Demands to close the pavilions have surfaced due to the Israel-Hamas conflict and Iran’s suppression of women, sparking discussions on the political dimensions of cultural events. Italian Culture Minister Gennaro Sangiuliano has supported Israel’s participation in the biennale. The organizers have emphasized the autonomous participation rights for all countries recognized by Italy, disregarding calls to exclude Israel and Iran.

However, the decision has sparked strong reactions. The Women Life Freedom Italy (WLFI) movement has expressed anger that Iran’s participation was approved by the Iranian government. Simultaneously, the Art Not Genocide Alliance (ANGA) has garnered thousands of signatures for its open letter demanding the exclusion of Israel. ANGA claims that representing the Israeli state in artworks supports its alleged genocidal policies.

The controversy over the biennale participation continues as artists, activists, and politicians present different perspectives on the political dimensions of the conflict.

Historical comparison and context

The Art Not Genocide Alliance (ANGA) has provided an interesting historical comparison, offering valuable background information for the current debate on the Venice Biennale participation controversy. ANGA’s open letter addressed previous biennale decisions and their political dimensions.

One reference was made to the exclusion of apartheid-era South Africa from the Venice Biennale until 1993. This historical event demonstrates that the biennale has previously addressed politically sensitive issues and excluded participants due to global political events.

Another mentioned event relates to the 59th International Art Exhibition, where the decision was made to close the Russian pavilion following its attack on Ukraine in 2022. The organizers’ response to this event emphasized that the decision was made by a commissioner and curator appointed by the Russian Federation’s Minister of Culture, who also announced Russia’s withdrawal from the upcoming 60th International Art Exhibition.

These historical cases provide background and context for the current debate over the potential participation of Israel and Iran in the biennale. ANGA’s references to past decisions offer a deeper understanding of how biennale organizers have previously dealt with politically sensitive questions and participants.

Anticipation for the future

The current controversy surrounding the Venice Biennale provides an opportunity to consider how similar situations could be better anticipated in the future.

One solution could involve more open and clear communication between the biennale organizers and participating countries. Establishing clear rules and criteria for participation, considering political, human rights, and similar aspects, could reduce the chances of conflicts arising.

Additionally, the formation of an international expert panel to assess potentially contentious participants could be considered. Such a panel could consist of cultural, human rights, and art experts, making decisions based on objective evaluations. This could promote fairness and reduce potential disputes.

In the future, biennale organizers could also learn from past cases and the controversies they sparked. This might involve open discussions with stakeholders before making decisions and learning from past mistakes. Practices that promote transparency, clarity, and diverse participation can help reduce conflicts and ensure that biennales remain forums for cultural exchange without unnecessary political and controversial elements.

ART Walkway News