Freedom's Triumph

# 599

Joy! Joy! Freedom of speech & thought secured!

There seem to be no limits to the pusillanimity of Australia’s politicians and media when it comes to the arts. I’m using the six-syllable word advisedly because it feels just right, signifying: timidity, cowardliness, hesitation, spinelessness, fearfulness and faintheartedness. All these traits are on display in the decision to reinstate Khaled Sabsabi as our official representative at next year’s Venice Biennale.

For good measure I’d probably add foolishness to the list. It was a colossally foolish decision to make Sabsabi our representative in the first place, and the processes behind that decision still seem horribly murky.

Having got themselves into trouble by ignoring all the reasons this choice was bound to be controversial, the Creative Australia people proceeded to cancel the nomination, stirring up further outrage and embarrassment. Now, five months and a handful of resignations later, they have decided that Khaled should be restored. What makes this doubly embarrassing is that none of the reasons for the cancellation have changed. The about-face represents a new determination to interpret two of the artist’s works in the opposite way to that in which they were previously viewed.

To reiterate: the video works, You (2007), which features the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah with a divine light shining from his face; and Thank You Very Much (2006), edited in such a way as to make it seem that George W. Bush is thanking the terrorists for the 9/11 attacks, were not accompanied by an artist’s statement praising Hezbollah or attacking America. They are ambiguous, in the manner of so much contemporary art. One might read them as ironic, or as a tragic reflection on history and the way one act of violence begats another in an endless cycle. If there was a fixed intention it’s known only to the artist and his closest associates.

The majority of people watching those videos will see only praise of Nasrallah, and contempt for the sufferings caused by the 9/11 attack. It’s not sufficient to say: “What about the greater sufferings of the Palestinian people?” Nobody could deny the horror and outrage of Gaza, or the oppressive conditions under which the Palestinians have existed for decades, but you don’t win hearts and minds by celebrating the violence inflicted on your enemy. Those who died in 9/11 were not involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Like thousands of women, children and old people callously eliminated by IDF forces in the current onslaught they were victims of ruthless campaigns orchestrated by political barbarians.

The October 7 massacre and subsequent carnage in Gaza are not matters in which artists should dabble recklessly. The polarisation of opinion and the increasingly volatile reactions make it imperative that a nation such as Australia should not be sending anyone with such an avowed partisan position to the Venice Biennale. At this fragile moment in history we should no more be sending an outspoken advocate of the Palestinian cause than we would an outspoken Zionist.

Artists in a free society will always do whatever they like, and as political beings will make works that respond to the crises of our age. One should not expect Khaled Sabsabi to be indifferent to what’s happening in Gaza, or to refrain from expressing his views – both in words and in the art he makes. The one and only issue is that in Venice he will be representing all Australians, including those who vehemently disagree with his position, and repudiate his work.

When a selection is this divisive it destroys the whole basis of showing an artist as our supposed national representative. At some point in the future Sabsabi might be a more legitimate prospect, but at present he cannot be anything but an inflammatory choice. No matter how often he and his curator, Michael Dagostino, swear they are solely devoted to the cause of peace, love and understanding, the works of the past cannot be unmade, and the artist’s name on the petition that sought to ban Israel from the previous Biennale, cannot be erased.

When an artist wants to ban another artist but is then shocked and hurt when he himself gets cancelled, it argues a double standard that needs to be taken seriously. It suggests an ingrained partisanship that should be disqualifying when one is playing the role of cultural ambassador for all of Australia.

In this sense, I was amazed to find Jacqui Maley, usually a level-headed columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, writing in defence of Sabsabi: “The idea that an artwork should not be ‘divisive’ is an extraordinary one, an anti-creative concept which, if you follow it to its natural conclusion, leads us inexorably to the end-point of propaganda.”

I couldn’t agree less. No-one is arguing that artworks should not be ‘divisive’. With the Sabsabi selection it’s the topic that is divisive, in the worst possible sense. Khaled can be as divisive as he likes in a free country but that’s very different to putting this divisiveness on stage in Venice, at the risk of alienating a large group of people one is representing. There’s a far simpler path to propaganda for an artist so fixed in his views.

Maley’s conclusion is that “the only worthwhile test of social cohesion is our ability to support freedom of expression and diversity of thought at the moment when it urgently matters. Which is right now.”

For someone who is often insightful about politics, this seems incredibly shallow. It’s hard to see how Sabsabi’s selection supports “diversity of thought” when it is so clearly one-sided, on a collision course with the equally one-sided views of the defenders of Israel.

In the contemporary art world, there is a virtual tradition of avant-garde outrage and offence - most of it occurring within the antiseptic space of a museum or gallery, where such antics are expected and encouraged. Many of the things artists have done within museums would get them arrested in the street outside. We respect the freedom of artists to do wild and crazy things, so long as those things don’t impinge on our own sense of wellbeing. Israel and Palestine is not an issue that museums are eager to embrace because it transcends the bounds of the acceptably unacceptable.

As soon as an institution takes an ‘official’ position on such matters it risks stirring up the antipathy of its Jewish visitors and supporters, or the Arab community. It’s not a debate to be had within the privileged space of the gallery, it’s part of the wider world, complete with death and suffering, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. For museums there is no special virtue to be gained that won’t be viewed by others as mere bigotry.

What’s most revealing about Maley’s comments is that she is beating the drum for “freedom of speech”, which seems to be the grand illusion most media commentators and politicians have fastened upon.

By now we should be wary of those who constantly talk about “freedom of speech”. For Elon Musk, who never stops bleating about the concept, this effectively means the freedom to post lies, hate speech, conspiracy theories, racist and Nazi propaganda on social media. I could provide more examples, but you get the picture. As in Musk’s case, this freedom only seems to apply to one’s own views. Those with whom you disagree may be censored and excluded.

For Sabsabi, his own views are sacrosanct but the artist in the Israeli pavilion needed to be closed down. In my own case - please note, Jacqui – I spent the past three years watching the Sydney Morning Herald mutilating and censoring articles to remove views they didn’t want to see in print. So much for ‘freedom of speech’ at the SMH.

Arts Minister, Tony Burke, is keen on freedom of speech, but not so keen that he is willing to allow hate speech. He demonstrated his credentials in this regard by letting us know he had banned Kanye West from entering Australia, after the release of a tasteful new anthem, Heil Hitler. The odd point about this was that West didn’t seem to have any immediate plans for visiting us anyway. If he had a sudden urge to fly over and meet his wife’s folks Tony has taken that out of the equation.

Purely by coincidence this piece of news was released at roughly the same time the Minister was reinstating Khaled Sabsabi. Anyone of a cynical disposition might imagine Tony was keen to show Jewish voters that he was red hot on anti-Semitism, as few of them will be celebrating the good news that Khaled is back.

The Muslim community, like the population in general, shows no special interest in contemporary art, but they are far touchier when it comes to perceived insults and discrimination on ethnic grounds. The Jews are just as sensitive, but if one looks at the respective numbers of Muslim and Jewish Australians, Khaled has the math on his side. There are approximately a million Muslims in Australia and less than 120,000 Jews. Not only are the Jews disadvantaged in terms of numbers, they tend to live in Liberal strongholds. In electoral terms they are the ones it is safer to offend. Nevertheless, I’m sure Tony and his gang would see such thoughts as idle speculation, unworthy of Labor’s high moral standards.

No-one could ever accuse the Arts Minister of being a disagreeable fellow. When Sabsabi was announced as Australia’s official representative for the next Venice Biennale, Tony was fully supportive. When the decision was reversed and Sabsabi was dumped, Tony was fully supportive. When Creative Australia flip flops and reinstates Sabsabi, Tony is… you guessed it. Rarely does one find such a dedicated application of the ‘arm’s length’ principle that supposedly keeps politics out of arts funding decisions. Were the Minister replaced by a parrot one could not expect a more consistent performance.

If anyone has to take the fall over the Sabsabi debacle, it won’t be Tony Burke.

The catalyst for the CA turnaround was an independent review by Blackhall & Pearl, whoever they are, which found that although nobody was actually to blame, a number of things went wrong. At first glance this sounds right up there with an old, pricey Australia Council report by Saatchi and Saatchi that found lots of people in Australia like the arts for all sorts of reasons.

More precisely there were “a series of missteps, assumptions and missed opportunities that meant neither the leadership of Creative Australia, nor the board, were well placed to respond to, and manage in a considered way, any criticism or controversy that might emerge in relation to the selection decision”.

It seems it was all down to an act of God.

Is it just me who finds it hard to believe in the independence of any “independent review” commissioned by government? What happens now? Do those employees who resigned in haste get rehired? Is the Board going to be praised for their courageous decision, or are the masses still baying for blood?

What’s truly miraculous is how someone deemed unacceptable in February is now OK in July, although nothing substantive has changed. The videos of Hasan Nasrullah and 9/11 deemed so offensive are now apparently neutralised. It seems we were misinterpreting them all along, although the works are so ambiguous there’s obviously no definitively ‘correct’ way to read them. At first we thought they were bad, now we think they’re just dandy. If you’re still offended, well bad luck! The official interpretation has changed.

Tony Burke has said “I don’t put myself out there as an art critic,” but that’s where he’s wrong. He’s acting as an art critic, and so are the crew at Creative Australia. To completely change their interpretation – which is now the official interpretation – of works previously thought “shocking”, is art criticism in action, unless we see it as mere sophistry. Following the abandonment of criticism in the mainstream press, Tony and his CA colleagues should be intoning: “We are all art critics now.”

Wesley Enoch, the acting chair of CA, following Robert Morgan’s retirement, has given his own positive endorsement, saying: “Those who mischaracterise [!!] the work aren’t being honest to the intention of the work or the practice that this artist has, who is an incredibly peace-loving artist in the way that they construct their images.”

I had a sudden vision of an incredibly peace-loving Khaled racing onto a rugby field, shouting “Stop! Stop this senseless violence!”

But Wesley wasn’t finished. Having already been part of a humiliating backdown, he now sauced the dish with a little extra abjection: “To Khaled and Michael – I’ve done it in person, but to say it here very publicly, I want to apologise to them for the hurt and pain they’ve gone through in this process.”

Heigh ho, heigh ho. It’s off to Venice we go! I hope this helps with the pain, although I don’t expect the Jewish lobby to feel much sympathy.

Having done a bit of art criticism myself and seen a great deal of Khaled’s work over the years, I’ve never detected the God-like genius that his admirers have discerned. He tends to work with photographs, videos and installation, with a heavy political emphasis. This means he is not the sort of artist people will be clamouring to buy through the commercial galleries.

To his pals at CA, this makes Khaled all the more attractive. Being resolutely non-commercial is a badge of integrity, as is his political stance. By way of compensation or reward they have been happy to shower him with grants and finally send him to Venice to represent this country. If those pesky Jews don’t like it, boo hoo.

One point that most of the commentators have overlooked while celebrating the victory of ‘freedom of speech’, is the research undertaken by The Australian, which revealed how much money CA had granted to Khaled and other members of a group of contemporary Muslim artists called the Eleven Collective. Anyone can apply to be on a CA committee, with lucky winners chosen by a handful of bureaucrats, but the Eleven Collective Artists have been unusually successful in securing seats at the table. They’ve had equally remarkable success securing funds.

I won’t go back over the details, but the articles in The Australian are worth reading. Their rivals have not only ignored the substance of this investigation, which casts a shadow on their favoured narrative, they have been quick to dismiss anything in the evil Murdoch press as being biased and beat up.

This is the state of journalism in Australia today. Rather than read what the other side has written, you simply say they’re awful people and can’t be trusted. It’s all to do with what you want the story to be, regardless of another journalist’s inconvenient fact-finding. To wilfully ignore The Australian’s findings is not just slack journalism, it’s dishonest and incompetent. Even as I post this piece I see there’s another investigation into CA cronyism just published in the Oz.

A writer who did his own research was Christopher Heathcote in Quadrant, who looked at Khaled’s brilliant record with CA. “In recent years, he writes, “the Council appointed him a mentor for its Biennale Delegates program (2022), gave him the annual $80,000 Creative Australia Award for an artist (2023), then sent him for a two-month Rome residency on an $8,500 Creative Australia Fellowship (2024). Now it granted him the Venice Biennale with a $100,000 stipend.”

He also notes: “The former Australia Council barred individual visual artists from receiving successive annual grants. To thwart favouritism and rorting, there were stipulated time frames before a funding recipient was eligible to apply for another program grant. But Sabsabi’s case shows consecutive grants authorised and favouritism openly occurring.”

I’m sure the reaction to this sober piece of analysis will be an unwillingness to accept anything that appears in the pages of Quadrant, as it’s another evil, right-wing rag in the eyes of the virtuous ones.

One classic text of this persuasion was written by Osman Faruqi, formerly a pop culture guru at NINE Media. On his aptly named Lamestream site he waxes indignant about The Australian and claims Khaled was “smeared” by a mysterious dossier detailing information about the Eleven Collective. True or false, all relevant information needs to be processed in cases such as this one. If there was no case to answer, CA should have been professional enough to see through any “smears”.

He concludes that this case shows “how terrifyingly easy for it is for [a] journalist or an artist to be thrown to the wolves all to satisfy some relatively minor pressure from the pro-Israel lobby or the right-wing media.”

As the artist has now been reinstated, and the press are overwhelmingly on his side, this takes the puff out of an analysis that shows all the signs of chronic ideological constipation. I hope Osman is taking something for it.

In the Faruqi view of the world, favouritism and victimisation live happily together. The fact that Khaled has had more grants from CA than anyone in living memory, is just fine. He’s also on the Sydney Biennale committee, and the NSW government’s Visual Arts advisory board. Yet none of this seems to disqualify him from being a victim of discrimination from anti-Muslim forces.

All the celebrations will not make this whole sorry episode look any better or bring together those groups who are bitter enemies. Neither will it save us from looking like clowns in Venice, as the damage to our reputation is already done. It’s a terrible instance of the small-world thinking of the artworld bubbling over into the real world. Inside the contemporary art bubble it’s axiomatic that a pro-Palestinian artist should represent us in Venice. Outside it’s barely conceivable.

When death and suffering are involved it’s obscene to think that art can somehow be the panacea, especially when the nominated artist takes a partisan position. How CA could ever believe Khaled Sabsabi was an appropriate candidate for this Biennale shows the unworldliness of those who made the initial decision and let it be announced. If the cancellation was clumsy and embarrassing, the reinstatement is even more so because it suggests the Board and the Minister did not pay much attention to the facts the first time around and are now trying to spin an entirely contrary narrative. It feels like a hollow gesture, based on nothing but perceived political expediency, but it has been welcomed by a large segment of a sheep-like media.

When we look back on this ridiculous tale of bureaucratic and political self-harm, the only positive may be its potential for a TV comedy series. At this point we could all use a laugh.

As I’m still travelling, and have been writing a piece on Emily Kame Kngwarreye at Tate Modern for The Australian, that’s all I’ve got this week. I hope you’ll agree there’s plenty to chew over.