Goliath’s Gaza reference sparks South Africa’s exit from Venice Biennale

South Africa withdraws from the 2026 Venice Biennale after the Culture Minister revokes approval of Gabrielle Goliath’s project, sparking legal action and allegations of censorship.

“Divisive” was the term used to describe the project proposed by artist Gabrielle Goliath and curator Ingrid Masondo for the South African Pavilion at the 2026 Venice Biennale. The definition came from the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, who ultimately revoked the project’s approval shortly before the Biennale’s official deadlines, effectively excluding South Africa from the exhibition.

The proposal had previously been unanimously selected by an independent committee. In response to the Minister’s intervention, the artist and curator have initiated legal proceedings, currently underway at the High Court in Pretoria.

“ELEGY” AND ITS INTENDED VENETIAN ITERATION

Now emblematic of Goliath’s practice, Elegy is a polyphonic lament — a collective act of remembrance addressing the urgent issues of femicide and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, particularly in Southern Africa. First developed in 2015, the work takes the form of a performance in which seven women dressed in black sustain a single note for the duration of one hour. The result is a prolonged mourning chant: a ritual of grief, a commemorative weeping, a sonic gesture that seeks to hold and honour lives cut short.

Approved last December by a committee composed of prominent figures from South Africa’s art world, the version of Elegy conceived for Venice included three additional suites. These new chapters would have addressed the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama peoples by German colonial forces in Namibia in the early twentieth century, as well as the death of Palestinian poet Hiba Abu Nada, killed at the age of thirty-two during an Israeli airstrike in Gaza on 10 October 2023.

ALLEGATIONS OF CENSORSHIP

In a letter addressed to the Minister, dated 4 January 2026, Goliath and Masondo argue that the requested changes targeted specific elements of the exhibition:

“The elements you wish changed or removed are specifically those that address the tragic loss of civilian lives in Gaza, especially those of Palestinian women and children. It is our position that your demand for the change or removal of these aspects of the exhibition amounts to censorship”.

They further state: “The effective collapse of South Africa’s participation at a major international platform because of expressive content amounts to coercive suppression.”
For the artist and curator, the issue is not merely administrative but constitutional, touching upon the limits of artistic freedom and state intervention.

A NATION’S HISTORY AND THE “CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE” OF ART

The controversy acquires particular resonance in the South African context. As a nation historically shaped by apartheid, South Africa’s political and cultural identity has long been intertwined with struggles against racial oppression and systemic discrimination. Politically engaged art has played a central role in that history.
Yet the Minister has maintained that “demonstrations of solidarity with civilian victims of violence in Gaza, as advocated for in the selected exhibition and artwork, do not reflect a relevant or appropriate ‘South African story’”.
Goliath and Masondo directly challenge this position. In their response, they write: “to instrumentalise this history so that artistic expression is reduced to state branding is to fundamentally misunderstand its constitutional value and its democratic function in expressing who we are and our place in the world”.

It is clear that this is not merely about the fate of a Biennale pavilion. The incident reminds us that, on a global scale, the artistic community is not immune to the coercive control of institutional power, which draws a clear line between what may be brought to light and what must remain in the shadows.