Critique of Visitor Lions and Jury Models at Venice Biennale

Angelo Argento argues that the proposed 'Visitor Lions' at the Venice Biennale are a fragile response to a deep crisis, but warns against unconditionally defending the traditional jury system. He contends that both models have significant flaws: juries do not necessarily see all works impartially, often moving quickly through curated paths, while visitor votes would favor central pavilions and established hierarchies. Transparency in jury decisions is often undermined by neutral, compromise-driven language. The public may reward easy, consumable art, but juries can also favor works that are 'perfect for being awarded' yet lack lasting impact. Argento invokes major film festivals like Venice, Cannes, and Berlin, whose authority rests on credibility, which erodes when they stop taking risks. He argues that the purpose of awards today should be to produce a fracture, a point of view, or a risk, not to certify consensus. Juries need genuine autonomy and the freedom to make recognizable mistakes. Without that, both public and jury awards become inconsequential, revealing how little the Golden Lions actually say about the art they represent.