Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi announced its intention to bring the Vatican Pavilion at the Venice Biennale a few years ago. Scheduled for the edition of 2011, it was postponed until a later date. Maybe in 2013. When I asked him (it was the fall of 2010) he said that there were no technical time to get ready in 2011. But as he spoke, it seemed that there was the idea, but it was difficult to achieve. The real truth is that, in February 2012, there seems to be not even the idea. For now it seems that last December the cardinal had gathered a hypothetical scientific committee that could deal with the project. It would be part Sandro Barbagallo, art critic of the Osservatore Romano, Micol Forti, director of contemporary art collection of the Vatican Museums, Francesco Buranelli, former director of the Vatican Museums, and now secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Cultural Heritage and father David Dall’Asta, Director of Collection Lercaro of Bologna. The committee, leaked by voices in the corridors of the Vatican, in theory should take care to make the guidelines recommended by Ravasi. But it seems that at this moment there are no directives. The working group would have to meet again in January. But the four summonses have not arrived. As things stand, therefore, in addition to Ravasi’s statements in the press, there would be nothing concrete. And the Vatican Pavilion at the Biennale remains a mirage.

In the cardinal’s mind, we hope, are taking shape three possible scenarios to achieve what will be known as the Ravasi Pavilion:

1) Clerical version of the Sgarbi pavilion

It has already been tested last summer on the occasion of the exhibition for the birthday of Benedict XVI. A list of a hundred artists who alternated big names, illustrious unknown, people under any suspicion. Each artist donates a work of his choice. No worries of organicity.

PROS:

Easy to achieve. Inexpensive. Satisfied much of the roman art undergrowth related to cardinals of the Curia and monsignors. Some controversy in Catholic circles.

CONS: Basso profilo mediatico. Critiche degli esperti di arte.

2) Art-chic version of the arcade of the Gentiles

It’s the idea announced in several interviews by the same Ravasi who would be the true curator. Names of worldwide importance such as Bill Viola, Anish Kapoor, Yanis Kounellis. A nice wide biblical theme (the book of Genesis). Total freedom for artists. Few works, but impact.

PROS:

Global media coverage. Praise of art experts, big collectors and six pages of Vogue. To say that the Church is once again a partner for great art.

CONS: Difficult to achieve (to convince the artists to participate). Expensive. Ensuredthe wave of criticism of the Catholic world. Need for a bulletproof vest to run in the Vatican.

3) Cur(i)atorial version

Choose a true curator but Catholic. Entrust the task of selecting a small group of leading artists (one to five, not necessarily ultra-cool) can get involved in a project in which the curator can really have a say. So artistic freedom and freedom of the curator. As a model could be taken the Evengeliario ambrosiano.

PROS: Opportunity to say that the Church is back to do commission in high levels. Poor media coverage.

CONS: Difficulty in finding a true curator but Catholic without triggering feuds. Criticism both from Catholics by art experts. Poor media coverage.