Page 20 - Studio International - June 1966

Venice Biennale:choosing the artists

by Charles S. Spencer

Although among artists the Venice Biennale tends to be able double-act, confounding those who expected Britain
dismissed as a dealers' market—which to a considerable to produce neither an old master nor a living genius.
extent it undoubtedly is—the British Council is convinced Hoping to repeat this success, in 1950 we sent Constable
of its importance as an international shop-window, cer- with Barbara Hepworth and Matthew Smith; but with
tainly since 1948 when the exhibitions were resumed. Zadkine in the field the British sculptress was outplaced.
For one reason the size of the art audience and its Much has been said or whispered about the jury system
standard of tolerance has risen sharply, particularly in at Venice. It has greatly improved since before the war,
the United States; for another, the pre-war stranglehold when the Commissarios of all national pavilions were
of Paris has been broken. As a result other countries make entitled to sit on the Committee. The final choice was
a greater effort to attract international art, and in the largely a matter of bargaining, if not actual bribery,
process collectors (largely American) and, perhaps with the French holding a trump card in the form of a
equally important, buyers for the many Museums which promised Paris exhibition— then an irresistible bait, but
collect modern work. The Venice Biennale has taken on now more like a deterrent. Nowadays the Jury is ap-
a new function as an international market and distribu- pointed by the Biennale authorities and usually numbers
tive centre, and commercially the prizes are the most seven, two always being Italians. The rest are distin-
important possible boost to the careers of artists and their guished gallery directors or critics, and while some may
dealers. well have human failings the majority can be expected
Before the war the results were predictable; it was almost to be above influence. There is, however, a tendency to
certain that each year the French would sweep the board. think 'chronologically'. Thus in 1964 it was assumed to
There can be no doubt that all kinds of dubious deals be America's 'turn', with Rauschenberg bound to win.
were made (bribery is still not to be discounted), but in America's previous major winner was Tobey in 1958,
fact most of the finest artists were French, or resident in with Calder in 1952, so the intervals were reasonably
France and thus regarded by the French as their own — spread out. The French, incidentally, still gain a high
a liberal attitude which Britain might well imitate. The percentage of the top awards—in 1954, 1956, 1960, and
British can claim to have broken the spell in 1948, when 1962.
Henry Moore walked off with the major Sculpture Prize, From 1948 until today the only major British prize
much to the surprise of the French, who had already winner has been Chadwick (in 1956), a somewhat sur-
reserved it for Laurens (who in turn, it was rumoured, prising choice from today's vantage, especially when one
Left purchased a car on the promised proceeds). This first realizes that Giacometti was a rival. But the French
The 1952 Biennale—some of
the Graham Sutherlands post-war Biennale was hastily convened. With little time made the mistake of imagining they could take the prize
to make its choice the British Council diverted an by showing a few plasters and had to wait until a fuller
Right already-assembled Turner exhibition and sent a number display in 1962 won the honour for Giacometti and
Lynn Chadwick's prize
winning exhibits at the 1956 of Moore sculptures it owned, with a supplementary themselves.
Biennale group from the artist. Together they constituted a formid- There are, of course, many other prizes, awarded by the