THE SCALES , POLITICS , AND POLITICAL ECONOMIES OF CONTEMPORARY ART BIENNIALS
move beyond this opposition . We first detail how scholars and commentators see space to matter to the politics of art biennials . We show that multiple spatialities are implicated in the discussions and debates . To name just a few , biennials are seen to negotiate between the national , global , mobile , and universal . Such spatialities are co-implicated not only with each other but also with different understandings of politics : representation , contestation , hegemony , and empowerment . We argue that understanding the world politics of biennials requires appreciating this co-implication ( cf . Leitner et al . 2008 ).
We have structured our review essay in the following way : We first examine how biennials are scaled 3 in scholarly discussions . We discuss the embeddedness of biennials into the Westphalian spatial order but also highlight a productive tension between the order of nation states and its alternatives , which has been a long-standing element of biennial practices . We also scrutinize arguments according to which biennials are — or have a potential to be — a genuinely global phenomenon as well as suggestions that the notion of “ glocalization ” best captures the scalarity of contemporary art biennials . From there , we move on to a more explicit discussion of the politics of biennials framed in terms of whether biennials are bound to remain an instrument of cultural domination , a reproduction of the hegemonic — or whether they can fulfil the often-heard promise that biennial art is able to open up new kinds of spaces of resistance , diversity , and reflection . This leads us to a discussion of the political economy of biennials , i . e . to the question of types of value that biennials produce .
Scaling the Biennials
One of the key axes of analysis in the politics of contemporary art biennials is their scalar order . 4 We use the notion of scale to refer to the discursive framing of sociospatial orders , such as local , regional , national , and global ( e . g . Delaney and Leitner 1997 ). In this section of our review article , we examine the scaling of biennials , i . e . the kinds of sociospatial orders into which biennials are embedded in the scholarly literature . We detail the tensions between the order of nation states , globality , g / locality , and universalism in the debates and discussions on biennials .
The Nation and its Discontents
Art biennials have had and continue to have an intimate connection to the national scale . Lawrence Alloway ’ s characterization of the Venice Biennale — the oldest and best-known contemporary art biennial — revolves around nations and national imaginaries :
3
The scale can be understood to refer to a simple hierarchy of nested scales ( akin to International Relations ’ levels-of-analysis discussion ). Here , however , we have in mind the idea of scales not as something that pre-exists societal activity but rather as something that is produced in and through societal activity , notably practices of spatial differentiation . Such activity , in turn , produces and is produced by spatial or geographical structures of social interaction . Given this , production of scale is also a potential site of political struggles , which makes it pertinent for discussions of spaces of social justice ( Smith 1992:62 ).
4
A biennial denotes an exhibition , which occurs once every two years . The Italian word “ Biennale ”, with a capital letter , is often used in relation to Venice Biennale , the oldest art biennial in the world .
75