Who should assume the risk when art gets controversial – the artist or their employer?

How we value the arts comes down to much more than looking at the sector’s economic contributions.

There are also the social benefits , and the importance of connection to culture on a societal level.

Importantly, we need to value art in all its forms – even when it’s confronting or politically risky.

When artists take risks, they add value to society.

They may express deeply felt convictions, or progress public discourse by challenging common beliefs.

But taking risks means being left exposed.

The question then is: to what extent are arts organisation responsible for protecting artists? An intro to governance Australian organisations operate in three sectors with distinct governance obligations.

Private companies require at least one director , while a public company – a corporation open to investment by the public – must have at least three directors .

A director makes major decisions on a company’s behalf and holds all legal responsibility.

Incorporated non-profits require “ responsible people ”.

These are generally members of the governing board or committee who agree to act in the best interests of the non-profit, including through responsible management of finances.

There are also cultural statutory authorities , established by specific acts of state or federal parliament.

These have board members appointed by government.

Examples include funding bodies such as Creative Australia, and arts organisations such as the National Portrait Gallery and the Art Gallery of Western Australia .