Dec 11, 2009
ON BIENNIALS
A few days ago, I sat in front of my laptop and placed my fingers over the keyboard with the intention of writing my opinion in relation to biennials. It was only then that I thought:
“How can I take a stand in relation to the biennial phenomenon taking into account that my personal experience on visiting these events comes down to… one?”
I gave up on my attempt and thought that maybe I should try to use also the information which was provided to us in the lecture on the history of biennials by Marieke van Hal. Marieke’s lecture was an attempt into mapping some of the most important biennial’s according to their focus: cultural, political, economical, social, geographical, etc. The list was huge.
I aslo read a few articles concerning biennials that I had within easy reach of me. I thought that maybe this way, my knowledge on the subject would not only be reduced to the trip I did this summer to visit the 11th Istanbul Biennial and to listening to Marieke’s lecture. The increasing number of such events was again something which was mentioned in some of these articles.
Having this vague panorama in mind, I was surprised that although there are so many of these events I myself had only been visitor to one of them. Maybe if I was not ineterested in contemporary art this would seem as something logic but having into consideration that I think of myself as a regular visitor of museums and galleries then something doesn’t seemed to make sense.
This reflection has given me the conviction to say that there are still not enough biennials.
I am aware that after having just mentioned that the list of these events is quite extensive, it sounds ilogical to make a claim as this. However, I am not only saying this because I myself haven’t had the chance to visit many, but for a number of other reasons:
I do believe that biennials can stimulate artistic discourse. It is therefore logic to assume that as more stages are built more actors will be recquired. This growth could have as a negative effect a loss in the quality of the show, if things are not given the recquired attention. However I think the number of good curators, artists and other professionals in the whole world are quite a lot as to avoid this diminuishing in quality.
A clue question lies in focusing in the locality. In this sense I think it is natural that as an artists one becomes interested in working in a site specific way. However, as Isabel Carlos pointed out in her article “The importance of the Place”, working in a site specific way does not just mean to explore a space for its pyshical charteristics but also to consider the , social, ploitical, and economical background. Once art pieces become more involved with the space, then they will become much more interesting for local public.
If we consider that the main goal of a biennial is to work in the interest of the local public, then it becomes evident that the already existing biennials can not suffice. One reason for which this should be important is that it is not possible for every human interested in art to travel to Vennice every two years to visit an exhibition (nor is it environmental wise). On the other hand what point is there in watching art works that become engaged with a particular city when there are so many places (and possiblities) to explore. These reasons are why I applaud the efforts of all those who have worked in the creation of art events in the periphery of the art world, and specially those events thought in relation to a specific place or context.
It is in relation to these ideas that I also believe that biennial organizers should try to seek the participation of the local artists. The territory of the biennial should in this sense be concieved as an arena for the dialogue between foreign and local artists. Doing this will not only make the local public feel identified in the exhibition but will encourage local artists to exhibit abroad, and therefore would ensure a better dialogue between the local and the global.
It is evident that globality cannot be ignored in the phenomena of biennials. The nature of a biennial also involves globalization in making a city the host for an event that will bring the attention of the whole world for a certain amount of time. In this sense it is clear that there are more interests to take into consideration other than the local public and artists. But in my opinion such things should always remain preconditioned to the local. Once the global is given more importance than the local then we will found ourselves in the creation of another biennial which attempts to establish itself as the rival of Vennice or Documenta. We don’t need another biennal which seeks to compete for being the most important cultural event. However if each small biennial finds its place in the art world in relation to its own possibilities, then I certainly believe that more will be welcome.