Last Tuesday, 24 hours before his concert, the Russian pianist Alexander Malofeev became undesirable in the eyes of the Orchester symphonique de Montréal (OSM), which suddenly deemed it “inappropriate” to welcome him. What is the meaning of this sanction based on the artist’s nationality, when the OSM recognized on March 3 that “his Instagram account clearly indicates that he opposes the war and distances himself from the regime in place? in Moscow ” ?
The decision of the OSM with regard to the young Russian was overwhelmingly lambasted on social networks. Prior to the exclusion of Malofeev, the OSM had come under pressure from the Ukrainian community. Pascale Ouimet, head of public relations and media relations, assures us that the “circumstantial” decision of the institution is in no way the result of these pressures.
Do not demand anything
If the Ukrainian community is proud, the public instinctively perceives a clear line of demarcation between the “cultural oligarchs”, of the Valery Gergiev type andAnna Netrebko, and a young Russian pianist who is making his career quietly and writes on Facebook: “The only thing I can do right now is pray and cry. »
Questioned by Deutsche Welle on March 7, the day of his resignation from the Novosibirsk Orchestra, conductor Thomas Sanderling declared: “Criticism of Russia’s behavior must not lead to the punishment of innocent people. This “we don’t want Russians here today” reminds me of the worst times of the Soviet era, when people said “we don’t want foreigners”. This is not in line with our values as Europeans. Thomas Sanderling, born in 1942 in Novossibirsk, is the son of Kurt Sanderling, associate conductor of the Leningrad Orchestra, who had fled the Nazis to take refuge in the USSR.
This line was strongly endorsed by the French Minister of Culture, Roselyne Bachelot. “I have been very clear with all the cultural institutions: we are not at war with Russia. So there is no reason to have a punitive approach vis-à-vis its artists, “she said on the sidelines of the presentation, to her ministry, of the Week of the French language and the Francophonie.
Minister Bachelot goes further: “If Russian artists have been programmed, it is not a question of summoning them to take a stand against Mr. Putin’s regime. We imagine the endangerment of themselves and the endangerment, if they are on tour around the world, of their own family. » Mme Bachelot refers to the law passed unanimously on March 4 in the Duma, which targets “authors of false information”. This law does not only target journalists, but also concerns the freedom of expression of the entire population on social networks or in the street, and can lead to up to 15 years in prison.
Conquer without arms
Demands for boycotts rarely come out in the open, but some think that artists who derive almost all of their income from abroad and live lavishly in Russia, who they feed on hard currency, should be prayed for a while , to stay at home.
The logic behind this reasoning is to show very quickly that we are also attacking the so-called diplomacy of “soft-power», influence by the promotion of values, in particular cultural, theorized by Joseph Nye, professor at Harvard. But how do we define the “s oft power », and how to draw the limits?
Simon Brault, Director and CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts (CCA), distinguished himself with a very clear-cut position: “As long as there is a diplomatic corridor, there is space for cultural diplomacy. But in a war situation, the stakes of soft power become a situation of suspension,” he told theHomework.
“The CAC is a Crown corporation, and Canada is one of the most active countries on the economic sanctions front. Everything is done “so that public funds are not transferred in any area for the benefit of the Russian economy”. “Our position is very precise on the sanctions, approached only from the angle of the requests for subsidies for projects. » Simon Brault specifies that « the decision of the CAC is not to carry out a witch hunt vis-à-vis Russian artists or Russian cultural production ». Of the 8,000 files processed annually by the CAC, “only around twenty are affected by the new measures”, estimates the director.
Simon Brault, who says he totally agrees with all of Minister Bachelot’s remarks, is also in tune with Professor Jane Duncan, from the Department of Communication at the University of Johannesburg, a great specialist in the effects of cultural boycott: “A boycott culture that isolates an authoritarian regime from the international community is a potential psychological lever, because it prevents this regime from projecting a positive image. In South Africa, apartheid was not normal. The cultural boycott against this regime ended the denial. »
As long as there is a diplomatic corridor, there is space for cultural diplomacy. But in a war situation, soft power issues become a suspended situation.
In the present case, according to Mme Duncan, “Russia uses culture, arts and sport as tools of”soft power”: it exports its successes to improve its image”. This pattern of retaliation has been theorized. “It’s very important that when we mount a cultural boycott, we don’t apply it against individuals on the basis of their nationality”, Jane Duncan tells us, categorically: “A boycott should only be carried out against institutions and individuals who receive public funds to project a positive image of the country abroad. »
In other words, “if the musician you are talking about has not used his art and his reputation to support the regime, if he does not have a contractual relationship with the Russian regime that would require him to promote the policies Russians abroad, there is no sufficient argument to prevent this artist from performing in Canada”.
Simon Brault, who also heads the International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies, oversees the positions of 70 countries and sees several members suspend grants “with sometimes complex issues, because a lot of Russian money is invested in the cultural system. of those countries, which is not the case here”. But we have another particularity: “Outside of Europe, Canada is the most mobilized country, because we have the largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. »
It is true that the OSM’s decision had nothing to do with pressure. But then, what did it have to do with? Play the game of Russia, which will be quick to oppose its “land of culture” and a “land of “cancel culture“”?