were far more

closely aligned in Antiquity than is currently the case (Inglis, 2008). Moreover, the International

Olympic Committee’s (IOC) current interpretation ‘of de Coubertin’s original endeavours to unite ‘arts’ and ‘sports,’ […] now […] [comprises forging a linkage] between a more generally conceived ‘culture’ and sports’ (Inglis, 2008:468).

It was not until the Berlin games of 1936 during which ‘a cultural festival of unprecedented size and nature […] [ran alongside] an ambitious publicity campaign’ that the Games as a potential platform for arts and cultural events was fully embraced (Garcia, 2008:369). Indeed, the Berlin games

heralded ‘the first modern Olympic torch relay […] [and featured] large sculptures, new musical compositions and the production of the epic film masterpiece ‘Olympia’ by Leni Riefenstahl’ (Garcia, 2008:269). Though costly and hugely ambitious, the cultural elements of the 1936 Games offered ‘a chance to present to the world an idealised view of life in the emerging Reich’ (Inglis, 2008:467). From this – admittedly tainted and overtly propagandistic – origin the arts and cultural aspects of

the Olympics has continued to develop. The 1956 Melbourne Games – the first official Cultural

Olympiad (Low & Hall, 2012:137) – comprised both a visual and literary arts component ‘provid[ing] a significant commentary on Australia’s contribution to the Arts’ (Garcia, – citing the Games’ Official Report – 2008:369). Garcia argues that while hosting the Olympics and, concomitantly, the

accompanying cultural and arts focussed programme offers a matchless opportunity to showcase

the host society, its culture, artistic activities and way of life; reaching a local consensus regarding

what that culture comprises and presenting this in a manner which promotes local and national

image positively yet does not offend any observers in the global audience presents a particular set of

challenges (Garcia, 2008: 362-3). This is particularly the case for the opening and closing ceremonies

which are viewed by a huge and diverse international audience. While Garcia argues that this leads

to the presentation of ‘culturally neutered representations’ of the host culture (Garcia, 2008:366), Chen et al (2012) contend that the Beijing Games’ opening ceremony enabled the showcasing of the country’s speedy economic development and the improvement of her international standing. The

opening ceremony, they suggest, ‘represents a concentration of features, qualities and messages that combine the local and global, the culturally specific and universal, spectacle and festival, in a complex production that aims to challenge, educate and entertain audiences’ (Chen et al, 2012: 188). These authors note that ‘from the Chinese perspective, the opening ceremony represented a significant moment to showcase to the world its past and present magnificence’ (Chen et al, 2012:191; also see Panagiotopoulou, 2016:135-6). Ultimately, Chen et al (2012:195) recognise the

Games as a showcasing opportunity to foreground China’s technological, social and cultural accomplishment to a global audience; describing the Olympics as ‘a global communication event that offers the host nation a unique opportunity to promote a soft power agenda by allowing them

to construct globally transmitted messages about their cultural identities’. Nevertheless, the format and context within which the Games take place lead to the understandable tendency to focus on

components of culture which lend themselves to visual modes of transmission can lead to the

exclusion of ‘literary, oral and other community traditions’ from the platform that the Games

provide (Garcia, 2008:363). Furthermore, organisers have exhibited a tendency to select artists with

an international profile to participate in the Cultural Olympiad. While this potentially increases the

attractiveness of events and draws greater media attention, local artists can lose out (Pappalepore,

2016:442). The American response to Akram Khan’s appearance at the London 2012 Opening Ceremony suggests an editorial decision made on the bases of the outlined challenges. A world

renowned British dancer and choreographer, Khan was asked to choreograph a piece ‘on the theme of mortality [which was performed] just after a tribute to the 52 victims of the terror attack in London on 7 July 2005’ (Telegraph Reporters, 2012).3 The performance of this work was cut from the

American broadcast of the opening ceremony and replaced by an interview with the American

swimmer Michael Phelps. Lawson (N.D.) observes that ‘somehow the tribute to the dead and the dance became fused and interpreted as a reference to the victims of the July 7, 2005 terrorist

bombings in London. And this, in turn, appeared to be the reason NBC […]cut the dance segment and replaced it with [the] interview,’ a decision that was met with surprise and disappointment. Khan pondered whether his work had been adjudged as inaccessible or insufficiently commercial for

the Games’ American broadcasters (Telegraph Reporters, 2012; Lawson, N.D.).

A tendency towards art and cultural products that are ‘easy to consume’ resulted – according to

Pappalepore (2016:451) – in the Torino 2006 Cultural Olympiad’s focus on ‘cultural products aimed at promoting local industries and traditions (e.g. chocolate making) rather than at providing a real

cultural experience’. One way in which organisers have sought to increase the reach and localise

elements of events in the Cultural Olympiad is through provision of an ‘associated event’ status. This enables the inclusion of events that are not part of the official programme – which were already

planned regardless of the advent of the Olympic Games – and, do not receive financial support from

the Games’ administration, the ‘benefits’ of association with – or participation in – the Cultural Olympiad are more difficult to identity in these circumstances. 4 It is important to note that, in the

current era, arts and cultural funding is increasingly tied to such global spectacles. Thus, though

essentially sport events, these occasions provide a 'platform' for showcasing a country's other

strengths through the temporary attraction of media attention, visitors, political dialogue (i.e.

diplomatic visit) and, potentially, trade (Grix & Lee, 2013).

3 Miah (2012:53-4) outlines the genesis of the piece and its meaning, some of which is based on disjunctions between the tempo audible to the viewing audience and that which the dancers involved in the performance were hearing. While providing a layer of interest to the spectacle, this variation was unknowable to those watching. 4 Lander & Crowe (2010) also note that – in Vancouver – even events officially associated with the Games but located in peripheral areas lacked Cultural Olympiad branding, resulting in a loss of visibility.

The arts festivals which have accompanied the Olympic Games have become progressively more

ambitious with time. While the Mexico City Games of 1968 and the Munich Games of 1972

significantly developed the artistic agenda (Garcia, 2008: 370; also see Zolov, 2004 re: Mexico City),

the Barcelona Games – staged in 1992 – established ‘a model of the Cultural Olympiad [comprising] a programme for cultural celebrations that lasted the four years separating the previous Olympic

Summer Games in Seoul 1988 from the Games to be hosted in the city in 1992.’ This format has subsequently been retained – with ebbs and flows in intensity – by all Games cycles which have

succeeded Barcelona (Garcia; 2008:370). Committing to a four-year cycles of cultural programming is

not unproblematic. The elongated timeframe now associated with the Games cultural programme

can lead to ‘lack of clarity about the messages being given out to the public’ (Inglis, 2008:470).

It is interesting to note, too, that elsewhere Garcia (2004) argues that the artistic elements of major

events are often poorly leveraged vis-à-vis long-term sustainable arts programming noting that ‘arts programming has yet to achieve a position that allows it to be perceived as a relevant contributor to

the success of major events and their potential regeneration legacy’ (Garcia, 2004:104). Examining the legacies of three major events in three cities, 5 Garcia observes that while hosting major events

with an arts focus does provide opportunities to secure long term legacy both symbolically and

physically, drawing disenfranchised communities into art activity or creating a platform for the

representation of local cultures is rarely successfully achieved (Garcia, 2004:108). Low and Hall

(2012:147) argue that the arts organisations which were best able to benefit from their association

with the Vancouver Games (2010) focussed their attentions on the local rather than the global

audience (while noting that benefits at a global level may be realised in time). Inglis (2008:468) also

notes, it is often the case that, Games’ organising committees have frequently ‘been unclear as what it is that they are supposed to be doing on the cultural side [of the Games]’ (also see Kennell &

MacLeod, 2009:84; Low & Hall, 2010:137) meaning that the cultural mandate has regularly been

taken less seriously than should be the case. A further complication arises where the process for

organising a Cultural Olympiad is – in contrast to that, which is undertaken to organise the athletic

completion – ‘reinvented for every Games, constantly revisiting negotiations to attain an association with the core Olympic brand’ (Lander & Crowe, 2010:36).6 For example, in the run up to the 2012

5 Glasgow (European City of Culture in 1990), Sydney (Olympic Arts Festival in 2000) and Barcelona (Universal Forum of Cultures, 2004) 6 These authors note that where the Cultural Olympiad organising committee for Vancouver 2010 negotiated permission to use the Olympic rings for the cultural programme but, this privilege ‘has not been automatically transferred to London, 2012’ (Lander & Crowe, 2010:36). Inglis (2008:471) recounts the impact that administrative arrangements had on reinforcing the media’s apathy towards cultural events in Sydney as the ‘press and publicity department for the cultural programme was completely separate from the analogous department for the sportive events, and was housed in a different part of town’ thus, should a journalist wish

London Games, ‘there was no requirement for the UK Government to guarantee any of the

outcomes of the Cultural Programme to the IOC’ furthermore, this means that ‘the crucial external assessment of the 2012 programme can be adjusted post-games to reflect the actual Cultural

Olympiad that is finally delivered […] rather than the aspirations and plans’ outlined in the initial bidding process (Kennell & MacLeod, 2009:86) and, which significantly informed the IOC’s decision to award the Games to London.7 It is also significant that, although it is mandatory for Games’ organising committees to provide a budget for the cultural offer at the bidding stage, adherence to

the stated level of funding is not compulsory. The Sydney organising committee met their original

budgetary commitment to year 1 of the Sydney Cultural Olympiad cycle however, the budgets for

years-2-4 were significantly reduced. Thus, while the opening ceremony of the 2000 Games was allocated A$65 mil the 4 year Cultural Olympiad was delivered on a budget of A$21mil, down from the original sum of A$50 mil (Inglis, 2008:470). Bucking the prevailing trend, organisers of the Athens Games increased the budget allocated to the Cultural Olympiad, raising it from $120 million (for the

4 year cycle) to €143 million from government sources only. In the organisers’ view, this was justified

by the Greeks’ belief that the Games would be attractive to ‘culture enthusiasts’ who also loved sport (Panagiotopoulou, 2016:139). In Barcelona, 1992, although the organisational bureaucracy for

the Cultural Olympiad was initially closely allied with the organising committee for the sporting

games, this association did not endure. The separation, however, was an unequal one. Barcelona’s sporting organising committee (COOB) negotiated sponsorship deals and subsequently, the Cultural

Olympiad’s organisers were bound by exclusivity agreements settled by the COOB. While these

arrangements impacted upon the Cultural Olympiad, the COOB did not share sponsorship income

(Moragas, 2008:10-11). Such occurrences would appear to be relatively common. Low and Hall

(2012:147) recall the paradoxical situation whereby ‘the Scotiabank Dance Centre, Canada’s only purpose-built centre for dance, was excluded from the 2010 [Cultural Olympiad in Vancouver] due to

the fact that the official finance sponsor of the Games was Royal Bank of Canada,’ thus no Canadian dance was staged at the venue during the Cultural Olympiad and, in the period January-March of the

Olympic year the Centre ‘was not mentioned in a single press article.’ Rather than showcasing the Centre – and thus, Canadian dance – the effect of the Olympics’ was the Centre’s short-term

disappearance from the cultural scene.

While the sporting games of the 2000 Olympics received wide acclaim ‘a significant section of the arts community in Sydney and throughout Australia showed disbelief and subsequently

to cover a cultural event, doing so would necessitate engaging with an entirely different bureaucracy from that with which they were already familiar (Inglis, 2008:471). 7 Pappalepore (2016:441) reflects that – paradoxically – ‘the greatest cost of the 2012 Olympic Games to the British people has probably been the loss of arts and sporting projects that were set aside to fund the Games’.

disappointment about the Olympic arts programme’ (Garcia, 2004:108). Criticism was focused on

the perceived failure to deliver the main tenets of the programme that had been laid out in the

Sydney Olympic bid. At the bidding stage, the local committee had emphasised the opportunity that

staging the Games and attendant arts festival would provide to catalyse the ‘debate on the treatment of Aboriginal and migrant communities’ in Australia (Garcia, 2004:108). In the event, however, the arts festival was seen as presenting a safe, sanitised and uncontroversial programme

(Garcia, 2004:108). In line with established norms, Sydney planned a 4-year programme of events

and activities to take place annually in the lead up to – and over the duration of – the Olympic

competition. Over the year preceding the Games, Australia was to be presented to the world ‘by funding local groups to tour each of the “five continents” […] [and] 2000 was to present an arts programme “to match the grandeur of the sporting competitions” and put an emphasis on

internationally recognised artists and flagship Australian companies and individuals’ (Garcia, 2004:109 – citing Sydney Olympic Organising Committee Fact Sheet). While the intention to

showcase Australian art in this way contributed to the success of the Australian Olympic bid,

subsequent funding cuts which affected implementation and a ‘marginal position within the Sydney Organising Committee for the Games […] brought increasing challenges to the achievement of objectives’ (Garcia, 2004:109). The arts programme suffered from poor visibility (to both domestic

and international audiences). Additionally, it was claimed that the Aboriginal work that was

exhibited was subject to an aesthetic deriving from a majority white lens which served to commodify

and exoticise

the cultural experience on display rather than to present an authentic cultural experience (Garcia, 2004:110).8 The unique demands of an Olympic programme also creates

situation whereby focus inevitably falls on ‘flagship’ events. As Low and Hall (2012:134) observe,

these projects ‘often coincide with a reduction in public subsidy for smaller community-based arts

operations’. The accompanying focus on critical mass for economic viability further impacts the participation and visibility of extant – but smaller – artistic output in an Olympic host city.

While Garcia’s work foregrounds some of the challenges and pitfalls which can beset showcasing attempts within an Olympic Games context, Zolov (2004) offers an analysis of the Mexico City 1968

Games which highlights the ways in which the careful curation and presentation of arts and cultural

artefacts can elide to form a platform for the (re)presentation of a country and its people by way of

the Olympic Games. While the importance of including a cultural element in the Games is specified

in the Olympic charter (Zolov, 2004 also see Garcia, 2008:368), Zolov notes that ‘Mexico was in fact the first host country to turn an emphasis on culture into an integral aspect of the Games

8 Despite these critiques, the Sydney Cultural Olympiad did succeed in creating ‘an expectation [among many] that no festival planned [in Australia] henceforth can exist without its indigenous contribution’ (Garcia, 2003:5).