Published: 6 January 2025
Last updated: 7 January 2025
One of the most troubling schisms that occurred in the aftermath of October 7 was the response of the creative communities. Weeks of silence from many arts organisations and muted condemnation of Hamas at best. Jewish artists, writers and others felt a cold shoulder from their communities and many joined a Whatsapp support group.
The hostility reached a nadir early last year with death threats against Jewish artists, loss of livelihood and the doxing of some 600 members of the Whatsapp group, which became an international news story.
Although government arts agencies were not directly involved in any of the above, the main funding body, Creative Australia (CA), has played a role in supporting one of the most virulent public campaigners against Israel and Jews within the Australian arts community.
His name is Matt Chun, real name Matthew Jones. Chun is a NSW-based illustrator and author of children’s books. He was also one of the leaders of the doxing campaign and has a prominent history of anti-Zionist advocacy. Of course, he is entitled to hold these views in a country such as ours. But should he be rewarded with public funding of his arts projects?
In May 2023, Jones and his artistic collaborator Amy McQuire received a grant of $42,452 from Creative Australia (formerly the Australia Council for the Arts) to produce a picture book titled Policing In Australia, to be published by August this year.
Last month the Australian disclosed the awarding of the grant by Creative Australia (CA) in response to a question on notice in a Senate estimates hearing. The project description provided by CA said the book “will deepen Matt and Amy’s proven collaborative partnership, which led to the creation of the successful, 2022 Australian Book Industry Awards shortlisted children’s picture book Day Break,” the Australian reported.
Comments3
Mihali Dellaportas14 February at 04:25 am
This person, Matt Chun may be a skilled graphic artist or whatever he is, and he is entitled to a point of view, within reason. But his disturbing and bizarre views on the Bondi terrorist attack in which 15 innocent people were murdered, are simply morally repugnant and reprehensible! How could anyone think that they deserved to die! No, Chun should immediately at the very least, apologize. And to think I almost purchased one of his books! Congrats to Dymocks for refusing to continue stocking his material.
Martin Munz9 January at 09:56 pm
Would you please replace my original comment that had a couple of typos in its final paragraph with the corrected version below. Thanks. Martin.
I write as a former staff member of the predecessor organisation to Creative Australia (the Australia Council).
Although Creative Australia has changed in the years since I left the Australia Council, I assume its process for assessing applications does not extend, nor should it, to assessing an artist’s views on matters unrelated to the published assessment criteria for receiving a grant. This is fundamental to grant assessing otherwise neither the applicant nor grant assessors know the criteria against which competitive grant decisions are to be made.
To suggest that Creative Australia should be aware of an applicant’s views on matters unrelated to an application “as part of its background research into assessing his grant application” mistakes how grant assessment is done. Grant assessment is based on what applicants submit in their applications against the assessment criteria, not amorphous and unknowable “background research.” In the context of the wider article this suggestion seems to foreshadows a sort of political correctness as an undisclosed criterion in the assessment process. A criterion that would not meet widely accepted notions of equity and fairness.
Public art funding mainly assists artists to make specific works of art, save where awards are made that acknowledge life achievements of artists who have made exceptional contributions to the arts. However, most grants are to support specific art projects. They are not designed to provide artist with a living “in the interests of enriching society.” It would be good if there were schemes to do so, but unfortunately a general scheme of support for artists is not available in Australia. Even if it were, that support would need to be assessed against artistic criteria best judged by artist peers to avoid the creation of a politically approved cohort of artists that met undefined “character and broader background” checks. After all art is not a security business. Art, amongst other things, is made by artists to help us think about received ideas and expressive conventions.
As offensive as some might find Mr. Chun’s activism, is it not disingenuous on the one hand to defend his right to his opinions and advocacy, and on the other to condemn Creative Australia for making a grant for a project apparently unrelated to that advocacy? To further suggest that it should rescind its grant because the artist has persisted with his unrelated advocacy, even if by dubious means, after the grant was made, assumes Creative Australia has the novel power to so. I doubt that it does.
Martin Munz9 January at 10:15 am
I write as a former staff member of the predecessor organisation to Creative Australia (the Australia Council).
Although Creative Australia has changed in the years since I left the Australia Council, I assume its process for assessing applications does not extend, nor should it, to assessing an artist’s views on matters unrelated to the published assessment criteria for receiving a grant. This is fundamental to grant assessing otherwise neither the applicant nor grant assessors know the criteria against which competitive grant decisions are to be made.
To suggest that Creative Australia should be aware of an applicant’s views on matters unrelated to an application “as part of its background research into assessing his grant application” mistakes how grant assessment is done. Grant assessment is based on what applicants submit in their applications against the assessment criteria, not amorphous and unknowable “background research.” In the context of the wider article this suggestion seems to foreshadows a sort of political correctness as an undisclosed criterion in the assessment process. A criterion that would not meet widely accepted notions of equity and fairness.
Public art funding mainly assists artists to make specific works of art, save where awards are made that acknowledge life achievements of artists who have made exceptional contributions to the arts. However, most grants are to support specific art projects. They are not designed to provide artist with a living “in the interests of enriching society.” It would be good if there were schemes to do so, but unfortunately a general scheme of support for artists is not available in Australia. Even if it were, that support would need to be assessed against artistic criteria best judged by artist peers to avoid the creation of a politically approved cohort of artists that met undefined “character and broader background” checks. After all art is not a security business. Art, amongst other things, is made by artists to help us think about received ideas and expressive conventions.
As offensive as some might find Mr. Chun’s activism, is not it disingenuous on the one hand to defend his right to his opinions and advocacy, and on the other to condemn Creative Australia for making a grant for a project apparently unrelated to that advocacy. To further suggest that it should have rescinded its grant because the artist has persisted with his unrelated advocacy, even if by dubious means, after the grant was made, assumes it has that novel power to so. I doubt that it does.