Arts & International Affairs: 2.3: Autumn/Winter 2017 | Page 78

ARTS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
The pavilions in the Giardini … are erected by each country and the
styles are a vivid array of national self-images. ... The Hungarian pavil-
ion is folkloric ... , so is the Soviet pavilion. ... The classical styles are all
highly indicative of their countries. ... The American pavilion is Colonial
neoclassic [... and ...] the Danish pavilion sharp and austere. (Alloway
2010 [1969]:140)
The fact that he—as well as others—has chosen to highlight the role of nations in dis-
cussions of biennials is not surprising. 5 In contrast to group shows organized by artists’
associations or art museums, invitations to participate in the biennials not only in Venice
but also in Cairo, São Paulo, and New Delhi were, for a long time, sent through diplo-
matic channels to national representatives of specific states. State representatives, such
as the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Culture, appointed national commissioners who
then selected artists. As a result of this, biennial participation was also taken to reflect the
status of a state in international relations (Vogel 2010:7). The institutional history of bi-
ennials thus ties them firmly to the Westphalian framework of nation states, diplomacy,
and international relations.
However, the framing of biennials in national terms is not only a matter of their institu-
tional set-up. Analyses of biennials often take up the idea of nations competing against
each other. They may characterize these events as the “Olympic Games of the Art World”
(Sheikh 2010 [2009]:153; see also Sassatelli 2016a:5; Baker 2010 [2004]:450–451).
This association is strengthened by the fact that founding of the Venice Biennale took
place in close temporal proximity to the founding of two other events based on the idea
of competition among nations: the first “world expo” (1851) and modern Olympic
Games (1896) (Vogel 2010:17). The framing of biennials as elements in international
competition may also take place through defining biennials as “a tribune, on which to
represent power” (Bertelé 2013:45), or characterizing art presented there as “an ambas-
sador” (Vogel 2010:8). Jeannine Tang (2007:248) claims that today’s biennials remain
useful in competitive geopolitical games among states; in Tang’s definition, biennials
present “ample opportunities for constructing or revising dazzling national representa-
tions for cultural competition, as the exhibitions may also combine forces to mobilize
regionalism and stake out territory in an internationalized art market” (ibid.).
Characterizing the biennial as a site of national representation is another way of scaling
biennials to the context of nations and their representations. This often involves ques-
tions such as who is eligible to represent a nation and what kind of art has the right to
demonstrate a nation’s cultural competence. Sarah Scott’s analysis of Australia’s partic-
ipation at the Venice Biennale is an example of this approach. There was a 20-year gap
in Australia’s attendance at the Biennale after its first participation in 1958. Scott argues
5
However, Shearer West’s analysis of the first eleven editions of the Venice Biennale (1895–1914) shows
that while the event was intended as an “international” exhibition, the exhibitions actually represented
traditional regionalism and biennale activities were focused on enhancing the image of Venice and
increasing flows of tourism and commerce (West 1995:413).
76