Several nations from Latin America are currently represented at the Venice Biennale, either with pavilions in the Giardini, temporary showcases in the Arsenale, or by leasing spaces throughout the city. Yet the Latin American participation during the institution's formative years was marked by considerable difficulties. This paper examines the unsuccessful attempt to create a “Padiglione dell’America Latina”, a cultural diplomacy initiative that originated in 1932 under Antonio Maraini’s Secretariat.  This visionary project could have provided Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Brazil with a stable representation in what was then the leading exhibition of contemporary art. Despite significant support from the Biennale administrations, this initiative did not succeed. The failure to realise the “Padiglione dell’America Latina” — a situation tied to the global geopolitical issues that arose after the 1929 Wall Street Crash, rather than disinterest from the Biennale or Latin American nations — had profound and lasting implications. Yet the notion of “Latin America” is inherently artificial, burdened with colonial and imperialist associations, and it does not have widespread acceptance in the region. The arbitrary inclusion of the aforementioned countries under this label may have jeopardised the project from the very beginning.

The article reconstructs the histories of Latin American national pavilions, which, between 1948 and 1972, had the opportunity to build a distinctly national architecture at the Giardini but ultimately did not. By consulting unpublished documentation and analysing the cross-history of the Giardini and its pavilions, this investigation contributes to the little-explored field of research of unrealised pavilions and shows how these failed attempts are part of the dynamics and difficulties of the structure of the Venice Biennale. Furthermore, the research brings to light a complex map of political and cultural issues that interweaves the vicissitudes and choices of both the countries (Argentina and Mexico) and intergovernmental institutions (Cartagena Agreement countries), which did not obtain a permanent venue, alongside those that were successful in erecting a national pavilion (Brazil, Venezuela, and Uruguay).

For the 1948 iteration of the Venice Biennale, the first after the Second World War, a painter and a sculptor were chosen to represent Britain: J. M. W. Turner (1775 – 1851), founding figure of the English Romantic landscape genre, and Henry Moore (1898 – 1986), the Yorkshire-born sculptor who had worked as a War Artist for the British Government during the conflict. While the role of early post-war British Pavilions within the context of Western Europe’s politics has already been extensively discussed, this paper will aim instead to position the 1948 British Pavilion against the backdrop of the initial phases of the dismantling of the British Empire. In particular, I will examine the narrative built around Moore’s participation and argue that the insistence on the inherent humanism of his works is linked to the humanitarian rhetoric of the post-war period. Taking as a cue Joel Robinson’s statement that national pavilions at the Venice Biennale represent a “moral dilemma” founded on the alleged economic, cultural and political superiority of some countries over others, I will argue that the 1948 British Pavilion needs to be read within the context of the renewed cultural imperialism that Britain tried to promote at home and abroad as an indirect way of claiming superiority while the independence movements in the former colonised countries were succeeding in dissolving the British Empire.

During the 1948 Venice Biennale, the first edition after the end of World War II, the selections for the national pavilions at the Giardini reflected the sclerosis of pre-war structures and the reconfiguration of relationships among post-war victors, defeated nations, and emerging adversaries. This shifting and unstable scenario was epitomised by the Mostra degli Impressionisti, organised by Biennale Secretary Rodolfo Pallucchini and staged in the German Pavilion.

This decision takes on deeper resonance when viewed through the lens of the “political topography” of the Giardini’s pavilions. In 1948, defeated Germany, then divided into Allied occupation zones, lacked official representation at the Biennale. Instead, a politically charged exhibition of “the Germans” – featuring artists cleansed of Nazi associations – was displayed in the Italian Pavilion. The choice to occupy the German Pavilion with a “French” exhibition rather than hosting this compensatory display was laden with political and symbolic significance.

The tensions, motivations, and consequences of this decision, along with the pavilion’s eventual “restitution” to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1950 against the backdrop of the Cold War, illuminate the Biennale’s evolving post-war role as a platform for soft power. The broader narrative surrounding the organization of these exhibitions – including the dynamics of loans, hesitations from American collectors, contentious negotiations with the Soviet Union, and the lingering shadow of Nazi-looted art – provides a compelling framework for uncovering hidden historical narratives.

This paper aims to demonstrate how Palazzo Centrale’s main hall in the Giardini became a space for dialogue and cooperation between Italy and France during the 25^th Venice Art Biennale. The two countries jointly developed a retrospective narrative on Fauvism, Cubism and Futurism, with a display designed by Carlo Scarpa. 

For the first time, this research underlines how these exhibitions questioned the national dimension of each artistic movement and anticipated the critical debate on the transnational modern art koine, which non-governmental cultural institutions, such as AICA, addressed in the following years. Thanks to a delicate balance of administrative and diplomatic dynamics, new generations were finally able to acquire a greater knowledge of Modern Art. 

In 1990, Reinhard Mucha, together with the photographer duo Bernd and Hilla Becher, was West Germany’s representative at the 44^th Venice Biennale. With his site-specific installation, Das Deutschlandgerät, Mucha drew attention to a striking parallel between the long manufacturing histories of his native Rhine-Ruhr region of western Germany and the Veneto region of northern Italy. 

This paper contends that Das Deutschlandgerät reveals the artist’s development of an industrial transnational approach to artmaking. Through the medium and strategy of sculptural assemblage, Mucha treated the West German Pavilion of the Federal Republic as a space of intercultural encounter in which two post-industrial societies could converge both conceptually and materially. In 2002, and again in 2021, the artist adapted this project for its permanent display in the Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen’s grand neo-Renaissance building, K21 Ständehaus, effectively bringing two distinct but related regions in Germany and Italy into dialogue twice more.

The 45^th International Art Exhibition held in 1993 represents a watershed in the history of the Venice Biennale. This was due to the transitional historical moment from the end of the Cold War to the onset of globalization, but also to the contribution of appointed curator Achille Bonito Oliva. The article investigates from a comparative approach two much-debated national pavilions presented on that occasion: those of the reunified Germany and the temporary Commonwealth of Independent States, which respectively presented Germania by Hans Haacke, and the Red Pavilion by Ilya Kabakov. Among all national participations, the two pavilions earned an unrivalled exposure and favourable reviews in both general and professional press. Both artists created large-scale site-specific installations which, by intervening on the existing architecture, challenged their status as a showcase of the “national character”. Within an Exhibition dictated by buzzwords such as “cultural nomadism”, “coexistence” and “transnationality”, the two pieces eventually restated the relevance of the national pavilions, showing their potential as artistic and curatorial tools. 

The organisation of national pavilions is the Venice Biennale’s most controversial aspect. However, this feature makes the Biennale’s narrative especially intriguing, as it represents a crucial point where art and politics are inherently connected. This paper examines the case of Portugal and provides evidence to show that cultural and international policies played a crucial role in shaping the country’s participation, with political decisions influencing the development of the country’s art scene. While it remains uncertain how the numerous absences and the non-construction of a Portuguese pavilion at the Biennale may have impacted the global recognition of its art over time, it is undeniable that Portugal and its artists missed out on the opportunities presented by one of the world’s most prestigious contemporary art biennials until the 1970s.

At the 54^th Venice Biennale in 2011, two internationally acclaimed Israeli artists, Sigalit Landau and Yael Bartana, representing Israel and Poland respectively, presented diverging expressions of their Israeli national identity whilst also engaging with the lasting impact of the Holocaust in Israeli collective memory. Bartana’s film trilogy And Europe Will Be Stunned (2007-2011) considers this history head-on, imagining an alternative present in which an activist movement sparks an exodus of Jews from Israel back to their pre-Holocaust home of Poland, in a revolutionary reversal of Zionist principles. Landau’s contribution also creates innovative solutions to questions of Israeli identity and politics. In One Man’s Floor is Another Man’s Feelings, Landau installed various environments using themes of water, land, and salt, referencing the natural border of the Dead Sea between Israel and Jordan. Her work considers the construction of a salt bridge between the two nations, and uses the motif of empty shoes as a reminder of the Holocaust. This paper delves specifically into the expression of national identity and the critique of nationalism that both artists presented at the Biennale, raising questions of transnationalism for future iterations of the exhibition. 

The 1950s were important years for the visibility of Turkish modern art and Turkey’s first participations in international biennials such as Venice, São Paolo, and Paris. Turkey first participated in the Venice Biennale in 1956, and after its participations in 1958 and 1962, Turkey could not participate in it until 1990 for various reasons. The participation in Venice Biennale and other international biennials until 1990s was mostly organized through the initiations of Academy of Fine Arts in Istanbul beside the government’s inadequate support from its related ministeries and foreign embassies. After 1990, first, curator Beral Madra and the Minister of Culture and Tourism and then, in 2007, Istanbul Culture and Arts of Foundation (IKSV) took the responsibility of participation in the Venice Biennale with the support of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But,  participations before and after 1990 differ from each other in many ways. The state’s inefficient cultural policy including contemporary art and the intervention of private sectors in the participations of Turkey in international biennials created the image of Turkey in the global contemporary art scene, and curators also regulated and contributed to this representation through their selection criteria.  Following a historical narrative, this article focuses on Turkey’s representation in the Venice Biennale from the 1956 to 2022, and how these participations were realized through the state’s institutions, individuals and IKSV, and how local, global cultural and political atmosphere had an impact on these participations and how it evolved from (in)visibility to hegemony are discussed through primary sources such as archival documents (ASAC-Archivio Storico delle Arti Contemporanee), exhibitions catalogs and statements of artists and curators. It will shed light on the history of Turkey’s participation in the Venice Biennale that has been little discussed in the writing of art history.

This article examines the British Council's management of the British Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, exploring the complex interplay between different operational frames: showcasing British creativity, supporting creative sectors, conducting cultural diplomacy and advancing cultural relations. Drawing on recent research commissioned by the British Council, the analysis reveals tensions between national promotion and genuine cultural exchange. While the pavilion successfully fulfils its traditional role in cultural diplomacy and sector support, the article argues for a more intentional application of cultural relations principles in its management. It suggests that reimagining the pavilion as a platform for cross-cultural engagement and co-creation could pioneer a new model of pavilion diplomacy better suited to addressing contemporary global challenges. The article proposes practical steps towards embedding cultural relations priorities throughout the pavilion's curatorial processes and engagement strategies, while maintaining its other vital functions. In doing so, it presents a vision for evolving the British Pavilion's role within the Venice Biennale, potentially influencing how national pavilions contribute to international cultural engagement in an interconnected world.

This essay unpacks key issues of transnational curatorial collaboration that emerged during the Biennale Architettura 2021, a high-profile cultural event marked by the uncertainties and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. The article places particular focus on the happenings of the Curators Collective, a coalition of national pavilion curators formed in relation to this particular Biennale, as a case study for considering the tensions and possibilities that come with mutually supportive networks in the context of international cultural exhibition events. We Like, the Austrian contribution to the 2021 Venice Architecture Biennial, dedicated to platform urbanism, became a site of transnational curatorial collaboration and is discussed in the article to contextualise the numerous projects and events of the first Biennale Architettura Midissage (August 27-29, 2021), jointly organised by several dozen national pavilions to fulfil the Biennale’s potential as a platform for synergistic collaboration, solidarity, and accessibility.

Hour of the Wolf is a film documenting the backstage of The Collectors, a project curated by artists Michael Elmgreen & Ingar Dragset for the Danish and Nordic Pavilions at the 53rd International Venice Biennale of Art. The video captures the dismantling and demolition of the exhibition, showing the fictional dimension of the set design and the collapse of the illusion created by the stage objects, which appear here in a new light.

Filmed after the Biennale show, the work transitions the scene in which the audience was immersed during the exhibition into a stage of destruction.  

The film’s title references Vargtimmen (1968), also known as Hour of the Wolf, a work by Swedish director Ingmar Bergmann, whose vision served as an inspiration for Elmgreen & Dragset’s project.