Art has always been political, but in the turbulent opening week of the Venice Biennale, that was impossible to ignore. The participation of Israel and Russia in particular understandably led to protests. On Wednesday, Pussy Riot and the Ukrainian FEMEN organized a noisy protest performance at the Russian pavilion. And several demonstrations against Israeli participation took place during the week. The week ended on Friday with a strike, in which more than a dozen pavilions (including the Netherlands) of the hundred participating countries closed their doors. There was a protest march with a few hundred participants against the Israeli pavilion.
The jury of the Golden Lion – the prize for the best pavilion – had already resigned. He did not want to be in the situation of having to award a prize to countries whose leaders are accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. That was a clear statement. The organization then hastily established an audience award. On Saturday, many artists and countries indicated that they would not accept the prize.
The Venice Biennale is a unique place for international artistic exchange: nowhere else will you find so much art from so many different countries together. The design with national delegations is imperfect – it is based on unequal power relations – but it does offer countries and artists the opportunity to express who they are or want to be in an artistic way. The political layer makes the Biennale exciting and relevant.
At the same time, the Biennale looks like a non-existent dream world in which countries lie side by side and engage in relaxed cultural exchange, even when they are waging a genocidal war or oppressing their artists or people. The art festival can offer countries the opportunity to conceal their crimes. The readmission of Russia (although limited to the preview days) gives the impression that, in the fifth year of the large-scale invasion of Ukraine, relations with Moscow could be normalized. That is not the case.
Use international law as a benchmark, also for participation in international art events
You can also expect a moral lower limit at an art event. A cultural boycott can be an effective means of bringing about change, as the one against South Africa during apartheid showed. But where is that limit? The resigned jury, appointed by curator Koyo Kouoh, who died last year, used a workable criterion. Use international law as a benchmark, also for international art events. That bar could well be a bit higher, and apply not only to the prizes, but also to participation in general.
Then there are still autocratic regimes or other countries where artistic freedom is poor. For example, Gabrielle Goliath was excluded from the South African pavilion because of a reference to Gaza in her work that clashed with the private views of that country’s culture minister. Anyone walking from pavilion to pavilion in Venice has no idea of the extent and manner in which there has been state interference.
In 2013, artist Jonas Staal introduced a one-off digital ‘Ideological Guide to the Venice Biennale‘ – with information about the political, economic and ideological backgrounds of the various pavilions. That idea bears repeating. Such a leaflet to the program booklet should encourage countries to improve artistic freedom.
