NR | 1h 38m | Documentary | 2024
In 1999, Bill Clinton and Congress decided (in their infinite wisdom) the United States would never face an external challenge comparable to the Cold War, so they abolished the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) by consolidating some functions under the State Department.
Unfortunately, as we face a new Cold War, the current U.S. government largely overlooks the strategic potential of so-called “soft power”: film, music, literature, and art. That was exactly the kind of creative capital the USIA tried to leverage. Ironically, one of the USIA’s greatest successes came in the rarefied field of fine arts, but it inspired such an international backlash, the agency subsequently discontinued their fine arts division. Filmmaker Amei Wallach chronicles the USIA’s campaign to win the most coveted prize (the painting category) at the 1964 Venice Biennale for Robert Rauschenberg in the documentary “Taking Venice.”
Essentially, the USIA was the United States’s overseas PR department. It was their job to promote a positive image of America, rather than obsess over our national failings. The Soviets were happy to do that for us. To that end, America had great success sponsoring international tours of American musicians to counter the prestige of the USSR’s ballet companies.
Traditionally, America was not considered the cradle of great fine artists, but that was starting to change with the growing reputation of artists like Rauschenberg and his close associate Jasper Johns. Although Rauschenberg’s work was, and still remains, aesthetically controversial, his large silk-screened images of John F. Kennedy and the American space program held enormous symbolic value, especially in the wake of the president’s assassination.
Just a Molehill
The mostly non-American talking heads also find cause for outrage in the circumstances surrounding the American exhibition. Initially, Solomon received approval from the Biennale director to mount most of Rauschenberg’s works outside the cramped American Pavilion in the former American consulate building, with the understanding they would still be award-eligible. When the new director contradicted his predecessor, Solomon shuttled Rauschenberg’s work back to the Pavilion on barges. Far from nefarious behavior, this just seems like a good example of American improvisation. Regardless, it is presented by most of Ms. Wallach’s on-camera experts as crass skullduggery.
Arguably, USIA scored its biggest coup by arranging a last-minute command-performance in Venice for the Merce Cunningham dance troupe, for whom Rauschenberg designed their stage props. Yet, according to Ms. Wallach and company, half the audience loudly booed the divisive avant-garde dancers, while the other half enthusiastically cheered.
Fortunately, Ms. Wallach secured an interview with the late Denney, who constantly undercuts the anti-American whining, arguing the USIA did nothing wrong and Rauschenberg deserved to win. In fact, everyone seems to agree with her latter point. Ms. Wallach never even bothers to mention the European and Soviet-bloc artists he beat out for the painting award. Arguably, Rauschenberg’s closest competition were the other Americans exhibited at the Pavilion, including Claes Oldenburg, Frank Stella, and Jim Dine.
In retrospect, Solomon’s taste was impeccable and his promotional tactics were ahead of his time. “Taking Venice” ought to be a celebration of the now largely forgotten curator, who died tragically early at the age of 49, rather than a half-baked exposé (Since Solomon is not available to speak for himself, actor Luke Kirby reads excerpts from his articles and letters.). The real scandal was that the USIA administrators were so stung by the Biennale criticism, they soon terminated the agency’s fine arts outreach program.
The behind-the-scenes details of the 1964 Biennale are indeed fascinating, but Ms. Wallach’s scandalized tone hardly seems warranted. Most viewers will leave the film wondering what all the fuss was about.
Without question, Ms. Wallach’s previous documentary “Ilya and Emilia Kabakov: Enter Here,” which profiled the dissident Soviet artist-couple, was a much more insightful analysis of the ways art and politics respond to each other. In this case, Ms. Wallach let the biases of a few parochial art critics shape the entire perspective of her film. It is good story, but it deserves to be told in a more evenhanded manner.
Ultimately rather disappointing, “Taking Venice” cannot be fully recommended.
