Venice Biennale’s EU-aligned jury excludes Russia and Israel amid funding leverage: systemic exclusion or geopolitical instrumentalisation of cultural institutions?

Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems often view cultural institutions as spaces for collective healing and reconciliation, rather than tools for geopolitical leverage. The EU’s exclusionary approach contrasts with Indigenous practices of cultural diplomacy, which prioritise dialogue and mutual respect over ideological purity. There is no evidence in the Biennale’s framing of Indigenous or traditional knowledge being integrated into the jury’s decision-making process, despite the Biennale’s historical ties to cross-cultural exchange.

The Biennale’s exclusion mirrors historical patterns where cultural institutions were weaponised during the Cold War, such as the US and USSR boycotting each other’s pavilions. The EU’s use of funding cuts as leverage echoes colonial-era cultural sanctions, where art was used to punish ‘uncooperative’ nations. However, the Biennale’s origins as a neutral space in 1895 contrast sharply with today’s geopoliticised approach, revealing a systemic shift in how cultural diplomacy is conducted.

In Latin America, cultural institutions often resist geopolitical pressures by hosting artists from ‘enemy’ nations as a form of silent protest, as seen in the São Paulo Biennial’s inclusion of South African artists during apartheid. African and Middle Eastern biennials frequently navigate geopolitical tensions by focusing on pan-regional solidarity rather than exclusionary policies. The EU’s approach risks isolating itself from global cultural networks that prioritise dialogue over ideological purity.

The jury’s decision lacks empirical grounding in cultural policy research, which suggests that exclusionary tactics often backfire by reinforcing nationalist narratives among excluded groups. Studies on cultural diplomacy indicate that punitive measures are less effective than engagement in shifting public perceptions. The Biennale’s jury system, dominated by EU-aligned curators, lacks methodological transparency, raising questions about bias in selection criteria.

Artistic and spiritual traditions often view exclusion as a violation of the sacred role of art as a unifier, not a divider. The Biennale’s exclusionary stance contradicts the Buddhist principle of ‘right speech,’ which emphasises constructive dialogue over punishment. Many artists from excluded nations frame their work as a bridge between cultures, not a tool of statecraft, highlighting the spiritual misalignment of the jury’s decision.

If the EU continues to use cultural funding as leverage, the Biennale risks becoming a tool of geopolitical theatre rather than a bastion of artistic freedom. Future scenarios include a fragmented Biennale with parallel exhibitions in excluded nations, or a return to the Biennale’s original mission of fostering cross-cultural exchange. The EU’s approach may accelerate the rise of alternative cultural networks outside Western control, such as BRICS-aligned biennials.

Marginalised voices within the Biennale’s own structures—such as artists from excluded nations, non-Western curators, and critics—are systematically sidelined in the narrative. The jury’s composition, dominated by EU-aligned institutions, reflects a broader pattern of cultural gatekeeping that excludes Global South perspectives. The framing of this story as a ‘moral victory’ for the EU obscures the dissenting voices of artists and curators who oppose the exclusionary approach.