The Venice Biennale and the Asia-Pacific in the Global Art World

Stephen Naylor

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781351062084
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: Art General

This monograph uses the national pavilions of the Venice Biennale as a vehicle to examine the development of international contemporary art trends within the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia, Japan and Korea and 16 additional national entities who have had less continuous participation in this global art event.

Analysing both the spatial and visual representation of contemporary art presented at the Venice Biennale and incorporating the politics behind national selections, this monograph provides insights into a range of important elements of the global art industry. Areas analysed include national cultural trends and strategies, the inversion of the peripheral to the centre stage of the Biennale, geopolitics in gaining exhibition space at the Venice Biennale, curatorial practices for contemporary art presentation and artistic trends that seek to deal with major economic, cultural, religious and environmental issues emerging from non-European art centres.

This monograph will be of interest to scholars in art history, museum studies and Asia-Pacific cultural history.

Part 1

Overview

In 1968, Lawrence Alloway wrote ‘the Venice Biennale is not only a demonstration of arts contextual shifts; it is, during a period of unprecedented exhibition-activity, the major institution’ (Alloway, 1969, p. 210). By the end of his book, Alloway spoke of the challenges ahead for the Biennale, as at its inception in 1895 it sought to champion the avant-garde and provide effective communication to assist the public in understanding that which was too contemporary to be captured within anthologies or texts. Alloway’s final statement heralded the new era of biennials, triennials, quinquennials and even a decennial event in what had become an explosion of national and international platforms for contemporary art. The problem facing the Venice Biennale, as he saw it, was largely one of managing the 37 nations who participated in the 1966 Venice Biennale and controlling the messages to be communicated about 20th-century art. Fifty-three years later, those 37 nations have become 86 national participants, and that exclusivity as national icons of contemporary art has become highly diminished.

Despite Alloway’s concerns, it has been recognised that one of the most significant elements of contemporary art over the last half century had been the creation of many landmark survey shows that drew in international contemporary art and ran periodically, usually in a biennial or triennial cycle (Gardner & Green, 2016). What the Venice Biennale has been able to achieve is a virtual continuation of representation of western art ¹ , mapping the national forces that have competed for artistic hegemony for more than a century. Over this time, the Venice Biennale has created a window into a discrete slice of visual arts history, one which has more recently been enhanced by the inclusion of a truly international group of countries, federations, states, provinces, territories, republics, kingdoms and even special administrative regions presenting contemporary art under a ‘national banner’ ² . The research for this monograph has uncovered the national strategic imperatives, the politics behind national selections and the incentives, commitments and challenges that artists accept in being represented in the Venice Biennale. It must also be recognised that the Venice Biennale has become more than purely a visual arts agency, and in the 21st century it has portfolios in architecture (1980), cinema (1932), dance (1999), music (1930) and theatre (1934).

The entire premise behind this monograph was to analyse the importance of national pavilions from the Asia-Pacific region as they have participated in the Venice Biennale. These national pavilions have taken on the form of national homelands that sit in the precincts of the Venice Biennale, which at times have been used to promote nationalistic sentiments or even to draw attention to national issues. The research focuses on national groups from a particular area bounded by India in the west, ³ Japan in the north, Kiribati in the east and New Zealand in the south; this region encompasses 16 national entities that are classed as countries, republics or some other distinct political geographic entity who have been represented at the Venice Biennale. Included in the research are three entities whose national status is contested by the People’s Republic of China ⁴ but have exhibited at the Biennale on numerous occasions in collateral events with a quasi-national focus. The earliest examples of nations from this region seeking to participate in the Venice Biennale began more than a century ago. Despite the enormous distance, language and cultural barriers, financial commitment by developing countries, rules and regulations of the Venice Biennale authorities, two world wars, numerous civil wars, diplomatic skirmishes, depressions and recessions and numerous natural disasters, three nations from this region have established permanent pavilions in the Biennale. In addition, ten other national entities have exhibited at the Biennale on more than two occasions, with many groups participating in collateral events revealing some form of national focus.

This research also recognises that the power of the Venice Biennale has less to do with its leadership in modern and contemporary arts, and more with its role as a chronical or library of the visual arts that began in 1895 and has been re-shelved and re-stocked every two years with few interruptions until the present day. The data which this research utilises includes primarily sources such as artworks, photographs, official letters, submissions, reports, press releases, audio-visual material and interviews with artists and curators gathered onsite through my 22 years of reviewing the Venice Biennale. The research also utilises secondary sources from a number of archives including reviews, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, electronic articles, documentary films, videos, audio and all manner of other personal memories captured in various modes of private correspondence. Increasingly the Biennale has recognised the envious position it holds through its elevation of the Archivio Storico D’Arte Contemporanea (Historical Archives of Contemporary Arts), affectionately known as the ASAC, to a central position within La Biennale di Venezia organisation. This archive, now held in two locations, comprises a wealth of knowledge dating back to the inception of Biennale. It provides a comprehensive catalogue system wherein scholars can gain insights in particular periods of the Biennale, identifying trends and developing understandings of historic events. Importantly, there has been a significant effort to digitise components of the collection; this now allows researchers and interested audiences an opportunity to seek information on the more recent Biennales, particularly in terms of photographic documentation since 2001.

Figure I.1 Interior Archivio Storico D’Arte Contemporanea ASAC Ca’ Corner della Regina. 2003. Photo: Stephen Naylor.

The Biennale, through its archive, is a living library of international art, and the records show that the entity itself has faced significant challenges in a world where change occurs more rapidly than a Biennale can possibly hope to maintain currency. Not only has the nature of the art shifted over the last century but also the classification, referencing, legitimisation, sources, physical spaces and the audience of the visual arts has radically changed from the original 1895 institution. Despite the rapid expansion of other global contemporary art events, the Venice Biennale has attempted to remain relevant. It has done this through adapting from the initial super-salon focus (Alloway, 1969) to the introduction of the national pavilions, the awarding of international prizes, the creation of theme-based Biennales, expansion into new events dedicated to explore emerging art (Aperto) and many other exhibitions on the periphery of the Biennale referred to as collateral events. Many of these responses acknowledged the shifts generated by modernity in a constant effort to advance systems and materials that took advantage of human ingenuity and technology. The counter to the advances realised over the last century has been the deep-seated philosophical reflection of the nature of art and humanity by its curators and artists. These conceptual elements have been the domain of the arts across millennia, and increasingly the canon of Western art has become less relevant to reflect views that challenge the paradigms of the post-enlightenment era. It is here where non-Western and First Nations groups have provided new insights within the Venice Biennale, revealing a much greater sense of introspection and awareness of culture, environment and geopolitics than in earlier eras of the 124 years of trends and shifts revealed in the Venice Biennale.

With these features in mind, this research seeks to determine the relevance of the Venice Biennale for nations of the Asia-Pacific region. The second part of the research asks what purpose the Venice Biennale really serves; is it for artists, curators, audiences or the national governments who sanction the work presented in the various pavilions?

This monograph will be divided into four main sections. The first part will set the scene in relation to globalised contemporary art events and how they have advanced over the last 124 years. The introduction will also provide some background into the Venice Biennale with its structure, rules and regulations that have developed a foundation to build analysis of a rise in nationalism within modern art through to the mid-20th century. The emphasis of this chapter will rest largely on the Euro-American dominance of the first 80 years of the Biennale and the identification of trends within the Biennale that sought to broaden representation from outside of the established Modernist Western traditions.

The second part of this monograph provides three case studies into the history of nations outside of Europe joining the ranks of the Venice Biennale. Here a detailed analysis will reveal how Australia, Japan and Korea pursued inclusion in or were invited to the Venice Biennale; this will also include the design and associated processes required to build and maintain national pavilions on the island of Venice. Part of this discussion will make reference to how the Biennale sought to initially include other nations through formal invitations and also the method employed to broaden representation through curated exhibitions being advanced to reinvigorate modern art. As a result of the rules and regulations of the Venice Biennale, new participants were required to develop their own national pavilions, which in turn became mini ‘embassies of culture’. For some nations, it was an opportunity to impose status through their buildings, emphasising national characteristics of power and influence. Those nations occupying land in the Giardini have in the past been legitimised through their occupancy and have not been required to seek approval to exhibit in the Venice Biennale. This chapter will draw heavily on historic archival data that is held at the ASAC and, where practical, will also provide research material from the respective national ministries of arts and culture. Much of this chapter will deal with geopolitical and national political issues that have affected the international art industry during the 20th century. There will also be issues raised regarding the perceived national status within the Biennale structure, emanating from the necessity to ‘own space’ in the Giardini.

The third part provides a number of vignettes revealing the efforts, challenges and achievements from groups within the Asia-Pacific who have been represented at the Venice Biennale but do not hold a permanent national pavilion. This group includes the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ceylon, the People’s Republic of China (including Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong), India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tuvalu and Vietnam, all of which have gained entry to the Venice Biennale. With most of the land available for national pavilions in the Giardini having been fully occupied by the late 1980s, it was not practical for new national participants to build their own pavilions. In 1995, the intervention of the Venetian curator Paolo De Grandis helped Taiwan establish their national pavilion outside of the Biennale precinct, and this has led to an increase in the liberation of new spaces throughout Venice and across the lagoon. It is now possible for small nations to access a rented space for the duration of the Biennale, alleviating the necessity to invest national arts capital in Venice in the form of a permanent pavilion and to bear the associated costs of maintenance of a pavilion outside of the biennial event.

The final part attempts to draw together some conclusions based on the data provided to determine if the Venice Biennale has provided any benefits to groups from the Asia-Pacific and what tangible effects these may have been. The three case study nations of Australia, Japan and Korea provide a chronology of events which are quite simple to follow; the second group of nations who have had more spasmodic representation at the Biennale are covered in Chapters 5–8. In order to provide a narrative that builds a history of Asia-Pacific representation in the Venice Biennale, the chronology is not based on national representation but on successive biennial events. To gain a snapshot of those nations who do not own a pavilion in the Giardini, Appendix 1 provides a table showing the sequential national representation and Appendix 2 contains tables listing artists, commissioners, curators and other assistance/associates from each nation who have held official roles within the successive biennial events.

Notes

1 Western art refers to art of Western Europe and United States of America and other countries who share in the European cultural tradition. Other terms used throughout this monograph will include Euro-American and the Occidental.

2 Generally, the word nation or national will be used to denote the various geographic political groupings encompassed in this research.

3 Central Asia and Pakistan are not included in this research.

4 The Peoples Republic of China will be referenced throughout this volume, but also the reference to China and PRC will be used for brevity and acknowledgement of nomenclature used in the media.

References

1. Alloway, L. (1969). The Venice Biennale, 1895–1968: From Salon to Goldfish Bowl. London Faber & Faber.
2. Gardner, A., & Green, C. (2016). Biennials, Triennials, and Documenta: The Exhibitions that Created Contemporary Art. Malaysia Wiley-Blackwell.

1 The Venice Biennale

A History of Globalised Contemporary Art

The word biennial has a particular resonance when spoken in Italian – ‘biennale’ – and associated with the city of Venice. To the present day, the Giardini di Castello (Castello Gardens), known as the ‘Giardini’, and more recently, the Arsenale di Venezia have been the home of the Biennale di Venezia (referred to as ‘the Venice Biennale’), and every 2 years, more than 500,000 visitors, artists, reviewers, curators and national administrators pass through its historic spaces to experience artistic spectacle, contestation and tension related to local and global issues and de...