The ECP-FG interviewed Fossil Free Culture NL (FFC-NL), a collective of artists, activists, researchers and critics working at the intersection of art and climate activism. We discussed with them their goal to confront oil and gas sponsorship of public cultural institutions in the Netherlands. Particularly, their commitment to erode the fossil fuel industry’s public image in society and in relation to sustainable issues.
In the light of recent events about the the oil leak from a PEMEX pipeline, we witnessed once again the destructive effects of fossil resources on our environment via the images of a burning ocean ...
We asked the FFC-NL why is that, even with these clear negative impacts, the transition of energy resources from fossils to renewables is still perceived as a radical / dramatic change for the political-economical system ? The FFC-NL answered to us: It is because our economy runs on fossil fuels. It would be changing one of the main drivers of the economy. But the ‘radical’ term is relative, I don’t think that is radical enough. There is a need for a lot more to happen than just a change from fossil fuels to renewables. We are artists, not scientists, economists, anthropologists or sociologists. We are not specialists in social transition, definitely not on the technical parts of a transition between a fossil based economy to renewable based economy. However, our claims come from our perspective as artists, and we know that the impacts of fossil fuel industries are deep and disastrous, especially in the countries of the global south. In Europe, we don’t see the real negative effects from fossil fuel industries. African, South American and Asian countries, that is where the biggest impacts actually occur.
You especially target the ‘art washing’ of Dutch oil company Shell, why is this concretely an issue? Why can’t the company ‘give back’ by financing cultural institutions in your opinion ?
FFC-NL: If an unethical company finances public institutions like a cultural institution, they gain positive publicity from it, they build a public image as a socially responsible company, or a philanthropist one that contributes positively in society. So it’s a way for fossil fuel corporations to hide their harmful operations and mislead the public. We are against it and the ‘art washing’ practices, that is when corporations wash their public image through the arts. This is our focus as artists, but it is equally important to do this work in other fields of society.
"If an unethical company finances public institutions like a cultural institution, they gain positive publicity from it"
Your unsolicited performances are very evocative metaphors and analogies, there are no speeches but you reveal things like telling someone a secret, about the company's machinations. What power holds art in calling out these practices?
FFC-NL: Art is very powerful because it creates images that you want to be associated with, images that are accessible to the public on different levels such as the emotional, the intuitive and at the bodily sensation level rather than purely the rational level. So it’s a way to communicate, to reach wider audiences at different levels. At the same time, art in history has always been at forefront of the change by transporting the avant-garde. We are showing how society should transform.
You have done enormous work on calling out cultural institutions that are close to home (NL), what about the sponsoring of cultural industries e.g filmmaking, fashion, the music industry...do you know if art-washing also exists there ?
FFC-NL: Yes probably, but it is not our field. We choose to target specifically public cultural institutions because they are financed by the public, they have a public interest and a public function. So, as citizens we have an appeal to these institutions, whilst the other cultural industries are private.
According to his definition of growth theory, Weber argues that culture is at the root of economic performance. Particularly, cultural attitude is decisive in the “institutionalisation” of knowledge. Meaning that, it is through a cultural standpoint with its attached values and morals, that we decide upon the accessibility and the acceptance of new ideas. How do you see this applied to FFC-NL ?
FFC-NL: In two ways, we are creating a concrete change when museums break ties with a company like Shell, because we close one door for Shell to clean their public image. In that sense we contribute concretely to the full erosion of their public image. At the same time, by telling the story we tell through the performances, we contribute to the change of perception through which the public perceive the role of fossil fuel companies in society. So it's both a tangible change plus a change of ideas, of perceptions.
When FFC-NL targeted NEMO, citing from your website, you said that : “Science and education are as much a part of culture as visual arts and music. We do not accept that a children’s museum has a partnership with a climate denier, destructor and human rights violator like Shell.” Would you say that your missions to educate more sustainably?
FFC-NL: Yes, but what is real sustainability ? That is also the question. These companies can also present themselves as sustainable companies. Sustainability is a term that has been watered down by businesses and other entities. We are dealing with cases that are quite concrete : Shell invests 98% of their profit into fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil) and we know that these resources create climate change. If you do that as a corporation you cannot simply be sustainable, even though you use the other 2% for renewables or any socially responsible activity. So, when Shell works with an educational institution like NEMO, creating a school program with children in which they present themselves as part of the innovation, or of a transition to renewables, it is a lie. And we stand against that, we have to correct these stories being told.
In a video where you made an appearance at the end of the orchestra playing at Concertgebouw, we can see attempts to stop you. What other observations have you made when confronting your audience ?
FFC-NL: I think the most important thing is that we stay true to our values and our mission. We cannot fully control how the public is going to perceive our performances. In every stage we worked, we had a different public. The Concertgebouw was very different from the public from the Van Gogh Museum and from the public of NEMO. There were also different times, NEMO was during lockdown so we engaged more with the online public. What we create is a balance between artistic and activist language, so in the way we communicate we are very clear with our demands and our message, but at the same time we do it by using images and metaphors. We try out things, sometimes it is more poetic, sometimes more activist. At the Van Gogh museum, during the performances the public was very receptive. In the Concertgebouw, they were not happy and there were complaints, but not all of them. We appeared at the moment the concert was going to finish, but then something happened: the orchestra decided to play one more piece as a background to the performance. So there are a lot of improvisations and things that can get out of our hands.
Your style of appearance and activism more generally is more disruptive, why do you think acting in this manner is fruitful to trigger discussions on sustainability?
FFC-NL: Every way is necessary to combat climate change. We are facing a horrible scenario and people are already experiencing it by now. The climate is breaking and it's going to get worse. So if we don’t do anything we are going to reach four degrees of global warming within this century. We believe in the combination of art and activism as a powerful way to change things, but that is also because we have skills in the arts in the house.
"Every way is necessary to combat climate change."
Learn more about Fossil Free Culture NL : https://fossilfreeculture.nl/
And through their Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/fossilfreeculturenl/