The Space of The Exhibition The Multi Ce
The Space of The Exhibition The Multi Ce
The Space of The Exhibition The Multi Ce
The new building needed a fagade (fìg. 1,2 3).As there w:.
no time to set up a competition, the project was assigned ::
the painter Mario de Maria,who had it ready within a we€r
De Maria's design drew on the Neoclassical stylistic elemer--.
of D'Aronco's building.The finished height was l7 mete-.
of wood, plaster and stucco. The Gothic and Renaissa.::
stylistic elements, praised by John Rusl<in, were replac::
with "offensive", but modern Neoclassical ones that w:-=
absolutely "notVenetian".3 Just lil<e its location, the faqade :'
the pavilion was also an expression of the hope that the r:*,
lnternational Art Exhibition would represent modernity :- :
innovation in a city such as Venice, with its many layers :'
history.This canon held true for all the ephemeral fagades. : -
sets, that lined the entrance walls of the pavilion in I 90 I , I 9 :
1928 and finally 1932, when Duilio Torres created the c-=
that is still standing.The white fagade with its four colu--.
and portico in the official architectural style of the per : :
was intended to continue to lend "an aura of sanctity" to :-:
building.a
For a dedicated hìstory ofthe facades ofthe Italian artists, split into schools.The steady ltalianisatior :'
Palazzo delle Esposizoni, see Romanel i, //
Podtglnne ltolia ai Ctr.trcltni di Castello. the exhibition led to a growing demand for exhibition sp:::
a46
in order to try and maintain a semblance of internationality.s
Between 1897 and 1928, after splitting up as many rooms as
possible, all the remaining spaces had been rehabilitated, even
the indoor cafeteria and the lobbies had been appropriated,
and the courtyards covered over. The initial Exhibition building
had occupied an area measuring 2,450 square metres with l4
rooms, but by 1909 it had extended to 4,213 square metres,
with 3l rooms.
So, if the fagades, ephemeral as they were, were conceived
simply in pursuance of an institutional ambition to dictate
official modern taste, inside the exhibition space was just
a mass of rooms, jammed up against each othe6 simply to
create space as the need arose.
150
countries," among which there was absolutely no cultural
connection.s
Until the end of the Second World War the shape of the
Biennale still had a meaning,albeit still resting in the tradition of
international exhibitions split into nationalities.After the war
this shape reflected a world that didn't exist anymore. From
1945 onwards, the statutory and institutional revitalisation of
the Biennale became the focus of heated political and cultural
debate.
151
chance to make a brief excursus of the projects that never
came itl important to know in this context.
to fruition that
ln the competition for the new exhibition building,in 1962
Carlo Scarpa carried out the first alteration to Duilio Torres's
fagade, placing what Bruno Zevi described as "a succession of
box-shaped blocks of concrete in front of the four columns
(better described as'tubes') of the ancient fagade".r2 ln 1968
Scarpa carried out a new intervention on the fagade, hiding
the Fascist columns behind fluted concrete screens. This
intervention was preserved for several years, but subsequently
Torres' 1932 version was revived.
ln 1967 Louis Kahn was invited by the Tourist Board of the
City of Venice (which was one of the main sponsors of the
Biennale), to come up with a project for a conference centre,
which would also include the renewal of the Palazzo delle
Esposizioni. Kahn's proposal was for a building composed of
two blocl<s containing artists' studios and exhibition spac-
es, separated by a piozzo that was to be open on two sides.
The building was to be "actively used" during the year as a
"free, self-managed school, as a community center for meet-
ings and exchanges".13 Kahn's project did not encroach upon
the structure of the Giardini, thus preserving the national pa-
vilions format.This project has never really been taken into
consideration because it's so hard to intervene in a complex
urban design asVenice's.The most recent national competi-
tion to redesign the Biennale main pavilion was held in 1988
and was won by the Cellini Studio, but this project was never
realized either.
Coming back to our story 1964 was the first year in which
the two major recurrent international exhibitions of contem-
porary art, namely the Venice Biennale and the Kassel's
t7 Ragghianti, "Costerà un miliardo il padiglione Documenta,coincided. The comparison of the two exhibitions
rtaliano,"
t3 G useppe l'4azzariol, "Un progetto per
was then inevitable. ln Kassel, a committee of historians and
Venez;al'Lorus, no, 6 (1969).22. art critics "were aiming for a supranational representation
t4 R. Hartmann, "What ls the Difference
Between Venice and Kassel?l' Fronkfuner Neue of contemporary artistic production."la On the contrary,
September 1964. ltalan translation in
Press,
ASAC, unit 200,Varie )965 1966 1967. the unfeasibility of the Biennale system, which presented art
L54
divided by nationalities became evident, when it had already
been tal<en for granted that contemporary art was to be
supranational. The Biennale was regarded as a "fortuitous
conglomerate" that did not aim for comprehensiveness,
whereas the Documenta was regarded as "the exhibition" of
contemporary art "closest to reality". ln that same period,
the "Studio lnternational" claimed that the Biennale put all its
faith in its geographical position and in the overabundance of
works, without taking into consideration "where" the works
originated.r5
155
With these words, Lawrence Alloway concluded his ioun e*
through the history of theVenice Biennale, from its origin ::
l968.The English critic understood how urgent it was for cle
Biennale to devise a "control system" of its exhibitions chfi
would solve the complex"cellular" structure. Such a struccu:E
had to exist over the years, and had established itself on dhe
basis of the incommunicability between the main exhibitio,-
and the autonomy of the participating nations. At the sanr"e
time, the laissez-faire approach, the consequence of ics otc
normative structure that prevented any type of managenia
planning, resulted in the loss of the Biennale's cultural roÌe
and its specificity.
a56
than the museography having to conform to pre-fabricated
buildings. These are more or less the same conclusions to
those arrived at in the 1957 conference.
457
a mélange that failed to put forward any questions or any
critical statement.
158
ser up the Biennale as an event focused on prominent issues,
and consequently work by projects. He immediately stated
lis conviction that the history of the institution and therefore
lrs structure, should not be left out of the reform, but should
nstead become the legacy and the basis on which to build.
It was the 1976 edition that was fìrst officially held under the
new reform.
The 1976 Art Biennale made its debut by invading the whole
ofVenice with eight exhibitions set up in six different areas of
the city, but the new formula would be tested in the traditional
seat of the Giardini where the national participations in their
pavilions would start afresh, symbolically enough, in the place
where the structural problems first arose: Old structures,
new formula.
The formula, tested for the first time in 1976, marked the
birth of the contemporary Biennale and the end of an era
27 Contribution by Vittorio Gregotti, lnterna- based on reviews and the laissez-faire approach. However.
tional Conference of the Representatives of
the Countries Participating in the Biennale, 1976 was the first triah the formula was presented again in
9-10 January, 1976, unit 337, Preparatory
Conference 37 Biennale, ASAC, FS, AV 1978 in a perfected way, but after that, the debate ended.
t6z
lndeed, in the theme had already become a "pillar",
1980,
therefore more of a suggestion than a truly structured thesis
for research.The difference is substantial and it lies between
a misleading general theme that was so broad as to be all-
encompassing, as in l972,anda well targeted collective project
work, as in 1976;that is, between a label that can be applied
everywhere and a specific theme that can be adapted for
critical, international issues or to an actual or pressing debate.
The 1976 formula was then adopted without provoking any
more discussions and thus emptied of all its content. The
attempt to put forward new proposals, in order to overcome
the "multicellular" nature of the structure of the seat of the
Biennale, was never made again.The few, sporadic times that
artistic directors have seriously applied the thematic formula
with its charge of content and complexity, the exhibition has
always been proven to worl(.
ln conclusion, in 1968 in order to overcome the structural
problem, it was suggested that a Futurist approach be
adopted to destroy the national pavilions in the Giardini
thus creating a single, open, and flexible exhibition space;28
in 1973, it was thought to be sufficient to solve the problem
by inserting an article in the new law reform lnstead, in 1998,
the issue has been cleared up by imposing the restrictions
of the Monuments and Fine Arts Office on the majority
of buildings located in the Giardini area of the Biennale.
Originally temporary buildings, the national pavilions have
today become fossilized monuments for nations harl<ing back
an era of imperialistic splendour. Since 1995, all countries
that wish to can participate in the international exhibition
in various locations outside the Giardini. This situation has
highlighted the Biennale's "multicellular" structure and made
it more impactful.
From this stance, a new path of research could be paved for
the Biennale.The institution would once again call into play its
structural limitation;it would however, regain a unique cultural
28 See Fedenca lYartin , "Pav ions:Archrtecture
at theVenice Biennale," in this bool<. identity.As Gregotti understood, the number of participating
nations is not important, what is important is their relevance
in the debates and discussions that the Biennale can create
along with them and owing to them. That very "awareness"
of its structural layout, if taken beyond the provincialism of
the Giardini and of Venice as theme park of contemporary
art, could give life to a new "control system" of the Biennale
exhibition;which as a result, would be renewed, once again,
without losing the "heart of its institutional identity". As
Vittorio Gregotti intuited, the Biennale has a distinctive
exhibition structure and the unique chance to be a "critically
polycentric workshop". lf the multi-cellular structure had
once been seen as a structural limitation, now it could be a
unique and valuable asset to theVenice Biennale.