There’s quite a lot of memorable performance art in the Venice Biennale — Austria’s Florentina Holzinger rings a huge bell with herself as the clapper — but none quite so performative as the participants who are staging boycotts, no-shows and sulks to protest at the involvement in the show of Israel and Russia. The entire five-woman jury resigned nine days before the opening as a protest at the inclusion of countries being investigated by the International Criminal Court; the European Commission withdrew funding from the Biennale to express its revulsion at Russia’s involvement; 70 artists declared that because of Israel’s presence they did not wish to be considered for a prize; and some national pavilions are empty.
In other words, the point of the Biennale, which is to celebrate contemporary art in all its forms, is being sacrificed to virtue-signalling egocentricity. As it happens, I have a good deal of sympathy with the views of these people, but cancelling artists isn’t the way to go.
It feels wrong to cancel artists because you disapprove of what their countries are up to
If you care about culture, it feels all wrong to cancel artists because you disapprove of what their countries are up to. This Biennale has become all about the protesters and their values, not about the art. This isn’t to say that the pavilions of either Russia or Israel are particularly exciting this year — the former has several striking flower arrangements while the latter boasts a water feature — but it’s the principle that matters. Boycotts are bad for art and it’s especially bad for the Biennale. Its founding principle is “based on openness, dialogue and the rejection of any form of closure or censorship”.
But it’s precisely closure and censorship we’ve had since it was announced that Israel and Russia would be participating — in the case of Russia, after a four-year absence. And the result has been that the news from the exhibition has been all about the protests, not about the exhibits (with the possible exception of the brilliant Holzinger). What a waste.
Against the spirit of Venice
The result of the succession of no-shows, cancellations and the refusal of prizes by exhibitors, many of whom wouldn’t have been in with a chance anyway, has turned this exhibition into the very reverse of what the curator, the late Koyo Kouoh, who died of cancer before she could realise her vision for the exhibition, intended.
The show’s theme this year is ‘In Minor Keys’ which she wanted to be a celebration of stillness and meditativeness. But right now, the Biennale actually amplifies and intensifies the conflicts outside. As Kouoh put it: “In refusing the spectacle of horror, the time has come to listen to the minor keys; to find the oasis, the islands, where the dignity of all living beings is safeguarded.” So how does banning countries square with that?
Boycotts and no-shows negate protest art as well as every other kind
All of which raises the question of what art and culture is for. Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, the Biennale president, has been courageous in saying that calls to ban countries from the Biennale would go against its mission to be “the place where the world comes together”. That is one of the many functions of art, to be a medium of engagement. That doesn’t mean to say that art must eschew confrontation; of course not. But boycotts and no-shows negate protest art as well as every other kind. If countries are not represented, engagement is impossible. And where does this stop, once you start? Anish Kapoor has pronounced that the US too should have been banned on the basis of its “politics of hate”. Any other countries you disapprove of, Anish?
The censors are diminished
During the Great War, Britons routinely expressed their horror at Germany’s brutal invasion of Belgium by banning the public performance of German music (and stoning dachshunds). And what did the exclusion of Beethoven and Bach from concert halls do, except impoverish audiences? After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, several cultural institutions in Britain similarly boycotted Tchaikovsky. Russian artists, including ballerinas, became toxic. All that does is to seek to punish a country by picking on the noblest aspects of its culture; it did not diminish the artists but it did diminish the censors. Russia has a profound, rich and complex culture that will outlast the current regime. How is the world enriched by turning its back on that? Come to that, how does it benefit Ukraine and its suffering people?
The resignations will do nothing to encourage critical engagement between artists, cultures and countries
The resignation of the five women jury members was a disgrace. As for the countries resigning in protest at the situation in Gaza, they help no one. The public in both Russia and Israel will interpret the move as further proof that the world is hostile to them. The resignations will do nothing to encourage critical engagement between artists, cultures and countries. Instead, the Golden and Silver Lions, the prizes of the Venice show, will be decided by the members of the public, a move which is open to manipulation.
For all the Biennale’s frequent preposterousness, its prizes are meant to be recognition of artistic merit; instead the show has turned into an opportunity for noisy, performative posturing. The protesters have turned art into a political tool. That is what censorship is about.
Melanie McDonagh is a columnist and books editor of The London Standard
