La biennale di Venezia: a bibliographical note

Why "starting from Venice"? If exhibitions represent the main focus of the debate for many scholars, the Venice Biennale is of particular interest, with its long history, constant presence and ongoing renewal that allow us to trace origins and developments of the success of contemporary exhibitions practices. [...] Starting from Venice is a first step towards a still unaccomplished work: the promotion of the studies on the Venice Biennale and the establishment of a point of reference for those who want to keep up to date with the latest trends in studies and research about the Biennale.

MODERN ART IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBALIZATION: SCIENCE, EDUCATION, ART MARKET, 2018

Historiography of the Venice Biennale. One of the latest trends is to represent the history of 20th century art as a process of artistic events. Interest on the problem of biennalisation of culture among researchers appeared almost simultaneously with the comprehension of the processes of globalization and of formation of nations - in the middle of the twentieth century. By the 2000s, interest in these problems had not abated, and now we have the opportunity to be acquainted with the extensive literary heritage, especially for the Venice Biennale. The authors of the monographs on the history of the exhibition Enzo di Martino and Lawrence Alloway unanimously declared in both 1969 and 2005 that "the history of the Biennale does not exist" [4, p.10], and that the studies devoted to this international exhibition "are almost completely absent "[1, p.180]. Nevertheless, the authors offer readers two point of views on the exhibition. In the first case the point of view of the organizers of the event, (Enzo di Martino presents the history of Biennale as a series of director’s projects). And a point of view of curator of a national pavilion (Lawrence Alloway, curator of the American pavilion, speaks about “a vivid set of national identities "[1, p.17]). The exhibition is thus viewed like a nation’s competition, or an upcoming display system. Later, Oleg Sidor-Gibelinda used the principle of Lawrence Alloway in a monograph dedicated to the presence of Ukraine at the Venice Biennale. In the introductory article, the author notes, "with the advent of national pavilions, the principles of a" high feast "are formed." The gourmet spectator does not wander the labyrinth from now on, but selectively inspects national artifacts "[9, p. 100]. Finally, the Russian composers of the monograph "Russian Artists at the Venice Biennale, 1895-2013" do the same. We see the personal stories of the curators of the Soviet pavilions and the history of the approval of the USSR and beyond the post-Soviet Russia on the territory of Venice. "For Russian artists, in turn, reading their art through the prism of national stereotypes ensured success" [8, p.35]. National pavilions of the Venice Biennale, as an object of research, appear for the first time in dissertational scientific works. Pascal Budillon Puma in 1989 examined the international influence of the Venice Biennale on Italian art criticism in 1948-1968. Describing Soviet participation, the author often referred to his "sluggishness" and "piling up" [2, p.88]. Marilène Malbert agreed with her in 2006 in her thesis "International artistic relations at the Venice Biennale, 1948-1968", a historical essay based on the materials of the Archives of the Venice Biennale ASAC. The researcher noted the "retrograde" nature of Soviet exhibitions and the "inflexible" exhibition policy [6, p.150]. Finally, Maria Vittoria Martini, writing about the structural changes in the Biennale, said, "the Soviet Union alone did not take the innovation of the leadership of the Biennale" [5, p.95], about the events of the 1970s, when the Biennale turned from a conservative structure into a "modern art laboratory ". In the works of these authors, the Biennale is analyzed as a simple sequence of events without an actual analysis of the production and perception processes of the public of various national pavilions. Eastern Europe at the Venice Biennale, including the newly formed states, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is perceived by researchers as "unchanging", "devoid of evolution" [6, p.171], the case of "resistance to progress" and "stagnation" [5, p.101]. The conferences of recent years are devoted to the study of the Venice Biennale. The collection of scientific articles "Where Art Worlds Meet: Multiple Modernities and The Global Salon: la Biennale di Venezia International Symposium", which is attended by such important figures in the international art arena as Carolyn Jones, theorist of "Biennial Culture" or Robert Storr, critic, art historian and curator of the Venice Biennale of 2007; is a reflection of heated debates in curatorial circles, on painful issues for the Venice exhibition. Among other things, the commercialization of the venue and its academic character. Later in 2007, the conference "Starting from Venice: studies on the Biennale" offers various approaches to the study of the venue. Therefore, the Swiss researcher Beat Wiss offers an interesting method. The author emphasizes that the artistic biennale can be regarded as a place of continuous formation of modernity: national participation in the structure of the Venice Biennale can be regarded as a modernized cultural identity of the country [7, p.120]. Concluding the review of the literature, it can be stated that a full theoretical study of the definition of the role and the place of the Biennale in modern art practice was not conducted. The analysis of the art of individual states has generally not enough attention, the understanding of the role of Eastern Europe in the context of the exhibition is debatable, and finally the question of the artistic and political aspects of the presence of the former Soviet republics at the Venice Biennale and the problem of designing their identity is not analyzed. Literature 1. ALLOWAY, Lawrence the Venice Biennale, 1895-1968: from salon to goldfish bowl. London: Faber Physical Description, 1969 2. BUDILLON PUMA, Pascale L’analyse d'art italienne devant les apports étrangers à la Biennale de Venise des arts figuratifs (1948-1968). Paris: Université Paris VIII, 1989. 3. BIENNALE di Venezia International Symposium, Where art worlds meet: multiple modernities and the global salon: la Biennale di Venezia International Symposium. Venezia: Marsilio, 2005. 4. DI MARTINO, Enzo, The history of the Venice Biennale: 1895-2005. Venezia: Papiro Arte, 2005. 5. MARTINI, Maria Vittoria La Biennale di Venezia 1968-1978: la rivoluzione incompiuta. Venezia: Università Ca 'Foscari, 2011. 6. MALBERT, Marylène Les relations artistiques internationales à la Biennale de Venise 1948-1968. Paris: Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2006. 7. RICCI, Clarissa (dir.) Starting from Venice: studies on the Biennale. Milano: ET. Al., 2010 8. MOLOK N. ed. Russian artists at the Venice Biennale, 1895-2013. Moscow: Stella Art Foundation, 2013 9. Sidor-Gibelinda, O. Українці на венеційськііі бієнале: сто років присутності. - Kiev: Our Hour, 2008

Making Art History in Europe After 1945, Edited by Noemi de Haro García, Patricia Mayayo, Jesús Carrillo, Routledge, 2020

The literature on the Venice Biennale has rarely addressed from a critical point of view the impact of the Italian politics on this institution and its structure. Reformed in 1932 by the Fascist dictatorship and controlled since then by the central government, still now-a-day the Venice Biennale depends from the political agenda of those parties governing the Democratic Republic of Italy. This essay aims to focus on two key years in the history of the institution, 1948 and 1968. In these dates, the political tensions among the major Italian parties determined a radical transformation in both the Biennale’s organisation and its artistic programme. Through the analysis of the politics of display employed in the 24th Venice Bienniale the first part of the essay [written by Stefano Collicelli Cagol] aims to unfold the influence on the Italian art historical discourse of the complex net of traumas, denials and reactions, which characterised Italy in its post-war years. Opened in 1948, the 24th edition was the first one since the end of the war and the collapsed of the Fascist dictatorship. Turning itself into a museum-like institution, the 1948 Biennial responded both to its uncomfortable recent Fascist past and to the international and Italian political turmoil of post 1945. The Biennale President, Giovanni Ponti – closely linked to the Christian Democratic Party at the time in government – invited some of the most prominent Italian art historians to define the artistic programme of the institution, setting a trend for the following twenty years. Avoiding an ideological reading of the works of art, the Biennale adopted a strategy of historicisation and de-politicisation of contemporary art display, strongly influenced by a pure-visibility approach on art. This approach lasted with different fortunes until 1973, when the events that unfolded around the Venice Biennale of 1968, forced the Italian Parliament to draft a new statute to replace the one in force, which dated from 1938. The new statute was the symbol of the cultural battle for all Italian institutions after the protest, consequently the Parliament left to the Biennale much autonomy and freedom justified by the particular social, political and cultural situation that followed ‘68. Under the aegis of Carlo Ripa di Meana, affiliated to the PSI – Socialist Italian Party, the rising new Italian political force of the 1980s, the Venice Biennale abandoned its festival structure to become an “institute of permanent culture”, openly ideological, participant in the social and political debate, a “public service”. Between 1974 and 1977, the new statute led to a model of cultural production and consumption that revolved around the political role of art, marking a departure in the traditional art historical framework characterising the institution since the Post-war years. The Biennale returned to the scene after ’68 with a theme-oriented exhibition format in line with the international new art practices expecting the start of an international debate and provided a test-bed for the new course of the PSI within the Italian politics. With the end of the 1970s, with their tensions and political engagement, the Bienniale further transformed itself to be aligned with the return to the private (stagione del riflusso), a return to a more hedonistic and disengaged period lasting through the 1980s and proposing since 1978 a series of thematic exhibitions with an art historical approach, thus merging the two critical models here analysed and developed by the institution since 1948.

This is the second chapter of the book "Just Another Exhibition. Histories and Politics of Biennials" (Postemdiabooks, Milano 2011 co-authored with F. Martini). The book intends to set the biennials within the framework of the history of exhibitions, in order to observe the transformations of recent curatorial practice in relation to the issue of internationality and national representation. The second chapter examines the 1976 Biennale, as a point of rupture in the history of the Venice Biennale, since it marks the beginning of theme-based exhibitions as a solution to the fragmented exhibition space brought about by national pavilions.