Page 23 - Studio International - June 1968

darkness· as some people would have it. accepted in Europe. If there was any subject him and was put forward as evidence that
but in broad daylight on the morning of the of conversation at the 32nd Venice Biennale he interfered unduly in the matter. If one is to
prize-giving. The photographs of this other than that of the awarding of the prize believe some American critics, Leo Castelli
manoeuvre which were published in the to Robert Rauschenberg, it was this circular had not only installed Alan R. Solomon as
world's press should stand as evidence. of Cordier's which had to be taken as a the Biennale official, but had also taken the
There can, however, be no doubt that the declaration of the bankruptcy of the French decision regarding the constitution of the
technical circumstances which surrounded art market. American Biennale entry and as far as possi­
the awarding of the first Biennale prize to One would not be mistaken in accepting ble had made Sam Hunter his henchman.
Robert Rauschenberg in 1964 served as just that Solomon and his American friends The suggestion that he workep on the rest of
one. most welcome, pretext for all those who pulled out all the stops of the art of persua­ the jury is among the more harmless.
looked on this with indignation to accuse the sion, and exhausted all the possibilities of It is a fact. nevertheless, that Alan R.
Americans of sharp practice. The truth was making a noise in order to draw attention Solomon was nominated by the American
that the decision to award the most coveted to Robert Rauschenberg and to convince Information Agency, that is, by a government
international art prize to an American the jury that this time an American must be authority, and that Leo Castelli had no
threatened the traditional supremacy of victorious. Thus, for example, the president influence whatsoever on this decision. It is
European, and in particular French. art. For of the Biennale, Professor Mario Marcazzan. also a fact that Alan R. Solomon had already
the first time for many years it was not a who has the final say in the appointment of shown great enthusiasm for the artists sent
Frenchman who was accorded this honour. the jury, allowed an American to join the to Venice, in particular Rauschenberg and
In 1948 Georges Braque won the prize, in jury. The choice fell, at Solomon's sugges­ Johns. when the representation at the
1950 Henri Matisse, in 1952 Raoul Duty, tion, on Sam Hunter, the present director of Biennale was still in the hands of the
in 1954 Max Ernst. in 1956 Jacques Villon, the Jewish Museum; it can hardly be held Museum of Modern Art. It is also a fact that
in 1960 Jean Fautrier and Hans Hartung (in against him that he voted for Rauschenberg. Sam Hunter, the American member of the
that year the first prize for sculpture also But Hunter had only one of seven votes jury, was suggested by Alan R. Solomon,
went to a painter), and in 1962 the Ecole de and could scarcely have succeeded on his who as a Biennale official had the right to
Paris won again-with Alfred Manessier. It own in putting Rauschenberg on the rostrum. this. Leo Castelli furthermore reliably assured
seemed as though the French had monopo­ Whether and in what measure the six me that he did not speak to a single member
lized the 'greatest glory of the Biennale', judges, of whom three voted for Rauschen­ of the jury before the decision was made,
although it was being said meanwhile that berg, were prompted or even pressured is not even to his compatriot Sam Hunter.
the young American painters had under­ never likely to come to light. I believe it to be In spite of everything Castelli cannot be
mined the position of the School of Paris. a fairy-tale, however, that their votes were quite innocent as regards the constitution
The Americans did not succeed until 1964 bought. as various people have tried to make of the American Biennale entry and not
in obtaining the blessing of the Venice me believe, but for all that it is obvious to innocent at all in connection with the award­
Biennale for the New York School. The what an extent the Biennale is considered ing of the prize to Robert Rauschenberg.
explanation offered by Alan R. Solomon for corrupt. The fact that the most monstrous After all he had supported Robert Rauschen­
this was 'because the Modern Museum has suggestions arose from the French and that berg and young American art for many
no faith in U.S. art' and there are many who the Biennale decision was branded as a years ; but basically he had done no more
agree with him. Unlike Alfred H. Barr, great conspiracy cannot be wondered at. than could reasonably be expected from
Solomon was so convinced of the importance But in America, too, there was anything but any art dealer. His artists would indeed have
of American painting, so utterly convinced, pure joy at the outcome. held it against him had he sat twiddling his
that he announced to the whole world before 'They were all bought', I was assured by thumbs in the gallery and not done every­
the prize was awarded to Robert Rauschen­ Emily Genauer, the art critic of the New York thing in his power to bring them recognition
berg, 'It is quite obvious that New York has Herald Tribune. When I expressed my and fame. His clients would hardly have
replaced Paris as the art centre of the world'. doubts she hastened to add: 'Not with remained loyal to him if he did not seem
This spectacular statement corresponded so money, of course!' I should add that she certain of the artists whom he recommended
closely with the events that the fact that it was there right from the beginning. 'When to them and did not try to advertise them.
was communicated at the Biennale naturally Rauschenberg received the prize. I leaned The best advertising that a gallery-owner
caused bad feeling. It was little help to back in my seat and roared with laughter!' can hope for is one of his artists' winning a
Solomon that he was supported in his con­ The one who attracted criticism from all Biennale prize.
viction by the French art dealer Cordier. quarters was Leo Castelli, of whom it is One may argue, indeed one may have good
who in the summer of 1964 gave up his always said that he initiated the whole reason to doubt. whether the system of
Paris gallery for this very reason and acknow­ affair. The fact that half of the American Biennales and the awarding of prizes has
ledged in a circular to his gallery friends the representatives at the Biennale were from any meaning or use for the art which it
supremacy of the Americans. The fact that his gallery (Rauschenberg, Johns. Chamber­ appears to help. One may ask whether art
New York has replaced Paris is still not lain and Stella) was in particular cited against prizes are not grossly overrated, whether
they perhaps do not stand in the way of an
adequate assessment of art and in the end
Barbara Reise is an American doing art historical Dore Ashton, the American critic. is a regular result in a kind of competitive situation
research in London. She holds an M.A. from Columbia contributor to ·studio International. which clashes with individual artistic state­
University in the history of modern art. ment and poisons the artistic atmosphere. It
Daniella Pal/azo/i edits bt. the Milan art journal.
London commentaries are by Maurice de Saus­ is really disputable whether the system of
marez, head of the Byam Shaw School of Art and a national representation, as it is practised in
member of the Royal Academy Selection Committee; Pierre Restany, the French critic. is author of the Venice, is compatible with the fact that art­
Guy Brett, art critic for The Times; Norbert recently published 'Les Nouveaux Realistes·. at least great art-has long been an inter­
Lynton, head of the department of history of art. O
Chelsea School of Art; Barbara Reise; and the Charles Spencer is a frequent contributor to art national phenomenon.
writers Edward Lucie-Smith and Dennis Duerden. journals.
289