Page 24 - Studio International - August 1966

master and an old one have always been difficult for remember Fauve paintings at one Biennale, and fantastic
artists, but never more so than today. art at another—but this has never been done with the
It is here that the Biennale authorities could do some- necessary preparation and sense of general design. Even
thing, if only they would stir themselves a little. Return- more necessary is the extension of the one-man retro-
ing from the Biennale, I feel this is a bit like criticizing spectives and shows of recent work by major painters
one's hosts at a party (and the Press days are like nothing and sculptors in the main pavilion, or elsewhere in
so much as a four-day party that moves backwards and Venice. Courbet, Munch, Arp, Miro in 1954; Delacroix,
forwards from the Giardini to the Piazza San Marco). Gris, and Mondrian in 1956; Braque and Wols in 1958;
It is not just that one sometimes feels the Italians still Futurism in 1960; Giacometti and Gorky in 1962;
imagine they are in 1895 celebrating a Royal Wedding mixed modern art from the European and American
Anniversary, and not in 1966 presenting the major event Museums in 1964; and nothing at all in 1966. This is
of the modern art calendar. (Press arrangements and not a happy progression, and seems to me to be an
receptions, for example, are primitive and largely uni- abdication of responsibility and an acceptance of easy
lingual, and they seem to be geared primarily to the solutions. It represents a particular problem for the three
provincial Italian press.) big art-producing countries, France, the United States
What one would like to see is a little more centralized and Britain. Their relatively small pavilions are rightly
planning in the Biennale, and this done with foresight used for presenting interesting and important new talents
and efficiency. The most regrettable departure this year to a broader, international public, but once launched,
was the absence of any international retrospective exhi- should not their more recent work be shown again in the
bitions, to match those of Boccioni and Morandi (and main exhibition space at an appropriate time ? Moore
very welcome indeed these were). There had been has not been shown at Venice since he won the sculpture
rumours of invitations sent to Bacon and Gabo, but both prize in 1948, Hepworth not since 1950, Bacon and
declined, no doubt for excellent reasons. Had the condi- Nicholson not since 1954: the American record is a
tions been right, and the invitations sent in good time, similar one.
perhaps both artists would have accepted—and this One makes these criticisms because one takes the Bien-
would have immeasurably improved the Biennale. nale seriously. It is after all something more than a show
There are two particularly valuable functions the place for the latest gimmick, more than a hub of intrigue
Biennale could perform. One would be to put together over the dispensation of prizes that nobody can now
survey exhibitions, drawing from those participating regard with much enthusiasm or respect. It should be a
countries with something relevant to offer. There have testing ground for modern art, somewhere where the
been tentative attempts to do this in the past—I can essential process of critical evaluation can be pursued. q

Left Le Parc reflected in one of his
Continuel-lumière, 1962, one distorting mirrors
of the exhibits of the Argen-
tinian artist Julio Le Parc,
who was awarded the major
painting prize