Celebration-But For Whom?

Performers and audiences confused

over Festival meaning.

AS Leonie Hellmers reports in this issue, Septem ber’s Fifth Festival of Pacific Arts (held in the Queensland city of Townsville) has raised ques tions of whether such celebrations of regional culture should be held in a so-called metropolitan nation.

Proponents would argue that Queensland, California or Japan have as much right to be classified as Pacific ven ues as do the many smaller island states.

Opponents counter that not only do such metropolitan locales represent onetime colonising powers (with the tragic effect colonialism has had on indigenous culture in all parts of the world), but that they are also more subject to manipulation by particular social, cultural or political forces: as witness the disagreement over this year’s Arts Festival, which many delegates saw as being “swamped” by Australian Aboriginal concerns.

Both points of view have merit; yet each has inherent flaws that serve only to heighten argument, not resolve it.

Perhaps the most telling argument against staging such celebrations at metropolitan venues was revealed in Townsville: apart from a suspiciously prompt and al most vindictive readiness on the part of Queensland’s media to publicise the Festival’s problems, hardly any na tional attention was given to it.

In smaller, more contained places, however, such an event assumes real importance, and not only are delegates and performers welcomed far more warmly into the host community, they are seen more as brothers and sisters than as admittedly colourful but somehow quaint and anach ronistic representatives of a romantic notion.

In contrast, the region’s claims to international impor tance supported by indications of its strategic and re source potential mean it must look to share its identity with its somewhat more distant neighbours. To do so, it must inform those neighbours of its immense cultural wealth, simply by performing and appearing in metro politan nations with a view to inviting those nations to share in a sense of “being Pacific”.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those neighbours: there is one academic/cultural body in Cal ifornia, for example, that labels itself a “Pacific’ institute, yet exchanges views, ideas and information solely be tween southern California and Japan! The millions scat tered throughout the rest of Oceania presumably exist only as objects of Western romanticising.

There is no clear solution to the dilemma; merely a fond hope that some way will be found to legitimise a Pacific identity among the world audience. What is needed to ac complish that is a willingness not only on the part of is landers to take real pride in their uniqueness, but a realisation on the part of metropolitan peoples be they black or white that the Pacific’s peoples are not there to use for political gain. To exploit them so is to insult the force of their culture that makes them an attraction. □