The Polish Pavilion at the Venice Biennale According to Mieczysław Treter, 1932–1938
The year 1932 went down in the history of Polish art at the International Art Exhibition in Venice owing to two pivotal events. Firstly, Poland gained its own permanent pavilion; secondly, ‘Dr Mieczysław Treter was named the commissioner of the Polish section from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.’[1] Why was Treter chosen for this position?
Mieczysław Treter (1883–1943), an historian and art critic, museologist, aesthetician, academic lecturer, animator of the art scene, and organiser of numerous exhibitions of Polish and foreign contemporary art, had the requisite education, professional, organisational and managerial experience. In the 1930s he was surely among the most prominent figures on the Polish art scene. Born in Krakow, he was educated in Lwów (readership at the Lwów Polytechnic), where he also began his professional career as curator of the Lubomirski Museum, continuing in Kyiv as a lecturer at the Polish University College. After moving to Warsaw, he was hired as director of the State Art Collections and reader at Warsaw University, and in 1926 he was named director of the Society for the Dissemination of Polish Art Abroad (TOSSPO), the chief institution promoting Polish art in the international arena. Through the TOSSPO he organised many Polish art exhibitions in a number of European states. He was also in the inner circle of founders of the Institute for Promoting Art (IPS), an exhibiting institution supporting the TOSSPO. In November 1929, he was awarded the Officer’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, ‘for his service in promoting Polish art abroad’.[2] He therefore had significant institutional experience in culture and art and their promotion at home and abroad and was recognised by the state authorities.
Treter’s position in the art world and monopoly of sorts on promoting Polish art abroad were crucial in assigning him the post of commissioner of the Polish Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 1932. He was meant to oversee the next four editions of the Biennale – up to and including 1938. At the moment of his nomination he could boast the largest domestic showing of Polish art after regaining independence – the Art Section of the Universal National Expo in Poznań in 1929. This exhibition for the tenth anniversary of the existence of the independent Polish state played a key propaganda function. In his preface to the Catalogue of the Art Section, Treter wrote: ‘Art that is honest, original and Polish, art that truly emanates the spirit of the nation, is then one of the most valuable, ever-replenished springs of national wealth. It is, should be, and must become such a source – especially for Poland.’[3] These words could be seen as a motto behind all his actions to promote Polish art, in the Venice Biennale and elsewhere.
Apart from these assets, Treter had a great many connections in the worlds of art and politics, and, no less importantly, had been interested in the Venice Biennale for years. His regular trips allowed him to follow the various editions of the event as they happened, both in Polish and European art. He shared his observations in the Polish and foreign press. He also held an indisputably high place in the press community, not only as an active critic, art historian and exhibition organiser, but also as editor-in-chief at the Warsaw periodical Sztuki Piękne and head editor of Przegląd Warszawski in 1923–1925. He certainly deserved to be known as the éminence grise of the Polish art scene.[4]
What exhibitions did Treter intend to organise in the pavilion in Venice? Were they an extension of the exhibitions organised previously through the TOSSPO? In his article ‘Polish Art at the International Exhibition in Venice: Poland’s Own Pavilion in Venice, a Programme for the Future, the Biennale and Polish Artists’, he clearly laid out his planned formula of Polish art presentations. Drawing from his experience, he saw the least appropriate and thus worst options as collective exhibitions of numerous artists each presenting a single piece or a handful of works – he had no intention of continuing these shows. He announced there would be exhibitions of art groups or individual showings of particular outstanding artists, with five or six works by each. In this way, in the space of a few years the foreign viewer would have an overview of contemporary Polish art, ‘through various groups and artists, representing all the vital movements in our art; every sculptor, painter, or printmaker who has made their mark in our art will be able to rest easy that their works will occupy a worthy place at one of our exhibitions’.[5]
In this statement what strikes us as key in terms of the commissioner’s future choices is the criteria ‘who has made their mark in our art’.[6] The first show under his care and, at the same time, the first in the Polish national pavilion, was to have a special inaugural quality. Poland’s presence in Venice in 1932 could not, therefore, be ‘confined to a single movement or a single art group. It should set out the clearly distinct and modern par excellence, yet unmistakably Polish art of today, while strongly marking its vitality, as expressed by the multiplicity of its movements’.[7]
The selected works and art scenes he goes on to mention in the text may come as something of a surprise to today’s reader, as Treter decided to exhibit pieces ‘of some members of the “Sztuka” Society in Krakow – who are better known in Venice than other Polish artists – this exhibition ties in to our previous shows in Venice, organised by “Sztuka”. By taking other artists into account, both those who had joined groups (like Rhythm, the Vilnius Society of Visual Artists etc.) and independents, our exhibition reflected other contemporary movements, thus giving foreigners a decent impression of the vitality of our art’.[8]
A somewhat disapproving reader might add: an impression of the enduring vitality of the ‘Sztuka’ Society of Polish Artists (founded in 1897), as well as the exceptionally longevity of the Krakow leg of the Young Poland movement. This was undoubtedly the result of Treter’s own taste (shaped by Young Poland art) and his social and professional connections with Society representatives. The choice of the Rhythm artists and the Vilnius ‘classics’ pointed to a preference for figurative, Neoclassical, non-avant-garde art geared away from Paris, closer to the convention the Italian Novecento, the German New Objectivity, French Neoclassicism and art déco.
Treter did not hide his disdain for avant-garde movements in Polish art. He saw them as anachronistic, overblown, and even derivative compared to the Western innovators, an opinion he expressed, for instance in a critical review of Lwów’s Artes group exhibition in Warsaw’s Czesław Garliński Art Salon in 1931, ‘The Marauders of Modernism’.[9] Nor did he spare the radical avant-garde: ‘Some stand before the paintings of H. Stażewski and W. Strzemiński and laugh in astonishment. This is a mistake. Such things have already been done many times, especially in Holland (Theo von Doesburg and Piet Mondrian).… This is nothing new. It is amusing that these pictures are framed like landscapes, that they are passed off as easel paintings and exhibited at the IPS. These experiments with texture or ornament, and not so very clever that they could not be reproduced ad limitum, truly have little in common with artistry and creativity, but might be quite useful as interior decor.… The PWK pavilions show the effect may be splendid. And the fact this is meant to be abstract art and Unism, that this is the laboriously rendered product of a special theory of “spatial composition calculating spacetime rhythm” (truly!) – is perhaps a matter of indifference.’[10] We should note that these articles, quite hostile to the avant-garde and innovative techniques, showed Treter had a firm awareness of the European modernists (mainly focused in Paris and Berlin), though completely failed to understand it. He was constantly asserting the derivativeness of the Polish avant-garde compared to others across Europe, often unfairly and with bias, though he seemed favourably inclined towards the TOSSPO at its inception. Later he clearly distanced himself from them, and failed to mention them in articles for catalogues of Polish art exhibitions abroad, including the Venice Biennale. To what extent the policies of the Piłsudski government had an impact on his statements and exhibition choices is now hard to ascertain. The fact is that theme-based art that drew from the classical tradition was dominant in the 1930s in European art, especially at international shows. This is where Treter saw state-building potential, for forging a sense of Polish national identity and crafting propaganda that was effective both in Poland and abroad.
He presented his vision for promoting Polish art and his remarks on its shortcomings to date in his article ‘Foreign Exhibitions and Promotion and the Issue of a National Art’[11] in 1933. Here he summed up how Polish art had been promoted on the international arena, making reference to the 18th Venice Biennale and the ones that came before it.
Polish art had appeared at the Biennale from the very beginning, though because it had been partitioned, Poland was not given an autonomous presentation. After independence was gained, beginning in 1920, it was presented under the patronage of the Polish state, but still without its own exhibition space; this came with a variety of problems and inconveniences. Treter saw the guest appearance in the Italian pavilion as a particularly unfortunate example (and he was not alone): this was a cramped, dark space leading to the public washrooms. To his mind, the hastily and carelessly assembled show in a place not only unequipped for exhibition purposes, but downright inappropriate, had the reverse of the desired effect – it would have been better to withdraw from the Biennale in 1930 altogether.
Along with other figures on the Polish art scene, he saw the lack of a national pavilion as hugely disadvantageous; he proposed the acquisition of a Polish exhibition space as early as 1926, when real opportunities appeared. The execution of this plan coincided with his being given the post of commissioner.
Surveying Treter’s accomplishments in presenting Polish contemporary art at the Venice Biennale, we ought to consider not only his personal preferences in art, but also the context in which he was operating: the arts and economics, the logistic capabilities in Poland, the government’s recommendations and expectations, the decisions of the TOSSPO and IPS with which he had to contend, his observations on the prevailing trends in European art, particularly those on display at the Biennale, and the organisers’ guidelines in terms of the nature and the number of artists and works presented.
Treter had only a fairly humble budget for organising Polish shows at the Biennale. He recalled that the costs of borrowing nineteenth-century works from the National Museum in Warsaw or in Krakow (which were municipal museums at the time) were too high, owing to security considerations. He borrowed pictures from private collectors and still exceeded the Polish exhibition budget for the Biennale in 1934. Artists loaning works for foreign exhibitions hoped to gain the recognition and interest of collectors, but also had to factor in the possibility of their works being damaged in transit.
Organising the Polish contribution to the Biennale, Treter took many factors into account. He was mainly guided by his own vision of Polish national art, but not exclusively. He considered including artists tied to the Paris community – both the Colourists and the members of the École de Paris – sensing their success at a given moment, despite their seemingly unfavourable political circumstances. We see this, for instance, in his apt choice of Tadeusz Makowski in 1936 and Olga Boznańska in 1938. In 1936 there were political attempts to meddle with his decision – the Polish Embassy in Rome expressed doubts about Makowski’s reception in Italy, and right after the opening of the show, the Polish consul reported from Trieste on the poor impression the works made.[12] The commissioner did not succumb to political pressure, yet we cannot say if this was an isolated incident. All signs seem to show that the decision was correct, given the prematurely deceased Tadeusz Makowski is now part of the core, textbook canon of Polish twentieth-century painting. It also turned out to be useful for promotional purposes – Makowski’s pictures garnered a great deal of interest and had a warm reception, even from Italian critics (Giovanni Battista Scarpa wrote of the typically Polish feel of the works). The Austrians so appreciated Makowski’s work that they organised an individual exhibition of his paintings in Vienna, the last one that was ideologically independent and free from Nazi guidelines.[13] We should add that Makowski’s pictures (apart from three borrowed from the State Art Collection) came from the Société des Amis de Tadé Makowski in Paris, which co-organised the Venice show, and thus their loan probably did not burden the Polish Pavilion budget. This aspect might well have also been taken into account by Treter in deciding to present an artist who did not suit his personal preferences. Purely economic concerns explain the absence at the same Biennale of Eugeniusz Zak and probably Leopold Gottlieb; the costs of securing their works, mainly found abroad, were too high.[14] Preparing the show, Treter followed the guidelines of the Biennale organisers to present solo and retrospective exhibitions of deceased artists. This explains the initial idea to exhibit posthumously the works of Leopold Gottlieb, Makowski, Zak, Skoczylas and Stanisław Noakowski. The TOSSPO’s final decision was, apart from Makowski, to single out the commissioner’s regular favourites: Fryderyk Pautsch, Władysław Skoczylas (posthumously) and August Zamoyski.
Treter’s decisions, though fairly arbitrary, were inevitably something of a compromise. We should recall that he had been professionally and socially affiliated with a certain group of artists for many years, and also that, to his mind, avant-garde art was an anachronism, pushed out by the latest Neoclassical tendencies and new figurative art. This means the avant-garde had no place in the Polish Pavilion during Treter’s time.
Nor did he admire the artists of the École de Paris, seeing them as representatives of art with no identity, cosmopolitans, in which he saw no chance to create a national style and the great Polish national art he postulated – the art of a world power. He did, however, risk exhibiting artists active in Paris in Venice in 1936, when he saw this as justified – despite diplomatic criticism of this decision. The choice of Makowski’s work was highly praised by Polish critics, including Mieczysław Sterling and the editors of Krakow’s Głos Plastyków, which had looked unfavourably upon Treter before.[15]
The exhibition in 1936 is tied to many complex diplomatic issues, resulting from the international situation at the time, and particularly the one sparked by Italian aggression in Abyssinia in autumn 1935, as Joanna Sosnowska details in her book on the Polish participation in the Venice Art Biennale.[16]
Preparing the Polish exhibition for the twenty-first Biennale in 1938, Treter had to consider the event’s new regulations, ordering that the shows in the national pavilions be limited to a few artists. This was a tendency that had been seen for years in the Italian Pavilion, where commissioner Antonio Maraini (1886–1963) consistently and effectively cut back on the number of artists invited. There were far more conditions and political complications in organising national pavilions, and they are not always evident today. One example might be the increasing enthusiasm for fascist art in Poland, especially in legally regulating state patronage.
Treter’s remarks on the twenty-first Biennale, the last one organised before the outbreak of World War Two, reflected his regard for the cultural policies of Mussolini’s Italy. We should stress that he was not isolated here in Polish art circles, which were seduced by the vision of generous state patronage practised in fascist Italy.[17] The commissioner of the Polish Pavilion felt, however, a tangible chilling in relations with organisers at the Venice Biennale, especially from Maraini.[18] He protested against the restrictions against organisers of the national pavilions in terms of the number of artists and works exhibited, and the drastic restrictions on the exhibition catalogue sizes at the national pavilions, and thus, in fact, against the interference of the Italian government in the autonomy of those pavilions. Comparing the views offered by Treter to his exhibiting and promotion practice, we should consider the difficult context in which he was working. The commissioner proved on multiple occasions that he had a great deal of courage, intuition and diplomatic talent, and that he was a seasoned player in politics. His effective management of the Polish national pavilion at the Venice Biennale at a very difficult political time in Poland, in Italy and across Europe confirmed it was the right decision to assign him to that post, despite his disputable artistic choices.
Exhibitions organised by Treter at the Polish Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale in 1932–1938
18th Biennale, 1932
painting: Wacław Borowski, Władysław Jarocki, Aleksander Jędrzejewski, Felicjan Szczęsny-Kowarski, Rafał Malczewski, Zbigniew Pronaszko, Tadeusz Pruszkowski, Kazimierz Sichulski, Władysław Skoczylas, Ludomir Slendziński, Zofia Stryjeńska, Wojciech Weiss, Romuald Kamil Witkowski; sculpture: Xawery Dunikowski, Henryk Kuna, Maryla Lednicka-Szczytt; prints: Tadeusz Pruszkowski, Leon Wyczółkowski
19th Biennale, 1934
painting: Eugeniusz Arct, Stanisław Borysowski, Bolesław Cybis, Paweł Dadlez, Leon Dołżycki, Jerzy Fedkowicz, Jan Gotard, Aleksander Jędrzejewski, Eliasz Kanarek, Antoni Michalak, Tymon Niesiołowski, Janusz Podoski, Mieczysław Schulz, Efraim Seidenbeutel, Menasze Seidenbeutel, Stanisław Szczepański, Zygmunt Waliszewski, Jan Wydra, Jan Zamoyski; sculpture: Jadwiga Bohdanowicz, Alfons Karny, Stanisław Rzecki, Edward Wittig
20th Biennale, 1936
painting: Tadeusz Makowski, Fryderyk Pautsch; sculpture: August Zamoyski; prints: Władysław Skoczylas, Edmund Bartłomiejczyk, Stanisław Ostoja-Chrostowski, Tadeusz Cieślewski Jr., Janina Konarska, Bogna Krasnodębska-Gardowska, Tadeusz Kulisiewicz, Stefan Mrożewski and seven historical folk woodcuts
21st Biennale, 1938
painting: Olga Boznańska, Wacław Wąsowicz; sculpture: Stanisław Komaszewski, Jan Szczepkowski; textiles: Helena Bukowska, Julia Grodecka, Zofia Czasznicka, Lucjan Kintopf, Helena Kiczmaszewska, Hanna Kiedrzyńska, Anna Śledziewska
Selected bibliography
Source texts
Lawina Gustaw, ‘Włoska para królewska w polskim pawilonie na wystawie w Wenecji’, Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, no. 122, 1932.
[Lawina Gustaw] (gl), ‘Olbrzymi sukces sztuki polskiej na wystawie w Wenecji (Biennale) Entuzjastyczny trójgłos obcych krytyków o polskim pawilonie. Specjalny wywiad “IKC” z ppp. Calzinim, prof. A. Marainim i L. Hautecour’em’, Kurier Literacko-Naukowy, no. 20, 1932, supplement to Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, no. 134, 1932.
‘Protest’, Głos Plastyków, no. 4, 1932, p. 55.
‘Przeciw systemowi kapliczkowemu wystaw propagandowych’, ABC, no. 146, 1932.
Skoczylas Władysław, ‘Międzynarodowa Wystawa Sztuki w Wenecji. (XVIII Biennale)’, Gazeta Polska, no. 111, 1932.
Strakun Leon, ‘Treterologia malarstwa polskiego’, Wiadomości Literackie, no. 5, 1934, p. 6.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Odkłamanie sztuki. Uwagi na temat XIX Biennale w Wenecji’, Sztuki Piękne, no. 12, 1934, pp. 441–474.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Pawilon sztuki polskiej na XII Międzynarodowej Wystawie Sztuki w Wenecji’, Tygodnik Ilustrowany, no. 28, 1920, p. 547.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Pawilon sztuki polskiej na XVII Biennale w Wenecji’, Sztuki Piękne, vol. 3, 1933, pp. 89–117.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Pawilon wenecki sztuki polskiej’, Sztuki Piękne, no. 3, 1933, pp. 89–117.
Treter Mieczysław, Pawilon wenecki sztuki polskiej. Wystawy zagraniczne a propaganda i zagadnienia sztuki narodowej. (Fakty – dokumenty – opinie), Krakow and Warsaw: Towarzystwo Szerzenia Sztuki Polskiej wśród Obcych, 1933.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Refleksje weneckie po zamknięciu XXI biennale’, Arkady, no. 11, 1938, p. 549.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Sztuka polska na międzynarodowej wystawie w Wenecji. Własny polski pawilon w Wenecji. Program na przyszłość. “Biennale” a polscy artyści’, Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, no. 88, 1932, p. 9.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘XV Międzynarodowa wystawa sztuki w Wenecji’, Sztuki Piękne, 1926–1927, pp. 1–32.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Sztuka polska w opinii zagranicznej’, Sztuki Piękne, no. 6, 1924, pp. 282–287.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Sztuka włoska na międzynarodowej wystawie w Wenecji’, Sztuki Piękne, no. 1, 1924–1925, pp. 39–43.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Sztuka zagraniczna na XIV międzynarodowej wystawie w Wenecji w r. 1924’, Sztuki Piękne, no. 2, 1924–1925, pp. 31–39.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Uwagi na temat XVII Biennale. (XVII Międzynarodowa Wystawa Sztuki w Wenecji’, Sztuki Piękne, 1930, pp. 305–340.
Treter Mieczysław, ‘Wystawy zagraniczne a propaganda i zagadnienie sztuki narodowej’, Sztuki Piękne, 1933, pp. 125–164.
- Th., ‘L’art polonaise à Venice. Un entretien avec M. Treter’, L’Echo Varsovie, no. 24, 1932.
Studies
Pollakówna Joanna, ‘Towarzystwo Szerzenia Sztuki Polskiej wśród Obcych’, in Polskie życie artystyczne w latach 1915–1939, ed. Aleksander Wojciechowski, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1974, pp. 550–556.
Sosnowska Joanna, ‘Udział Polaków w Międzynarodowym Biennale Sztuki w Wenecji do 1939 roku’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki, no. 1/2, 1996, pp. 1–16.
Sosnowska Joanna, Polacy na Biennale Sztuki w Wenecji 1895–1999, Warsaw: IS PAN, 1999, especially the chapter ‘Sztuka według Mieczysława Tretera. 1932–1938’, pp. 49–76.
Wasilewska Diana, Mieczysław Treter. Estetyk, krytyk sztuki oraz „szara eminencja” międzywojennego życia artystycznego w Polsce, Krakow: Universitas, 2019.
Wasilewska Diana, ‘International critical reception of propagandist exhibitions of Polish Art in the 1920s and 1930s’, Studia Humanistyczne AGH, no. 3, 2019, pp. 45–53.
[1] Mieczysław Treter, ‘Sztuka polska na międzynarodowej wystawie w Wenecji. Własny polski pawilon w Wenecji. Program na przyszłość. „Biennale” a polscy artyści’, Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, no. 88, 1932, p. 9.
[2] Monitor Polski. Dziennik Urzędowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, no. 276, 1929, p. 2.
[3] Mieczysław Treter, ‘Przedmowa’, in Katalog Działu Sztuki. Powszechna Wystawa Krajowa, Poznań, 1929, p. XIII. The Commissioner of the Art Department, owing to numerous complications, was ultimately named Tadeusz Pruszkowski, though it seemed the deciding vote belonged to Treter.
[4] Diana Wasilewska, Mieczysław Treter. Estetyk, krytyk sztuki oraz „szara eminencja” międzywojennego życia artystycznego w Polsce, Krakow: Universitas, 2019.
[5] Treter, p. 9.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Idem, ‘Maruderzy modernizmu’, Gazeta Polska, no. 32, 1931, p. 4.
[10] Idem, ‘Artyści, malarze i epigoni modernizmu (Nowe wystawy w IPS-ie: Kazimierz Dolny w malarstwie grupy Kolor, K. Mackiewicza, Grupy Plastyków Nowoczesnych)’, Gazeta Polska, no. 166, 1933, p. 7.
[11] Idem, ‘Wystawy zagraniczne a propaganda i zagadnienie sztuki narodowej’, Sztuki Piękne, no. 4, 1933, pp. 125–146.
[12] Archive of New Files, Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw, no. 8717, pp. 204–2077 – letters concerning the organisatio of the exhibition, quoted from: Joanna Sosnowska, Polacy na Biennale Sztuki w Wenecji 1895–1999, Warsaw: IS PAN, 1999, p. 67.
[13] For more on this, see Dorota Kudelska, ‘Tadeusz Makowski w Wiener Secession. Okoliczności wystawy w roku 1936’, Quart, no. 2/3, 2023, pp. 64–81.
[14] Sosnowska, p. 63.
[15] For more, see Sosnowska, pp. 67–68.
[16] Ibid., 64.
[17] See: Iwona Luba, Duch romantyzmu i modernizacja. Sztuka oficjalna Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej, Neriton, Warsaw 2012, 52–53.
[18] Sosnowska, 73.