program - abstracts: Constructions / Identitites: Pavilions, Art, Architecture (original) (raw)
Related papers
Historiography of Venice 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
Towards a Contemporary Venice Biennale: Reassessing the Impact of the 1993 Exhibition [paper]
in OBOE Journal of Biennials and Other Exhibitions, 2020
This paper argues that Cardinal Points of Art, directed by Achille Bonito Oliva has been decisive in the formation of the contemporary Venice Biennale. The 45 th Venice Biennale, (1993) was memorable for many reasons: the first exhibition of Chinese painters in Venice, its transnational approach, and because it was the last time the Aperto exhibition was shown. Nevertheless, this was a complex and much criticised Biennale whose specific characteristics are also connected to the process of reform that the institution had been undergoing since the 1970s. The analysis of the exhibition starts with the examination of this legacy and continues by questioning Bonito Oliva's curatorial contribution in order to define the specific features which helped to shape the contemporary Venice Biennale.
Towards a Contemporary Venice Biennale: Reassessing the Impact of the 1993 Exhibition
2020
This paper argues that Cardinal Points of Art, directed by Achille Bonito Oliva has been decisive in the formation of the contemporary Venice Biennale. The 45th Venice Biennale, (1993) was memorable for many reasons: the first exhibition of Chinese painters in Venice, its transnational approach, and because it was the last time the Aperto exhibition was shown. Nevertheless, this was a complex and much criticised Biennale whose specific characteristics are also connected to the process of reform that the institution had been undergoing since the 1970s. The analysis of the exhibition starts with the examination of this legacy and continues by questioning Bonito Oliva’s curatorial contribution in order to define the specific features which helped to shape the contemporary Venice Biennale.
The Venice Biennale at its Turning Points
Making Art History in Europe after 1945, Routledge, 2020
This book analyses the intermeshing of state power and art history in Europe since 1945 and up to the present from a critical, de-centered perspective. Devoting special attention to European peripheries and to under-researched transnational cultural political initiatives related to the arts implemented after the end of the Second World War, the contributors explore the ways in which this relationship crystallised in specific moments, places, discourses and practices. They make the historic hegemonic centres of the discipline converse with Europe’s Southern and Eastern peripheries, from Portugal to Estonia to Greece. By stressing the margins’ point of view this volume rethinks the ideological grounds on which art history and the European Union have been constructed as well as the role played by art and culture in the very concept of ‘Europe.’
The Evolution of an Exhibition Model. Venice Biennale as an Entity in Time
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.
Fundamentals: Expressing Modern Architecture at Biennale Venice 2014
Handbook on Emerging Trends in Scientific Research ISBN: 978-969-9952-07-4, 2016
The Biennale held at Venice this year exhibit a strong intellectual challenge inaugurated by the curator Rem Koolhaas. The-Theme‖ for the 14 th cycle is-Fundamentals‖ in Art and Architecture. This theme will be presented by 40 different countries in the national pavilions. The major issue to be presented this year which is different than other years will be according to Koolhaas, the representation of-architecture‖ rather than-architects‖. In addition to this, the main theme for the National Pavilions, which will be the main focus of this paper, is the expression of architecture in different nations during the past 100 years, from 1914-2014. This will be discussed in the shadows of the dilemma of Modernism and National Regionalism. Going through the different stages of understanding ‗national' architecture, World Wars, Modernism and then globalization, the theme represents an important challenge for each contributor to express the evolution of architecture in their nations. The paper will be divided into two parts. First is a brief review of the emergence of Modernism and the International dimensions affecting its spread in different communities. Second is the documentation of the Theme of the Biennale, as well as the contributions of a selection of countries. Following that will be analysis of those contributions in relation to the theme as well as to the analysis of two main contributors from the Middle East. The paper concludes by a discussion related to the intellectual outcomes of the contributions and their relation with the national history and Modernism. This conclusion will shed light on how countries in the Middle East precisely relate to the dilemma of representation in the shadows of Modernity.
Making Art History in Europe after 1945 (the ‘Work’) edited by Noemi de Haro-García, Patricia Mayayo-Bost and Jesús Carrillo-Castillo (‘the Editor’), Routledge
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. Between 1974 and 1977, the new rules led to a model of cultural production and consumption that revolved around the political roleof art, marking a departure in the traditional art historical framework characterising the institution since the Post-war years. In that period the politicization of the Biennale is evident not only in the contents of the initiatives and in its approach to the arts, but also in the ‘lotting’ practice, in which the ruling parties negotiated for the most important positions. The Presidency of the reformed Biennale was granted to the Partito Socialista Italiano’s Carlo Ripa di Meana. During the mandate of Ripa di Meana, between 1974 and 1977, two main issues were developed, not unlike leimotivs. The first is the ‘decentralization’ and the search for a new audience, which was also, at the same time, the search for a new relationship with Venice, its inhabitants and territory, by focusing on the preservation of the city, but also on the deep change in the traditional mercantilistic relationship between art objects and the exhibition itself. This issue is evident in the general spreading around the city of 1975’s activities of the institution. The second main issue I would like to address in this talk is the main leitmotiv of this four-year period, i.e. the anti-fascist stance coupled with a declaration of cultural-institutional independence. This leitmotiv emerges clearly in the 1974 edition, Libertà al Cile, in the homage to post-Franco Spain organized in 1976, and in the 1977 edition dedicated to the “cultural dissent in the Eastern European countries”. The debates in the press and the initiatives organized in this period reveal how the Venetian institution mirrored the changes in Italian politics. The Biennale testified to the declining popularity of the two mass parties (DC and PCI) and provided a test-bed for the new course of the PSI’s leader Bettino Craxi, who was determined to exploit the “anthropological mutation” of Italian society which Pier Paolo Pasolini was exposing in the same period. By analysing the multidisciplinary initiatives of the Visual Arts sector of the Biennale, I would like to understand the interplay between art and politics following the 1968 protests, the ‘Years of Lead’ and the 1977 new wave of student protests; the impact on the art historical debate within both national and international context; the reactions among Italian art historians and the legacy of those experimental years within the history of the Biennial. This paper intends to respond to the Session 1, by analysing the influence on a state-run institution such as the Venice Biennale of a series of political decisions and tensions by looking at the impact on both the Italian society and the local and international art historical debate of the time.