Khaled Sabsabi, a prominent Sydney artist despite being selected as Australia’s representative at the 2026 Venice Biennale, was abruptly dropped from the prestigious event last night Thursday 13 February, just days after the announcement, yet another victim of Israel lobby to silence supporters of Palestine.
This decision has sparked a debate on the intersection of art, politics, and freedom of expression, casting a spotlight on the artist’s work and the implications of his background in a highly charged political climate.
In a statement sent to AMUST this morning Friday 14 February issued by Khalid Sabsabi and curator, Michael Dagostino, he says, “We are extremely hurt and disappointed in Creative Australia board’s decision to rescind our appointment to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale.”
He further adds, “Art should not be censored as artists reflect the times they live in.”
“The artistic team is still committed to presenting this work on a global platform and will seek community support to make this happen,” He concludes.
Khalid Sabsabi’s story is one of migration and resilience. As a child, he fled Lebanon’s brutal civil war in 1978, seeking refuge in Australia. His art, which spans various mediums including painting, video installations, and sound art, often draws on his experiences of displacement, the refugee crisis, and his Arab identity.
His work is deeply influenced by the cultural and political struggles of the Middle East, as well as his own personal journey as an immigrant in a foreign land. But it is these very themes that have now put him at odds with Australia’s political elite.
The controversy surrounding Khalid’s selection stems from his previous works, which critics have found politically provocative.
One of the most contentious pieces is You, a video installation from 2007 featuring an image of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, a militant group designated as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including Australia.
The installation, which uses fractured images of Nasrallah, is intended to explore the Western fears of cultural difference and the media’s role in deifying or vilifying figures through repetition.
Critics, however, focused solely on the imagery of Nasrallah, seeing it as a glorification of a controversial figure, especially in the context of the rising tensions in the Middle East and the growing global attention on antisemitism.
In light of this controversy, Creative Australia, the federal arts body responsible for selecting the country’s representative to the Venice Biennale, issued a statement explaining its decision to withdraw support for Khaled’s selection.
The statement cited the potential for “prolonged and divisive debate” surrounding the artist’s work, stating that such a debate could undermine public support for Australian art. It was clear that political pressure had played a significant role in the decision.
The Liberal opposition, in particular, seized on Khaled’s inclusion, with Senator Claire Chandler accusing the Albanese government of allowing an artist who “highlights a terrorist leader” to represent Australia on the international stage.
This criticism was amplified by ongoing concerns over antisemitism in Australia, especially in the wake of violent clashes in the Middle East.
Yet, this decision to drop Sabsabi raises critical questions about artistic freedom, representation, and the limits of expression in a politically charged environment.
Khaled himself was stunned by the turn of events. In interviews following the announcement, he expressed shock, saying, “I felt that, in this time and in this space, this wouldn’t happen because of who I am.”
His statement underscores the sense of victimisation he felt — as an artist whose work has always challenged stereotypes and pushed boundaries, he found himself being judged not by the merit of his art, but by the political climate of the moment.
The argument for Khaled’s inclusion at the Venice Biennale is rooted in his body of work and the larger conversation it sparks. As an artist who has long been committed to exploring themes of identity, representation, and breaking stereotypes, Khaled’s work transcends simple political allegiances.
It is a reflection of the complexities of being an Arab Muslim in Australia and the broader West, where cultural narratives are often oversimplified or reduced to binary opposites. His art invites viewers to confront uncomfortable questions about power, media representation, and the global consequences of conflict, particularly in the Middle East.
Despite the political backlash, Khaled’s career has been marked by a deep commitment to social justice and empathy. He has previously criticised the actions of Islamic State in his 2018 work Bring the Silence, and in 2022, he withdrew from the Sydney Festival in protest of its sponsorship by the Israeli embassy.
His activism is not one-sided but seeks to give voice to those who are marginalised and oppressed. His withdrawal from the Sydney Festival, for instance, was motivated by his belief in the Palestinian cause, yet he also advocates for peace and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
At the heart of the controversy is the question of who gets to decide what art is acceptable and who has the right to represent a nation. In a diverse, multicultural society like Australia, Khaled’s work, informed by his lived experience as a migrant and a person of Arab heritage, should be seen as a vital contribution to the national dialogue.
Instead, he has been silenced by the very institutions that should be championing his right to freedom of expression. His victimisation highlights the tension between the ideals of artistic freedom and the growing influence of political agendas in shaping cultural discourse.
Khaled’s exclusion from the Venice Biennale is a setback not only for him but for Australian art as a whole. It sends a message that controversial art, particularly when it deals with sensitive political issues, is no longer welcome in the public sphere.
This decision reflects a broader trend in which artists are increasingly expected to conform to political and social expectations, rather than challenge them.
Khaled Sabsabi’s victimisation serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of politicising art and stifling creative expression. It is a reminder that art, in all its forms, should be a space for dialogue and dissent, not for the enforcement of ideological purity.
If Australia is to truly foster a vibrant and diverse arts community, it must allow artists like Khaled the freedom to provoke, question, and challenge the status quo — without fear of retribution.
The Burning of Holy Book and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon are supported as Freedom of Expression. On the contrary, the fractured image of Nasrallah is not Free. It came with a cost for Khaled Sabsabi. An Australian artistic talent arbitrarily denied participation in the prestigious 2026 Venice Biennale. What next from the Insidious Lobby Group? Criminalised the utterance of the G word. George Orwell (1984) may well have been a prophet.