Creative Australia’s recent decision to withdraw artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino from representing the nation at the 2026 Venice Biennale has ignited a multifaceted debate, underscoring the intricate interplay between artistic expression, political influence and institutional autonomy.
This incident not only highlights the challenges faced by cultural institutions under external pressures but also raises critical questions about the nation’s commitment to upholding artistic freedom and the principles of arm’s length governance in the arts sector.
More broadly, it exposes a pressing debate about the role we expect culture to play in our society and the alarming ease with which cultural voices can have their platforms – be they microphones, stages or exhibition opportunities – abruptly removed.
Michael Dagostino and Khaled Sabsabi. Photo © Anna Kucera/Creative Australia
Creative Australia’s Decision and its Contradictions
On 7 February, Creative Australia, the nation’s principal arts advisory body, announced the selection of Sabsabi and Dagostino for the prestigious Venice Biennale. This made their abrupt about-turn just a week later, on 14 February, all the more striking.
However, following external criticism – most notably from The Australian newspaper and shadow arts minister Claire...
Continue reading
Get unlimited digital access from $4 per month
Already a subscriber?
Log in
Regrettably, Samuel Cairnduff fails to remind us in this excellent summation of the Australian Arts Problem that his own podcast on Decoding Cultural Leadership contained an apt quote from Creative Australia board member Wesley Enoch – who has surely been hung by his own petard in calling for “artists and cultural leaders to embrace their role as society’s moral compass in safe spaces. On the podcast, he insisted, “The arts should be a very soft place to have a disagreement.”