Its interesting to know that the Whitney and Tate Biennials are not "true Biennials". More interesting, though, is the idea that the biennial is not international so much as it is 'paneuropean'. Even with other non european countries hosting their own biennials, is it not just a psychic importation on their part of european ideals? It seems to be at least an example of a globally homogenizing culture. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Is sharing modes of expression a leap in intercultural communication, or is it a capitalistic art market extending its 4 dimensional tentacles. The curator Robert Storr seems to have his head in the right place in terms of trying to capture the zeitgeist and not being some pompous genius. There is the problem though of being a single person trying to create a globally inclusive exhibition. Nevertheless, the Biennial will undoubtedly continue to purport itself as such and create a distorted view of the world for the cultural elite. That is my feeling. Maybe the insertion of conflict, like the reviewer Medina hinted at, is how these exhibitions are made more truthful. But it can't be truthful... it's artificially selected. There's an agenda. "Do you choose someone to make history or do you confirm history?" Like history is something you can just decide to make. The very idea of "making history" then becomes an illusion. While something is "changing", there's something akin to James Trudell's statement that revolution simlpy means to go around and around, never really changing. This revolutionary scheme of the Biennale is just a way for it to make money.
This chapter was maybe the least interesting to me in terms of new information, but most interesting in that provided a new take on the global art market. As Ilyusha mentions in his comment, "Do you choose someone to make history or do you confirm history?" was of particular interest to me. It reifies the art historical premise that we are simply always adding artists to the canon. And that, once an artist is there, they cannot be removed from it. Therefore, for a biennial to choose an artist who is already known would be safe (because they are in they are already in the canon). However, they have the option to add someone to the canon via the power they hold within the biennale platform. Otherwise interesting notes would be that she seemed to be doing a lot of swimming and Bellini drinking, thus I think I would like her job.
Its interesting to know that the Whitney and Tate Biennials are not "true Biennials". More interesting, though, is the idea that the biennial is not international so much as it is 'paneuropean'. Even with other non european countries hosting their own biennials, is it not just a psychic importation on their part of european ideals? It seems to be at least an example of a globally homogenizing culture. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Is sharing modes of expression a leap in intercultural communication, or is it a capitalistic art market extending its 4 dimensional tentacles.
ReplyDeleteThe curator Robert Storr seems to have his head in the right place in terms of trying to capture the zeitgeist and not being some pompous genius. There is the problem though of being a single person trying to create a globally inclusive exhibition. Nevertheless, the Biennial will undoubtedly continue to purport itself as such and create a distorted view of the world for the cultural elite. That is my feeling. Maybe the insertion of conflict, like the reviewer Medina hinted at, is how these exhibitions are made more truthful. But it can't be truthful... it's artificially selected. There's an agenda. "Do you choose someone to make history or do you confirm history?" Like history is something you can just decide to make. The very idea of "making history" then becomes an illusion. While something is "changing", there's something akin to James Trudell's statement that revolution simlpy means to go around and around, never really changing. This revolutionary scheme of the Biennale is just a way for it to make money.
This chapter was maybe the least interesting to me in terms of new information, but most interesting in that provided a new take on the global art market.
ReplyDeleteAs Ilyusha mentions in his comment, "Do you choose someone to make history or do you confirm history?" was of particular interest to me. It reifies the art historical premise that we are simply always adding artists to the canon. And that, once an artist is there, they cannot be removed from it. Therefore, for a biennial to choose an artist who is already known would be safe (because they are in they are already in the canon). However, they have the option to add someone to the canon via the power they hold within the biennale platform.
Otherwise interesting notes would be that she seemed to be doing a lot of swimming and Bellini drinking, thus I think I would like her job.