Venice Biennale 2025; How Khaled Sabsabi’s piece was ransacked by ineptitude and confected outrage

The Curious Case of Artistic Cancellation

The recent cancellation of Khaled Sabsabi and Michael D’Agostino’s collaborative proposal for the Venice Biennale has sparked considerable debate, particularly due to the reasoning provided by Creative Australia. The decision cited the potential for “prolonged and divisive debate,” implying that the work might provoke widespread controversy. This rationale is troubling, as it suggests that the organization possesses a kind of clairvoyance, anticipating public reactions with certainty. Such an assertion is problematic, as it undermines the unpredictable and subjective nature of art. As a curator with over three decades of experience, I can attest that forecasting public responses to art is impossible. What one individual finds offensive, another might interpret as thought-provoking or even profound.

When the proposal was first announced, I saw no cause for concern. Having worked with Sabsabi before, I knew that his work is rooted in themes of empathy, community, and social justice. His art is not designed to provoke controversy for its own sake but to challenge us to think differently about the world. The fact that the proposal was selected by a panel of experts further solidified my confidence in its merits. Yet, Creative Australia’s decision reflects a broader trend of bureaucratic cautiousness, where fear of potential backlash takes precedence over artistic innovation and public engagement.

A Curator’s Perspective: Understanding the Artistic Vision

As someone who has dedicated their career to contemporary art, I have learned to trust the instincts of artists and the rigorous selection processes that bring their work to the public. When the board of the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham once expressed concerns about avoiding controversy to secure funding for a new building, I responded frankly: predicting what will stir debate is beyond my capacity. Art, by its very nature, is meant to provoke, challenge, and inspire. It is not the role of curators or institutions to second-guess the public’s reactions but to present works that are meaningful, thoughtfully conceived, and worthy of consideration.

This is not to say that controversy is inherently desirable. However, it is often a byproduct of art that tackles difficult subjects or pushes boundaries. When I exhibited Chilean/Australian artist Juan Davila’s work, which had previously been seized by police in Sydney, there was no negative backlash. Similarly, when Victor Grippo’s installation, which included potatoes, was shown, it was only years later, through a sensationalized media report, that it became a target of public criticism. These experiences highlight the unpredictability of public opinion and the futility of trying to preempt controversy.

The Unpredictable Nature of Public Reaction

One of the most striking aspects of Creative Australia’s decision is its assumption that the public’s response to Sabsabi and D’Agostino’s work could be anticipated with such certainty. In reality, public reactions to art are complex and varied. What offends one person might resonate deeply with another. At the Museum of Contemporary Art, I once encountered a work that depicted a prominent politician as a pig. While some viewed it as a scathing critique, others interpreted it as a satirical commentary on politics. When a board member raised concerns about defamation, legal advice revealed that the outcome would depend on the context in which the work was displayed—even varying between different states. This underscores the idea that the same artwork can elicit vastly different reactions depending on the audience and setting.

This unpredictability is precisely why art is so valuable. It invites us to engage with ideas, perspectives, and emotions that we might not otherwise encounter. By presenting challenging works, artists and curators encourage us to question our assumptions and broaden our understanding of the world. Sabsabi and D’Agostino’s proposal was chosen for its ability to address pressing issues of empathy and community, themes that are especially relevant in today’s fraught global climate. To withdraw such a work before it even has the chance to be seen deprives the public of an opportunity to engage with these important ideas.

Historical Precedents: When Art Meets Controversy

The history of art is filled with examples of works that sparked controversy upon their debut, only to later be celebrated as masterpieces. Consider the infamous “Sensation” exhibition, which showcased works by young British artists in 1997. In London, a portrait of child murderer Myra Hindley by Marcus Harvey became the focal point of outrage. Yet, when the exhibition traveled to New York’s Brooklyn Museum in 1999, it was Chris Ofili’s DTOurythmqhg that drew the most criticism, with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani denouncing it as blasphemous. Interestingly, the same exhibition was planned for Australia but was canceled following the international uproar. These examples illustrate how different contexts and cultural sensitivities can shape public reactions to art.

What is equally telling is how frequently controversy is fueled not by the public but by media sensationalism. The media has a tendency to amplify certain narratives, creating a sense of outrage that may not reflect the broader population’s views. This was evident in the case of Sabsabi and D’Agostino’s proposal, where the cancellation appeared to be driven by a fear of media backlash rather than any concrete evidence of public disapproval. By allowing media narratives to dictate decisions, institutions risk stifling artistic freedom and undermining the very purpose of art: to challenge, provoke, and inspire.

Media Influence and the Fabrication of Outrage

The role of the media in shaping public opinion cannot be overstated. While art has the power to spark meaningful conversations, these discussions are often derailed by sensationalized reporting that prioritizes clickbait headlines over nuanced analysis. In my experience, it is rarely the general public that drives controversy but rather a vocal minority, often amplified by media coverage. When I exhibited Victor Grippo’s work at the Ikon Gallery, it was only years later, when a newspaper ran a story framing the installation as a “waste of public money,” that it became a point of contention. This kind of coverage not only distorts the public’s perception of art but also undermines the thoughtful dialogue that art aims to foster.

Similarly, the cancellation of Sabsabi and D’Agostino’s proposal seems to have been influenced by a fear of media outrage rather than any genuine concern for public sentiment. By bowing to this pressure, Creative Australia has not only deprived the public of the opportunity to engage with an important work but has also set a dangerous precedent. If institutions allow themselves to be swayed by the possibility of media backlash, they risk becoming complicit in a culture of censorship and self-doubt. Art should challenge us, push us out of our comfort zones, and invite us to see the world from new perspectives. To shy away from this responsibility is to diminish the very purpose of art.

The Value of Art in Challenging Times

While I understand the desire to avoid divisive topics, especially during turbulent times, I firmly believe that art has a critical role to play in navigating these challenges. At its best, art encourages us to be open-minded, tolerant, and empathetic. It invites us to grapple with complex issues, to question our assumptions, and to consider perspectives that may differ from our own. Sabsabi and D’Agostino’s proposal was precisely the kind of work that could have fulfilled this role, addressing themes of empathy and community in a way that resonates with our shared human experience.

Instead, bureaucratic ineptitude and political pandering have denied us the opportunity to experience this work in the unique setting of the Venice Biennale. While I remain hopeful that Sabsabi and D’Agostino will find another platform to present their work, the cancellation is a missed opportunity. It denies the public the chance to engage with a thought-provoking piece and perpetuates a culture of fear and self-censorship. By allowing art to be silenced in this way, we not only lose the chance for meaningful dialogue but also risk diminishing the role of art in our society.

In the end, the cancellation of this proposal serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by artists and curators who seek to push boundaries and challenge the status quo. It is a stark illustration of how fear of controversy can stifle creativity and limit our exposure to new ideas. Yet, even in the face of such setbacks, I remain confident in the power of art to inspire, to provoke, and to bring us closer together. It is this belief that must guide us as we continue to advocate for art that is bold, thought-provoking, and unafraid to tackle the complexities of our time.