Just a few years later, in 1956, when a sculpture exhibition was planned for the Swiss Pavilion, Giacometti once again refused to participate, only to present his ten-part sculptural group Femmes de Venise in the French Pavilion instead. A With a mixture of disappointment and amazement, the press in Ticino described his decision as a “strange anomaly.” 9 Although Giacometti was not yet as internationally successful as he would become in the early 1960s, the Swiss Federal Art Commission, frustrated by the many unsuccessful attempts to win him over to participate, decided to offer the artist the whole pavilion in 1960, and asked Federal Councilor Hans-Peter Tschudi, the Head of the Federal Department of the Interior at the time, to extend the invitation personally. In a letter to his mother, whom he adored, Giacometti described his plight as well as his aversion, complaining that Switzerland could have saved itself the trouble of inviting him:
B
They probably thought that since this is the best that Switzerland can offer to an artist, I wouldn’t have dared to refuse […] but I cannot do otherwise […] I would think that you would be somewhat pleased by the mere fact of the invitation. I am pleased when you are pleased and this is enough for me.10
For twelve years Alberto Giacometti had refused to represent his actual homeland in Venice, because, as James Lord noted, “his motherland could be constraining, like his flesh-and-blood mother.” 12 Strikingly, in each of the years that Giacometti showed his work in the French or the international pavilion, the artist had concurrent large exhibitions in Switzerland: 1950 at the Basel Kunsthalle, 1956 at the Bern Kunsthalle and finally, C at the same time as his international presentation in Venice in 1962, at the Kunsthaus Zürich. This coincidence might be read as a suppressed admission of guilt for having to be considered a Swiss artist. In the words of Bruno, he “didn’t really perceive himself as a Swiss artist. But he didn’t want to be considered a French artist either. Nationalities were not that important to him.” 13
A
In his rejection letter to Tschudi he stated finally that after his numerous exhibitions abroad he had nothing new to show and that without new work he could not participate.11 Only when the organizers of the Biennale invited him directly two years later, in 1962, to show a large group of works in the international Central pavilion, did the artist finally accept —absolved from any obligation of national representation. B 9 10 11
Quoted by Elio Schenini, “A Venezia in ordine sparso. La Svizzera italiana e le Biennali de Venezia,” in Krähenbühl and Wyss 2013 (see note 1), p. 154. The 1956 exhibition at the Swiss pavilion was titled “Scultura non figurativa in Svizzera” and included 17 sculptors from German, French, and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland. For the official refusal see Giacometti’s letter to G. Droz, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, dated 20 March 1956. Giacometti in an undated letter to his mother. The copy of the original is lost. The English-language version quoted from here is in the Fondation Giacometti in Paris. The letter to Federal Councilor Tschudi dated 1 February 1960 is published in Willy Rotzler, Die Geschichte der Alberto Giacometti-Stiftung, Bern, 1982, pp. 363ff. A
Alberto Giacometti and Les Femmes de Venise (Women of Venice) in the French Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale, 1956 Courtesy Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris
C
12 13
8
Lord 1997 (see note 2), p. 355. Bruno Giacometti erinnert sich. Gespräche mit Felix Baumann, Zurich, 2009), pp. 77f. B C
Ugo Mulas, Alberto Giacometti in his exhibition, in the International Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale, 1962 Les Femmes de Venise (Women of Venice) in the Alberto Giacometti retrospective, Kunsthalle Bern, 1956
9
Just a few years later, in 1956, when a sculpture exhibition was planned for the Swiss Pavilion, Giacometti once again refused to participate, only to present his ten-part sculptural group Femmes de Venise in the French Pavilion instead. A With a mixture of disappointment and amazement, the press in Ticino described his decision as a “strange anomaly.” 9 Although Giacometti was not yet as internationally successful as he would become in the early 1960s, the Swiss Federal Art Commission, frustrated by the many unsuccessful attempts to win him over to participate, decided to offer the artist the whole pavilion in 1960, and asked Federal Councilor Hans-Peter Tschudi, the Head of the Federal Department of the Interior at the time, to extend the invitation personally. In a letter to his mother, whom he adored, Giacometti described his plight as well as his aversion, complaining that Switzerland could have saved itself the trouble of inviting him:
B
They probably thought that since this is the best that Switzerland can offer to an artist, I wouldn’t have dared to refuse […] but I cannot do otherwise […] I would think that you would be somewhat pleased by the mere fact of the invitation. I am pleased when you are pleased and this is enough for me.10
For twelve years Alberto Giacometti had refused to represent his actual homeland in Venice, because, as James Lord noted, “his motherland could be constraining, like his flesh-and-blood mother.” 12 Strikingly, in each of the years that Giacometti showed his work in the French or the international pavilion, the artist had concurrent large exhibitions in Switzerland: 1950 at the Basel Kunsthalle, 1956 at the Bern Kunsthalle and finally, C at the same time as his international presentation in Venice in 1962, at the Kunsthaus Zürich. This coincidence might be read as a suppressed admission of guilt for having to be considered a Swiss artist. In the words of Bruno, he “didn’t really perceive himself as a Swiss artist. But he didn’t want to be considered a French artist either. Nationalities were not that important to him.” 13
A
In his rejection letter to Tschudi he stated finally that after his numerous exhibitions abroad he had nothing new to show and that without new work he could not participate.11 Only when the organizers of the Biennale invited him directly two years later, in 1962, to show a large group of works in the international Central pavilion, did the artist finally accept —absolved from any obligation of national representation. B 9 10 11
Quoted by Elio Schenini, “A Venezia in ordine sparso. La Svizzera italiana e le Biennali de Venezia,” in Krähenbühl and Wyss 2013 (see note 1), p. 154. The 1956 exhibition at the Swiss pavilion was titled “Scultura non figurativa in Svizzera” and included 17 sculptors from German, French, and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland. For the official refusal see Giacometti’s letter to G. Droz, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, dated 20 March 1956. Giacometti in an undated letter to his mother. The copy of the original is lost. The English-language version quoted from here is in the Fondation Giacometti in Paris. The letter to Federal Councilor Tschudi dated 1 February 1960 is published in Willy Rotzler, Die Geschichte der Alberto Giacometti-Stiftung, Bern, 1982, pp. 363ff. A
Alberto Giacometti and Les Femmes de Venise (Women of Venice) in the French Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale, 1956 Courtesy Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris
C
12 13
8
Lord 1997 (see note 2), p. 355. Bruno Giacometti erinnert sich. Gespräche mit Felix Baumann, Zurich, 2009), pp. 77f. B C
Ugo Mulas, Alberto Giacometti in his exhibition, in the International Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale, 1962 Les Femmes de Venise (Women of Venice) in the Alberto Giacometti retrospective, Kunsthalle Bern, 1956
9
The little-known absence of Giacometti in Venice has not been widely commented upon and in the wider context of art history can perhaps be dismissed as a minor episode, but in the context of the Biennale—to this day the most important international exhibition—his non-participation must be understood as a programmatic statement. Based on national pavilions, the structure of the exhibition has, ever since its establishment in the era of nation states, been premised historically as well as conceptually on an outdated and regressive model. In recent years, this has repeatedly been exposed as problematic. In 2003, for example, Santiago Sierra made the Spanish Pavilion acces sible only to Spanish citizens; in 2009 Germany completely ignored the national context by exhibiting British artist Liam Gillick; and in 2013, France and Germany swapped pavilions and, moreover, presented an exhibition with a global list of artists. From today’s political perspective, just four years later, post-global disenchantment seems to have crept in: both in Europe and in the US a newly invigorated nationalism and radical isolationism has formed—much to our surprise. The focus on Alberto Giacometti’s absence shows precisely that the issue of national identity in the context of the Venice Biennale is inevitable. However, the crucial concern is that Giacometti regarded himself not merely as an international artist, but rather as a transnational one—an artist who wasn’t going to let any nation monopolize him, and whose art, in the best late-modernist sense, transcended all categorizations to make an impact in the here and now. Interestingly, just a year before creating his Femmes de Venise (1956), Giacometti made some decidedly politically utopian remarks in a short text, calling, as Sabeth Buchmann points out in her essay in this catalogue [see p. 13], for a transnational and communist Europe, a Europe without borders.14 Transnationality may be a utopian concept of late modernism, but in our context it also appears as an attractive (and admittedly privileged) model of post-national identity. But besides being an occasion to reflect on nation-state-based identity concepts and cultural political contexts, Alberto Giacometti’s absence is also reflective of an intricate intra-familial entanglement that inevitably shifts the focus to Bruno Giacometti’s pavilion. The architect won the bid for its construction with an extremely short timeframe, in the late summer of 1951, and considering that his building is structured with great architectural clarity around three separate sections—a picture gallery, a graphic cabinet and sculpture hall—the absence of the sculptor undoubtedly carries weight. Alberto resisted not only Switzerland but also his brother’s sculpture hall, which was eventually inaugurated in 1952 with an exhibition of the work of figurative sculptor, Jakob Probst.15 D
14 15
Alberto Giacometti: “Eurasien” (c. 1955), in Mary Lisa Palmer and Francois Chaussende (ed.): Alberto Giacometti. Gestern, Flugsand. Schriften, Zurich, 2006, pp. 203f. It is beside the point here to ponder the relationship between the two brothers. While Alberto is known to have maintained a very close relationship with his youngest brother Diego, Bruno was given little attention by Lord.
D
The exhibition title, Women of Venice, refers to Alberto’s sculptural group and his conscious decision to present it for the first time in the French Pavilion. It refers to the specificity of the unique context of Venice and alludes subliminally to the artist’s not unproblematic relationship with women (and mothers), a topic discussed time and again in Lord’s florid biography. The artists invited to Women of Venice, Teresa Hubbard / Alexander Birchler and Carol Bove, have created new works for the Swiss pavilion that in very different ways reflect on the legacy and universe of Giaco metti. Flora, the two-channel film installation by the Swiss-American artist couple Hubbard and Birchler, is a dialog between a son and his mother, a model and an artist. Flora is based on discoveries made by the artists when researching the story of Flora Mayo, an unknown American artist who in the 1920s studied together with Giacometti in Paris and who was his lover. E By intertwining fictitious and documentary scenes, Hubbard and Birchler reimagine the life and work of Flora Mayo and give a voice to her previously unknown son. Flora reflects on the creative power of joint artistic work and allows a key figure from Giacometti’s early life, albeit one long eliminated by art history, to move from the periphery to the center. In Hubbard / Birchler’s second work, Bust, moreover, Mayo’s destroyed bust of Giacometti, which owes its survival solely to a lost photograph, is reconstructed in an archaeo logical manner and re-staged. The Geneva-born American artist Carol Bove addresses issues of theatricality and autonomy in her sculptural work. In installations and sculptural arrangements she orchestrates discursive, hidden associations while at the same time exploring the vocabulary of sculpture with great ease. For her exhibition in the courtyard and the sculpture hall of the Swiss Pavilion Bove takes Giacometti’s constellations of figures as a starting point and traces their relational forces. In doing so, she loosely references his late work, the Femmes de Venise, as well as other multi-figure sculpture groups.
10
D
The Swiss Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale in 1952, designed by Bruno Giacometti. View into the sculpture room with works by Jakob Probst.
11
Divided Places Sabeth Buchmann
A text in Giacometti’s volume of writings, Gestern, Flugsand, distinguishes itself in the sense that it takes a decidedly political stance. Titled “Eurasien,” and written a year before he created Femmes de Venise (1956), it leaves no doubt about his vision of the future: Europe only has a real future if it becomes part of the entire Europe, and this is only possible under a communist regime; the European states must join the USSR and also become socialist republics. Only then would borders and nationalisms lose their meaning and merely separate individual economic entities […] The old nations of Europe with their economic independence, their hegemony, are obsolete once and for all; the imperialist and colonialist states are obsolete.1
E
For this year’s artists at the Swiss pavilion Alberto Giacometti’s work and his troubled relationship to Venice was the point of departure to produce new, autonomous works. In this sense, Women of Venice is not merely another tribute to the artist shortly after the 50th anniver sary of his death. Rather, the exhibition is a rectification, a footnote but also a historical echo, a bass line that accompanies the newly created works and that brings home the fact that there is no escaping history— that history needs to be constantly, critically, and productively rephrased and rewritten. Of course, the intention is not to diminish Giacometti’s matchless artistic achievement. On the contrary, Women of Venice is just as much intended to encourage reflection on his contemporary relevance beyond Existentialist stereotypes. A formalist reading of his works reveals the extent to which he is to be understood as a pivot between late modernism and postmodernism and the many sculptural and phenomenological issues of 1960s Minimalist and post-Minimalist art he anticipated.16 In this sense, it is also a tribute to Giacometti. First and foremost, however, the Swiss Pavilion is a tribute to Teresa Hubbard / Alexander Birchler and Carol Bove, who embarked on this project with a enormous degree of open-mindedness and c uriosity.
What prompted Giacometti to such a politically and ideologically far-reaching statement? No doubt, the artists and intellectuals living in Paris with whom he was acquainted in the years before and after the war—Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, for example—were close to the communist spectrum of the time. Even if they stood in an ambivalent relationship to autocratic Soviet communism for the well-founded reason that it was extremely discriminatory and acted brutally against dissenters and the bohemian avant-garde,2 it did hold the promise of an antifascist, socially just and peaceful community, in which “humanism and the dialectic” could “bloom and flower, while the State fades away.” 3 The willingness of the French leftists to reconcile themselves with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) despite the Stalinist show trials, cleansings, and anti-intellectual propaganda, can be explained not least by the fear of a third world war stoked by the Korean War at the beginning of the 1950s. The interventions of the United States and China were triggered by communist-ruled North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, but this was regarded as the threat of a possible global expansion of the East Asian crisis.4 In contrast, the French intellectuals, as evidenced by Sartre’s “Les Communistes et la paix” of 1952,5 favored the agenda of the CPSU,6 which—at least officially—pledged antimilitarism, anti-colonialism, and antiracism, thus setting itself apart from the ideology of the
1 2 16
See for this, among others, Max Hollein and Esther Schlicht (ed.), Giacometti – Nauman, exh. cat. Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt am Main, 28 October 2016 – 17 January 2017, Cologne, 2016; as well Reinhold Hohl, “Nach Giacometti. Notizen zur amerikanischen Gegenwartsplastik,” in Alberto Giacometti. Plastiken – Gemälde – Zeichnungen, exh. cat. Wilhelm-Lehmbruck-Museum der Stadt Duisburg, Duisburg, 1977. E
Alberto Giacometti, Tête de femme: Flora Mayo (Head of Woman: Flora Mayo), c. 1926 Painted plaster 12 ¼ × 9 ⅛ × 3 ¼ in. Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris
3 4 5 6
12
Alberto Giacometti, “Eurasien,” in Alberto Giacometti, Gestern, Flugsand. Schriften, Zurich, here: p. 203f. At the end of the 1940s, for example, the CPSU mounted a campaign against Existentialism, which in their view was decadent. See Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Sartre and Ultrabolshevism,” in Adventures of the Dialectic, Evanston, Ill., 1973, p. 96. In “Eurasien” Giacometti raises the attendant question of whether—should an “entire Europe” under the leadership of the USSR emerge—“America would be forced to wage war in order to defend its system, its economy.” See Giacometti 1999 (see note. 1), p. 203. Jean Paul Sartre, “The Communists and Peace with a Reply to Claude Lefort,” New York, 1968, pp. 15, 17, 19, 25, 27, 34, 35. In the early 1950s, Stalin had advocated a possible reunification of the two German states, FRG and GDR, to ease the tension of the so-called Cold War, and his death in 1953 raised hopes for a more humane state socialism.
13
Carol Bove Les Pléiades Puberty, 2017 Woman of Venice I, 2017 Parvati, 2017 Dressing Room, 2017 Woman of Venice II, 2017 Léger, 2017 Woman of Venice III, 2017 Cage, 2017 A Bird, 2017
Puberty, 2017
41
Woman of Venice I, 2017
42
43
Woman of Venice II, 2017
48
49
50
Léger, 2017
51
A Bird, 2017
54
55
A Bird, 2017
54
55
Teresa Hubbard / Alexander Birchler Flora, 2017 Bust, 2017
Flora, 2017, film installation, detail. David Mayo with a photograph of his mother and Alberto Giacometti
69
Flora, 2017, film installation, detail. Flora Mayo and her son, David Mayo, California, c. 1940
70
Flora, 2017, film installation, detail. Flora Mayo's passport, issued 1923
71
Main Support
Ringier Collection Switzerland
Further Support
Executive Producers for Teresa Hubbard / Alexander Birchler Flora, 2017 Walter A. Bechtler Foundation, Switzerland Suzanne Deal Booth
Project Realization Partners