"The artists felt that high calibre of the Biennale and the international respect in which they themselves were held were now being linked to an organisation that undertook work to which they morally objected."

The artists could have endorsed the high calibre of the Biennale and expressed their moral objections by not accepting any money...

This would have ensured more public attention of their 'feelings' if only because of the public surprise at their rejection of being subsidised.

As surprising as if Michaelangelo or Da Vinci told the Medicis to get ferked because they didn't approve the family's banking standards.

Utter rubbish Lisa.

Please point out to me one piece of work by your group of luvvie artists that Brandis attempted to censor or prevent from displaying.

It was your dopey luvvies who decided not to display their work, for their own reasons. That is entirely their right and responsibility.

What is abhorrent is that those same dopey luvvies think it is ok to take money from or expect funding, to enable them to display their work, from the taxpayer who has voted in favour of the things about which the dopey luvvies are objecting.

Perfect sense, if you lack intellect and integrity.

When did this unnamed sponsor threaten to censor the artists?
Never?

What a bunch of brats!
The festival already announced it was going to reconsider future sponsorships.
Not good enough. Must stamp feet and pout!

"to choose how and with whom they would ally themselves and their works"

And the government has the right to make their own decisions about processing refugees and funding art.

The government has *no* obligation to spend a single cent on the arts.
How dare you expect this as some sort of "right".

I wish the government would stop funding all non-essential services.
Artists can fund themselves (in the rare case anyone cares enough to buy their tripe) or find their own sponsors.

What moral poseurs we find out there. As a regular at arts events I am familiar with the raised eyebrow, the indirect reference and the sneering tone that allow the politically correct arts bureaucrat to enforce the groupthink of the collective.

For instance, at a Northbridge opening some years ago, a stinking hot evening, the tone of the speaker calling artists 'canaries in the coal mine' for freedom of expression, after the collective had attacked Howard for 'censoring' the arts. Did he? Like hell. The art that night had far more merit. We were invited to assemble jigsaw puzzles made of ice, and the hot evening made it obvious that we were fighting a losing battle against the metaphorical tides of time and change. Awesome conception.

Perhaps the handout mentality has gone too far when the entitled parasites believe the taxes of working people should be taken to pay for their self-indulgent, self-referential competition.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the contractors working for the Government, or with the the Government itself. You notice these shouty little people kept a lid on it when their pet parties were in power, and speak up when the actions of a new Government are saving lives. You didnt care about a thousand dead people when 'your side' was making the policy, but change Goverment and prevent deaths and apparently these hero artists are now fighting Hitler.

Wonderful if these political poseurs are going to be short of a few quid from the Biennale, and I hope the Government smashes their grants.

I'm afraid you might be on a hiding to nothing here, Ms Singh. Simply by writing such an article, you are exposing the soft underbelly of the artist's "profession" to additional scrutiny, at a time where it really should stand quietly by until the furore dies down.

>>Last week the arts came under attack<<

Well, no. Actually, no-one was attacking "the arts" as such. There were merely a few warning shots, fired across the bows of those who felt that funding is a right, as opposed to an earned outcome of mutual cooperation.

Conflating these two issues allows you to huff and puff about censorship of the arts, when in fact the initial skirmish was a bunch of artists wanting to apply censorship to a commercial enterprise.

You see, it is all about mutual advantage. Both sides are free agents. Artists are quite within their rights to withdraw their work from events that are subsidized by those they perceive to be incompatible with their ethics. And arts sponsors are equally within their rights to withdraw their money from those who appear ungrateful, and unwilling to support their - the sponsors' - objectives. These latter being, after all, merely a form of marketing, with the sponsorship somehow resonating with their clientele.

(Alternatively, it might just be an expression of guilt at the obscene amounts of money they have been able to rip from their customers' bank accounts; a form of public expiation for their commercially predatory conduct, if you will. Either way, the both the artist and the donor are beneficiaries)

Artistic freedom has not been attacked here. Merely the freedom to accept money with one hand, while simultaneously extending the middle digit of the other hand towards the giver. Not smart.

The question now out in the open is "what value do we get from these artists?"

Sure, there are generalities such as "what philistines we would be without the yarts". But when it comes to specifics, the benefactors are, whether you like it or not, going to want something in return.

It is simple ....

No one is forcing an Artist to accept Government Monies or non-government funds for that matter.

If they don't like the source of the money they always have the traditional artistic fallback.

Starving.