Venice Mayor Warns Russia’s Biennale Pavilion Could Be Closed if It Turns to Propaganda
Venice is signaling that the Russian Pavilion will be allowed to open at the next Venice Biennale only under strict conditions. Mayor Luigi Brugnaro said the city would move to shut the pavilion if it is used to disseminate propaganda, a pointed warning as Russia prepares to participate again after stepping back in the wake of its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Brugnaro made the remarks while speaking with journalists at the reopening of the Venice Biennale’s renovated Central Pavilion, a major refurbishment that cost €31 million and took 16 months to complete. “If the Russian government were to carry out propaganda, we would be the first to close the pavilion,” he told the Ansa press agency.
The decision to reopen the Russian Pavilion has become one of the most politically charged questions surrounding the upcoming edition of the Biennale, scheduled for May. In Italy, it has exposed a split between key figures: Biennale president Pietrangelo Buttafuoco has not opposed Russia’s return, while Italian culture minister Alessandro Giuli has publicly criticized the move. Brugnaro acknowledged the disagreement, saying he and Giuli have “differing visions.”
At the same time, the mayor sought to position Venice as both politically clear-eyed and culturally open. “I am pro-Ukrainian, we have twinned Venice with Odessa, and Russia is the aggressor, but we are not at war with the Russian people, and art is open,” he said, adding that the Biennale should remain a place for dialogue and cultural exchange.
Details released about the Russian Pavilion suggest a program designed to emphasize performance and cultural heritage rather than a conventional national presentation of visual art. According to Mikhail Shvydkoy, President Vladimir Putin’s cultural envoy, the pavilion will feature a musical program centered on folklore and world music, involving more than 50 musicians, poets, and philosophers from Russia and other countries. The project is curated by Anastasia Karneeva.
Shvydkoy has framed the pavilion’s participation not as a “comeback” but as an effort to “explore new forms of creative activity under current circumstances.” In an email, he argued that Russia’s presence at the Biennale never fully disappeared, pointing to the pavilion’s continued existence and its use in recent years for other purposes.
The Biennale’s organizers, for their part, have insisted that allowing the Russian Pavilion to reopen does not violate sanctions imposed on Moscow after the invasion of Ukraine. In a statement issued earlier this month, they said they have complied with all applicable restrictions and that “no regulations have been violated,” adding that documentation has been provided to the Italian culture ministry to support that position. The organization also reiterated its opposition to “any form of exclusion or censorship of culture and art,” describing the exhibition as a space for “dialogue, openness, and artistic freedom” even amid geopolitical strain.
That strain has only intensified as the Biennale approaches. The European Union has said it could withdraw funding if Russia participates, raising the stakes for an event that relies on a complex web of public support and international partnerships. Giuli has responded by calling for the resignation of Tamara Gregoretti, the culture ministry’s representative to the Biennale, and by demanding full documentation related to the Russian Pavilion and its sanctions compliance.
Brugnaro’s warning suggests Venice is attempting to hold two positions at once: defending the Biennale’s long-standing claim to cultural openness while drawing a bright line against overt state messaging. Whether that balance can be maintained will likely be tested once the Russian Pavilion’s program begins in earnest — and as scrutiny from Italian officials and European institutions continues to build.
