When Art Shares the Stage with Context

​By Gabriela

Since its creation over sixty years ago, the Eurovision Song Contest has stood as a powerful symbol of unity through music. Originally launched to foster peace and cooperation in post-war Europe, the contest has grown into a beloved cultural phenomenon with global reach. In recent years, however, Eurovision has become more than just a music competition: it has evolved into a stage where cultural, political, and identity-based narratives often share the spotlight with artistic performance. This transformation invites reflection not only on Eurovision's purpose but on how we evaluate art today.

​​I first heard about Eurovision through Family:  my uncle, who’s a diplomat and an art lover like me, always mentioned it. But I only started following it in 2022, when I was 17, after watching the Netflix movie about the festival. That year’s songs truly captivated me. Since then, Eurovision has become part of my life. Even though it’s not broadcast in Brazil, I used my platform at the online radio where I interned to write articles and produce soundcasts about it. I was proud to see those pieces gain significant traction and views.

As a cinema student, I admire Eurovision’s founding mission: to unite people through music. My dream is to work in international cinema, and I hope one day to recommend Eurovision songs for film soundtracks. But lately, I’ve noticed a shift: like in the film world, decisions sometimes seem driven more by context or messaging than by the art itself. I don’t say this to criticize representation or deny the value of social causes, far from it. What I hope is that we can develop our critical thinking and reflect on how we assess creative work.
​
I was particularly disappointed with the 2023 outcome. ABBA’s 1974 victory with Waterloo was iconic and truly deserved, a cornerstone of Swedish musical history. But perhaps it’s time to give more room to new voices, regardless of their background or commercial success. We need to make and recognize art for art’s sake again, both in music and in film. That’s the message I hope this reflection sends: that we can celebrate diversity and inclusion without losing sight of the craft, emotion, and merit at the heart of artistic expression.

The Eurovision Song Contest has attracted a massive audience since its inception more than six decades ago. Originally created to unite European countries through music and support the reconstruction of the continent after World War II, the event organized by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) has become one of the most anticipated, acclaimed, and beloved annual music competitions worldwide. Artists from diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to achieve global fame and take home the crystal microphone, the symbol of victory, while also earning their country the right to host the following year's edition.
​
Among the many names that gained recognition thanks to Eurovision are icons like Celine Dion, ABBA, Alexander Rybak, Emma Muscat, Wild Youth, Loreen, and many others. Although traditionally European, the contest has also opened its doors to countries outside the continent, such as Australia, Israel, and the Caucasus nations, becoming a cultural event that transcends geographic borders.

In recent years, however, Eurovision has come to reflect more than just artistic talent and musical diversity. Since 2018, some outcomes have sparked discussions about the role of the contest: is it still a stage for pure artistic expression, or has it increasingly become a space where political and cultural factors carry greater weight in the decisions of both the jury and the public? 

In 2018, the victory of Israeli singer Netta Barzilai with the song Toy, inspired by the MeToo movement, sparked debates about the contest’s role amid regional conflict. At the time, some critics noted that the artist’s success was accompanied by ongoing political tensions involving Israel and Palestine, and questioned the decision to host the following year’s event in Israel.

In 2022, Ukraine’s victory during the war caused controversy amid the Russian invasion. Despite Russia being banned from the contest, many viewed Ukraine’s win as going beyond the musical sphere, reflecting more a political gesture of support than a purely artistic judgment. In 2023, the contest was hosted by the U.K., since Ukraine was unable to host due to the ongoing war, but it remained officially recognized as the winner.

The 2023 edition generated some debate with the victory of Swedish singer Loreen, which awarded Sweden the right to host the festival in 2024. This result divided opinions, particularly given Finland’s strong performance as runner-up, as well as the symbolic significance of celebrating the 50th anniversary of ABBA’s first win in 1974 with the song Waterloo.

In 2024, singer Nemo Mettler, who identifies as non-binary, represented Switzerland and won the competition with a powerful performance. Their victory was celebrated by many as a symbol of inclusion, diversity, and gender representation in the European artistic scene. However, this growing emphasis on identity-related themes also raises legitimate questions about balancing cultural impact with strictly musical merit. While it is undeniable that art reflects the time in which it is created, it is important to consider whether, at certain moments, symbols and social causes have come to carry a weight comparable to or even greater than the compositions themselves. This observation does not seek to devalue the artists or their messages, but rather to invite reflection on the contest’s role: does it still prioritize music as a universal language, or is it gradually becoming a platform for social and political affirmation? 

This debate gains even more momentum in the 2025 edition, amid the controversy surrounding Israel’s second-place finish against the backdrop of escalating conflict in the Gaza Strip. The country’s participation in the competition has sparked tensions among delegations and public protests calling for its exclusion from the event as a form of protest against the ongoing humanitarian crisis. However, the Eurovision organizers chose to keep Israel in the contest, justifying the decision by emphasizing the festival’s commitment to political neutrality and its role as a space for unity through music. This decision elicited mixed reactions: for some, art should transcend geopolitical issues; for others, maintaining neutrality in sensitive contexts raises questions about the consistency of the values the festival aims to represent. In this scenario, it is worth asking: when does art serve as resistance or dialogue, and when does it risk being instrumentalized?

Throughout history, art has consistently engaged with the context in which it is created — sometimes as critique, sometimes as a mirror of society. However, in an international competition like Eurovision, a delicate question arises: what should carry more weight in the evaluation:  the aesthetic and creative strength of the performance, or the political and social meaning it conveys? This question has no easy answer, especially in a world facing intense and painful challenges. The aim is not to separate art from reality, but to reflect on whether allowing external factors to influence the selection of winners risks undermining artistic judgment itself. When an artist is recognized more for the context they represent than for their musical merit, it can shape the way the audience understands the true purpose of the competition.

It is important to highlight that Eurovision remains a powerful showcase of talent, cultures, and diverse voices, something that should be recognized and celebrated. However, observing the decisions in recent years, one can notice an increasing complexity in the line that separates the artistic from the symbolic. The true challenge lies in finding balance: allowing art to express urgent realities without letting those realities become the sole criteria for decision-making. After all, if Eurovision was created to unite nations through music, perhaps the greatest responsibility now is to ensure that art continues to be at the heart of that union, and not merely a reflection of external struggles.​