At the World Exhibition in Paris in 1878, Danish art suffered a humiliating blow. Denmark had, with the best intentions, sent many of its most respected painters to the French capital, and was unprepared for the disappointment that was to follow. They had disregarded the participation criteria laid out by the Exhibition committee. Among these was the requirement that no work should be brought to the Exhibition that had been painted before 1866. The Danish deliberately ignored this and brought paintings that dated back to the 1840s. On one painting the date had been changed to 1868. When this was later discovered, it led to public embarrassment for the Danish artists.

As mentioned above, the Danes acted in good faith when they sent what they considered to be the best of the best. They were proud of their national romantic genre paintings whose expression and technique represented an extension of the Danish golden age. The fact that French art was at a completely different place in the 1870s, with its trendsetting Impressionists, was completely disregarded by the Danes in their eager to show off the works that they were so proud of. In the aftermath of the World Exhibition there was a heated debate in Denmark about the opportunities for artists to develop their skills. The discussion centred around the question of whether young talented artists should be sent to France and learn to copy French art, or whether one should adhere to the Danish tradition and let them stay at home under the protective wings of the Royal Danish Academy of Art. The art historian Julius Lange, who had stayed in Paris during the World Exhibition, followed the debate and wrote the article “Our Art and the Art Abroad”, where he expressed the opinion that the goal should not be to go to France and become French, nor should it be to stay at home and be “national”. The important thing was that art should develop at a personal and individual level. Even before this emotional debate had reached its peak, many of the young artists had already gone to France, inspired by the new outdoor painting and the new attitudes towards art. The debate kept going in Denmark for several decades, particularly in connection with the annual spring exhibitions, where many of the young artists returned home to show the results of their stay abroad.

In the years before 1900 Paris was the meeting place for European artists. Travelling had become easier, and communication was more intense. The influence of the growing metropolises, including Berlin, benefited the young generation of artists, and distances now seemed shorter. The latest trends from abroad were picked up and put into new contexts in Copenhagen. The Nordic artists also became closer, simply because they all met in studios and cafes in Paris. In the course of a few decades it was as if Europe had become smaller. It was only after the two world wars and the drawing of new national borders, that communications between countries again became problematic. Today, with the open Europe and the fuzzy political and artistic borders, things are not seen in terms of north - south or east - west, but more in terms of a global perspective. The world map has changed, and this has consequences for the contemporary art. All through the 20th century the world metropolises have attracted the most influential and sophisticated artists. The reasons for this are obvious: these capitals often represent dynamic centres with educational institutions, museums, art academies, galleries, and, not to forget, a strong financial capital, explosive growth and an affluent upper class. In other words, the big cities reflect the societal structure with its political, social and multicultural problems.

Since the last half of the 20th century, many of the major cities in Europe and the United States have built a number of new art museums, which has created much attention, not only from the art world, but also among an ever-increasing audience. At the entrance to the 21st century, and especially since the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in 1999, every self-respecting city aspires to have an art museum designed by a high-profile architect. This has been termed the “Bilbao-effect” and has spread to cities far beyond the Western world. While the leading art museums and institutions have been pivotal for contemporary art in the 20th and 21st centuries, so have the biennials and art fairs. The Venice Biennial was established as early as 1895, and soon became a highly prestigious event. Today, a century later, it is still considered an honour to be selected to represent one’s country in the national pavilions at the Venice Biennial. It is, however, even more prestigious to be selected for the international pavilion, since this selection process is made by a world-renowned curator. The focus has, in other words, been shifted from the national to the international selection. The Documenta in Kassel has always had international curators, and it is therefore far more prestigious for an artist to be selected for this exhibition than for the Venice Biennial. When it comes to culture, central Europe has always felt superior to the rest of the world. The European attitude has for centuries been one of “us versus the others”. It was only in the post-war years, when Europe was on its knees, that the attention turned to America, with its freedom and strong economy. With the breakthrough of pop art in the 1960s, New York became the centre of modern art, and the new trends made big waves in the media. Consequently, many of the leading young artists in Europe went to New York for inspiration. The Americanisation had begun. The result was not only a growing media and fast food culture, but also a new profile in the international arena of art. At the Venice Biennial it was now the trendy New York galleries which set the agenda, not only with their artists but also with their dollars. While the Venice Biennial and the Documenta in Kassel have been the most important international art exhibitions in the post-war Western world, they now face competition from similar events outside the European arena. With the increasing globalisation, the focus has shifted from the exhibitions in Europe and the US to the biennials in São Paulo, Havana, Istanbul and Johannesburg, and the triennials in Cairo, Dakar, New Delhi, Sydney, Saaremaa in Estonia and San Domingo in the Caribbean. This expansion beyond the Western world has increased markedly in the first decade of the 21st century. It is also reflected in international magazines such as Flash Art, Artforum, Art in America and Frieze, which review and report on art events in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia. It is much more difficult to encircle the cultural centres today than previously, when you were considered well-informed if you had seen the latest exhibitions in Paris.

The metropolises remain the world’s geographical centres, with their parliaments, cultural and educational institutions, financial headquarters and multinational corporations. There is no doubt that the metropolises are strategically important in an increasingly globalised world. It used to be the major European and American cities that were the centre of new trends and trendy contemporary art. Now it is cities like Tel Aviv, Buenos Aires, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Melbourne, Bangkok, Singapore, Taipei, Soul, etc., with their explosive growth, which are interesting for artists. Because it has become increasingly difficult to navigate in an expanding globalised world, not only have the well-established biennials become more important, but so have the leading art fairs in Basel, Miami, Berlin and Madrid. You only have to spend three days at Art Basel in order to be fully updated on the latest from the art scene. While they may be far from the artist studios, galleries are always within walking distance for museum keepers, curators, collectors, sponsors and critics. At the global art fairs the new currents flow swiftly, and it can be difficult to localise an artist, especially one from Asia or Latin America. Many of them have left their native country and taken residence in New York, Berlin or Shanghai, and it is not always clear from their CVs where they come from. They all work with installations, video and photography, as well as more traditional art forms, such as painting, sculpting, etc.
Issues such as identity, cultural background and context have become more pressing in recent years, as seen at the many global exhibitions. Political, ethnic and religious differences are more pronounced today than just a few years ago, when artists were expected to have a common international aesthetic expression. The many new cultural centres, the well-oiled media machine, and the dialogue between the local and the global have created a complexity and dynamism in art, which leads in many directions. Because the world has been redefined, centres have become peripheral and peripheries have become central. Borders are fuzzy, space is endless, but it is still in the body and soul of the individual artist that everything begins and art is created. The most important thing must still be, as Julius Lange once stated, that art develops at an individual and personal level, regardless of the context in which it originates.

 

 

Bibliography:
Bente Scavenius: Fransk Esprit i den danske muld. In Klaus Mortensen (ed.), Uden for Murene. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen, 2002.
Octavio Zaya and Anders Michelsen: Interzones. Kunstforeningen, Gl. Strand, Copenhagen, 1996.
Jannie Haagemann and Stine Høholt: Mod et nyt kunstnerisk verdenskort? De nye biennaler og den globale samtidskunst. In Hans Dam Christensen, Anders Michelsen and Jacob Wamberg (eds.), Kunstteori. Positioner i nutidig kunstdebat. Borgens Forlag, Copenhagen, 1999.