The Venice Biennale is the most prestigious contemporary arts exhibition in the world, and the choice of curators for the Malta Pavilion, where the country showcases the best of its artistic work, is one of the most high-profile appointments in the cultural sector.

Various sources have told the Times of Malta there were serious irregularities in the selection process, as Arts Council chairman Albert Marshall vetoed the choice of an international evaluation panel tasked with picking the curatorial team. Amid objections from the panel, Mr Marshall appointed a new one, which selected the candidate he favoured, the sources added.

Mr Marshall has denied any irregularities and said the change of juries was due to “artistic concerns raised during the first evaluation [which] were sufficiently serious to warrant a fresh outlook on the matter”.

The sources, familiar with the process, who asked not to be named for fear of professional repercussions, said Mr Marshall’s conduct went against established procedure and raised serious concerns about the integrity of the process and other competitive calls administered by the Arts Council.

“We were there just to legitimise a process that was in no way legitimate,” said one of the people involved.

The Venice Biennale attracts the world’s leading curators, gallery owners and critics, and inclusion can have a substantial impact on an artist or curator’s international career.

Malta was absent from the Biennale for 17 years before 2017, and the return to the exhibition – each country hosts its own pavilion showcasing its best contemporary art – was trumpeted by the Arts Council as a major achievement in the government’s cultural strategy.

Following on from that success, the Arts Council issued an open call on April 10 for a curatorial team to manage the Malta Pavilion at the upcoming Biennale in 2019.

In all, 18 curatorial teams submitted proposals in response to the call. After initial screening, 11 eligible candidates were shortlisted and invited to pitch their project during an interview with an international jury panel.

The panel was made up of three established figures in contemporary art: Warsaw Museum of Modern Art curator Sebastian Cichocki, London-based designer Francis Sultana and Valletta Contemporary director Norbert Attard. It was chaired by Mr Marshall.

After interviews with all the candidates, which took place in mid-June, the panel assigned points to each entry and, on this basis, selected a winning curatorial team.

However, according to the sources, Mr Marshall vetoed this decision, citing a “conflict of interest” concerning one of the members of the winning team.

Although he never stated this outright, it was understood that Mr Marshall had a clear preference for the proposal that had ranked second.

His decision to veto the jury’s selection caused anger among the panel members, who felt the conflict of interest justification was unfounded and was being used as an excuse to prompt a reassessment by any means.

Mr Marshall clearly preferred the proposal that ranked second

“Everything was manipulated. They wanted one particular project to win and they found a way to make sure it did,” explained one source with knowledge of the process.

This led to a standoff between Mr Marshall and the panel, with its members expressing their frustration at being undermined and disassociating themselves from any selection other than the one they had made.

Mr Marshall’s solution to the impasse, the sources said, was unorthodox and not in line with the selection procedures listed in the public call: the jury was disbanded, a new panel was assembled and the three highest-ranked applications – which included the jury’s choice and Mr Marshall’s preference – were moved forward to be reassessed.

The second panel featured the artistic directors of three State-funded cultural bodies: Toni Sant from Spazju Kreattiv, Kenneth Zammit Tabona from the Manoel Theatre and Michelle Castelletti from the Malta International Arts Festival – none of whom specialise in contemporary art.

Among the shortlisted applicants, there was already the sense that something was out of order. During their pitching sessions in mid-June they were told they would receive a reply within 10 days, but six weeks later, they had not received any word, the sources continued.

The date by which curators were normally selected had long since passed.

Then in mid-July, the applicants received an e-mail stating that a new panel had been appointed to decide between the three highest-ranked entries. This had never been part of the stated procedure, and no explanation was given except for “the competitive nature of the call”.

Several members of the shortlisted teams felt this procedure was irregular, and their concerns were amplified during a pitching meeting with the new panel in early August, when the questions put to them seemed to them unrelated to their artistic proposals, focusing solely on issues of national identity and project management.

“They wanted to cut it short. They didn’t seem very interested in our answers. We had the feeling – in contrast to the first jury – that nobody had the capacity to really judge or question what was happening artistically,” one applicant said.

The three teams were notified last week whether their pitch had been successful, although the Arts Council has not publicly announced the winner. None of the teams are being named, as there is no suggestion that any of them, including the eventual winners, were involved in any wrongdoing.

The situation has caused great concern in the artistic community, with some worried about the integrity of the many funds and competitive calls managed by the Arts Council. “It’s crazy where this could lead,” said one leading industry figure who has been on several Arts Council evaluation panels in the past.

“There has never been this sort of pressure in the past. It’s clear the Arts Council should bring on people who are objective and can choose without interference. If we are going to have a situation where the chairman – a political appointee – can step in and decide, then the whole thing is a sham and there’s no point having a panel in the first place,” he remarked.

Timeline

April 10: Arts Council issues public call for a curatorial team to manage the Malta Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 2019; international evaluation panel appointed.

June: The evaluation panel organises interviews with eligible candidates and selects a winner; Arts Council chairman Albert Marshall vetoes the panel’s choice on grounds of conflict of interest in the winning proposal. Panel members disagree.

June-July: Impasse bet-ween Mr Marshall and the panel; venturing outside the stated procedure, Mr Marshall disbands the panel and appoints one made up of the heads of three State-funded cultural bodies.

August: The newly app-ointed panel holds fresh interviews with three of the applicants - the choice of the first jury, Mr Marshall’s choice and a third - and selects the one originally chosen by Mr Marshall.

First panel ‘was divided’

Albert Marshall said the first panel had been divided over the artistic merits of the top two projects.

“As chairman, I felt that some of the artistic concerns raised during the first evaluation were sufficiently serious to warrant a fresh outlook on the matter,” he said. “Rather than making a final decision, it was decided that the three top-ranking curatorial teams would pitch their proposals to a subsequent jury committee during a fresh evaluation meeting,” he added.

Mr Marshall highlighted the track record and international experience of the winning curatorial team and the artistic merits of the proposal.

“The team is deemed capable of successfully leading the Maltese Pavilion to a level of artistic excellence with a high level of administrative, technical, curatorial, managerial and artistic connoisseurship,” he said. “The selected curatorial team has both the technical and artistic elements required to successfully represent Malta at the Biennale in Venice in 2019.”