Art, Nations and Tensions: The Politics of the Venice Biennale 2026

By Richard Mudariki

Richard Mudariki (2017) WORLD CUP, oil on canvas and painted wood (in Private Collection)

I have followed the Venice Biennale with particular interest since 2011, when Zimbabwe presented its first national pavilion. That moment marked not only a milestone for the country’s cultural diplomacy but also sharpened my awareness of the Biennale’s role within the global art ecosystem. The official opening of the 61st edition of La Biennale di Venezia in Italy will be accompanied by 99 National Participations and 31 Collateral Events.

Seven countries will participate in the Biennale Arte for the first time. These are the Republic of Guinea, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of Nauru, Qatar, the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and El Salvador. Zimbabwe will return to Santa Maria della Pietà, presenting a showcase of five distinguished visual artists.

However, every edition of the Venice Biennale claims to be about art, yet history repeatedly reminds us that it is equally shaped by global politics. The 2026 edition, scheduled to run from May to November, may ultimately be remembered less for its artworks than for the geopolitical tensions that have reshaped conversations around participation, representation and cultural diplomacy. On the Biennale’s official website, the institution articulates its position clearly:

“La Biennale di Venezia is an open institution, as reflected in the National Participations which arise from spontaneous initiatives. Any country recognized by the Italian Republic may ask independently to participate. It can simply send a notification if it owns a Pavilion in the Giardini, or submit a letter from the competent government authority if it does not have its own permanent Pavilion. It should also be noted that countries not recognized by the Italian Republic have, over the years, found ways to participate and express themselves within the framework of the Collateral Events. In response to communications and requests for participation from countries, La Biennale di Venezia rejects any form of exclusion or censorship of culture and art. La Biennale, like the city of Venice, continues to be a place of dialogue, openness and artistic freedom, encouraging connections between peoples and cultures, with enduring hope for the cessation of conflicts and suffering.”

In principle, the Biennale is the most international of art exhibitions, a gathering of nations through culture. In reality, it operates through national pavilions, a structure that mirrors the diplomatic world more than the artistic one. In a moment of global tension - from the war in Ukraine to the current conflicts in Gaza and Iran - this structure once again exposes the uneasy relationship between art and the nation-state.

For decades the Venice Biennale has been described as a space for dialogue, where art transcends politics. But the debates surrounding the 2026 edition suggest that neutrality is increasingly difficult to sustain. One of the most contentious issues has been the possibility of Russia’s return to the Biennale. After being absent following the invasion of Ukraine, the prospect of Russian participation has triggered petitions, diplomatic objections and even threats from European institutions to withdraw funding from the Biennale should Russia be allowed to return. Critics argue that allowing a Russian state pavilion risks turning a cultural event into a stage for propaganda. Ukrainian cultural officials have warned that such participation could normalise or “whitewash” the destruction of cultural heritage and the broader violence of the war.

Supporters of participation frame the matter differently, arguing that art must remain open to dialogue even with those whose governments are in conflict with others. In this view, the Biennale should resist censorship and maintain a space where opposing perspectives can coexist. The tension between openness and accountability has therefore become one of the defining debates surrounding the 2026 exhibition.

Russia is not the only geopolitical flashpoint shaping the Biennale. Israel’s participation has also been the subject of protests and institutional pressure, particularly as the war in Gaza continues to influence global cultural discourse. Calls for boycotts echo earlier moments in art history when cultural events became arenas for political protest, recalling the isolation of apartheid South Africa or the cultural boycotts directed at Russia after 2022. Yet the structure of the Biennale complicates these debates. While the central exhibition is curated internationally, national pavilions are funded and organised independently by their respective states. This means that participation is rarely just about artists; it is also about diplomacy, representation and national messaging.

South Africa has added its own internal drama to the unfolding story of the 2026 Biennale. The country’s pavilion became the centre of controversy when the government cancelled the selected project by artist Gabrielle Goliath, whose installation included references to the war in Gaza. The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture described the work as “highly divisive” and halted the submission, triggering legal challenges and accusations of censorship from artists and civil society groups.

The cancellation has raised fundamental questions about artistic independence and government control. Traditionally, countries select their Biennale representatives through curatorial processes, allowing artists to present work that reflects the complexity of their societies. When political authorities intervene in these processes, the exhibition risks becoming less a platform for artistic expression and more an instrument of state messaging. For South Africa—a country whose post-apartheid cultural identity has long been tied to freedom of expression—the optics of such intervention are particularly complex.

Adding another layer of reflection to the 2026 edition is the absence of the curator who originally conceived it. The exhibition was to be led by the late Cameroonian-Swiss curator Koyo Kouoh, whose appointment marked a historic moment as the first African woman to curate the Venice Biennale. Her curatorial vision, titled In Minor Keys, is now being realised by the team she assembled before her passing in 2025. Kouoh’s concept sought to foreground quieter narratives, subtle gestures and alternative rhythms of artistic expression.

Yet the geopolitical turbulence surrounding the Biennale threatens to overshadow this vision, pulling attention away from artistic discourse toward diplomatic tensions.

The current crisis also exposes a structural contradiction at the heart of the Venice Biennale itself. Contemporary art is increasingly global, collaborative and transnational. Artists move fluidly between cities, residencies and cultural networks that extend far beyond the boundaries of nation-states. Yet the Biennale continues to operate through a model of national representation that dates back to the nineteenth century.

In peaceful moments this system produces a celebratory diversity of voices. In times of geopolitical conflict, however, it becomes a battlefield of symbolic power. Russia’s pavilion becomes a debate about war. Israel’s pavilion becomes a debate about Gaza. South Africa’s pavilion becomes a debate about censorship. The artworks themselves risk becoming secondary to the political narratives surrounding them.

The Venice Biennale has often been described as the “Olympics of the art world.” Art cannot resolve geopolitical crises or wars, but it can expose their contradictions and bring them into public consciousness. The debates surrounding the 2026 edition reveal how deeply culture remains entangled with politics, memory and power. For artists and cultural observers alike, the lesson may be unavoidable: the Venice Biennale has never been a neutral exhibition space. It is a mirror of the world. And at this moment in history, that mirror reflects a world that is deeply fractured.

Richard Mudariki is an artist and cultural producer. He holds a Honours degree in Cultural Heritage Management and Museology from the Midlands State University