Over the past two decades, the biennale model has become one of the most prominent formats in the global art world. From the Venice Biennale, the progenitor of this phenomenon, to regional counterparts in Asia, Africa, and South America, large‑scale exhibitions have reconfigured how contemporary art is produced, circulated, and consumed. In India, the Kochi‑Muziris Biennale (KMB) has anchored this trend, transforming a port city into a global art destination and catalyzing a flourishing ecosystem of galleries, residencies, and cultural infrastructures.
Yet, as the number and scale of these events multiply, curators, artists, and critical observers are increasingly questioning whether biennales still carry the urgency they once did. Are they still platforms of radical critique and social engagement, or have they risked becoming institutionalized spectacles more aligned with tourism markets, branding, and the demands of cultural diplomacy than the deep critique of artistic practice they once promised?
The Rise of the Biennale and Its Transformative Impact
The biennale model emerged in the mid‑twentieth century as a novel platform for artistic experimentation beyond the marketplace. Over time, its international iterations, including the São Paulo Biennale, Istanbul Biennial, and Sharjah Biennial, have sought to foreground global perspectives and narratives that extend beyond Euro‑American art circuits.
In India, the Kochi‑Muziris Biennale has been particularly significant. Since its first edition in 2012, the event has attracted hundreds of thousands of visitors, drawing global attention to the contemporary art scene in South Asia.
Its expansive footprint across heritage venues in Fort Kochi and Mattancherry has symbolically and materially animated contexts previously overlooked by the mainstream international art world. This transformation has not only reshaped global perceptions of Indian contemporary art but has also integrated local economies, hotels, restaurants, and cultural spaces, which have all benefited from increased tourism and cultural participation.
At their best, biennales have served as critical arenas for dialogue, dissent, and experimentation. Historically, editions of the Venice Biennale and Kochi Biennale alike have presented politically charged works that reflected pressing social issues. Early critics of KMB noted its capacity to open space for dissent and critique in a global context where artistic liberties are often constrained
Institutionalization, Market Pressures, and the Question of Urgency
Despite these accomplishments, contemporary biennales now confront a range of pressures that have the potential to dilute their critical edge. One major concern lies in the institutionalization of the model itself. As biennales proliferate, each with its own curatorial frameworks, sponsors, and marketing strategies, there is a risk that the very qualities that once made them sites of experimentation become subsumed within an increasingly predictable global circuit.
From a socio‑economic perspective, biennales are expensive ventures to produce. Funding often relies on a combination of state support, corporate sponsorship, and private philanthropy. While this infrastructure has enabled ambitious programming, it has also introduced bureaucratic and market imperatives that can constrain artistic freedom. In India, the Kochi Biennale Foundation has grappled with financial strain, organizational delays, and structural challenges that have complicated the realization of its curatorial ambitions. A shortage of resources, customs barriers for imported works, and venue constraints have periodically undermined institutional stability.
These logistical and financial pressures can redirect biennales away from critical engagement toward operational survival. When exhibitions must cater to large crowds, tourism agendas, or diplomatic objectives, the risk grows that curatorial choices become oriented around visibility rather than depth. Indeed, some biennales are now critiqued for reproducing the very mainstream exhibition models they had once sought to disrupt.
Questions of Accessibility and Local Engagement
Another dimension of this debate concerns accessibility and audience inclusivity. While biennales attract international audiences, their thematic language and institutional frameworks can alienate local publics. Critics and residents have observed that opaque curatorial language and highly conceptual installations sometimes fail to resonate with non‑specialist visitors, creating perceived divides between “insider” art world discourse and lived cultural contexts.
This tension is compounded by the spatial dynamics of biennales. The use of historical buildings, heritage warehouses, and an abundance of sites does cultivate a unique sense of place, but it can also intensify feelings of detachment among local inhabitants unfamiliar with global art theory. Such experiences raise the question: if a biennale’s critical ambition does not translate into meaningful local engagement, to whom is its critique addressed?
Curatorial Responses and New Directions
Responding to these challenges, some biennale editions are experimenting with alternative curatorial models intended to reignite critical urgency. The 2025–26 Kochi‑Muziris Biennale, titled “For the Time Being,” reframes the event not as a static showcase but as a living ecosystem, integrating performances, workshops, community dialogues, and site‑specific commissions developed from within the city itself.
By centering process over product and emphasizing locally grounded practice, this edition seeks to foreground embodied experience and temporal art forms rather than grand, market‑friendly spectacle. Importantly, it also reflects an awareness of institutional critique, incorporating artists and collectives that address social justice, labor, and community participation, a subtle recalibration of the biennale model toward ethical and relational practices.
Such efforts signal a broader shift in curatorial thinking: from international visibility as an end in itself toward practices anchored in contextual relevance, accountability, and ethical engagement. These priorities respond directly to growing critiques of biennales as repetitive or institutionalized spectacles, offering instead frameworks that integrate artistic process with social and material realities.
Beyond Spectacle toward Critical Renewal
The contemporary biennale remains a potent format for experimentation, dialogue, and cultural exchange. Its historical ascent signaled a break from institutional inertia, creating expansive platforms for artistic voices across geographies. However, the current proliferation of mega exhibitions raises urgent questions about their continuing relevance and critical efficacy.
Are biennales losing urgency because they have become too predictable, too market‑aligned, or too distant from local contexts? Or are they evolving into new forms, less about spectacle and more about sustained engagement and ethical practice?
If future editions prioritize process, community integration, and relational aesthetics over sheer scale and consumption, biennales could reclaim the critical depths that first made them transformative. The challenge for practitioners, curators, and audiences alike is not merely to expand biennale footprints but to deepen their intellectual, social, and cultural resonance.
