The open letter in question was signed by numerous members of the art community. First published in Art Forum, and later across multiple other platforms, the letter expressed not only support of Palestinian liberation, but urged for an end to “institutional silence”. It seems as though the voice of the institution and the voice of the individual have become indivisible — but why?
And how much does social media play a part?
While it is fairly straight forward to count the number of individuals who have come under proverbial fire for making themselves be heard, it is slightly more difficult to measure the countless voices who have been repressed. Muted before they have a chance to speak, these perspectives remain behind closed doors, or private handles; silent but numerous.
Growing numbers of people around the world have not only voiced disapproval of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, but specifically the disproportionate discourse skirting the issue, the deafening silence of institutions and individuals, and the slanted semantics used to discuss the situation. From social media to mainstream news coverage, literary tools such as word choice and active-versus passive verbiage have been employed by most major media outlets.
Journalist Ahmen Alnaouq recently commented that the use of deductive language used to describe Israel’s assault on Palestine is distinctly more sterile, which in turn marginalises an entire population’s suffering. This kind of language censorship is used as a way to control, or at least attempt to “control how much sympathy the public [has] for people,” according to Marc Own Jones, Associate Professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University and specialist on disinformation and propaganda.
In an attempt to explore the mechanisms of institutional control and the suppression of free speech, we spoke with Jane Doe. She works at one of London’s most prominent art institutions and leading organisations in the commercial art industry; with operations across five continents, the establishment is both international and influential.
On the heels of the letter signed by hundreds of artists and art world representatives, Doe explains why despite the great amount of influence afforded to her and her associates, institutional neutrality remains steadfast and commonplace, and how she and many of her colleagues would not be able to sign such a letter, even if they wanted to.
Jane Doe: Yes, the reason I want to keep this confidential is because I’ve had some conversations with some peers from the industry. We realised that some of the rules [imposed on us] are shared across all the [organisations]. They are not enforced by law, but either written in our contract or introduced [periodically].
NSM: How do you navigate those kinds of conversations with your peers? How does that conversation even happen?
JD: There are pubs at Bond Street and Mayfair that we go to. We can recognise each other very easily because when we go to previews we see the same faces, and when we go to these pubs we see the same faces – we are aware what organisation each of us is working for.
A lot of our peers are also influencers; it’s very easy to gain attention from posting things from work to your open social media account. What we have noticed in common is that a lot of our senior colleagues stress that everything you post on social media is your own view and does not represent anybody.
Sometimes we talk about work, some gossip, and then eventually realise that there are a lot of common restrictions at our workplace, including what we post on social media and what we should not be talking about as well as when it comes to public speaking. Everything must be orchestrated and approved and also under the control of corporate.
NSM: It makes me think of some particularly tight-lipped events that I have attended, always at the &%^$&£$ on &^$% Street.
JD: I am very skeptical that it may be part of their contract, that they are not allowed to expose too much about anything. We are not allowed to say unless explicitly given permission: in some topics maybe, like the quality or the condition of what’s on view or what is selling.
NSM: Another thing I noticed at this one establishment, in particular, is something about a lot of the people who work there. On their bio section of their social media, many of them have written the social media handle of the company and nothing else – almost as if to say that the corporation comprises their entire identity. I found it interesting that so many of them do it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pride of career, but it was certainly notable.
JD: It’s actually more common than you expect. Where I work, with some of the very well respected members of the corporation on social media, they can only say their name and department. When you dig into their instagram you will find that it looks like an extension of the corporate account.
There would be a brief description of artworks that were on view, or were sold, and maybe some photographs taken by the corporate photographers. They would never make comments or reply to any comments. Whatever they post is related to their work and, in the end, they would still stress that “I am affiliated to this corporation, but all the views I express are purely my own.”
NSM: I was curious if your workplace had done anything to address the fact that a major conflict had broken out in the Middle East?
JD: As far as I am aware, whenever any conflict outbreaks or a war starts or anything, we never receive such emails. The rules are very blurry in terms of what we are allowed to say. Corporate does have the right to ask us to remove anything that they consider to be either inappropriate or offensive. This boundary is very blurry, but we have a rough idea of what we’re not allowed to say.
We have also been told to dress in a very neutral style, and taught to speak in a very neutral tone. We are expected to take a neutral stance in any conflicts, whether it be a conflict between organisations or nations. Apparently it does not apply to every case; one of our senior members, from what I have heard, is affiliated with Israeli Zionist militia and is using their professional social media account to post things in support of the military aggression.
At first I thought it was because they are a senior member, they are highly refutable figure in the art industry, but later on it turned out to be more disappointing than I expected. Corporate is currently hosting an event for emerging artists, and within those artists one of them is using their social media account to spread propaganda in support of aggression. I was scrolling on social media and saw it – that shocked me.
What they have been posting is clearly against one side. I thought perhaps this is tolerated because of the fact that the mainstream media seems to be favouring one side [over] the other I’m not sure if it’s pro-aggression or just anti-Palestine, but they literally have memes on their social media page that are explicitly against Palestinian people.
NSM: If you felt like you wanted to post a national flag on your social media, do you feel like you would feel comfortable doing that?
JD: After I joined the organisation I tried to avoid following or being followed by any of my colleagues. Beyond that, I have also set my social media accounts to private. I am trying to protect myself, but still I feel like that may be something that I would not be able to do. After some events I realised that corporate is surveilling our social media accounts. Not only in social media but even what we say.
NSM: How can you tell that you are being surveilled?
JD: I was once told by a senior member not to do things in a way that I had done when I was alone in the office. I looked around and until now I still cannot find surveillance cameras. Eventually I found out that every one of my colleagues have more or less been told not to do or say certain things by senior or management level colleagues; for conversations that these seniors were not present for, or behaviours or actions at an event that those seniors did not attend.
I have seen a junior colleague being secretly filmed by a client at a business meeting. She was not aware of the filming because the client never asked for consent. Even outside those periods of times that we spent with clients or in public, we were told not to [contribute] any personal comments, not even in internal emails and messages to colleagues.
We have had colleagues who have been warned by management to reserve certain comments. Even something like “no comment” can be used by the press or other professionals and can lead to problems.
We have had lectures and messages from senior members that warn us about what we say. We have been instructed to always refer anyone to the press office instead of answering any question directly about anything.
Anything we say publicly is drafted by the PR office, so it’s all orchestrated.
NSM: The law is vague, as you say; it refers to something called social media misuse, or basically social media behaviour that can get you fired. Most of the misuse, as they refer to it, is to do with revealing private company information or criticising the company. The last one, which is the most vague, is “expressing off-colour personal opinions which could reflect badly on your employer.” This could be anything. Anything that is considered ‘off-colour’, whatever that means.
JD: I interpreted this rule as meaning that we are obligated to remain within a neutral stance at all times during conflicts. I thought I should carry this out because I’m an employee and that the industry is a relatively open platform. What we say could be more influential than we even intend it to be. I think in certain situations, corporate is using the power they have to pressure us to behave in a certain way, a way that will not make anyone feel uncomfortable.
NSM: Even the Art Forum editor, the reason he was fired was not because of being pro Palestine, but because he didn’t follow the editorial process.
JD: What I’m guessing is that rules are similar to ours, that whatever is said publicly must be prewritten and checked by the people who are in charge. We do not share any opinions about [the situation] at our workplace, simply because we do not dare to address something.
I have spoken on behalf of corporate in some cases, or opportunities to be the public speaker. Everything is written by senior members and edited by the PR team, so it is never one’s own words.
NSM: Would you theoretically feel comfortable attending any kind of protest during your free time?
JD: I would definitely still go, but I would always wear a mask and try to put on a hat, in case there any press taking photographs or filming the demonstration then my face would not be shown and could be recognised by my employer.
One thing I do worry about is that I have a public LinkedIn profile, which could be recognised not only by my employer but also by other professionals in this industry in general, and this could lead to problems in one way or another.
NSM: Do you strategise your LinkedIn much more because of the fact that it is public?
JD: Yes definitely. Before I joined this corporation, I was already following some of the people who work there and I have seen that they share a lot of things that – at the time I thought were what they were doing in their free time – but now I see it’s actually orchestrated by corporate.
The boundaries can be blurry at points, especially considering the strict dress code; boundaries that our employers are crossing from time to time, and this is not very acknowledged, neither by the public nor other professionals from this sector. We are not allowed to wear certain clothes at all; for example anything colourful or something very feminine, like skirts. At least for our position.
NSM: Different positions have different dresscodes?
JD: Yes.
NSM: What colours are you allowed to wear?
JD: Black, white, grey, and sometimes some neutral colours. Like skin colour, that’s the only colour we are allowed to wear. We are supposed to remain covered up, which I think is reasonable because sexual harassment from clients happens. I have heard girls [tell me] they have been sexually harassed on social media or by clients at meetings.
I am devoted to contemporary art dynamic and how innovative it is, but certain parts of this industry – you get a feeling that everything is stuck back in the 1900s.
NSM: Right – whoever said that 2023 was evolved anyways?
The names and identifying characteristics of some individuals have been changed.
