The problem with the Venice Biennale stems from the fact that the art world has become the space within which politics acquires its exhibition value

Just days before the official opening of the Venice Biennale on May 9, the exhibition's jury collectively resigned in protest over the reopening of the Russian national pavilion. This echoes the 2022 resignation of Documenta's committee amid antisemitism accusations tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The article argues that both incidents reveal a deeper syndrome: the art world has been reduced to a stage for political display. It criticizes the selective outrage that targets Israel's pavilion while ignoring Russian airstrikes on civilians, China's erasure of Tibetan culture, or Senegal's anti-LGBTQ+ laws, and questions why artists are expected to represent their governments rather than themselves.

This matters because it challenges the foundational model of national pavilions at the Venice Biennale, which the author argues mechanically produces geopolitical conflicts and stifles artistic autonomy. The piece highlights how the U.S. State Department required its chosen artist to promote "American values," banning diversity, equity, and inclusion projects, while the French government distanced itself from Yto Barrada's anti-Israel stance. The author calls for abandoning the national pavilion system altogether, pointing to the Gwangju Biennale in South Korea as an alternative where institutions, not governments, are invited. The core issue is whether art should serve as political propaganda or remain a space for radical, singular vision.