 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 4 - A Virtual Biennial . . . / May |
|
|
Once you move beyond the initial shock and then the discombobulating effect of the combined images there is not much else left. The piece does not really accommodate other interpretations unless you see Bronson and Partz as simply manipulating your emotions. Or perhaps the image actually trivializes AIDs by connecting it with a superfluous commentary about advertising. Other than that we might be left with a nihilistic statement about death: Partz�s corpse (and death) becomes insignificant - just another element in an overall picture of life. To put it another way, it�s like going to �The Little Curiosity Shoppe� on the waterfront in Seattle, confronting the two-headed pig fetus, reacting predictably, reading the info card and then moving on to the shrunken heads. Breaking taboos is fine as far as it goes. But these days, given what�s thrown out in the art and, even more so, the political world, �conventional standards� has been turned on its head. |
|
|
|
And therein lies the problem with this piece, this Biennial all of the other Biennials over the recent past. Most of the work is glibly empty, of mediocre quality, attempts to ham-fist some sort of socio-political message down your throat or some combination of all three. As a viewer I want to see art where I can draw my own, independent conclusions beyond what the artist may have intended. From the 2002 Biennial, Lorna Simpson�s �Easy to Remember� is one of the few works that offers that sort of possibility. |
|
|
|
Looking Forward |
|
|
|
I don�t expect to see or write about another Biennial, at least not if they continue on in the current vein. If this exhibition is supposed to survey the best in American art it needs to be something other than a cobbled-together potpourri of one-trick pony |
|
|
|
Previous Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
experiences. How about something really radical like a survey of contemporary American painting, sculpture or photography? This is radical? Yes because, let�s be honest, a lot of what is called cutting edge today in reality is in lockstep with conventional expectations. So-called �Avant Garde� art seems to demand a default inclusion of technology often combined with some sort of Duchampian notion of the found object and/or political content. A measure of how dull the cutting edge has become is to see the extent to which it has been appropriated and put to use by advertising (in the same manner as rock and roll). |
|
|
|
Until there is some real equity that includes the visual mediums, I�m afraid the Biennial, which currently does resemble a circus, will eventually dwindle into complete insignificance if it hasn�t already. What is the point of every two years showing works of visual art that are completely dependent upon written text or a performance medium for understanding? In such a context the material objects primarily act as props to illustrate the ideas. Those few pieces that are truly visual tend to get �lost in the sauce�. |
|
|
|
This year�s limited inclusion of painting and sculpture has the odor of tokenism about it. Had both been excluded completely I wonder to what extent anyone would really notice. Now think back to a few years ago when the Whitney put on a great Mark Rothko retrospective while MOMA simultaneously did one for Jackson Pollock. These were blockbuster shows. That quality of painting, sculpture and photography is still out there and the Whitney should at least be able to give us an occasional Biennial devoted to showing it. |
|
|
|
Back to Forum Directory |
|
|
