A dispute over the naming of Taiwan’s participation in the 2026 Gwangju Biennale has escalated into accusations of political censorship after organizers replaced the designation “Taiwan Pavilion” with “NTMOFA,” the acronym of Taiwan’s National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts. Taiwanese artists and government bodies have demanded that the original name be restored, while the Gwangju Biennale has yet to publicly explain the reason for the change.
According to NTMoFA and Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture, the project had been proposed, contracted, and prepared in communications with the organizers under the name “Taiwan Pavilion.” The designation was later changed in promotional materials issued by the Gwangju Biennale, while other participants continued to appear under a mixture of national and institutional names. The Biennale’s own call for the Pavilion program invited participation from both “countries and institutions.”
Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says its office in Busan became aware of the change in early July and sent a protest to the organizers. NTMoFA subsequently pursued the issue through the curatorial organizers and the Gwangju city government. Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture publicly objected to the change on August 9.
On August 15, ten participating Taiwanese artists and curators issued a joint statement titled “The Censored Taiwan Pavilion,” describing the renaming as political censorship and calling for the original designation to be restored. The signatories are Li Yi-fan, Juan Po-yuan, Lin Yu-liang, Chang Wen-hsuan, Hsu Che-yu, Chen Hsiang-wen, Chen Wan-yin, Cheng Hsien-yu, Chen Ting-ting, and Su Hui-yu.
“We believe that a biennale founded on the historical values of democracy, human rights and the ‘Gwangju spirit’ has a responsibility to explain why participants’ self-identification should be politically restricted,” the artists stated.
The statement situates the dispute within broader concerns over political interference in international exhibitions. The artists argue that works and exhibitions have increasingly been subject to alteration or exclusion on the basis of nationality, gender, religion, or political position, and frame the removal of “Taiwan Pavilion” not simply as a disagreement over nomenclature but as a question of freedom of expression within the international art field.
The reference to the “Gwangju spirit” is particularly pointed. The Gwangju Biennale has long associated its institutional identity with the democratic and human-rights legacy of the May 18, 1980 Gwangju Uprising. The participating artists argue that this history places a particular responsibility on the Biennale to account for restrictions placed on how participants identify themselves.
As of August 16, the Gwangju Biennale had not publicly explained the reason for the change. There is currently no publicly available evidence establishing that the Chinese government directly requested the removal of the word “Taiwan.” The available evidence confirms the change in designation, the objections raised by Taiwanese participants and authorities, and the absence of a public explanation, but not the source or motivation behind the decision.
There is also a recent local precedent for the disputed terminology. At the 2025 Gwangju Design Biennale, Taiwan participated under the explicit designation “Taiwan Pavilion,” presenting the project “Inclusive Taiwan.” The Design Biennale is a separate event from the Gwangju Biennale, however, and the precedent does not establish that the two programs follow identical naming policies.
The reason for the change therefore remains unresolved. Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on August 16 that discussions with the organizers, curatorial unit, and Gwangju city government were continuing. For the participating artists, the absence of an explanation has itself become part of the dispute.
Sources: CNA (1, 2, 3); Taiwan Ministry of Culture; Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Gwangju Biennale.
