• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Critics of the Venice Biennale’s female-dominated programme say the line-up sacrificed quality. Ben Luke thinks this only shows how necessary the focus was.

From the moment Cecilia Alemani announced the artist list for the Venice Biennale, the dominance of women was a talking point. Exclamations of excitement filled The Art Newspaper’s freelance writers’ WhatsApp group as artists such as Christina Quarles and Paula Rego were confirmed among the around 90%-female selection.

Yet immediately, mutterings of discontent seeped from the art-world woodwork. A major gallerist opined to me that Alemani’s Biennale was “politically correct”, a phrase that—like the more recent “virtue-signalling” and “woke”—is the refuge for those who see their prejudices challenged. On an opening day tour, I overheard a journalist probing Alemani in exasperated tones about the abundance of women.

Alemani responded calmly, with words similar to those she used when I asked about the show’s gender balance on The Week in Art podcast in February. The selection “came fluidly and naturally” she told me. “I’ve always worked with lots of women artists. When I wanted to invite a man, I invited him.” It was, of course, deliberately a woman-orientated list, partly because Alemani’s themes are informed by writers including Ursula Le Guin and Donna Haraway...Keep reading on The Art Newspaper.