smh.com.au
Creative Australia to Review Biennale Dismissal Process
Creative Australia will review the selection process, not the decision, to remove Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino from the 2026 Venice Biennale, following community outrage and several resignations after the February 13 decision, six days after their appointment, and prompted by parliamentary questions about a 2006 Sabsabi artwork.
- What specific governance or decision-making failures within Creative Australia led to the controversial dismissal of Sabsabi and Dagostino?
- The review, conducted by Blackhall and Pearl, aims to identify flaws in Creative Australia's governance and decision-making processes leading to the controversial dismissal. Hundreds of artists signed an open letter demanding the reinstatement of Sabsabi and Dagostino and the resignation of Creative Australia's leadership. The decision came six days after their appointment and followed parliamentary inquiries into a 2006 artwork by Sabsabi.
- What are the long-term implications of this controversy for Creative Australia's reputation, funding, and relationship with the Australian artistic community?
- The review's limited scope, focusing on process rather than the decision's merits, may not fully address the concerns of the artistic community. The potential for an empty Australian pavilion in 2026 highlights the severity of the situation and the damage to Australia's artistic reputation. The review's recommendations could influence future artist selection processes within Creative Australia.
- What were the immediate consequences of Creative Australia's decision to dismiss Sabsabi and Dagostino, and what is the current status of Australia's representation at the 2026 Venice Biennale?
- Creative Australia's review into the sacking of Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino from the 2026 Venice Biennale will focus solely on the selection process, not the decision itself. This follows widespread outrage and resignations within the artistic community. The review's terms were released on Friday.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the review's limitations, highlighting what it won't examine (the merits of the decision) more prominently than what it will (the selection process). This downplays the controversy and potential wrongdoing, suggesting a pre-emptive defense of Creative Australia's actions.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although phrases like "shock decision to dump" and "widespread outrage" carry emotional weight and implicitly portray the decision negatively. More neutral terms like "decision to withdraw" and "significant criticism" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The review focuses solely on the selection process, omitting analysis of the decision to remove Sabsabi and Dagostino. This omission prevents a full understanding of the motivations behind the decision and the potential biases influencing it. The reasons for the removal, the political context (mention of the Coalition's parliamentary inquiry), and the broader implications for artistic freedom are largely absent, limiting a comprehensive assessment.
False Dichotomy
The framing presents a false dichotomy: the review will examine process, not the decision itself. This ignores the interconnectedness of process and outcome. A flawed process can lead to a flawed decision, and this separation prevents a complete understanding.
Sustainable Development Goals
The controversial sacking of artists and the subsequent lack of transparency in the review process undermine fair practices and trust in institutions. The incident sparked widespread outrage and resignations, indicating a failure of governance and potentially a violation of artistic freedom. The review's limited scope further fuels concerns about accountability and due process.