The Space of the Exhibition:

The Multi-Cellu lar Struc ture

of the Venice Biennale
Vittoria l4artini

ln the Napoleonic government accepted the plan pro-

1807
posed by theVenetian architect Gianantonio Selva for a park
to be situated in the Castello area. Selva's project envisaged a
series of recreational facilities for the green areas that how-
ever were never realized due to lack of funds. Only a few
years after they were built, the Giardini were not being used
as intended and began to be seen as extraneous elements
lacking purpose.

Around to the Town

1830, the Venetian Riding Club applied
Council ofVenice for permission to set up a riding school in
the Giardini.The fact that in the meantime a coffee house was
established in the Napoleonic gardens, made them a popular
walking spot for the Venetian bourgeoisie. Precisely because
the Giardini finally played a role in Venerian social life, they
naturally looked like an ideal location for the 1887 National
Art Exhibition.

ln order to prepare for the event, the Munlcipality of Venice

launched a competition for the design of a new edifice
that was to house the exhibition. Predictably, the winner
was a very young Raimondo D'Aronco, considered the
undisputed specialist in temporary architectural structures.l
The organisers wanted an imposing, classical-"Greek in
particul2;"-lemporary building that had to represent the
"temple of art".z On this occasion, the riding school was
turned into a concert hall.
Building on the success of the 1887 NationalArt Exhibirion,the
Municipality ofVenice launched the lnternationalArt Exhibition
Raimondo D'Aronco (1857-1932). After
in 1894. Since D'Aronco's structure was only a paper-pulp winnrng the competition to design the building
fortheVenice NationaiArt Exhibition in 1886,
and chalk "shed" stage set, the lnternational Art Exhibition in 1890 D'Aronco won the competitjon to
create the fagade ofthe First ltalian Exhibrtion
needed a more permanent pavilion.The chief engineer for the of Architecture rn Turin, ln lgOl he won
the competitìon to erect the buildrngs for
Municipality of Venice, Enrico Trevisanato, was charged with the First lnternationa Exhibrtion of lYodern
Decorative Art, held in Turin in I 902,
overseeing the construction of the exhibition headquarters. If Gran Domenico Romaneili, ll Podiglione
Itolia ai Giardini di Costello (Veneza: Arihivio
D'Aronco's building was on the bank,Trevisanato decided that storico delle artl contemporanee - Blennole
di Venezia. Annuorio 1 975 Eventi l g/4, 1975),
the new venue should be set back, in the heart of the Giardini, 650.
 exactly on the spotwhere the concert hall and former riC -:
school stood.

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

So, the fìrst symptom of the architectural disease that was ::

plague the Exhibition can be traced to the exact momen: r:
which the decision was made to convert the riding schoo -::
an exhibition space.The decision to use a space conce:.=:
for a purpose other than to serve as the headquarters j: -
a contemporary art exhibition, marked the start of :-=
Biennale's unsteady trek through recurrent emergenc ::
artificial fagades, and contrived spaces.

The internationality of the Exhibition, sanctioned by the lE;.

statute, was thus thrown into question as early as I 90 I, w-: -

the Secretary General to the Biennale, Antonio Fradele:--:

ShearerWest,"Nationa Deslres and Regonal
Reartles n theVenice Bennae, 1895-1914' instituted the "regional rooms" that were to have hosted :-:
An Hrstory, no 3 (September 1995),107 .

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

Italian artists accounted for 45,25% of the
total number of exhibiting artists: in 1905
there were 54,7%,\Nest S,, 1995, p.4 7.For
a reading of the nationalism at the Biennale
from its origins, see also Ylarìa Mimita
Lambert,"l mutamenti del mercato," in
dell'orte itoliono // Novecento, (Torino: Einaudi,
r e82).
6 West,"National Des res and Regiona Realìties
in theVenice Biennale, 1895-1914," 409.
7 West,"National Des res and Regiona Realìties
in theVenice Biennale, I 895- I 9 14."
150
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.
The progressive subdivision of the interior of the building
matched the explosion in the Gardens outside. Basically
there was no room left for the foreign artists, who were
thus "throwrì out" of the building leaving the interior space
to the ltalians (fìg a, 5).6 With the excuse of "ensuring them
the most favourable international solidarity", while in reality
demonstrating that it was "falsely international", in 1907 the
Biennale asked other countries to have their own pavilion
outside the main building: ln the Giardini.T
The instituting of pavilions meant that the Biennale could
pass on many of its costs, as well as ensuring the ongoing
participation of international artists. ln fact, according to the
founding statute, the national pavilions were (and still are)
totally independent of the Biennale administration, functioning
in much the same way as actual embassies in which the
principle of extraterritoriality rules. Each nation made its own
completely autonomous decisions in which the Biennale had
no right to intervene.This autonomy meant that the Biennale
only retained control of the "special exhibitions" and of the
Stodo
Italian participation in the Palazzo delle Esposizioni, the so-
called "main pavilion." This led eventually to an exhibition
that was not unifìed but fragmented, not international, but
composed of the "autonomous participation of individual
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.

ln I 957 the Municipality of Venice organized a study conference

on the Biennale, which brought together for the first time
different ltalian specialists from the art and museum related
fields. On this occasion the idea that art should no longer
have to be subjected to the exhibition space was considered
for the fìrst time; rather the architecture should be'tailored"
to it.As a consequence,the debate ofthe 1957 conference
addressed the issue of the seat of the exhibition at the Giardini.
The main pavilion had continually been renovated without a
coherent plan, and over the decades it had become a labyrinth
that was both unsuitable for and constricting for exhibition
purposes.e What became evident during the conference, was
that the exhibition spaces of the Biennale should have been
open, so as to create a structural conformance between the
location and the role of the exhibition as a "culturally alive
instrument".lo

Following the 1957 conference,the Municipality ofVenice an-

nounced the fìrst competition for restoring the main pavilion.
The winning project came from the Passarelli Group in Rome,
but the project was never realized. Art historian Carlo
Ragghianti and architect Bruno Zevi declared themselves
relieved because the winning project was for a "fixed", static
building, which was not appropriate for a structure that, as
Carlo Scarpa had pointed out, had to be "molecular".rl
This was the first of a series of projects never realized for
Biennale's Palazzo delle Esposizioni. And this gives us the
B Bruno Allìeri, "Editoàa|," Metro: An lnternotinal
Review of Contemporory Art, no. I 2 ( I 966), 5.
9 Bruno Zevì, "Una camera mortuaria per i
quadri rtalian ," L'Espresso, Ju y 1952.
l0 Comment by Sergio Bettini, Proceedlngs of the
Conference ofStudies on the Biennole Comune
di Venezio e Provincio dt Venezio, Cà Loredan,
Venice, l3 October 1957,31,
ll Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, "Costeè un
miliardo il padiglione italiano," L'Espresso, July
1962.

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

lf it was to survive in the contemporary exhibition world,

the format of the Biennale had to be updated. lt needed
to start coming up with cohesive exhibitions "structured
around governing ideas".r6 The debate,which had never been
resolved, arose with new vitality with the events of 1968.
Caught in the tidal wave of "global dispute",the Biennale was
overwhelmed by student protest because it encapsulated all
the contradictions that more than twenty years of debate
and controversy had not been able to
The Biennale
solve.
was attacked especially because of its structural and cultural
backwardness.

Thus, if the first set of problems in the organizational base

of the exhibition was posed by converting a space that
had not originally been conceived as an exhibition space, it
therefore follows that the main problem with the exhibition
can be ascribed to the birth of the pavilions. ln other words,
as LawrenceAlloway put it,with the birth of the pavilions the
structure of the Biennale became "multi-cellular."
TheVenice Biennole (,,.) hos reduced our ignorance obout twentieth-
century ort.Thus,in future,onthologies or compilotions bosed on the
post model will not be sufficient to hold neither speciolrsts, nor the
wider public. Greoter control of exhibitions, so thot relevont themes
con be cogently displayed, moy be necessory, though obviously this
will present difficulties, given the Biennolet cellulor structure...The Russel, "Ciao, with Frendship," Studio
lohn
problem for the Biennole now is to work out o control systern to lnternottonal, no.9 3 (uly-August I 969),
reploce loissez-foi re, with out losing th e cooperotion of the thirty-seven Lawrence Alloway, Ihe Venice Biennole lB95
l968: From Solon to Goldftsh Bow/ (Greenwich
notions thot porticipoted in 1966.17 NewYork Graphic Society 1968),27.
7 A loway, The Venice Btennale I 895- I 968: From
Solon to Goldfsh Bow/, I 53,

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.

ln September I 968 an important round table was held inVenice

in the headquarters of the magazine Metro, organized by the
editor Bruno Alfìeri to deal with the crisis of the Biennale"
He invited Giulio C. Argan, Gillo Dorfles, Ettore Colla anc
Germano Celant in order to "stimulate reactions and ideas'".
On this occasion, Gillo Dorfles denounced "the antiquated
exhibition system" and suggested making "a clean break
with the arrangement by national pavilions."rB He maintained
that by abolishing the pavilions, the conceptual unity of the
exhibition would have been assured, and the exhibition would
finally be able to offer the international
a complete outline of
art situation. Germano Celant also wanted to abolish the
pavilions because they were the main reason behind the
dispersive nature of the exhibition. lndeed, in his opinion, they
had turned the space into a pre-arrangement suppressing
its "fluidity," an essential prerequisite to accommodate any
contemporary art practice.re The conclusion of the round
table was that by demolishing all the buildings in the Giardini
della Biennale, there would be the possibility for a truly
international and coherent exhibition at last. The new sole
building for the lnternationalArt Exhibition, should have been
a "temporalised" space, made up of movable, open, flexible
IB Bruno Alleri, "Biennale portfoLio," Metro: An
lnternatianol Review o[ Contemporary Art, no. and modular spaces that would provide for the rooms to be
s (re68),4r
t9 Alfìeri, "B enna e portfolio," 43, arranged in such a way as to facilitate the museography rather

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.

The debate had no consequence due to the institution's

financial problems:To get rid of the national pavilions in the
Giardini, meant for the Biennale to loose money and to go
against, the interests of the ltalian Ministry of lnternalAffairs.
It was during the early Seventies that the Biennale, in an
experimental mindset, began to consider the idea of working
around a "critical problem", as a means of overcoming its own
structural limitations and achieving curatorial consistency.
For the first time ever it was suggested that a general theme
be given to the central exhibition to which also national
participants could adhere.A general theme would allow the
Biennale Art Exhibition to overcome its dispersed structure
and lend it the coherence to which it aspired. The general
theme would have to be"broad and flexible" enough to ensure
that the maximum number of pavilions would adhere to it. But
once again the Biennale was faced with the insurmountable
obstacle represented by the contractual autonomy of the
national pavilions, in view of which it could only suggest rather
than impose adherence to a general theme.

Even so, the path towards a radical transformation of the

Biennale's exhibition structure, was resumed for its 1972
edition. The Biennale decided that the general theme for
the exhibition was to be Work or Behoviour.That theme was
"broad and flexible" enough to be the "framework of interest
and research" and it would provide the "ethical and cultural
values" for the direction of the whole exhibition which, as a
result, would reach "a further conceptual harmony in terms
of its layout."2o

As a matter of fact, Work or Behoviour was made up of dozens

of exhibitions and the general theme became a compromise,
36th Internationa Art Exhibltion, Subcommit-
inspired by a sort of aesthetic ecumenism, one that would tee meeting, Summary m nutes, 15 Novem
òer 1972, unit )73, ltalian Subcommission,
leave nobody unsatisfied. lt was not really a theme, rather ASAC, FS,AV

457
 a mélange that failed to put forward any questions or any
critical statement.

The 1972 Biennale fell on the same year as Documenta.The

latter was curated that year by only one commissioner, Harald
Szeemann. Szeemann decided to abandon the traditional
criteria of selecting works based on quality and signifìcance,
in favour of one that depended on the general theme he had
presented.The Biennale had not proposed one critical point
of view, simply because there wasn't one person in charge of
the whole exhibition, rather, each exhibition was organized
by commissions composed by too many people. ln 1972 the
two greater periodic, international exhibitions showed how
differently a system of structural analysis could work in an
aesthetical fìeld focused on the development of art practices.
While the theme in Documenta had become a real subject
of research, inVenice it seemed only to have given a sense of
coherence to the exhibition, while any type of research was
absent.

On July 1973, the President of the ltalian Republic passed law

no. 438, titled "New Regulations of the Autonomous Body,
La Biennale diVenezia." This fully reformed law replaced the
outdated 1938 version that had caused so many problems.
The so-called"new Biennale" had been provided with an open
and project-based foundation, thus allowing for a working
methodology based on experimentation, which openly
acknowledged the requests ofthe 1968 protests.

Architect Vittorio Gregotti was appointed director of the

new section of Visual Arts and Architecture. The choice
to place a personality like Gregotti in charge of the oldest
section of the Biennale, clearly showed a true desire to break
with the past, starting from the very core of the institution.
From the beginning Gregotti expressed the need to
transform the dispersive organisational system of the Biennale
exhibitions by changing the working methodology focusing
on the preparatory stage of the exhibition on research and
2l Remark by Vittorio Gregotti, lX Board of
Directors' meetrng, 26th luly I 974, ASAC. elaboration of "fundamental themes."2r Gregotti intended to

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.

According to Gregotti, the new procedure should consist of

:hree stages. First, it was necessary to establish a system of
general principles; then, having outlined the programmatic
choices, place the exhibitions directly in charge of individual
experts. A new way had been paved for the Biennale. lf the
role of informing and updating had already been performed
by other institutions, the Biennale had the unique chance to
"present itself as a critically polycentric workshop," owing to
its distinctive exhibition structure.22

But the 1973 reform caused such a complete upheaval to a

well-established standard due to article l0 of the new law. This

decreed that, henceforth, participation in the Biennale would
:e conditioned by a direct and personal invitation addressed
to the artists by the board of directors of the Biennale.With
article 10, not only did the countries' representatives of a
pavilion at the Giardini lose their traditional independence
from the Biennale, but they were also substantially deprived of
any authority whatsoever.The representatives of the foreign
nations were in fact a constituent part of the structure of
:he lnternational Art Exhibition, allowing its very existence
because of their willingness to fully fund their own exhibitions.

The issue of international dealings was so relevant that on

)uly l974,the new Biennale began its life with a meeting of the
representatives of the foreign nations. lndeed, on the contrary
ro what had been established by the law the Biennale aimed at
collaborating "more widely, seamlessly, and extensively than in
the past", in order to overcome "the sectarian, provincial, and 22
diplomatic character of the old Biennale."23
According to the President of the Biennale, the Giardini area 73
was both an ltalian and international asset: lt was impelled
"Vrsual arts and Architecture manifestations,"
n La Biennale, Annuoria 1975 Eventi del
-
1974 (Yenice: La Biennale diVenezia, 1975),
259.
lYeet ng of fore gn comm ssloners to organize
the 1970 B ennale, unit 225, Foreign Pavrlions
Conference, ASAC, FS, AV
 to achieve coordination in order to the location to its
use
highest potential (fig, 6,7). The Biennale suggested that a
"moral public domain" be established in agreement with
the foreign countries. Therefore, the "moral public domain"
implemented a pre-arranged use of common spaces on the
basis of a programme drawn up with unanimous approval.
The objective was to reach "an authentically international
expression," in order to present artists who also worked in
different countries other than the ones who had a pavilion
at the Giardini, thus lending a wider vision to the Biennale's
cultural scope.2a

Gregotti was convinced that the core objective of an open

debate with other countries, was not to defend locations or
representation; instead, it would be far more productive to
try to re-establish a joint objective for the Biennale, in order
to overcome its national character. Gregotti intended to carry
this out in collaboration with the foreign commissioners in
order to single out "several fundamental themes significant
to all countries," and to try to reach an agreement on the
selection criteria.This procedure would provide the chance
to initiate a debate on a "common issue"; the specifìcity of
a shared theme for the whole exhibition would make the
difference and pave the way for a new formula. Only by
adopting this working strategy could a new function be found
for the Biennale in continuity with its own history.

It was the 1976 edition that was fìrst officially held under the
new reform.

The theme of the "participation" was chosen by the foreign

partici pants together with the Bien nale. Si nce it was considered
too broad, and Gregotti did not want to repeat the same
mistake of vagueness as in 1972, he decided to overlap the
theme with the notion of "environment", one which was
)4 F rst lYeet ng of the foreign pavi ion "general enough and is sufficiently precise to constitute the
representatves at the Giardni on 31" Juy
1974, unit 290, 3 I Ju y I 974,ASAC, FS,AV basis for a series of specific articulations and projects by the
25 First lYeeting of the foreign pavilion repre
sentatives at the Giard n ... different nations".2s
Thus, the "broad and flexible" theme applied in 1972
became,"broad and precise" in 1976, a nuance of adjectives
which radically changed the theory behind the Biennale.
The theme "Environment and Participation," therefore,
was not perceived as a compromise, but as "a real action,
a real working condition".26 The working strategy devised
with the participating countries led to an edition in which
all the exhibitions were variations on the general theme.
According to Gregotti, theVenice Biennale had to become the
international platform for critical debate on current issues.
This distinctive characteristic would be productive only if the
themes developed were "non-commercial," ones which were
crucial for a universal social, political, and cultural debate.

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 entire 1976 edition radiated from the historic-critical

exhibition set up in the main pavilion, as AmbientlArt: From
Futurism to Body Art, was curated by one person only, the critic
Germano Celant. Celant's exhibition did not only intend to
turn over a new leaf away from the past, but it proclaimed
the beginning of a new era. lndeed, in order to develop the
concept of "environment" Celant analysed the context itself
in which the exhibition would take place, that is the main
pavilion with its historical stratification caused by its different
usages implemented throughout the years: First as a riding
school then as a ballroom, and for the previous seventy years,
as the seat of the Biennale art exhibition.The original space
had always been hidden because it was covered over by the
exhibition superstructure. So he decided to strip the space
down completely, eliminating all the layers of added structures
26 lst Meeting of the foreign pav lion represent
in order to reveal the original structures: He realized that the Giardtni,,,
at ves at

27 Contribution by Vittorio Gregotti, lnterna-
tional Conference of the Representatives of
the Countries Participating in the Biennale,
9-10 January, 1976, unit 337, Preparatory
Conference 37 Biennale, ASAC, FS, AV
t6z
what remained of it were just the floor, four walls and the
ceiling.2TThe simple and "honest" space allowed the public to
immerse itself into the history of art, not through art objects.
but rather through space.
Celant had perfectly grasped the concept behind the
Biennale's new thematic formula. His exhibition conveyed
all its imperatives: lt was international, and its single critical
vision-the gsp2lep's-provided the backbone for the entire
exhibition.
The 1976 Biennale was criticized because the distribution
of the exhibition forced the public to move from one part
of the city to another and therefore to have a lot of spare
time, as if the exhibition were more for residents than for art
viewers (something that is an integral part of the nature of
the present-day Biennale). Howeve r, Environment Porticipotion
ond Culturol Structures set a record of number of visitors, one
that to this day has yet to be broken.The new formula not
only worked, but it was also a resounding success.The balance
between h istorical, i nformative, and contemporary exh bition s
i
had multiplied the levels of interpretation and the spectators
could decide how to visit the exhibition on the basis of their
interests, while keeping in line with the single main theme.
Gregottit intuition had been to work on the identity of the
Biennale as a public institution and on its "structural limii'
Its tendency to be a UN of the arts, if once a structural
exhibition drawback, had now become a strength to be used
to present and discuss current, provocative social or political
themes, thus turning the Biennale into a location specifìcally
designed for carrying out international debates on current
cultural issues.
The formula, tested for the first time in 1976, marked the
birth of the contemporary Biennale and the end of an era
based on reviews and the laissez-faire approach. However.
1976 was the first triah the formula was presented again in
1978 in a perfected way, but after that, the debate ended.

28 See Fedenca lYartin , "Pav ions:Archrtecture
at theVenice Biennale," in this bool<.
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
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.