Since returning from Venice Biennale I have been sitting down trying to work out how to write this post. It goes without saying that the Biennale is enormous, and the problem is - is that I saw so much incredible art that I am dubious of making this into a very long and tedious post. The trip for me was particularly refreshing, and I think this also plays largely to the fact that I went with all artists, rather than art historians. To me I think this provided a new way in which to think and look at art; not to be overtly critical and cynical as my education has taught me, but to appreciate art from different angles etc. I came away from the Biennale feeling completely rejuvenated and excited about art and the possible manifestations of my own personal projects which are deep in my head which came about from firstly being inspired by the show itself, but also from the huge dialogues which thus ensued among our group.
First and foremost, The Peckham Pavilion [[
http://www.peckhampavilion.com/ ]] truly exceeded peoples expectations. Being from Peckham, I'm biased, but really, Hannah Barry Gallery really served as a massive inspiration. Not only had the gallery managed to get a superb spot (in between the two main paid arena's - thus ensuring that all the big-wigs of the artworld were unable to avoid the space), but I was also very impressed with the quality of the art work. On the plane on the way back - I overheard a couple who were singing the praises of Hannah Barry and her intuition, as such a young gallery, to have opened for a week in the worlds most important art show, already the attention surrounding the gallery is rocketing. Just open last Sunday's Observer Newspaper Review or click
here to get an idea of the impact the gallery is making (and subsequently to the South-East London area). It really is quite impressive.
Before I proceed into an indulgent jaunt of the countries / artists which really struck me as having that little something else, I must say, the two pavilions which re
ally proved to be a massive disappointment were the supposed heavy-weights: America and Britain.
Firstly, America's choice of Brauce Nauman; I just thought 'my God, what a
bore.' That's not to say that I don't think Brauce Nauman is a bad artist, quite the opposite. I've studied large amounts of his work, and I think he's fantastic, but we
all know he's fantastic, and I mean, really most of the work that was shown was from his early years as an artist. In my mind the point of the Biennale is that it serves as a representative of the up-and-coming contemporary artists. It just felt like a cop-out to have a well-known artist to such an extent that he's already verging on the level of household-name-fame. Also, I found it slightly disconcerting: is this all that America can come up with? Where's the next generation? Oh-well, it was fun to see some works which I've studied, but never seen...
Bruce Nauman, Double Poke in the Eye (year?)
Britain's representative Steve McQueen entered his film
Giardini, (2009) which was intended to be a reflection of the politics behind the Biennale, the positioning of the pavilions etc etc. The film aesthetically was beautiful, and as it turned out - I think it was one of those films that I wished I hadn't read anything about pre-watch. The split screen showed two different long-shot camera angles of the same scene, ranging from some quite haunting men outside in the rain smoking, to dogs scavenging to some beautiful nature shots. Yet for me, the film was
too conceptual. Don't get me wrong, I adore the conceptual, but having read the blurb beforehand, I felt that I just spent too long trying to tie the pieces of the puzzle together, hazarding guesses on the meaning and ended up feeling that it was just too much on the verge of airy-fairy-arty-farty. However, my friend (who shared the same sentiment) re-visited the screening, and ended up really appreciating it. Perhaps I just over-thought it. I must say though, I did feel like the way in which it was shown was substandard. As only 60 people were allowed into the screening at a time - you were very lucky if you managed to nab a place, as all showings were filled faster than you can say STEVE MCQUEEN. Considering the space that they could have used to get people into, I can't really understand it. I'm sure there must have been some curatorial strategy, so fair 'nuff.
A quick fly by the other pavilions which to me deserve a big nod, goes a bit like this:
The Thai Pavilion was transformed into a tourist office the: 'Gondola al Paradiso,' which with the right amount of irony and wit - took a stab at the myths behind the heavily increasing tourist sector. The show, although heavily lined with humour - had a much darker political undercurrent; with the sex-trade and Thai-brides being very much at the centre. For me, it also raised questions of the notion of 'racist-love,' the idea that Western-tourists assume a 'sweet and beautiful' identity upon South-East Asian population. The artists involved were Michael Shaowanasai, Sakarin Krue-on, Sudsiri Pui-ock, Suport Shoosongdej and Wantanee Siripattananuntakul. Definately artists which I'm going to be keeping an eye out for.
Germany's Pavilion was another feat. The artist which they chose being Liam Gillick was perhaps the most significant part of the exhibition. I really felt like it was extremely forward thinking of Germany to pick a British artist. I mean it's not even as if he is of decent, he
really is proper-full-on British, he simply does the large majority of his artistic practice in Germany. This is absolutely wonderful to me - and proves that the world really is starting to take steps closer to loosing the constraints of borders and the long-and-tiresome-suffering restrictions of the idea of national identity. Anyway, without going off on too much of a tangent, his work was also unsurprisingly fantastic. I am a big advocate of his works, and for me it is always difficult for him to disappoint. For now, please look at the link for a full explanation of his works::
LINKNot only was the concept behind his work incredibly interesting, the way in which he had worked with the building was aesthetically very clean, simple, minimal and functional. It also seemed to function with the building in the sense of the grandiose, yet without seeming empowering.
Liam Gillick, Deutscher Pavillon, 2009
A Satellite exhibition by Robert Gligorov proved very popular between the group. Most significantly this piece shown below. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost my notes about this work - so I can't find the title or what our exact thoughts at the time were. The most talked about piece is the one below, which featured a fairly large-ish bird cage, attached on top of a piano with bird roosts connected to piano keys, and when one of the (live) birds flew onto a roost - it would subsequently play the appropriate key. Our assumption also lay in the fact that the keys which Gligorov had chosen were those of a more 'sinister' cord. The work was really quite disturbing, sad and I'm sure not 100% ethical, but our final conclusion was that it got us all into quite a heated debate - and provoked many questions, which for me - identifies itself as a compelling art work.
Robert GligorovRobert Gligorov
Robert Gligorov
The Chinese Pavilion actually proved to be slightly disappointing for me. Again, they used artists which are quite old and big-named within the Chinese art circle, and although obviously I am aware that Chinese artists are not as well-known as many Western artists, I still thought that they could have done something a little more interesting. The space which they had, however, was very interesting, but I imagine very difficult to curate. It was extremely industrial with pipes sticking out everywhere, although, I think that this style is very symptomatic of many of the art spaces used in China (just take the 798 Art Area in Beijing which is built within former factories), so I think that the works and curator could have been more imaginative. The most impressive was Liu Ding, who had built sort of fridges containing different themes of a utopia, as according to different cultures, critiquing the low / high brow culture. It was interesting, but I felt I needed more blurb, (this was also probably due to the fact that by now it was the end of a week of being heavily saturated in art...)
Liu Ding, Liu Ding's Store: The Utopian Future of Art, Our Reality
(To be honest, I didn't even go into this pavilion - but there was so much hype around this piece that I thought I would jump on the band-wagon and take a photo....)
The dead collector Mr B, by the artist-curators Elmgreen and Dragset (Danish and Norwegian)
The Australian Pavilion was another big hit. Shaun Gladwell's video, although extremely macho was beautifully filmed as a long-shot, showing a sparce, open and stereotypically Australian road. A motorbike, with rider dressed head-to-toe in black biking leathers, pulls up to the side of the road and picks up a kangeroo road-kill and picking it up, he walks around stroking it in a sort of paternal / maternal 'goodbye.' The performance was poignant and surprisingly (given from my brief description) not as contrived as I may have made it sound.
Shaun GladwellSpeed up // bullet points...:
Russia's pavilion really trumped above many others. Most particularly
Pavel Pepperstein whose illustrations resonated in cynism and wit:
Pavel Pepperstein
I'm a huge sucker for all things neon, so I really fell for the Chile Pavilion artist Ivan Navarro's works. This was one of the last pavilions that I managed to get a look in to before the day was up, so I was feeling on my last legs, hence the lack of further description. Also, disappointingly, when I asked for further reading, the invigilator told me that they didn't have any left - so I just decided to read the works purely for their aesthetic. Although, I suppose it says it all in the suggestive titles.
Ivan Navarro, Death Row, 2006
Ivan Navarro, Death Row (Installation View), 2006
This piece
Bed was hard to photograph; one had to look down a sort of well and these large neon lights sunk down and down into the well.
Ivan Navarro, Bed, 2009
A hard to capture photo - but this work was fantastic. Spanning inside a large pitch black space, full of modern day technological operators (i.e. microwaves / computers / alarm clocks / fridges etc) all on stand-by; Chu Yun's humourous title Constellation No.3 drives home a more serious message; as we stand in our own artificial micro-constellation, the extent of our electrical consumption more than apparent, but I liked this non-preachy way of driving home a point.
Chu Yun,
Constallation No.3, 2009
Last but in no way least is the Czech and Slovak Pavilion, this yeah hosting the Slovakian artist Roman Ondak. Ondak had quite literally moved the outside in. After studying the flora in and around the Czech / Slovak Pavilion, Ondak planted the same specimen's inside the space, raising the floor by a foot. What I thought was most interesting about this piece, was from watching people, it became apparent that not many people had even realised that they had entered and left a pavilion at all. The work leads people straight from one door to another and there is no obvious sign which points out that this is, in fact, an art work. I asked the invigilator, and she said that many people do walk straight through, and then return to ask her where the pavilion is.
Once the biennale is finished, Ondak is re-planting the works outside of the pavilion, so the work really has an engaging durational feel to it. I adored this work, I found it to be reflective, contemplative and very calming. More about this artist can be found
HERE.
(Photograph courtesy the Guardian Website)I hope I haven't garbled on for too long, although I suspect I have... congratulations (!?) for getting this far...
