The article examines the current state of global art biennials, arguing that recent controversies—such as the 2022 documenta antisemitism crisis and geopolitical tensions at the 61st Venice Biennale—reveal these exhibitions as deeply politicized platforms rather than neutral cultural events. It highlights how juries and curators have introduced geopolitical criteria, and cites ongoing debates in Artforum (April 2026) featuring voices like Daniel Birnbaum, Michelle Grabner, and Adam Szymczyk, who diagnose visible tensions but overlook deeper structural conditions.
Why it matters: The article contends that biennials have historically emerged during political instability and served as tools of soft power, from the first Venice Biennale (1895) and documenta (1955) to the São Paulo Biennale (1951), Havana Biennial (1984), and Gwangju Biennale (1995). By tracing this pattern, it argues that the current crises are not anomalies but continuations of a state-driven apparatus that stages and legitimizes geopolitical conflicts. This analysis challenges the art world to reconsider the biennial format's inherent political entanglements and its role in shaping contemporary cultural discourse.