ARTS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Introduction
Contemporary art biennials are large-scale , high-budget international group exhibitions recurring every two to five years . Their number has proliferated rapidly especially over the last 25 years . There are now estimated to be some 150 such exhibitions taking place in more than 50 countries ( Filipovic et al . 2010 ; Vogel 2010 ; Sassatelli 2016a ). Marchart ( 2010 [ 2008 ]) has come up with the notion of biennalization to refer to the proliferation and standardization of contemporary art exhibitions under the biennial format . Arguably , biennials now constitute a key context through which contemporary art is encountered and experienced . They attract considerable amount of international attention and are seen to provide a setting for surveying trends in “ cutting-edge art ” ( Sassatelli 2016a : 1 ). Biennials are often grandiose and dispersed across several locations in a city . They are locally embedded but usually “ global in ambition ” ( Filipovic et al . 2010:13 ). 1
This article probes into the world politics of biennials through an analysis of academic and scholarly materials where biennials are analyzed and debated . On the surface level , the discussion seems polarized . Some argue that the proliferation of biennials can turn contemporary art into a genuinely “ global ” phenomenon . In their view , biennalization can open up new kinds of spaces of resistance , diversity , reflection , and cross-fertilization of ideas . It can lead toward more democratic redistribution of cultural power ( e . g . de Duve 2007:681 ). 2 Others consider biennalization as a proof of the capacity of neoliberal globalization and culture industry to standardize and instrumentalize contemporary art subjugating its autonomy to demands of political and economic convenience ( e . g . Stallabrass 2004 ; de Duve 2007:684 – 687 ; O ’ Neill & Wilson 2010 ). In this article , we seek to
1
There are obviously significant differences among biennials but they also share a significant set of traits : commitment to a cosmopolitan perspective combined with efforts to articulate the particularisms of their host cities ; financing by mostly public or private sources which are not usually directly dependent on art investors , which gives biennials a “ public ” character ( as compared to art fairs , for example ); groundedness upon an idea or concept expected to be communicated by the curators ( Kompatsiaris 2014:78 ). For an articulation of differences among biennials , see e . g . Bydler ’ s ( 2004:151 ) classification of three types of biennials : capitalist-philanthropic enterprises initiated at the turn of the twentieth or midtwentieth century ( e . g . the Venice Biennale ); events originating in the post-Second World War setting and marked by bloc politics or “ underdevelopmentalist ” reactions ( e . g . Documenta and Münster ); and biennials characterized by “ event orientation ” and “ flexible production ” in the 1990s and 2000s ( e . g . Manifesta ).
2
Panos Kompatsiaris is one among scholars who suggests viewing biennials as attempts to create new worlds . They offer spaces for knowledge production and social criticism , often merge elements of political and social activism into their agendas and may also involve “ non-artistic ” actors such as “ activist groups and marginalized communities ” ( Kompatsiaris 2014:85 ). This highlights the potential of biennials to serve as discursive sites for questioning the existing structures and challenging hegemonies . However , this is far from an uncomplicated argument and , as Kompatsiaris also notes , it is pertinent to ask what kind of worlds biennials produce and for whom . Biennials can also be examined as a “ lifeblood of contemporary capitalism ” engaging with neoliberal economic models and serving the neutralization and institutionalization of the critique ( Kompatsiaris 2014:77 , 81 ).
74