‘No artist' will want to represent Australia at Venice Biennale after Sabsabi dumped, former museum head says
The Australian Pavilion at the 61st Venice Biennale is likely to remain dark next year for the first time, the former director of the Museum of Contemporary Art says.
Elizabeth Ann Macgregor on Tuesday weighed into the fracas over Creative Australia's decision to rescind its Venice Biennale contract to Lebanese-born Australia artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino, just six days after announcing the pair would be Australia's representatives at the 2026 prestigious international art event.
'Did Creative Australia honestly think they could just ring up the next artist on the shortlist? Well, they've all already made it very clear that none of them will be accepting the offer,' Macgregor told Guardian Australia on Tuesday.
'No artists worth their soul will touch that pavilion now. They can't. It's totally tainted. And it's so tragic.'Creative Australia's executive director, Adrian Collette, told staff at an angry meeting on Monday that the public outcry would have been greater than the one he now finds himself embroiled in, if the Sabsabi exhibition had gone ahead.
The fallout occurred after earlier works by the artist came to light that drew controversy from some politicians and media outlets for containing depictions of deceased Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
One of those works, You, a 2007 video installation that includes images of former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, was given to the MCA by Sabsabi in 2009, during Macgregor's tenure, and remains in the museum's collection today.
Related: Guardian Essential poll: Labor's policies appear unknown to voters as major parties neck and neck
Macgregor said questions now needed to be asked about the future tenure of Collette as head of the Australian government's arts funding, development and advisory body, and the position of advertising executive Robert Morgan as the organisation's chair.
Macgregor said arts minister Tony Burke had questions to answer. Burke confirmed on Monday he contacted Collette immediately after question time on Thursday, when Sabsabi's choice for the 2026 biennale was called into question by Liberal senator Claire Chandler.
'Normally I don't get involved in the decisions, but when something's due to be announced, I get sent up a brief with … what different issues that might be considered controversial,' Burke said.
'I rang Adrian to find out what had happened. At that point, he had already determined that they were going to have a board meeting that night.
'I was very clear. I made clear to Adrian Collette, who I have known for more than a decade, I said to him whatever you decide, I will support you and I will support Creative Australia.'
Other than issuing a written statement last Friday, the artist and the curator have not spoken out since.
Macgregor told the Guardian Australia's reputation on the international art scene had been damaged.
'I've had messages from around the world, people asking what on earth is going on in Australia?' she said.
'This not only reflects badly on arts leadership in this country, it reflects badly on our political system, with two major parties point scoring on the basis of an article sitting behind a firewall,' she said, referring to last week's The Australian column which accused Sabsabi of 'seemingly laud[ing] a terrorist leader in his past work'.
She said the MCA work in question, You, had been the subject of many 'incredibly interesting conversations' the museum had had with the public and school groups during her time as head of the institution, which in 2019 was named the most visited museum of contemporary art in the world.
'In no way was that work a glorification [of Nasrallah]. Art is complex, you have to read it within context. Many people have given different interpretations of it. And surely we have to allow space for that, even in this day of instant social media.'
Macgregor said You, and another Sabsabi work also singled out for criticism, called Thank You Very Much, featuring images of the 9/11 attacks and a clip of US president George Bush saying 'thank you very much', were created almost two decades ago, and in a very different context.
'Khaled is not an angry young man doing provocative work that's going to get everybody angry in the Venice pavilion, far from it,' she said.
'He's an experienced senior artist working with a very experienced curator who has managed many, many difficult projects. These are not people who are deliberately trying to provoke some sort of horrible backlash. That's just not what the proposal is about. On Creative Australia's own website it says the work will be about creating empathy from different positions, bringing people together, community engagement through art.'
Macgregor said she was disappointed in the 'lack of arts leadership' at an organisational level and at the 'deafening silence' from large arts institutions over the past week.
'Have they been silenced because their boards are worried about their funding and are telling them to remain silent?' she asked.
The horrific conflict in Gaza and the rise in antisemitic acts in Australia has created a tense community environment as the country heads into a federal election, Macgregor acknowledged. But that should not be a reason to disallow artists to engage with those events through their work.
'Should Creative Australia now issue an edict saying no one dealing with any subject of war can create work that is funded by the taxpayer? And are they going to go back through the social media accounts of any artist who gets a commission, to see what they've been doing or saying 15 or 20 years ago?
'This whole issue has set an extremely dangerous precedent.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What's happening to Harvard happened in Hungary first
Shattuck, currently a professor of the practice of diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, has deep experience in and knowledge of politics, diplomacy and academia. In the 1980s, he was a vice president at Harvard, responsible for the university's relations with government, and taught at Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School. He was an assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights in the Clinton administration, served as the US ambassador to the Czech Republic, and from 2001 to 2009 was chief executive of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. In 2009, he became the fourth president of Central European University in Budapest, which was founded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros in the heady days after the Soviet Union and communism collapsed, with an ambitious mission to help revive academic freedom in eastern Europe. Advertisement Shattuck's tenure as the president of CEU coincided with that of Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban, the authoritarian whom Trump has described as his favorite European leader. The As Vice President JD Vance put it, when it comes to reshaping higher education, 'I think his way has to be the model for us.' Advertisement Shattuck said Orban's attacks on universities in general, and CEU in particular, was in keeping with his populist ideology. 'His principal appeal was to a rural constituency, an anti-elite appeal,' Shattuck said. 'The elites were in Budapest. They were running the universities.' Because Hungarian universities rely on government funding, Orban was able to control them with relative ease. Privately funded by the Hungarian-born Soros, a bogeyman in right-wing circles whom Orban accused of importing left-wing ideology, CEU presented a more difficult challenge. While the Trump administration has framed its 'He certainly didn't do everything at once the way Trump has been doing,' he said. 'Orban did this over a number of years. He didn't use a series of executive orders. He used various pressures from accrediting agencies. As time went on, it became clear he wanted to shut down parts of the university.' In CEU's case, Orban demanded action in three specific areas of academic disciplines: he wanted to abolish gender studies, end the study of immigration issues, and to dramatically alter the way the Holocaust was taught. Shattuck said gender studies and research into immigration conflicted with Orban's vision of Hungary as a Christian nation. Orban rose to power as a vocal opponent of immigration, especially that from Muslim nations. 'Most disturbing,' Shattuck said, 'was that Orban began to characterize the Holocaust as having been caused by outside forces in Germany whereas history and scholarship demonstrated quite clearly that Hungarian participation in the Holocaust was local, not imposed by Hitler. You can imagine how controversial that was.' Advertisement One of Shattuck's earliest clashes with Orban was over CEU's Institute of Advanced Study, a post-graduate program in collaboration with other universities. The Hungarian government had supplied a building for the program, but the Orban administration abruptly ended that. 'They made it clear they wanted to shut it down. We wanted to keep it,' Shattuck said. 'But there were no government funds used, so the institute continued.' A few months later, Shattuck said, he was summoned to the education ministry, where he said officials told him if he didn't shut the program he would be accused of stealing state assets. But there were no state assets involved, and the Obama administration intervened, asserting that the US government backed CEU's autonomy and independence. But if CEU won that battle, the war continued. To hold off Orban, CEU tried to emphasize its value to Hungary. Shattuck said school provided a platform for diverse points of view, including ministers from the Orban government. 'We explained the economic value of the university to Hungary, taking no taxpayer dollars in our case,' he said. 'We increased the number of Hungarian students. We worked with other Hungarian universities.' But, Shattuck said, he drew a red line. 'If they wanted to work with us, fine, but we would not allow the government to make or mandate academic decisions,' he said. 'So we defended gender studies, immigration studies, history.' Harvard President Alan Garber is trying to draw a similar red line as the Trump administration tries to dictate the university's business. Shattuck said he has talked to Garber, offering advice to him and other Harvard officials framed by his experience with the Orban government. Advertisement He gives Garber high marks for 'He's reforming and changing the model, the way Harvard operates, providing broader access and diversifying the political opinions of faculty. These are things a university can and should do,' Shattuck said. 'My advice has been, draw the red line and stick with it. But also be very reasonable about ways to operate the university in the community. He (Garber) is doing that. Once the government starts making decisions about what can be taught and learned and discussed, that's when we've crossed into an authoritarian world.' In Hungary, despite CEU's best efforts, Orban kept up the pressure, eventually Shattuck doesn't believe Harvard will be forced to relocate to another country in its showdown with the Trump administration. But he said it's important that other universities and civil society in general stand in solidarity with Harvard and academic freedom. He notes that 'Two things to say about rising authoritarians,' Shattuck said. 'The only way to defeat them is to come together, and bring together people who are otherwise competitors. The second thing is to take Maria Ressa's advice.' Paraphrasing Ressa, the Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Shattuck said: 'You have to stand up now, because now is when your strength is greatest.' Advertisement Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A lingering Musk: Will ex-aide Elon get up Trump's nose?
Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill has careened into an Elon Musk-shaped brick wall, complicating its passage into law and risking a schism between the most powerful man in the world and the wealthiest. The US president's "big, beautiful bill" -- the centerpiece of his domestic agenda -- could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. But the budget-busting package is getting a rough ride in Congress over proposals to fund an extension of his 2017 tax relief by piling on debt and cutting social welfare for the poorest Americans. Enter tech billionaire Musk, who dropped a nuclear bomb on the 1,100-page blueprint at a crucial stage in negotiations on Tuesday, calling it a "disgusting abomination." Musk, who last week ended his brief advisory tenure as Trump's costcutter-in-chief, tore into the bill's exploding deficits and runaway spending in a prolonged denouncement. The South African-born tycoon has voiced concerns before, but his language was much more combative, coming across as a declaration of war on the Republican Party, if not Trump himself. The White House brushed off the criticism, saying Trump "already knows where Elon Musk stood," but the remarks will likely have gotten under the president's skin. - 'Lennon and McCartney' - The stakes could hardly be higher for Trump, who has made clear, with signature hyperbole, that he sees his bill as "arguably the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed." He has yet to respond personally to Musk's rant -- sustained over six hours, across 13 posts and reposts on his social media platform X -- and Washington watchers aren't necessarily expecting a public falling-out. Behind the scenes, a careful circling of the wagons is underway, with pro-Trump pundits under orders to refrain from trashing Musk and instead frame his broadside as what Politico called "principled self-interest." Still, for analysts contacted by AFP, there may be choppier waters ahead. "It's the Lennon and McCartney of modern politics. Two egos, one spotlight, and a fragile alliance built on mutual benefits," said Evan Nierman, the founder and CEO of global crisis PR firm Red Banyan. "The moment either one sees more upside in conflict than cooperation, the breakup goes public." But political consultant and former Senate aide Andrew Koneschusky, a key player in negotiations over Trump's 2017 tax cuts, believes the Republican leader has nothing to gain by biting back. "Musk has more money. Musk's megaphone, X, is bigger than Trump's. And Musk was deeply embedded in the administration for months," he told AFP. "There's no telling what Musk heard or saw that could be embarrassing or problematic for the administration if the two were to go to war." - 'Bromance' - Crucially, Musk lit a fire under right-wing lawmakers who voiced concerns over debt but cleared the bill for Senate consideration anyway -- almost the entire 220-strong House Republican group. Musk, who spent around $280 million getting Trump elected, undoubtedly has the cash to make his mark on the midterms and in the internal Republican candidate selection process. And the de facto leader of America's "tech bro" community demonstrated his political firepower in a single tweet in December that blew up a government funding bill that had enjoyed bipartisan support. His take on the deficit implications of Trump's proposals is evidenced by copious independent research and he was immediately backed by some fiscal hawks in the Senate. Continued interventions by Musk over government policy could be an ongoing headache for Trump, as he bids to shepherd his policy priorities through razor-thin Republican majorities in Congress. But cheerleaders of the package -- and independent analysts contacted by AFP -- believe the Tesla magnate may discover that his celebrity in Trumpworld relies entirely on the say-so of its mercurial chieftain. "Musk may have had influence in December when his bromance with Trump was in full bloom," said Donald Nieman, a political analyst and professor at Binghamton University in New York state. "But his break with Trump and his massive unpopularity with voters makes it easy for lawmakers to ignore him. If anything, it helps Trump by distancing him from a man who has become a pariah." ft/bjt


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
‘Canada's Got Talent,' filmed in Niagara Falls, won't be back next year
Is it lights out for 'Canada's Got Talent' in Niagara Falls? Citytv released its 2025/26 programming slate Tuesday and the reality competition series that has filmed at Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort since 2021 is not among the returning shows. 'We've decided to pause production of ('Canada's Got Talent') and the show will go on hiatus for next season,' said a spokesperson for Citytv when contacted Tuesday. The announcement comes just three weeks after the show aired its two-hour season 4 finale at Fallsview's OLG Stage, awarding Newfoundland singer Jacob Lewis $1 million. 'Canada's Got Talent' first aired in 2012 with judges Martin Short, opera singer Measha Brueggergosman and Niagara Falls-born singer Stephan Moccio. After the first season, it did not return until 2022. The new version of the show, filmed at Fallsview Casino's 1,500-seat Avalon Theatre, featured judges Howie Mandel, WWE icon Trish Stratus, YouTuber Lilly Singh and rapper Kardinal Offishall. It became Citytv's highest-rated new series in a decade. Filming shifted to the 5,000-seat OLG Stage at Fallsview Casino the next season, where it would remain. Episodes for each season would be filmed in late October at the venue, to air the following spring. Last year, the show took a dramatic leap by increasing the top prize to $1 million from $150,000, funded by Rogers. The current season saw the departure of judges Stratus and Singh and the addition of country music icon Shania Twain and comedian Katherine Ryan. Citytv would not elaborate on ratings for the final season or why the show is going on hiatus. Mandel, however, already has another Citytv show lined up. He will be the host of 'The Price is Right Tonight,' a new prime-time Canadian version of the iconic U.S. game show. Production starts in December in Toronto with 12 one-hour episodes airing next spring.