One motivation for writing this article has been that Denmark\u2019s participation in Venice \u2013 with the exception of Marianne Barbusse\u2019s overview Danmark. Biennalen i Venedig 1895-1995<\/em> (1996) and Lars Rostrup B\u00f8yesen\u2019s article The Venice Biennale 1895\u20131968<\/em> (1968) \u2013 is strikingly under-represented in Danish art history writing. This is particularly surprising given that in recent years, the exhibition medium as such has been the subject of widespread academic interest. The study of the contemporary art exhibition has been seen as a way of reopening art history beyond retrospective canonisation, precisely because it shows the self-representation and variegated diversity of a given time. In particular, exhibition research, often operating under the designation \u2018Exhibition Histories\u2019exhibition histories <\/em>has been spearheaded by the Afterall Books series ‘Exhibition Histories’ (2012-). In a Danish context, examples include ‘Udstillingen som forskningsobjekt: Skandinaviske Exhibition Histories’, Periskop<\/em> #30, 2018 (eds. Kristian Handberg, Anne Gregersen and Michael Kj\u00e6r).\n\">2<\/a><\/sup>, has accentuated exhibitions as a driving force for international exchangesBiennials, Triennials, and documenta: The exhibitions that created contemporary art<\/em>, Wiley-Blackwell 2016.\n\">3<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and as an entire artistic mode of expression in its right, one which has increasingly brought artists and exhibition venues together since the 1960s.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n In what follows, I will analyse the exhibitions presented in the Danish pavilion at the Venice Biennale from the 1930s to the 1960s with particular emphasis on the period 1948 to 1960. The inclusion of the biennials of 1940 and 1942, held under controversial circumstances during World War II, will in itself illuminate the political conditions surrounding the exhibition and place the post-war development of the exhibition and its internationalism within a wider perspective. An oft-overlooked aspect of Denmark\u2019s participation concerns the central role played by its national gallery, Statens Museum for Kunst (SMK). The directors of the museum held a central position on the committee for the Danish pavilion and were often commissioners, i.e. responsible, for the exhibition in Venice. On several occasions, works from the national gallery\u2019s collection were featured in the Venice exhibitions in Venice \u2013 for example, the Danish contribution to the 1942 Biennale consisted entirely in works from the museum \u2013 and the overall issue of the representation of Danish contemporary art was a pervasive theme in public discussions about the role of art and the museum\u2019s position at the time.<\/p>\n An important source for my study has been the archive from the Danish Committee for the Venice Biennale, featuring correspondences, minutes of meetings and exhibition-related materials from the Danish pavilion, much of it located at SMK.5<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0I will also incorporate entries from the era\u2019s art criticism and discussions concerning the Biennale; such materials help outline the central and at times controversial position of these exhibitions and of the many stakeholders involved in them.<\/p>\n Art historian Caroline A. Jones has analysed the Venice Biennale as a blend of national self-promotion and an international meeting. She shows that the biennial format is an extension of the nineteenth century grandes expositions<\/em> and trade fairs, with the Venice Biennale becoming devoted entirely to art. This was done in accordance with the city of Venice\u2019s capacity and desire to make itself relevant. In Jones\u2019s words, a double claim runs through the Biennale\u2019s 125-year history: that \u2018the (modern, Western) artist would both represent his tribe and become transcendently internationally\u2019.The Biennial Reader<\/em>, Hatje-Cantz 2009, 66-87, p. 81\n\">6<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0 The Biennale was to act as an incubator for the international artist through national selection, helping to slake the art world\u2019s growing thirst for the ever-more wide-ranging, the worldwide: what was first called \u2018international\u2019 and in our own time \u2018global\u2019.The Global Work of Art: World’s Fair, Biennials, and the Aesthetics of Experience<\/em>, Chicago University Press 2017, p. ix.\n\">7<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The international aspect has manifested itself in various ways throughout the history of the Biennale. When it was first established in 1895, it was associated with the celebration of the birth of the young Italian nation, and the Venice Biennale was originally intended as a national exhibition to mark the occasion of the Italian royal couple\u2019s silver wedding, albeit expanded with international participants to \u2018shore up\u2019 the Italian art and attract attention abroad. The exhibition, which was not officially called a biennial until 1930, was initially presented as both \u2018national and international\u2019.8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n During its initial years, the Biennale was not structured around national pavilions, but took place in a central exhibition building described by the British art critic Lawrence Alloway (1926\u201390) as a \u2018super-salon\u2019.The Venice Biennale: 1895-1968. From Salon to Goldfish Bowl.<\/em> Faber and Faber, London 1968.\n\">9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The artists were selected by an international jury which included prominent artists \u2013 such as P.S. Kr\u00f8yer from Denmark (1851\u20131909). In 1907, Belgium was the first country to open its own pavilion, and soon other countries followed suit until the entire Biennale area in the Giardini park was almost full after just a few years. After some lobbying on the part of the well-travelled and well-connected \u2013 now virtually forgotten \u2013 portrait painter Eduard Saltoft (1883\u20131939), Denmark was awarded the last available space at Giardini in 1930. The plot itself was a gift from Venice to the Danish nation, and a pavilion was raised there with support from the New Carlsberg Foundation. The architect Carl Brummer (1864\u20131953) designed a pavilion along classicist lines, duly inaugurated for the 1932 Biennale [fig. 1<\/strong>]. Also in 1932, a committee comprising representatives of the key institutions and organisations on the Danish art scene was set up to select the artists presented and to arrange the exhibitions. The members were: for the National Gallery of Denmark (SMK), the new director Leo Swane (1887-1968); for the New Carlsberg Foundation, professor Vilhelm Wanscher (1875-1961); for The Hirschsprung Collection, director Carl V. Petersen (1868-1938); for The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, professor Aksel J\u00f8rgensen (1883-1957); for Kunstnerforeningen af 18. November, artist Oscar Matthiesen (1861-1957); for the artists\u2019 association Gr\u00f8nningen, artist Erik Struckmann (1875-1962); for Charlottenborg, artist Eiler S\u00f8rensen (1869-1953). The chairman was Frederik Graae from the Ministry of Education (under whose auspices art resided until the Danish Ministry of Culture was set up in 1961). Judging from the composition of the committee, the Biennale received serious, national attention and was clearly a priority for Denmark. However, as will be seen in this article, having such a large committee could at times make it difficult to arrive at a keenly honed selection of artists; many compromises had to be made, including between the museums\u2019 focus on lasting values and the artists\u2019 associations\u2019 prioritisation of the present.<\/p>\n This is apparent right from the first exhibition in the new pavilion, which was not used to exhibit artists who representing the latest artistic modes of expressions in 1932; rather, the selection may be described as retrospective, featuring works from 1885\u20131925 and deceased artists such as Kristian Zahrtmann (1843\u20131917) and Vilhelm Hammersh\u00f8i (1864\u20131916). The next exhibition, in 1934, involved a minor change of course towards a more contemporary mode of expression, featuring artists who had had their breakthroughs around the First World War such as: Axel Bentzen (1893\u20131952), Harald Giersing (1881\u20131927), Oluf H\u00f8st (1884\u20131966), Olaf Rude (1886\u20131957), Sigurd Swane (1879\u20131973), Jens S\u00f8ndergaard (1895\u20131957) and Ernst Zeuthen (1880\u20131938) \u2013\u00a0 all of them, except Zeuthen, active in the 1920s dominant artists\u2019 association Gr\u00f8nningen (founded1915). The fact can presumably be attributed to a stronger influence being exerted by Leo Swane (1887\u20131968) on the committee\u2019s work; he had become a co-commissioner by this point, and from 1938 to 1950 he was officially the main commissioner of the exhibition. As Lars Rostrup B\u00f8yesen (1915\u201366) says, \u2018one would hardly be wrong in assuming that the strong man on the committee was Leo Swane\u2019, who \u2018was well known for his ability to get things his way\u2019.VenedigBiennalen 1895-1968<\/em>, special edition of Gutenberghus \u00c5rsskrift<\/em> 1968, 14.\n\">10<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Swane had been appointed director of SMK in 1931, where he was expected to act as a reformer based on his contacts on the Danish art scene, especially the circle around Gr\u00f8nningen. As director, Swane left his clear mark on the museum with an emphasis on early modernism and a certain reserve towards the more abstract art. Such sentiments are reflected in the Venice exhibitions during Swane\u2019s era, where the Danish pavilion was closely linked to SMK. Generally speaking, there was a wish to represent Danish art and a focus on introducing audiences abroad to those artists that were regarded as prominent (by Swane, that is) and had been featured in the exhibitions in Denmark. This took precedence over promoting individual artists internationally, or indeed over working with the exhibition format in itself.<\/p>\n While the Venice Biennale took place in an Italy under fascist rule (1922\u20131943), Prime Minister Benito Mussolini (1883\u20131945) actively used exhibition events to promote the regime\u2019s prowess. In her study of fascist modernity, historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat has described this strategy as \u2018a comprehensive politics of exhibition(ism)\u2019.Fascist Modernities. Italy 1922-1945<\/em>, University of California Press 2001, 35.\n\">11<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Mussolini saw the war as a formative and constructive experience that could unite the Italian people and act as the final push into modernity.12<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Culture was important in this regard, and it was drafted into the service of the state. As part of fascism\u2019s cultural policy, the Biennale\u2019s administration was nationalised and expanded with the addition of an international music festival in 1930 and a film festival in 1932. The Biennale was still held during the war years of 1940 and 1942, while Europe and its art life were paralysed by war.<\/p>\n Italy entered the war as one of the Axis Powers on 10 June 1940, just before the opening of the Biennale, but there could be little doubt as to where the loyalty of the fascist regime lay in the years leading up to the war. Denmark had been occupied by German troops on 9 April, cancelling the nation\u2019s participation. Responding immediately on 9 April, Swane, in his capacity as commissioner of the exhibition, recommended that Denmark\u2019s participation should be abandoned; the official cancellation \u2018in view of the situation\u2019 was made on 17 April 1940.13<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In that fateful year, the participating artists were to have been Knud Agger (1895\u20131973), Karl Bovin (1907\u20131985), Helge Jensen (1899\u20131986), Axel Skjelborg (1895\u20131970), Carl \u00d8sterbye (1901\u20131960), Th. Hagedorn-Olsen (1902\u20131996) og Niels Gr\u00f8nbech (1907\u20131991).14<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0All were figurative painters with a preference of muted, sober landscapes with modernist leanings, and all were artists whose works Leo Swane acquired for the SMK collection.<\/p>\n While the 1940 exhibition had been planned before Italy went to war, the 1942 Biennale was organised in wartime, as illustrated by the rather militant exhibition poster featuring the dark silhouette of Andrea del Verrocchio\u2019s equestrian statue of Bartolomeo Colleoni (1480\u201388) [f<\/strong>ig. 2<\/strong>]. Besides the host nation, the participating countries were those not hostile to Italy.23. Biennale di Venezia<\/em>, exhibition catalogue, Venice 1942, 28. [‘Venezia ha richiamato ci raccolta gli artisti, e non solo italiani ma di tutti i Paesi non nemici o non a questi asserviti’].\n\">15<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Specifically, these were the Axis Powers (Italy and Germany), their allied and controlled territories (Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Hungary \u2013 and Denmark), and two neutral countries (Switzerland and Sweden). All were invited by the Italian state \u2018at the request of Il Duce, who is always sensitive to\u00a0the needs of the spirit\u2019, as the catalogue said.16<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0At the exhibition, several of the pavilion belonging to the Allied nations had been taken over by Italian institutions and devoted to patriotic purposes. For example, the British pavilion now represented the Italian army; renamed the Royal Army Pavilion, it was decorated by a vast mural depicting St George slaying\u00a0the dragon,UK at the Venice Biennale<\/em>, 1940’s: https:\/\/venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org\/history\/1940s<\/a> (accessed April 2020).\n\">17<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0while the pavilions of the USA and France had been allocated to the navy and the air force, respectively [fig. 3].<\/p>\n The official invitation was extended to the Danish government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which testifies to the official status of the exhibition. However, Denmark hesitated to issue a reply, as is evident from a letter from the Secretary-General of the Biennale to Swane dated December 1941, requesting a response to the as-yet unanswered invitation.18<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Swane repeatedly recommended rejecting the invitation to attend the 1942 Biennale for a number of reasons, including security, the cost of insurance and shipping in times of war, and the artists\u2019 willingness to participate under the current conditions. He does so most notably in a statement to the ministry dated 13 February 1942, in which Swane, referring to \u2018difficulties\u2019 and \u2018the completely uncertain conditions as well as for ideal reasons\u2019 as reasons for believing that \u2018all parties will be better served by abandoning participation in advance\u2019.19<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0However, major interests were at stake and the question of participation could not be decided only by the art committee. After all, the invitation to Denmark had been issued to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and here, particularly on the basis of a letter from the Danish envoy in Italy, Danish participation was considered very important \u2018for general reasons and for the sake of the relationship between Denmark and Italy\u2019.20<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The ministry recommended taking part with a selection of works from SMK, owned by the nation. This could be negotiated directly with director Swane without involving the Danish Biennale committee and the individual artists.21<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The selection of participating countries was known to the authorities, who duly acknowledged that it was \u2018not an international exhibition\u2019. Still, they saw no other course of action than to take part on the terms stated, exhibition a selection of works from the SMK collection, chosen single-handedly by Swane.<\/p>\n The war exhibition [fig. 4<\/strong>] adhered to the same approach applied in previous years, featuring the artists selected for the 1940 exhibition plus the slightly older early modernists V. Haagen-M\u00fcller (1894\u20131959), Axel P. Jensen (1885\u20131972), J.A. Jerichau (1890\u20131916), Niels Lergaard (1893\u20131982), Vilhelm Lundstr\u00f8m (1893\u20131950) [fig. 5<\/strong>]\u00a0and Olaf Rude (1886\u20131957).<\/p>\n The selection of artists reflected Swane and SMK\u2019s outlook on modern art, which was somewhat removed from pure abstraction and even further from politically charged topics and controversies. Thus, the abstract Surrealists associated with the group and magazine Linien<\/em> and the younger artists of the H\u00f8studstillingen (Autumn Exhibition) circle were absent, and none of the works presented responded directly to the dark times. While it had been customary to send Swane to Venice to set up the exhibition, this task now fell to the artist Erik Struckmann (1875\u20131962) who was sent to Venice to set up the exhibition. In the Danish newspaper Politiken<\/em>, he would subsequently offer an enthusiastic report about an \u2018unforgettable journey\u2019 and the positive reception of the Danish artists, who were admired for their style. According to Struckmann, the Biennale was in full swing: \u2018all of Italy is descending on Venice these days, where Denmark claims its place with such unforgettable poise\u2019.22<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Historian Nancy Jachec has described how, under these circumstances, the Venice Biennale was carried aloft by \u2018the wrong kind of internationalism\u2019.<\/em>Contemporary European History<\/em>, Volume 14<\/a>, Issue 2<\/a>, May 2005, 193-217, p. 198.\n\">23<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The biennial looked at its own day and age on the terms of war when, as showcased in the catalogue\u2019s official presentation, it was dominated by scenes depicting either the war or the peaceful life under fascism. However, the Danish contribution was more subdued and withdrawn \u2013 not just from the realities of the war, but also from the fascist art ideal. Impelled by need, the official policy of co-operation had been followed in what may be the most politically controlled exhibition event in Danish history. The government\u2019s wishes had overruled the committee\u2019s recommendations, and SMK had to act as a buffer. The exhibition has subsequently been more or less actively written out of Danish art history and of the history of the Venice Biennale. As a result, the War Biennale of 1942 is an obvious candidate for further art historical coverage, not least in light of the fact that exhibition studies have recently included fascist exhibition culture as an aspect of modern art history.Nazi Exhibition Design and Modernism<\/em>, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 2018 and the exhibition Post Zang Tumb Tuuum. Art Life Politics: Italia 1918–1943<\/em>, Fondazione Prada, Milano 2018.\n\">24<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Under fascist leadership, the Biennale was strengthened. Paradoxically, this made its continuation after the war even more coveted: the post-war situation created a demand for new rallying points for national promotion and for a renewed interest in the international.<\/p>\n The response to the invitation to the first Biennale after the war, issued in 1948, demonstrates the general instability typical of the post-war period and indicates how the Biennale was associated with the fascist regime, meaning that participation was a matter which merited careful consideration. The committee discussed whether participation was safe, let alone desirable for Denmark. Swane believed that there was no longer cause for \u2018ideological concerns\u2019, but acknowledged that the \u2018situation\u2019 could change quickly.25<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In 1948, the first elections in the Italian Republic were held, ushering in Democrazia Cristiana (DC) as the ruling party and cutting off the large Communist party (PCI) from influence. At the same time, tensions between the Soviet Union and the Western powers grew in scope, prompting the creation of NATO in 1949. This was the background for the Biennale\u2019s reinvention as part of a new art world focusing on the modern and international. Nancy Jachec has analysed how the Venice Biennale was politically engaged in promoting an overall European idea with abstraction as a cultural emblem, a contrast to the realism of Communism. For the Italian governing party Democrazia Cristiana, the Biennale served a dual purpose in terms of their cultural policy: \u2018anti-communism at home, Europeanism abroad\u2019.26<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The introduction in the catalogue for the 1948 Biennale spoke of art as a language that united all of mankind, reaching beyond national and ideological barriers: \u2018Art invites all mankind beyond national frontiers, beyond ideological barriers, to a language that should unite it in an intense humanism and a universal family against every Babel-like division and dissonance\u2019. The Rise and Fall of American Art<\/em>, 1940s-1980s. A Geopolitics of Western Art Worlds<\/em>, Routledge 2015, 13\n\">27<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Under the leadership of Giovanni Ponti (1896-1961) as President (1946\u201354) and Rodolfo Pallucchini (1908\u201389) as Secretary General (1948\u201357), the Venice Biennale was relaunched as an international exhibition with weighty presentations of European art movements ranging from Impressionism to Surrealism. This is evident, for example, from the way in which the Swedish-Finnish author and critic G\u00f6ran Schildt (1917\u20132009) would, in his later reviews of the Biennale, speak of\u00a0 \u2018the \u201cbig\u201d biennials immediately after the war, when the outline of the new international art took shape\u2019 (in 1956),Svenska Dagbladet<\/em>, 12.7. 1956.\n\">28<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and that the \u2018the first glorious events offered unforgettable retrospective displays of Cubists, Expressionists and the other classics of modern art as an impressive backdrop to the myriad of new talents\u2019 (in 1960).Svenska Dagbladet<\/em>, 8.7. 1960.\n\">29<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The second quote specifically highlights the importance of retrospective exhibitions in a reopened Europe, where museums had not yet acquired works from the latest art trends such as Cubism, Expressionism and Surrealism. The Venice Biennale became a pioneer in this field, as were the first two documenta<\/em> exhibitions in 1955 and 1959, which, respectively, presented art in the twentieth century and art after 1945, particularly foregrounding the \u2018world language\u2019 of abstraction in the foreground.<\/p>\n In the case of the Danish pavilion, the artist Erik Thommesen (1916\u20132008) proposed that it ought to present an entirely abstract exhibition. The committee, which was still helmed by Swane, greeted this proposal with positive responses, but also with opposition. Typically, the debate prompted a vote on whether to favour abstract or figurative art, and the end the result was to include both.30<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Hence, the final selection made was a rather more motley compromise featuring a group of thirteen artists that brought together older, figurative artists such as Olivia Holm M\u00f8ller (1875\u20131970), William Scharff\u00a0 (1886\u20131959), Christine Swane (1876\u20131960) and Th. Hagedorn Olsen with \u2018four abstract painters\u201931<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Ejler Bille (1910\u20132004), Egill Jacobsen (1910\u201398), Richard Mortensen (1910\u201393) and Carl-Henning Pedersen (1913\u20132007). [fig. 6<\/strong>] In a subsequent evaluation report, Swane had to concede that the potentials had not been fully utilised and that the Danish show had failed to attract international attention. Interestingly, he acknowledged that the Biennale \u2018has truly attained great importance as an international forum\u2019, and, inspired by the initiatives of other countries, he recommended a tighter focus: \u2018We should highlight a single, and naturally entirely contemporary artist, which in our opinion ranks among the strongest, so that perhaps only a few painters and a single sculptor exhibit\u2019.32<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In the re-invented Biennale of the post-war period, the rules of the game had changed, and each nation had to adapt to this fact. The 1948 Biennale boasted successful initiatives such as Britain\u2019s presentation, which paired Henry Moore (1898\u20131986) with J.M.W. Turner (1775\u20131851), and the gallery owner Peggy Guggenheim\u2019s (1898\u20131979) collection of European avant-garde and the new American Abstract Expressionism exhibited in the Greek pavilion at the invitation of Pallucchini. This demonstration of international modernism, which involved the first-ever presentation of Jackson Pollock (1912\u201356) in Europe, became, like the Bienniale\u2019s themed main exhibition, an important source of inspiration and model for the modern art museum and its structuring around American and Western European modernism. The Rise and Fall of American Art<\/em>, 1940s-1980s. A Geopolitics of Western Art Worlds<\/em>, Routledge 2015, particularly pp. 26–27.\n\">33<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n As a consequence of the aforementioned evaluation, the Danish contribution was pared back to just three artists 1950: Knud Nellemose (1908\u201397), Jens S\u00f8ndergaard (1895\u20131957) and Edvard Weie (1879\u20131943). These were prominent names in a Danish context and key artists for the SMK, but hardly artists with an international contemporary profile. In 1952, with the SMK\u2019s new director J\u00f8rn Rubow (1908\u201384) as commissioner, the committee went back to sending a larger group of artists: Johannes Bjerg (1886\u20131955), Mogens B\u00f8ggild (1901\u201387), Gottfred Eickhoff ( 1902\u201382), Adam Fischer (1888\u20131968), Gerhard Henning (1880\u20131967), Vilhelm Lundstr\u00f8m and Henrik Starcke (1899\u20131973) \u2013 a\u00a0 group of older sculptors supplemented with works from the 1930s by the painter Lundstr\u00f8m, who had very recently died. In 1954, the artists selected were Knud Agger, Arno Axelsen (1912\u201372), Axel Bentzen, Lauritz Hartz (1903\u201387) and Svend Wiig Hansen (1922\u201397) \u2013 after a more tightly focused selection consisting of Hartz, Asger Jorn (1914\u201373) and Else Alfelt (1910-1974) had been tabled. In the newspaper Politiken,<\/em> the critic Walter Schwartz (1889\u20131958) described Denmark as occupying \u2018a neatly adequate, tepid middle ground\u2019 within the Biennale\u2019s \u2018artistic contest\u2019Politiken<\/em>, 20.6. 1954\n\">34<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0between thirty-two nations. To Schwartz\u2019s mind, none except for the younger Wiig Hansen had any feel for the present at all, leaving them little chance of achieving international success: \u2018With older pictures by Lauritz Hartz, Knud Agger, and Axel Bentzen, we present a beautiful melody from the 1930s, very skilfully played by museum director Rubow, and pretend to be unaware that a young orchestra has long since begun playing to a different beat, one that would have resonated quite differently at a world convention\u2019.35<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0A somewhat surprising critical voice appeared in the form of the former Biennale commissioner Leo Swane, who, in an essay published in Politiken<\/em> on 3 November 1954, questioned the relevance of even participating in the Biennale\u2019s \u2018frenetic, vast show\u2019 at all. According to Swane, the Biennale was a \u2018mammoth market\u2019 with no overall governing idea, far too big to properly take in, and one where the good Danish contributions would just be \u2018drowned out by the hubbub\u2019 anyway.Politiken<\/em>, 3.11. 1954, 12–13.\n\">36<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0However, Swane was not exactly known as a supporter of extensive exhibition initiatives, and his call to withdraw from the Biennale did not provoke much in the way of further reactions.<\/p>\n In the following years, the committee seems to have taken note of the criticism, leaving behind the salon format with its many artists in favour of a more tightly focused selection. In 1956, they chose to concentrate the exhibition on pairing up the painter Egill Jacobsen and the sculptor Erik Thommesen; both were abstract artists embroiled in the central currents of the time and not yet firmly established. The invitation to Jacobsen, which was sent in March just a few months before the exhibition opened, states that the selection of works must be agreed with Rubow,37<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0who was, then, responsible for the content of the exhibition and acted as curator. While the content was thus guided and managed in an earnest attempt at signalling contemporary flair, other aspects of the exhibition lagged rather behind. In an evaluation report penned by Lars Rostrup B\u00f8yesen (1915\u201396), curator at the SMK and assistant at the exhibition in Venice, it is noted that Denmark had \u2018demonstrated the poorest performance of all the nations in terms of propaganda\u2019.38<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Unlike other countries, the Danish exhibition was accompanied by no printed matter, it was poorly staffed, and it had no opening reception, which might well have attracted attention and created goodwill. The pavilion itself did not do better either, \u2018with its slightly mausoleum-like temple fa\u00e7ade and rather discreet position in a large shrubbery\u2019.39<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n For the subsequent Biennale in 1958, a deliberately different mode of expression was chosen by appointing the fine-art printmakers Povl Christensen (1909\u201377), Palle Nielsen (1920\u20132000), Sigurd Vasegaard (1909\u201367) and the sculptor J\u00f8rgen Haugen S\u00f8rensen (1934\u2013). Unlike the abstract artists, these figures reflected a \u2018figurative, realistic\u2019 tendency \u2018characteristic of some of the young artists\u2019, as stated in the introduction to the booklet produced to accompany this exhibition.4 Danish Artists at the Biennal Venice 1958<\/em>, exhibition catalogue, unpaged.\n\">40<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0This time, the title of commissioner was held by Erik Fischer (1920\u20132011), curator at the Royal Danish Collection of Graphic Art, and he very obviously exercised great influence on how the exhibition was compiled. The presentation of these Portrayers of Man<\/em>Mennesket i tiden: Menneskeskildrerne i dansk grafik i anden halvdel af 1950erne<\/em>, PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen 2015.\n\">41<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0stood out from the crowd at a bienniale which \u2013 taking its cues from the curatorial line adopted by the Italian main pavilion and a retrospective exhibition featuring the German artist WOLS (1913\u201351) \u2013 was characterised by the almost total dominance of abstract art, with the exception of the socialist realism found in the works presented by the participating communist countries. In a subsequent report, Fischer stated that the Danish presentation of print had \u2018asserted itself very beautifully\u2019 at a \u2018Biennale that was 90% abstract\u2019.42<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In the same report, Rostrup B\u00f8yesen described the exhibition\u2019s \u2018beautiful and uniform setting, which gave the hang a touch of quiet monumentality\u2019 and that the pavilion\u2019s interior had been painted in a muted green colour, which \u2018most beautifully way made the room cohere around the exhibited works of art\u2019, even if the pavilion was itself still \u2018in need of extensive restoration\u2019.43<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Despite the challenges posed by the setting itself and the somewhat defensive strategy of employing figurative graphic artists, the efforts had, seen from the Danish side, succeeded in making the exhibitions appear more coherent.<\/p>\n Med tanke p\u00e5, at perioden er ramme om abstraktionens helt store \u00e5r i dansk kunst, b\u00e5de i den ekspressive og den konkrete retning, er det lidt p\u00e5faldende, at man ikke valgte at udnytte det abstrakte momentum p\u00e5 Biennalen. Noget tyder p\u00e5, at man ans\u00e5 abstraktionen som for <\/em>international og heller ikke \u00f8nskede at give plads til de i udlandet baserede kunstnere som Jorn og Mortensen.<\/p>\n In the 1950s, many advocated the idea of arranging a joint Nordic exhibition in a new, shared pavilion. The suggestion was first put forward in a 1954 newspaper entry by G\u00f6ran Schildt, who followed the biennial closely and commented on its development and status. Sweden did not have a national pavilion, and according to Schildt, the ideal solution in both economic and ideological terms, would be to have \u2018a common Nordic pavilion, which would not need to be much larger than the planned Swedish one, but which would enable the four small Nordic nations to act as cultural superpower at the Biennale\u2019.Svenska Dagbladet<\/em>, 8.7. 1954.\n\">44<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0For reference, Schildt was able to point to a current example of successful collaboration on a Scandinavian exhibition: the traveling exhibition Design in Scandinavia<\/em>, a joint Nordic promotion of furniture design and applied arts which toured the USA in 1954 to 1957. In addition to offering better opportunities for promoting the fine arts, a Nordic pavilion would also be an \u2018exponent of architecture\u2019.45<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Schildt\u2019s idea resonated with many, and joint Nordic meetings on such potential co-operation were soon held. The increasingly concrete plans resulted in the Danish architect Peter Koch (1905\u20131980) being asked to draw up a proposal for the pavilion in 1957. His design was based on sections of octagonal pyramid shapes, which would accommodate the individual countries\u2019 exhibitions in a interconnected whole [fig. 7<\/strong>]. However, at a meeting in Stockholm held in February 1958, Denmark nevertheless chose to keep its old pavilion \u2018in an improved and expanded form\u2019, thereby delegating the Nordic co-operation to a secondary role.46<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Unsurprisingly, this prompted \u2018some disappointment\u2019 among the committees of the other Nordic countries47<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0, who chose to go ahead with the plans for a joint pavilion and issued a competition calling for designs of its architecture. The slightly asymmetrical result materialising in the early 1960s was, therefore, a Nordic pavilion housing Finland, Norway and Sweden, designed by the Norwegian architect Sverre Fehn (1924\u20132009) and built for the Bienniale in 1962, and a new version of the Danish pavilion with an extension by Peter Koch (1905\u20131980) inaugurated in 1960 [fig. 8<\/strong>].<\/p>\n The new Danish pavilion was opened in 1960 with a solo show featuring Richard Mortensen. Mortensen, who took part in the 1948 exhibition too, had expressed criticism of Swane’s anti-abstract arroganceDe abstrakte. Historien om en kunstnergeneration<\/em>, Fogtdal, 1991 (2nd<\/sup> edition).\n\">48<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0right back from the time of his involvement with the Linien <\/em>movement, and in 1948 he called him \u2018the kind of dictator associated with days gone past\u2019. Berlingske Aftenavis<\/em> 7.8. 1948. Quoted from Villads Villadsen: Statens Museum for Kunst 1827-1952<\/em>, Gyldendal, 1998, p. 351.\n\">49<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Since 1948, Mortensen had become one of the most international and in-demand names in Danish art, as is illustrated by his participation in the documenta<\/em> exhibitions in 1955 and 1959.<\/p>\n True to form, the committee\u2019s choice of artist took place late, and the invitation was sent in March with the exhibition due to open in June. Lars Rostrup B\u00f8yesen acted as commissioner for the exhibition. As stated in a loan application for two works from the Louisiana Museum of Art from 7 June, Rostrup B\u00f8yesen\u2019s had ambitious visions for the exhibition: \u2018[Richard Mortensen] will be the only Danish participant, presenting a very substantial retrospective that will fill the entire pavilion, and which we are working to make as strong as possible in the fact of this very fierce international competition\u2019.50<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Mortensen himself also took the invitation very seriously, immediately embarking on three large paintings, Aleria<\/em>, Propriano <\/em>[fig. 9<\/strong>] and Evisa<\/em>,Murano<\/em>, Petreto<\/em> and Zivaco<\/em> – all derived from locations on Corsica where Mortensen would often spend time from this period on.\n\">51<\/a><\/sup>which were displayed as a triptych in the exhibition. Delivered fresh from his Paris studio in May 1960, they testified to his most recent production. \u2013 The following year, the works were hung in a similar triptych format at the Frederiksberg City Hall in Denmark and Liljevalchs Konsthall in Stockholm.Propriano<\/em> (oil on canvas, 195 x 130 cm) was acquired for SMK in 1966 (inv. no.: KMS6467) while Evisa<\/em> was acquired for Louisiana (both as gifts from the New Carlsberg Foundation).\n\">52<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Mortensen created six works to be hung outdoors: these were six new versions of more strictly geometric works from the 1950s done in ripolin paint to adorn the fa\u00e7ade of the pavilion [f<\/strong>ig. 10<\/strong>]. Inside, the exhibition comprised a selection of eighty works representing twenty-five years of work. A significant aspect of the construction of the exhibition was the use of three niches made of partitions in the old pavilion, forming geometric white cubes around the works [f<\/strong>ig. 11<\/strong>].<\/p>\n “One remembers with sadness how we have, ever since the war, repeatedly wasted our chances to show the world that Danish painting is a living, breathing, fighting art. Now, we have remedied this state of affairs as far as Richard Mortensen is concerned, and the timing has proven more fortuitous than one dared hope. This retrospective exhibition of his work has turned the ideas held by many of the bienniale\u2019s visitors upside down.”Politiken <\/em>11.7. 1960.\n\">55<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mortensen\u2019s startling effect on the visitors was due to his rejection of the dominant Art Informel<\/em>. Lybecker regarded Art Informel<\/em> as the Biennale\u2019s main theme, building on other key exhibitions in e.g. Kassel and Paris, and Lybecker described Mortensen\u2019s exhibition as a \u2018liberation from the tyranny of instinct\u2019.Art Informel<\/em> was the main theme of the Biennale, as was only to be expected by anyone who has followed the currents in world art over the last year or so. In Venice, one finds repeats of the teachings of documenta<\/em> in Kassel, of last autumn’s biennial in Paris and of the Vitalita nell’Arte<\/em>, shown at Louisiana among other places’. Pierre L\u00fcbecker: ‘Instinktets Tyranni’, in Politiken <\/em>11.7. 1960.\n\">56<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0This is to say that the exhibition came across as autonomous and in keeping with its day, and the general response did not echo the past protests about the shortcomings of the setting.<\/p>\n With the Mortensen exhibition in 1960, Denmark\u2019s participation in Venice had reached a new level of international class. Even popular, low-brow magazines such as Billed-Bladet<\/em> covered the exhibition, publishing a report headlined \u2018Morten\u2019s day in Venice\u2019, which described Mortensen as having \u2018become world-famous with a single stroke\u2019, wading in exhibition offerings at this \u2018world\u2019s largest painting event\u2019.Billed-bladet <\/em>no. 28, 8.7. 1960, pp. 18–19.\n\">57<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0As Swane had already considered after the exhibition in 1948, focusing on a single artist had borne fruit, and here the concerted focus had coincided with a modernised pavilion. It is also worth noting that the show was organised by a dedicated creator of exhibitions, Rostrup B\u00f8yesen, who had been responsible for the majority of SMK\u2019s special exhibitions of modern art by figures such as Wassily Kandinsky (1866\u20131944) in 1957 and Paul Klee (1879\u20131940) in 1959. While relatively little had written about the Venice Biennale in a Danish context in the past, the early 1960s saw an increase in art criticism\u2019s focus on that exhibition and on the international exhibitions in general.documenta<\/em>, I have addressed this in the article ‘”documenta” i dansk dokumentation: En analyse af receptionen af “documenta” i dansk kunstkritik, 1955-1972’, Periskop – forum for Kunsthistorisk Debat,<\/em> 21, 2019, pp. 52–69\n\">58<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Looking beyond newspaper critique, another example is the 1960 yearbook of the prominent Danish museum Louisiana, which contained two reports from the Biennale written by Pierre Lybecker and Gunnar Jespersen. The latter saw the 1960 exhibition as \u2018the inner rebellion of abstraction\u2019 between the Expressive and the Concrete camps with Mortensen as a handy intermediary.Louisiana Aarbog<\/em> (ed. Knud W. Jensen), Gyldendal 1960.\n\">59<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In the newly launched art journal Signum<\/em>, presented the following year as a new Danish art magazine focusing on modern art and international perspectives, the author Ole Sarvig (1921\u201381) contributed an article called \u2018Venedigs mudrede spejl. Biennalen 1960\u2019 (The Muddied Mirror of Venice. The 1960 Biennale, 1961), offering an extensive analytical panoramic view of the Biennale. He noted the Biennale\u2019s ability to reinstate the pioneers of Modernism, whereas contemporary art was dominated by an Expressive fascination with doom and gloom as \u2018a desperate final act in the spirit of Surrealism and anti-art\u2019, while at the Danish pavilion Mortensen \u2018holds the fort alone, if somewhat distractedly, for Vasarely, Magnelli and himself with his colourful and highly decorative concretions\u2019.Signum<\/em> vol. 1, no. 1, 1, 1961, 28–40, p. 37.\n\">60<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Building on the success of the Mortensen exhibition, but also on the problems associated with the Danish pavilion, Signum<\/em> once again focused on the Danish presence in Venice with a survey feature on \u2018Denmark at the Biennale\u2019 (1961).Signum<\/em>, vol 1., no. 3 1961, pp. 21–25\n\">61<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Here, a number of key stakeholders \u2013 Folmer Bendtsen (1907\u201393), Victor Brockdorff (1911\u201392), Erik Fischer, Asger Jorn, Erik Poulsen (1928\u201399) and Ole Sarvig \u2013 were asked to assess Denmark\u2019s opportunities \u2018as they have been utilised so far and how they might be utilised in the future\u2019.Signum<\/em>, vol. 1, no. 4. 1961. p. 21.\n\">The Biennale \u2013 poised between national promotion and international art<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/ark_9108b.jpg\")
The War Biennale<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/fig._2_xxiii_biennale_di_venezia_1942.png\")
![](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/a00142849.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/f_av_43_padiglione_della_danimarca_foto_ferruzzi_1942.jpg\")
![](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/kms3816.jpg\")
The Biennale relaunched, 1948\u201358<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/f_av_49_padiglione_della_danimarca_foto_ferruzzi_1948.jpg\")
Nordic collaboration \u2013 and Denmark goes solo<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/ill_4.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/ill_5.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/ill_6.jpg\")
![](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/kms6467.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/ill_7.jpg\")
\nA catalogue was produced for the exhibition, offering an overview of the artist\u2019s exhibition activity since 1930 and showcasing his international position, asserted by the crowning glory of the 1960 exhibition.Mortensen, Danemark 1960 Venise Biennale<\/em>, exhibition catalogue (note the French title).\n\">53<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In the words of the exhibition\u2019s organiser Rostrup B\u00f8yesen, Mortensen had a \u2018dual national affiliation\u2019 to both Denmark and France, which meant that Denmark was familiar with his early production, while the more recent work circulated on the international art scene. This was the reason why the Biennale exhibition was subsequently shown at Frederiksberg City Hall in 1961 with reference to \u2018the significant international success\u2019 in Venice.Richard Mortensen. Malerier 1932-1960<\/em>, Frederiksberg City Hall 26.1.-12.2. 1961. The exhibition was organised by a committee that included Rubow and Rostrup B\u00f8yesen and was accompanied by a catalogue. The works had been stored at SMK in between the exhibitions in Venice and at Frederiksberg. Frederiksberg Bladet<\/em> 26.1. 1961.\n\">54<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The reception of the exhibition in Venice was almost unusually positive \u2013 and this held true of the exhibition itself and its relationship to the rest of the Biennale\u2019s content. In Politiken, <\/em>art critic Pierre Lybecker (1921\u201390) hailed the exhibition as a welcome redress of lost opportunities:<\/p>\nAfter the breakthrough \u2013 new questions<\/h2>\n