|
THE LAST BI-ENTERTAINMENT Eighteen days in Venice is more than enough to understand the anguish that the locals experience from the invasion of the “sophisticated” art crowd. Locals are keeping their daily routines and a sense of balance by insisting on dividing the day into morning and late afternoon portions and closing the restaurants and bars around at the cruelly early hour of 11pm. Evidently, the curators, their assistants, artists, and other involved people ruthlessly exploit the limited capacities of this vulnerable city. The biennale crowd always call for an extra effort from the locals to tolerate their capricious demands because the revenues of local businesses (from electricians to carpenters, from transport to catering, from accommodation services to vaporettos) double (or probably, triple) during the ten days around the opening week. To have a deeper understanding of the dilemma of the inhabitants of this city, one should acquire the hilarious and sarcastic booklet designed by Bedwry Williams of Wales, a residence artist in Venice who participated in the collateral exhibition “Somewhere Else: Artists from Wales”. This year, when 40 of the 70 countries ambitiously invaded the palazzos, churches, and other available venues, the municipality with its multifarious regulations and restrictions was overloaded with unexpected demands and breaches of regulations. This conundrum, although welcomed as the popularity and the impact of the Biennale, was one of the topics of the press conference. Mr. Davide Croff declared that in the next Biennale the countries that do not own a pavilion in the Giardini will have, if they wish so, the opportunity to acquire venues within the Arsenale district. This may be an elegant solution that would benefit all the latecomers. However, for the owners of the palazzos and the churches who would be losing their eager clientele, this is hardly good news. In contrast to the vibrancy of the pavilions and collateral exhibitions in the city, the Giardini and the Arsenale, in all their exhibitions, looked sensible and well balanced. The national pavilions were safe in all senses of the word, in concept and in content. The Italian Pavilion and the Arsenale offered a very familiar list of artists with a spree of new and young Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin American names, given the professional background of the curators, Maria de Corral and Rosa Martinez, respectively. Revisiting the East/West
debates on ideology and art, and examining the current artistic practice,
Slovenian philosopher Rastko Mocnik (in his contribution to the pocket-book
distributed at the empty the Rumanian Pavilion curated by Marius Babias)
argues that art is a practice that takes ideological refraction as its
material (1) and works upon it as a sort of secondary elaboration (2).
Seeing that this booklet was presented as part of the artwork of Daniel
Knorr, within the context of the Biennale, it becomes more worthy to quote
and acknowledge Mocnik: The artworks - except the ones who remained prisoners
of their old and now archaic notion of artistic practice (3) - in the Biennale
are markedly artistic secondary elaborations, they produce representations
of representations, and they present mechanisms of representing rather
than the fascination of representation (4). Boris Groys defines the same
process (artistic practice) in a similar way, saying that the artist does
not work with the guidelines of production but with the ones of selection
(5).
The omnipresent image technology which is very appropriate for selection and which is the source of these mechanisms casts a dark shadow not only on modernism, but even on the current examples of the art making of the 80’s and early 90’s that are installations with manufactured or collected material. Considering that the general EU public is still enchanted by representation rather than its mechanisms, the two main exhibitions reflected a kind of sublimated arrangement, reminiscent of Szeemann’s 80’s and 90’s classics. Yet, the clash between the so called archaic notion of art practice and secondary elaboration was evident more than before. While the expertly and spaciously installed main exhibitions with paintings, sculptures and post-minimalist installations satisfied the European appetite with its culturally correct and well balanced list of three generations of male/female establishment artists, the sovereignty of the time consuming filmic image impels them to consume the mechanisms of representation. Groys ingeniously defines this confrontation as a situation of principal non-visibility (6). He further describes that when one goes out of this kind of spectacle, one does not go out with the certainty that one has seen everything. In that sense one is frustrated (7). This frustration is the junction of where artist’s resistance meets the resistance of the viewer. This Biennale is the last version of its kind. Could the feeling of serenity and leisure as well as precaution and calculation that permeates this highest platform of contemporary art be a pristine example of the dichotomy between the art practice as secondary elaboration or guidelines of selection and global politics? As all this secondary elaboration is presented under the aegis the biennale which is the manifestation of cultural politics, an operation of ideological totalization, performed upon the natively integrated representations (8) any essence of radical criticism embedded into the elaboration is somehow self-controlled when not controlled by external influences. Mocnik indicates that as aesthetic secondary elaborations all of the works struggle to conserve the ideological character of works of art against the expansionist march of commodity fetishism (9), however commodity fetishism has become accessible to artistic elaboration, it has become one of its possible objects perhaps its privileged object (10). Within this ideological context the attachment or detachment of the curator – more than the artist - to the traditional modernist art history or to the archaic notion of art history or to the commodity fetishism becomes the key issue. The curators of this biennale opted for the most safe, i.e. an in-between position. We have to consider that traditional art history avoid dealing with questions of institutions and historical conjunctures because such a line of inquiry might threaten the core myths of the greatness of art (11). In this sense, Venice Biennale is reflecting mainly the greatness of art, as practiced in the seminal centres of the global art network. Quoting Lynn Barber, in her Observer article which reduces the Biennale to merry-making it seems that super artists G&G were delighted representing UK and Tracey Emin would love to be chosen for UK Pavilion. Taking into account that they are very well appreciated by the general world public as well as the international art market and therefore could do without an additional or repetitive presentation, the greatness of this biennale is beyond doubt. Even now, the Eurocentric structure of the Venice Biennale cannot allow a curator from EU to disregard his/her duties as the agent of revitalization and maintenance of the established cultural order, although painstakingly restored since the beginning of the 90s according to the changes in EU and world politics. In this respect there could be no difference in the way the two female curators have structured the biennale in comparison to their male predecessors. The frequent and unsavoury indications on the female curators as Spanish Girls — blatantly revealing the omnipresent male supremacy — revealed the undercurrent perspective of the art crowds. On the other hand, the two curators made a kind of compulsory approach evident, as if they had to reflect a feminine sensibility or strategy. The spectacular entrance of the Arsenale with Gorilla Girls which announced the feminist/queer politics of Martinez regrettably lost its effect after the first surprise; not only because the statements were too worn-out by trivial and popular culture and nourished by the electronic media all over the world, but also because of its comedic approach to feminism. Sadly enough, little has changed since the Guerrilla Girls have started their manifestos in the 70s and since Linda Nochlin asked the question why have there been no great women artists in 1971. Even if the women artists of non-western territories are manifesting their statements through the channels of western art system, the position of women in art is still critical within the local contexts. Yet, for the young generation artists and curators this part of the Arsenale may give some motivation and stimulation. Even in EU today’s feminist position – as also ruthlessly indicated in those days in Italy by the failure of the referendum on abortion and embryo exploitation - has its vectors in the intricacies and dichotomies of religious fundamentalism and global capitalism. Indeed, there are many women artists in these Biennale shows – some of them, such as Mona Hatoum, Rachel Whiteread, Louise Bourgeois, Jenny Holzer, Barbara Krueger, Mariko Mori and Agnes Martin who are considered to be great according to the post-modern art history. And there are a long line of women artists of Eastern origin, but living in the West, such as Ghada Amer, Emily Jacir, Shahazia Sikander, Runa Islam. They will also be great soon. Yet some questions are still to be asked: Are the women artists really threatening the myth of the white male greatness in art? Can the works of these artists in the main biennale be separable from the works of the male artists in content and form? Are the women artists not entitled to fulfil the pattern of recent art practice and market aesthetics? I see no difference. It is the essential political correctness that indicates the women sensibility rather than the works. How and why can we expect
a more in-depth research into the global women art scene from these two
established women curators? As far as we know, De Corral had never been
away from the safe shores of the EU and USA art system. Martinez’s expansion
to the far art scenes stretches out to Istanbul art scene which is not
particularly committed to what is going on in the art scenes of its Eastern
neighbours. Although she is visiting Istanbul frequently, she did not particularly
enlarge her repertory. Turkish art scene felt very proud of her selection
of two Turkish artist for her show, even though Semiha Berksoy (d.2004)
discovered by Harald Szeemann and Bülent Þangar, discovered by Rene Block
in mid-nineties, became absolute and emblematic examples of Turkish modernism
and post-modernism, respectively. It seems that their works fit almost
into every exhibition that has a quota for non-EU artists in it. The constant
list of artists from Turkey floating from one show to another since the
mid-90s developed into a kind of imposition to mould the current art history
according to the requisites of international curators and it effectively
worked out so that the art scene in Turkey is divided into the chosen and
non-chosen artists.
Although I would argue the ingenuity – the immateriality of art is not a new discovery - I appreciate Tino Sehgal’s (German Pavilion) term of deproduction even if he says that his intention is not an extra-market position… The term fits as a critical intervention into this last but not least spectacular marriage of art aesthetics with art market. It can be linked to the yet implausible idea of de-bienalization which might be the next liable transformation in the global art. Some works in this biennale predicted this idea: The empty pavilions of Romania and Norway & Sweden, the demolition performance of Monica Bonvicini’s robust, concrete, and minimalist structure in the Giardini and Sehgal’s German Pavilion work itself. Even the Austrian Pavilion, absolutely camouflaged by Hans Schabus to become an introvert structure can be evaluated in this category of subversive attitude to the biennale as the supreme commodity of global art. From the angle of a non-EU individual it also symbolises the reluctance of communication of western EU societies with remotes territories. Artists like Muntadas (Pavilion of Spain) or Artur Zmijewski (Pavilion of Poland) who produced time-consuming works that need particular attention and focus, demonstrate also a resistant approach to the rapid consumption of artworks that are accumulated in these kinds of exhibitions as well as daring critic on the institutional superiority in art. In this sense, the competition between the ready- to-consumption photographic image (sometimes fortified with clever phrases) and the time-consuming video-installations is mounting to the victory of the artwork which can avoid the judgement of the viewer (14). Before and during the press opening days two platforms of debate contented the experts of the theoretical sphere of contemporary art by putting the socio-political and critical function of art forward… Trieste Contemporanea Committee, with the collaboration of UNESCO-ROSTE, the patronage of CEI and Regione del Veneto, the support of the Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia and the Beba Foundation of Venice, prepared the debate programme for the CEI Forum of contemporary art curators from Central Eastern Europe 2005, which was held in Venice on the 7th and 8th of June, at the UNESCO-ROSTE seat, Palazzo Zorzi. This third edition of the forum invited the commissioners and curators of the national pavilions of the Central Eastern European countries to discuss the current positions and problems of contemporary art under the title “The Expanded Map” which is one of the international co-curatorial projects of Continental Breakfast 2004-2006 (www.continentalbreakfast.org) proposed by Trieste Contemporanea to the participants of the 2003 edition. The project Continental Breakfast, as defined in the concept text of the forum, centres on the perception of the “other” in a new Europe, and on the recognition of a common European identity. It intends to investigate the common, cultural foundations rooted, more or less unconsciously in the specific cultures of the different regions, and to try to identify in them, those existing elements which can increase the wealth of a common and original, European, cultural identity. From my point of view, this three year old network is one of the most profound initiative and quest for a cultural exchange based on memory and future visions, on mutual understanding between generations with different historical backgrounds. Continental Breakfast has a democratic infrastructure rarely to be found in today’s art system, giving professional opportunities to the curators of official or non-profit institutions and their artists as well as access to funds. The other forum was the fourth edition of Venice Agendas under the title “Neighbours in Dialogue” (15), which is organized by Wimbledon School of Art, Nuova Icona in collaboration with Audio Arts, Cardiff School of Art and Design, University of Wales Newport, VRC (Visual Arts Centre), University of Dundee, University of Ulster, Biritsh Council and Arts Council, England. The concept of the forum as well as the first session was based on the edited book “Neighbours in Dialogue”* in which the editors and the authors from South Caucasus and Middle East (Leyla Akundzadeh - Azerbaijan, Magda Guruli-Georgia, Kamal Boullata and Salwa Mikdadi - Palestine, Saleh Barakat - Lebanon, Tirdad Zolgadr - Iran, Ruben Arevshatyan- Armenia presented their context, goal and collaboration, their positions in their local art scenes, the networking possibilities and future projects. Most of the contributors of the book I have been in contact since the end of 90’s were for the first time in Venice Biennale and Venice Agendas gained a new standpoint by opening its platform to ignored voices. These are the positive aspects of this meeting. Yet, once more the discussions revealed the distance of the experts of the mainstream institutions of EU to their colleagues in non-EU institutions; a distance incredibly detectable in the language, in the effort to be politically correct and in the positioning. The language is still contaminated with terms reminiscent of modernism and colonialism; the symbolic behind it is not a pact which links art scenes together. The effort to be politically correct shows signs of forbearance rather than collaboration in building a new art history based on global micro narratives. The positioning lacks equality and reciprocity; the power of the art market and the institutional hegemony has the last word. ÓBeral Madra, July 2005 1. Romanian Pavilion, edited
by Marius Babias, Mocnik, p. 388)
|