Francesca Franco, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK.

Towards recognition of new media art at the Venice Biennale: a historical overview.

Keywords: new media art, Venice Biennale, technology

This paper investigates the way in which new media art was introduced to the Venice Biennale and in particular seeks to tackle questions that arise around the shift in attitude toward this form of creative expression. It will reflect upon the successes and crises of new media art in order to address some key questions: When did technology enable this shift? What kind of consequences did these changes introduce? How did curatorial practice change and what is the legacy, in terms of judging, looking at and curating artworks?

The Venice Biennale is the world's oldest venue for international contemporary art. It was inaugurated in 1895 as a charitable institution with a double objective. On one hand it was meant to be a humanitarian and cultural institution that would help in encouraging creativity and elevating society. On the other hand the exhibition needed to have an economic twist, bringing economic advantages to the city of Venice through tourism.1 Today these objectives still remain the same. However the Biennale as an art institution has changed and most of these changes are connected to the advent and expansion of new media art. The points of tension in the history of new media art at the Venice Biennale can be divided into four moments: these encompass the last four decades, from the 1960s to the present time.

The 1960s

If Futurism is seen as the first modern movement in which artists introduced the idea of technology applied to art, it is only after World War II that a renewed interest in technology in art is noticed internationally.2

The mid-1960s brought a new wave of creativity to the Biennale, especially with kinetic and optical art. In 1966 the First Prize (Gran Premio) was given to the Argentinean artist Julio Le Parc for his kinetic/optical works.  These included glasses with prisms, vibrating mirrors, screens which produce divergent visions, and superpositions. During the same Biennale, Tactile Room, by Ay-O also attracted the interest of the public. This was one of the first interactive, multi-sense art works to be seen at the Biennale. The reaction of public and critics to this was a mixture of curiosity, irony, and amusement. Julio Le Parc, who was considered in France ‘l'artiste de l'ère des “computers”’,3 and his group, the Groupe de Recherche d’Art Visuel (GRAV), carried out research into the applications of technology in art in Europe exemplified by the critical text by Saul Yurkievich, ‘Julio Le Parc, Promoter of Technological Art’, published in 1967.4 At the same time similar research on technology and art was conducted both in the United States and Europe.

These are also the years of student activism and dissent. In spring 1968 Europe, and especially France, was shaken by protests and demonstrations organised by students, intellectuals and workers, against bourgeois society and capitalism. These protests also deeply affected Italian cultural structures. Many Academies and Universities were seized, and the 34th Biennale, along with other art institutions that were seen as symbols of bourgeois culture, was boycotted. As a result the Biennale was briefly closed, then re-opened, and the award of the First Prizes (Gran Premi) postponed. A long-term result of these protests, and also a sign of cultural democratisation, was that the First Prizes and categories were abolished (until 1986).

In this respect the development of technology in art, especially at the end of the 1960s when the first experiments were over, symbolises the democratisation of art theorised by seminal essays such as Walter Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’.5 It also amplified—in a positive way—the critical situation that the Venice Biennale was in at that time. Artworks were no longer so easy to classify  and abolishing the First Prize and categories from the original statute of the Biennale was a sign that times had changed. It was also a sign that the act of labelling artworks began to be seen as less important, especially with the increase in the use of mixed media and new technologies.

The 1970s

The 1970s showed the growth and extension of the Biennale both in terms of physical spaces and experimentation.

During the 35th Biennale in 1970, Herbert Franke curated one of the first exhibitions of computer graphics for the Biennale with works by A. Lecci, Frieder Nake, Georg Nees, H. Ph. Peterson, Herbert Franke, and the Computer Technique Group of Japan.6

In 1973 the new statute of the Biennale was approved by the Italian Parliament. According to this new statute, cultural activities linked to the Biennale were to embrace a more experimental approach and were to take place not only on the occasion of the biennial exhibition, but throughout the year. By means of the new statute a larger space was assigned to exhibitions related to experimentation and the latest developments in contemporary art, and new activities were promoted. These followed two directions: permanent activities (attivita’ permanenti); and activities connected to location (attivita’ sul territorio). As a consequence new, detached spaces were given to the artists to present their work.

As a direct result of the new statute extra activities were organised by the Biennale in 1975. New spaces were opened and different activities were organised in places never before used for cultural events, such as the ex-naval manufacture buildings (Cantieri Navali) in Giudecca, the island of San Giacomo in Paludo (an abandoned island in the Venice lagoon), the disused church of San Leonardo and the disused salt depot (Saloni) in Zattere. In the 1976 Biennale more exhibitions were organised in unusual spaces.  ‘Attualita’ Internazionali 72-76’, one of the most criticised shows at the 1976 Biennale, was presented in the ‘ex-cantieri navali’ of Giudecca. The purpose of this exhibition was to illustrate the last four years of international developments with a focus on new artistic languages, in particular on what the organisers called ‘extra-media’. For the first time an international commission was formed—this included Pontus Hulten—and, for the visual arts sector, works were chosen according to their ‘convergence over the conceptual and the structural and their heterodox use of diverse media’; the works included installations, body art, conceptual art and performances.7

The 1980s

The activities outlined above continued and evolved in the 1980s, especially with the interdisciplinary projects that were included in the experimental sector of the Biennale. Gianfranco Bettettini curated two ‘interdisciplinary’ exhibitions: ‘Cromografie’, in the church of San Lorenzo; and ‘Venezia e il Tempo Reale’ at the salt depot. Many other initiatives were organised in new places, such as the architecture exhibition curated by Paolo Portoghesi at the Corderie dell’Arsenale, a 900-meter long space, originally built as a rope factory, and ‘Arte, Ambiente, Scena’ curated by Maurizio Calvesi with works by Burri, Hollein, Kush and various video installations (Biennale 1984).

New media art needed more ample spaces and the financial support that came from the State—more consistent owing to the new statute—helped the Biennale to open new expositive venues. The additional funding also allowed the Biennale to organise more complex and sophisticated exhibitions. These choices led to a reinforcement of the Biennale as an international art institution, an institution reinforced economically, by means of more stable and regular financial support by the Italian government, and culturally, increasing its credibility worldwide.

It was in 1986 that one of the most interesting and significant exhibitions of new media art appeared at the Biennale. The theme of ‘Art and Science’ was chosen, and the visual arts sector, directed by Maurizio Calvesi, divided in two sections. The first, entitled ‘Between Past and Present’ (Tra Passato e Presente), was divided into three further subsections (‘Space’, ‘Art and Alchemy’ and ‘Wunderkammer’). The second, ‘In the Age of Science’ (Nell’Eta’ delle Scienze Esatte), was divided into four subsections, ‘Art and Biology’, ‘Colour’, ‘Technology and Computer Science’ and ‘Science of Art’.

The most remarkable project, that also represents the first major showing of new media art at the Venice Biennale, was presented within the ‘Technology and Computer Science’ section at the Corderie dell’Arsenale. It was ‘Planetary Network’, a project conceived by Roy Ascott, where artists from three continents created nodes through which information and images were exchanged and modified.  (Alma, Toronto, Vancouver (Canada); Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Santa Monica (USA);Perth, Sydney (Australia);  Gwent (UK); Milan, Venice (Italy); Vienna (Austria); Nice, Paris, Rennes (France)) Digital images transmitted slowly via phone lines were altered not only by artists participating in the initiative, but also by ‘external’ contributors such as writers, engineers, computer programmers and media activists. This way the whole concept of the ‘artist’ became meaningless. The exhibition was received by the public and critics with mixed feelings.  There was curiosity and excitement about the project but also resistance and reluctance to accept a new artistic language that is not easily labelled.

The 1990s

In the 1990s new media art was not only accepted but was also awarded prizes. Despite the initial resistance, such art was shown and events related to new media art became more frequent. In 1993 a memorial exhibition to John Cage was organised in Giudecca; in 1995, on the centennial anniversary of the Biennale, the US pavilion was entirely devoted to Bill Viola; in the same year the Austrian Pavilion was dedicated to media art.8 In addition, many conferences and symposia were planned around the subject of the development of art in the twenty-first century, including one organised at the Scuola Grande of San Giovanni Evangelista, Venice, in February 1998, where Umberto Eco contributed to the discussion around the notion of ‘multimedia’.

Not only did these works become a more fixed presence, they began to be awarded the most prestigious prizes. In 1990, for instance, Jenny Holzer received the Leone d'Oro grand prize for best pavilion. Holzer, one of the youngest artists and the first woman to represent the US with a solo exhibition at the Venice Biennale, presented an installation that included a series of multiple language texts. The series ‘Mother and Child’ was projected on LED signs around the walls of the US pavilion and Holzer’s trademark slogans were scattered throughout Venice by way of posters, T-shirts, hats, and public water-buses.

In 1993 Nam June Paik was awarded the Leone D’Oro grand prize (jointly with Hans Haacke) for best pavilion (Germany) for his video installation. In Paik’s  video projection environment, the Sistine Chapel, projectors were piled together to create a vibrant display of collaged single projections that overlapped, adjoined and were superimposed over one another.

In 1999 Doug Aitken won the International Award with his video installation Electric Earth. This work was an attempt to describe the world of the twentieth century by transporting the public into an environment that recreated the atmosphere of an airport by night. A solitary, quiet, urban landscape complemented by the parallel presence of a noiseless, black, rap artist and images of a flaming car and an abandoned shopping cart.
In 2001 Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller, representing Canada, won a special jury prize for their digital video installation The Paradise Institute, a 13 minute video experience that encloses the audience (17 members of the public for each session) in a theatre-like setting where sound and moving images are integrated to stimulate a complex sensory experience.

The introduction of international directors encouraged and supported new media art. From 1999 onwards the presence of new media art at the Biennale increased, especially between 1999 and 2001 when Harold Szeemann—founder of Documenta, Kassel—was appointed director of the visual arts sector. In 1980 Szeemann, together with Achille Bonito Oliva, inaugurated Aperto, a section of the Venice Biennale devoted to newly emerging artists. Returning to the Biennale as a director nearly 20 years later, Szeemann opened new venues for artists to exhibit their work, and new settings were allocated to artworks in the Arsenale’s ‘Artiglierie’, ‘Gaggiandre’ and ‘Tese’. His choices gave new stimuli to the Biennale, both in terms of creativity and of audience participation. Szeemann’s Biennales were very successful and attracted higher than usual numbers of visitors (approximately 200,000 visitors in 1999).

Conclusions

A number of conclusions may be drawn from this overview of the crises and successes of new media art in the history of the Venice Biennale.

Although much of the initial scope has remained constant (for instance the cultural and economic intention), a number of changes have taken place within the Venice Biennale in the last forty years owing to new media art.

The Biennale had to change and expand in order to encompass the needs of technology and new media art. The points of tension in the history of the Biennale can be divided into 4 ‘moments’:

•    The 1960s, when the first experiments in art and technology were presented
•    The 1970s, when new spaces were given to new media artists
•    The phase of ‘explosion’ in the 1980s
•    The 1990s, the phase when new media art began to be accepted and awarded prizes

New media art shook the Venice Biennale out of its hitherto more conservative attitude by encouraging debate on issues such as the democratisation of art, authorship, and ‘multimedia’, and by provoking a crisis that ultimately stimulated discussion about the meaning of art.

From a curatorial point of view, the need for larger spaces that became evident from the 1970s onwards, especially for projects and artworks embedded in new media. This led to a decentralisation of the Biennale. Exhibitions were no longer relegated to a single location, but took place all over Venice. This decentralisation is both physical and geographical, owing to the current need for larger spaces for installations, but it is also metaphorical. Multimedia, interactive, new media art cannot be confined to a single place or venue, but rather, expands boundaries.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Charlie Gere for his helpful comments and Hazel Gardiner for her help and support. Special thanks are due to Anna Bentkowska who provided many valuable suggestions and a critical overview of this paper.

1. Di Martino, E. (2003), Storia della Biennale di Venezia 1895-2003, Torino.
2. Usselmann, R. (2003), ‘The Dilemma of Media Art: Cybernetic Serendipity at the ICA London’, in Leonardo, 36: 5, pp.389-396.
3. Michel, J. (1966), ‘L’Art "Objectif" et Romantisme électronique’, Le Monde. Available online on http://julioleparc.ifrance.com. (date accessed: 2 August 2007)
4. Yurkievich, S. (2004), ‘Julio Le Parc, Promoter of Technological Art’, in Inverted Utopias: Avant-garde Art in Latin America, New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
5. Benjamin, W. (1969) [1939], ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, Illuminations, New York: Shocken.
6. Giloth, C. and Pocock-Williams, L. (1990), ‘A Selected Chronology of Computer Art: Exhibitions, Publications and Technology’, in Art Journal, 49:3, pp.283-297, 286.
7. Fini-Pasquali, S. (1977), ‘Attualita’ Internazionali 72-76’, in Annuario 1977 Eventi 1976, La Biennale di Venezia, pp.235-38.
8. Franke, H. W. (1996), ‘The Latest Developments in Media Art’, Leonardo Electronic Almanac, 4: 4.

 

Back to contents