
From Creative Australia to Sydney writers' festival, the direct threat facing the arts is coming from within
On Monday we saw the resignation of Kathy Shand, chair of the Sydney writers' festival. Obviously individual board members, like donors, have every right to decide the values of an organisation do not align with their own.
They also have every right to take their chequebooks elsewhere. Boards are responsible for hiring and firing their artistic directors, for setting strategy and managing risks. A cursory survey of the composition of Australian arts boards would reveal they are filled almost entirely by generalists – directors with financial, legal and marketing expertise. Those skills are essential. However, knowledge of the particular art form is rare indeed. Having appointed an artistic director, it is incumbent upon boards to uphold the former's vision. Opinions are to be welcomed but expertise must surely trump the former.
Earlier this month we saw the scandal unravel at Creative Australia after the newly appointed opposition spokesperson for the arts, Senator Claire Chandler, saw an opportunity in parliament to ask why Khaled Sabsabi had been appointed as Australia's artist to the 2026 Venice Biennale. Her 'concern' was prompted by a work made 20 years ago that purportedly 'highlighted a terrorist leader'. Obviously visual literacy isn't in the modern politician's job description, which is why independent expert panels are so important when it comes to judgments about art and culture.
Rescinding the invitation to Sabsabi six days after lauding his appointment is a victory for those who briefed Chandler. Creative Australia has now commissioned a review, suggesting the advisory process was flawed.
This most recent controversy – only the latest in a long series of pre-emptive self-censoring gestures by Australian arts organisations – suggests the direct threat facing the arts is from within.
Justifying its about-face, Creative Australia stated 'the board believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia's artistic community'. This managerial-speak obscures at least one dubious assertion – that public support exists for Australian artists. However, it is a claim that we need to take seriously: art, in this (quietist) vision, is the business of consensus. The purpose of art is apparently to affirm the status quo.
If 'divisiveness' (taken here to mean dissent) is deemed 'unacceptable' by Australia's leading arts body, what then are we to make of its mandate – 'to uphold and promote freedom of expression in the arts'? This constitutional obligation seems to have been overlooked in the rush to appease critics with a megaphone.
It can be difficult to see what is in plain sight, in part because of the banality of the language. Such a pre-emptive capitulation is not merely a rebuke to the artist and a convenient amnesia regarding the board's charter, but more importantly a hostility to art itself.
Once upon a time Creative Australia's role was in part to advocate for the arts to government and the community. That task seems to have been abandoned, with the peak arts body reduced to apportioning sorely needed funds. However, the cancellation of Sabsabi is just the latest in a litany of governance failures across all art forms in recent years. Perhaps Creative Australia could show some urgently needed leadership and convene a national conversation to re-establish trust between artists, arts managers, boards and supporters.
The scandal highlights just how fraught the relationship between boards, management and artists has become. The corporatisation of arts boards all too often paradoxically results in amateurish governance, increasing reliance on philanthropy and sponsorship and a concomitant escalation in influence over artistic decisions.
What we have seen both at Creative Australia and now with Shand's resignation is a confusion of roles, a disrespect for the important separation of powers. Personal views of curatorial judgments are simply personal and should not displace the principle of the artist's freedom of expression or the independence of curators.
Many artists feel a moral obligation to use their voices and their art to speak to the injustices and cruelties of the times. Would we wish artists to be indifferent, to narcissistically ignore the world in which they make their art? Even the 19th century artist in his (most often male) garret could not be immune to the life outside his door.
In 2023 three actors in Sydney took a curtain call wearing keffiyeh. The usual cultural sentries hyperventilated, ratcheting up outrage across column acres. On opening night, well-heeled titans of commerce and finance became suddenly fearful in their premium seats, feeling intimidated by impecunious artists with different opinions.
These captains of industry closed their chequebooks. Emails circulated encouraging donors across the nation to join them and withdraw funding from those arts organisations who had responded to artists' demands for statements calling for a ceasefire and an end to the occupation.
Historically donors tended to prefer the anonymity of genuine philanthropy free from self-aggrandisement. What has changed is the sense of entitlement: donations now come with expectations, seats at the board table and judgments about curatorial decisions. Now donors want relationships with the organisations they choose to support: naming of buildings and programs, expectations of invitations, of being feted and of the omnipresent complimentary tickets. When accepting the corporate or donor dime it is probably worth recalling the aphorism that one needs a long spoon to sup with the devil.
Last year Baillie Gifford, one of the largest corporate sponsors of the arts (and in particular of literary culture) in the UK withdrew its support from literary festivals after a Fossil Free Books (FFB) campaign linked its protest to the climate crisis and Israel's war on Gaza. Some festival organisers felt 'bullied' by the artist-activists' threat of a boycott of their events and were encouraged by some literary luminaries with opposing views to resist the pressure. Hay festival lost £130,000, Edinburgh international book festival £350,000. At least 10 UK literary festivals are now imperilled as a consequence. This means fewer opportunities for writers to discuss their work, promote their books and publicise their concerns before huge and attentive crowds.
Was the FFB campaign a smart strategy? One writer asked why activists had not focused on the 'real enemies' – calling on colleagues to 'withdraw their labour' and strike against the Murdocracy for example, by refusing to publish with Harper Collins, or demanding to be deleted from the Times bestseller lists. Another argued that among all corrupt and complicit corporations, Baillie Gifford is a mere minnow.
Those of us working in arts organisations share gallows humour while spending endless executive hours drafting risk analyses to assuage nervous boards. The reality is that risk is inevitable, buffeted by mass-media opinionistas and social-media warriors. So artists require boards with fortitude and a commitment to support the artistic vision. There needs to be a shared recognition that art is by its very nature unpredictable, all arts consumers can never be satisfied, and box-office revenues can't be guaranteed.
So, what might good cultural leadership look like? The tail should not wag the dog – those tails include the government of the day, directors, donors and sponsors. When boards resent the pressure they feel from artists, they seem to forget that organisations exist to enable artists and their work.
When Adelaide writers' week in 2023 showcased Palestinian contemporary writing, there was a media flurry engineered by antagonists. I remember the leadership shown by the former chair of Adelaide festival who robustly responded to the withdrawal of one sponsor by asserting perhaps they weren't the sort of sponsor we wanted.
Arts organisations require directors with legal, financial and political expertise. But directors must understand the organisation's core business. Boards need an appetite for risk, clarity in their mandate and confidence in both the art form and the audience. Artists need to be appointed to arts boards and to be taken seriously.
Finally, government relationships must continue to be at arms length, holding fast to the principle of curatorial independence. The long-term sustainability of arts organisations is under threat, once again, from a lack of funding, poor governance, declining and ageing audiences and a lack of courageous leadership.
Louise Adler's professional life has been in the cultural sphere as a board member, publisher and artistic director. This is an adapted extract of her essay 'Culture, Money and Morals' in What's the Big Idea? 32 Ideas for a Better Australia (Australia Institute Press)

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


Metro
6 hours ago
- Metro
Nicole Kidman could flee Trump's US after applying for residency in Europe
Nicole Kidman could be swapping US soil for the sun of Portugal after applying for residency in the country. The Babygirl actor, 58, submitted her paperwork to the country's immigration agency earlier this week, according to local media outlet SIC Notícias. The Australian icon, who was seen stepping out of a private jet in Cascais – a wealthy seaside enclave just outside of Lisbon – is reportedly browsing for a lavish new pad. The Oscar-winner is said to be eyeing up a property at the CostaTerra Golf and Ocean Club, a luxury development about 130km south of Lisbon, which is known as a favourite among the Hollywood elite. George Clooney and Paris Hilton enjoy spending time here, and it is also a base for Princess Eugenie. Husband Keith Urban was reportedly not mentioned in the documents. The New York Post reports that the Blue Ain't Your Colour singer was unable to break away from touring for the trip. 'Keith was unable to be in Portugal for this appointment as he is currently on tour in the US, and it is mandatory for applicants to be physically present to apply for the visa,' The Post reported. 'He is scheduled to submit his application at a later date that works with his tour schedule.' The Portugal Golden Visa program allows investors to obtain residency through real estate investment. Kidman and Urban already own a home in Lisbon. Kidman and Urban have multiple properties across the US and Australia, with the Holland actor spending much of her time in the US due to work. They wouldn't be the first stars to leave the US since Trump's presidency began. Comedian Rosie O'Donnell moved from the US to Ireland, with Trump recently threatening to revoke her citizenship. Posting on Truth Social, he said the star was 'not in the best interests of our great country', adding: 'I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her.' O'Donnell posted a picture of Trump with his arm around Jeffrey Epstein on her Instagram in response. Addressing the President, she suggested she lives 'rent-free in that collapsing brain of yours' after 18 years of animosity between them. The comedian added: 'You are everything that is wrong with america – and I'm everything you hate about what's still right with it. More Trending 'You want to revoke my citizenship? go ahead and try, king joffrey with a tangerine spray tan.' Talk show host Ellen DeGeneres has fled the US for the UK at the end of 2024. Ellen and her wife, Portia de Rossi, made the leap and ditched their life in Montecito and set themselves up in the ultra-luxury English countryside, the Cotswolds. The Wrap reported that the duo told friends that Trump's coming to power was the 'primary motivation' and that they planned to 'never return' to the US. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: The Jonas Brothers reflect on creepy questions about their sex life aged 14 MORE: Denise Welch reveals why she's 'glad' to not be Taylor Swift's mother-in-law MORE: 70s jazz musician Chuck Mangione dies aged 84


The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
Britain and Australia to sign 50-year nuclear submarine treaty
Britain and Australia announced they will sign a cooperation treaty to build Australian nuclear-powered submarines and welcomed a review by President Donald Trump's administration of the United States' role in the trilateral defense deal. Britain's Defense Secretary John Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Friday with their Australian counterparts Richard Marles and Penny Wong in Sydney for an annual bilateral meeting. Marles said he and Healey will sign a 50-year treaty Saturday that will underpin bilateral cooperation on building an Australian fleet of submarines powered by U.S. nuclear technology. 'It is as significant a treaty as has been signed between our two countries since federation,' Marles said, referring to the unification of several British colonies to form the Australian government in 1901. The three-way alliance was announced in 2021 to contend with growing Chinese military might in the Asia-Pacific region. It would deliver Australia at least eight submarines including three to five second-hand U.S. Virginia-class submarines. Britain and Australia would cooperate to build their own SSN-AUKUS submarines. US reviewing AUKUS trilateral submarine deal U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reviewing the pact, known by the acronym AUKUS, that was entered into by U.S. President Joe Biden's administration. There are concerns that the U.S. won't provide Australia with its first Virginia-class submarine by the early 2030s as planned because U.S. submarine-building was behind schedule. Marles and Healey declined to speculate on whether Britain and Australia would continue with jointly building submarines if the U.S. pulled out when questioned at a press conference. 'Australia and the U.K. welcome the review because we see this as a chance for a new administration to renew their commitment to AUKUS. And that's what we expect,' Healey said. 'Any sort of hypotheticals that you suggest simply aren't part of the picture,' Healey added, referring to the prospect of Britain and Australia proceeding without the U.S. The Australian government confirmed this week it had paid the U.S. a second $500 million installment on the AUKUS deal. The first $500 million was paid in February. The submarines are expected cost Australia up to $245 billion. The meeting comes as 3,000 British military personnel take part in the largest military exercise ever conducted in Australia. British aircraft carrier joins Australian war games More than 35,000 military personnel from 19 nations are taking part in Exercise Talisman Sabre, which began in 2005 as a biennial joint exercise between the U.S. and Australia. Marles and Healey will inspect the British aircraft HMS Prince of Wales at the northern port of Darwin on Sunday. The carrier is in Australia to take part in the war games. Lammy said the carrier's arrival in Darwin was meant to send a clear signal to the world. 'With our carrier strike group docking in Darwin, I think we're sending a clear signal, a signal of the U.K.'s commitment to this region of the world. Our determination to keep the Indo-Pacific free and open, and that we stand together,' he said.


Reuters
13 hours ago
- Reuters
Australia should compromise to reach EU trade deal, minister says
CANBERRA, July 25 (Reuters) - Australia should accept compromises to reach a trade deal with the European Union and demonstrate that such agreements can still be reached in a more protectionist world, Trade Minister Don Farrell said on Friday. Farrell said in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney that free trade was under threat and that Australia should work with other countries to defend it. In a question and answer session after the speech, Farrell said Australia-EU trade negotiations that restarted this year would be successful and it was in both sides' national interest to make it so. "It will require some compromises in our negotiations, but I think the imperative here is to show the rest of the world we're fair dinkum about free and open trade and we can do agreements with other countries," he said, using an Australian phrase meaning honest, genuine or sincere. Asked if he meant that Australian industry would have to step up in the national interest, he said: "I'm saying exactly that." A previous attempt to reach a trade deal failed in 2023, with Canberra wanting more ability to sell farm goods in Europe. The EU is seeking greater access to Australian critical minerals and lower tariffs on manufactured goods. Farrell also said a trade agreement with India should be reached "in the very near future." The two countries are aiming to conclude the second phase of a trade pact by the end of the year. Australia is also seeking to negotiate with the United States to reverse tariffs enacted by President Donald Trump and prevent new ones from being imposed. Canberra on Thursday loosened biosecurity rules to allow greater access to U.S. beef, though it said this was the result of a long-running scientific assessment rather than a part of trade talks.