SwimSwam Pulse is a recurring feature tracking and analyzing the results of our periodic A3 Performance Polls. You can cast your vote in our newest poll on the SwimSwam homepage, about halfway down the page on the right side.
Our most recent poll asked SwimSwam readers on their take regarding Australians lobbying for financial backer Gina Rinehart and her attempt to get an unflattering painting taken down:
Question: Should Australian swimmers and organizations be involved in protesting the removal of the controversial Gina Rinehart painting?
RESULTS
- No – 65.6%
- Yes – 34.4%
Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart has been financially supporting Australia’s top swimmers over the last two-plus years, including offering hefty medal bonuses for last year’s World Championships, and even cut out the middle man, Swimming Australia, and started paying the athletes directly when the national governing body was slow to pay.
Rinehart’s support has gone beyond the swimmers, as she was named Swimming Queensland’s principal partner in 2023 and the organization immediately saw a hefty revenue increase.
In mid-May, reports surfaced that Rinehart disliked a portrait of herself put up in the National Gallery of Australia and wanted it taken down. The 70-year-old didn’t speak publicly about her specific feelings towards the portrait, but a campaign to have it taken down by Swimming Queensland on her behalf let it be known she found it offensive. The result has been a Streisand Effect, referring to when protest about an offense garners far more public attention than the initial offense ever did, as the pressure to remove the painting has made it far more famous than it was before that pressure.
Swimming Queensland CEO Kevin Hasemann coordinated a group of Aussie swimmers, including Kyle Chalmers, to request the portraits be removed.
Hasemann wrote a letter to the director of the national gallery, Nick Mitzevich, on “behalf of members of the Australian swim team.”
“Two portraits of our patron, Mrs Gina Rinehart AO, are of deep concern to us because they are offensive to Mrs Rinehart,” he wrote in April, according to The Guardian.
“Through her philanthropy, Mrs Rinehart has proven herself to be a great Australian, and we respectfully urge you to reconsider the inclusion of these portraits in your galleries,” continued Hasemann, who later said he’s never been to an art gallery.
“I’ve seen the artworks there, and I wouldn’t like to be depicted that way,” Hasemann told the Sydney Morning Herald.
“Probably if I were famous, I’d hope that someone would want to say, ‘Well, listen, hold on, that’s not nice’.”
The portrait was one of many unveiled as part of award-winning artist Vincent Namatjira‘s first major survey exhibition.
“I paint the world as I see it,” Namatjira said in response to the criticism. “People don’t have to like my paintings, but I hope they take the time to look and think, ‘Why has this Aboriginal bloke painted these powerful people? What is he trying to say?’”
Chalmers, one of Australia’s best and most marketable swimmers with six Olympic medals to his name, was one of 20 reported swimmers to have signed the letter.
“At the national championships, [the art] was definitely the talk of the swimming pool and everyone [was] throwing their support behind our patron that makes everything possible for us,” Chalmers said, according to BBC.
“I think she just deserves to be praised and looked upon definitely a lot better than what the portraits have made her out to be.”
Rinehart has recently “gifted” a portrait of herself to the gallery that she approves, though the gallery has yet to accept it.
Given that Australian swimmers (and Swimming Queensland) weren’t just vocal in their support for Rinehart, but went to official measures where letters of protest were sent on their behalf, it begged the question of whether or not they should be in this deep in support of their patron.
Nearly two-thirds of SwimSwam readers voted no, believing the swimmers and organizations should stay out of this type of situation. The other third voted yes, saying there’s no harm in them supporting her in exchange for the financial support she’s given them.
Rinehart has contributed something in the range of $40-60 million into swimming over the last decade, possibly the largest individual contribution to an Olympic sport ever. A mining magnate whose company “Hancock Prospecting” has sponsored numerous Swimming Australia National events, there’s no doubt she’s been beneficial in helping Australian swimming to continue to thrive, likely resulting in a windfall of medals later this summer in Paris.
On the other hand, she’s a controversial figure in Australia, having been outspoken on climate change beliefs, and her father, who founded the Hancock Prospecting company, once suggested Indigenous people in Australia need to be sterilized to “breed themselves out,” a comment Rinehart has never disavowed.
The question about whether or not the swimmers should be this involved in backing Rinehart in this instance is complicated if the funding flow was threatened to end if they didn’t go to bat for her.
Below, vote in our new A3 Performance Poll, which asks: Which relay event will be the most competitive for selection spots at the U.S. Olympic Trials:
Loading ...
ABOUT A3 PERFORMANCE
The A3 Performance Poll is courtesy of A3 Performance, a SwimSwam partner.
It’s a great painting. But that is just my opinion – not a fact.
Like beauty, the interpretation of art is in the eye of the beholder. If you see it as being critical of Gina it is probably because you think she has done things that warrant criticism.
The other subjects are painted in the same style. None of them are flattering – they are impressionist. I don’t think anyone believes the artist was trying to “insult” Eddy Mabo, Adam Goodes and Kathy Freeman.
The purpose of art is to prompt conversations and spark ideas. Vincent Namatjira has succeed in doing this. Even swimmers talk about art now… Consider yourself critics and have an opinion. Demand… Read more »
The next Archibald winner (that’s the prize for Oz’s best portrait) should probably be one of horrible Gina throwing dollar notes into a swimming pool while bulldozers behind her are destroying indigenous places to mine precious ores to ship off to China.
I don’t think swimmers should be getting involved, but it IS a pretty ghastly portrait.
Also it’s both 100m distances for this poll, tho the men’s seems to have a billion more legit contenders.
Dressel, Guiliano and Alexy seem a bit ahead of the field, but the rest of semis could be any of like what, 25 dudes?
I’m at least more confident on who’ll be in the final for the women.
I think they should be involved in portrait drama, because it’s embarrassing for them, and to me, that’s good.
Gina has the money to buy the paintings and destroy them lol. She has given a portrait she does like to the national gallery upon conditions, so its not on display. Gina does not have to like or approve of any art that depicts her. Yes, she is a great benefactor to swimming, and other sports. Should the swimmers have gotten involved, no. I hope they didnt have to, to receive the money. Bring on the real event, the swimming!!
Are you kidding. Do you realise how much money this lady contributes to Australian swimming. Australia’s mainstream swimmers dont have to work,
Most top swimmers don’t have to work.
Gina not only supports swimming with cash she goes to swim meets when she can , she has a friendship directly with some of the swimmers . Have you seen the painting its nothing like her . She cares about swimming when she found out Swimming Australia was slow passing on money from Gina to the swimmers directly she by passed Swimming Australia , good on her.
By going to events she takes spaces away from coaches, physios and support staff.
……? How?
Because she demands to be in spaces with the team that are limited. She doesn’t pay for her own tickets to events.
The ‘painting’ includes the portraits of 16 different people- they are all caricatures in some form, none of them flattering.
No one else has complained….
Anyone seen the movie “Foxcatcher”????
The problem that arises when you have ultra-rich individuals getting their “mitts” into the inner workings and moreover, having personal relationships with the folks who are the recipient(s) of the loot is that it creates a power imbalance coupled with the potential for “meddling” and inappropriate influence. Aussie swimming, USA swimming, Swim Canada, etc., while needing $$ to operate, should ensure and mandate that any/all external or philanthropic monies that they receive from “outside” individuals be 100% hands off. It’s weird and creepy to think of a philanthropist hob-nobbling with the athletes (as the suggestion- I assume it’s fact..that she has PERSONAL relationships with the swimmers outside of the pool). If it were a white… Read more »
Do I think that Gina Rinehart is a good person? No.
Do I support her company or viewpoints? No.
Am I grateful that she has invested so much in swimming? Absolutely.
Am I surprised that swimmers are grateful to her because her money has transformed lives for a lot of them and created opportunities that otherwise wouldn’t be there? Of course not.
Do I care that some swimmers signed a private letter requesting the painting be taken down? No. I wish they hadn’t only because of the ridiculous drama that has followed. If they suddenly came out and started parroting discriminatory nonsense that she told them to say then I would have a problem.
If the poll had a response… Read more »