With the introduction of the People’s Prizes, all National Participations included in the official list of the 61st Art Biennale are automatically back in the competition, including those of Russia and Israel, initially excluded by the international jury. That of the “Visitors’ Lions” was a solution adopted in a very short time by the Fondazione La Biennale di Venezia and that, while defusing at least temporarily the risk of a dispute with the Israeli artist, who had opposed the exclusion by warning the organisation and the Jury, left open the most profound question that emerged in this edition of the Biennale: the increasingly fragile boundary between cultural autonomy, institutional responsibility and international politics.
When the question of the prizes seemed to have been partially resolved, on the evening of the opening, a new controversy exploded. Fifty-two artists and curators, together with sixteen National Participants of the Biennale Arte 2026, announced the withdrawal of the new ‘Lions of the Visitors’ from the competition. The statement released online reads how “the decision to withdraw was made in solidarity with the resignation of the jury chosen by artistic director Koyo Kouoh“, who died prematurely in 2025. The signatories include Yto Barrada for the French Pavilion; artist Miet Warlop and curator Caroline Dumalin for Belgium;Aline Bouvy and Stilbé Schroeder for Luxembourg; artist Nilbar Güreş and curator Başak Doğa Temür for Turkey, as well as teams from Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania. From Switzerland, among others, Gianmaria Andreetta, Luca Beeler, Miriam Laura Leonardi, Lithic Alliance, Yul Tomatala and Nina Wakeford. Also present were Spaniard Oriol Vilanova, Dries Verhoeven and Rieke Vos for the Netherlands, as well as representatives from Ecuador, Ireland, Kosovo, Finland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Albania and the United Arab Emirates. To understand how it has come to this point, it is necessary to take a few steps back.
The outbreak of protests
Protests over Russia’s alleged ‘return’ to the Venice Biennale had been going on for months, but they took on an institutional dimension when last April the Minister of Culture Alessandro Giuli publicly distanced himself from the line taken by the President of the Biennale, Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, contesting the participation of the Russian Federation in the 61st International Art Exhibition.The MiC’s stance was followed by a letter from the European Commission Vice-President Henna Virkkunen and European Commissioner for Culture Glenn Micallef, in which Brussels sided with the Ministry, even ventilating the possible freezing of European funding to the Biennale Foundation, amounting to approximately two million euro over three years. Funds destined, however, for programmes to support film producers, immersive technologies and educational activities. On 1 May, Ursula von der Leyen also intervened, claiming in a second communication sent to the Italian authorities that the Biennale Foundation would provide indirect economic support to Russia, in potential violation of the European sanctions regime. Reinforcing the political pressure came a letter signed by twenty-two European Ministers of Culture, not signed by Italia.From Moscow, the Presidential Delegate for Cultural Affairs Mikhail Shvydkoy replied by recalling Russia’s historical presence at the Biennale and arguing that the pavilion would never be revoked: Russia, he said, would not “return”, because “Russia never left”.
The tug-of-war between Giuli and Buttafuoco
The clash between Minister Giuli and Buttafuoco has progressively escalated. While the president of the Biennale defended the institution’s autonomy, calling it the “UN of art,” Giuli accused the Foundation of improperly exercising a foreign policy function: “Foreign policy is the responsibility of the government and Parliament,” he declared. Hence the Collegio Romano’s decision to send an inspection team composed of Luca Maggi, Arianna Proietti, Orsola Bonifati and Valerio Sarcone to Venice. Between 29 and 30 April, the inspectors acquired documentation and listened to managers and officials of the Foundation, including the general director Andrea Del Mercato and the heads of the legal area.The minister therefore downplayed the political scope of the intervention, defining it as ‘an ordinary control activity’. An interpretation that, however, would not have been shared by the Biennale’s top management, especially due to the timing of the inspections, which took place close to the inauguration of the exhibition. The inspections concerned administrative management, relations with the participating countries and the procedures adopted by the international jury. Particular attention was paid to the files on Russia, Israel and Iran, the latter having withdrawn during the preview week, with checks on official communications, authorisations and the logistical management of the pavilions. The objective was to reconstruct the decision-making process that had led to the definition of the 2026 edition and, above all, to clarify the modalities of the Russian presence at the Giardini.The Biennale, for its part, reiterated in a note “absolute respect for the regulations in force and administrative procedures”, claiming to have operated “in strict compliance with national and international laws”. The Foundation also specified that no irregularities had emerged in the preliminary checks carried out in the previous months.
The legal node of the Russian pavilion
In the report sent to Palazzo Chigi, the inspectors reportedly pointed out that ‘the Russian Federation was not formally invited’. A central passage in the affair. According to the Biennale, in fact, the event would not directly promote the participation of states with permanent pavilions, limiting itself to taking note of their willingness to participate in the exhibition. The regulation on ‘National Participation Procedures’ provides for a formal invitation for both countries with permanent pavilions and those without a permanent seat. In practice, however, states with concessions of historic spaces – such as Russia, which has been present in the Giardini since 1914 – simply communicate their participation, without the need for an express invitation.A practice that is consistent with the broad autonomy granted to states in the management of their pavilions. This is demonstrated by precedents such as the temporary exchange of pavilions between Germany and France in 2013, the granting of the Russian space to Bolivia in 2024 or the choice of the Israeli pavilion to autonomously suspend its activities until a truce is reached in Gaza. Within this framework, Russia would have simply notified its membership of the Biennale. Yet the design and layout of the Russian pavilion seems to have been conceived already with a view to a possible forced closure. The space remained open only during the days of the press preview, from 5 to 8 May, while from 9 May it will remain closed until the end of the event, scheduled for 22 November. However, visitors will be able to watch ‘The Tree is Rooted in the Sky’, a multidisciplinary performance recorded during the preview and broadcast in audio throughout the exhibition, from the outside. From a legal point of view, in fact, nothing would prevent the concessionaire of the pavilion from using the space at its disposal for sound or installation activities, even in the absence of an official participation in the artistic competition. From a legal point of view, in fact, there would appear to be no obstacle to the use of the space by the concessionaire of the pavilion for sound or installation activities, even in the absence of an official participation in the artistic competition.
The opening of the Russian pavilion was made even more tense by the protests of Pussy Riot, led by Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, the activists of the dissident Russian feminist collective, who marched several times between the Giardini and the Arsenale wearing coloured balaclavas, displaying Ukrainian flags and chanting slogans against Vladimir Putin, the war in Ukraine and Russia’s presence at the Biennale. Precisely because of the fear of protests and tensions during the days of the preview, an imposing deployment of law and order was visible outside the Russian pavilion, with garrisons made up of more than ten police and security personnel, permanently deployed in the Giardini area during the days of the event’s vernissage.
