Why the Venice Biennale survives thanks to its national pavilions

Angela Vettese argues that the Venice Biennale's survival and continued relevance are due to its national pavilions and collateral events. Despite criticisms from Lawrence Alloway (who called it a "goldfish bowl" in 1968) and a 1978 Artforum commentator who suggested razing the pavilions, the decentralized structure has prevented a monolithic curatorial vision. With nearly 100 pavilions and many more side shows, the Biennale allows for multiple perspectives, avoiding the homogenization seen when curators rotate among biennials in Sydney, Kassel, Istanbul, Sharjah, Riyadh, and Venice. Vettese highlights historical examples of unauthorized interventions: Yayoi Kusama selling mirrored balls for $2 in the Giardini in 1966, a "Clandestine Pavilion" by Sisley Xhafa in 1997, Teresa Margolles's blood-soaked tapestries in 2009, Pipilotti Rist's censored church ceiling in 2005, and the Icelandic pavilion's mosque conversion in 2015. The pavilions also engage with current events, such as Ukraine's pavilion in 2022 after the invasion and a petition with 14,500 signatures by March 15, 2024, to bar Israel. Vettese notes that the Biennale's freedom stems from its financial structure: the central exhibition is paid by the Biennale, but pavilions are funded by galleries, museums, and donors, making a unified theme impossible. She hopes new president Pietrangelo Buttafuoco will support this polyphony. The article includes attendance figures from 2003 (260,000) to 2022 (800,000).