Arts & International Affairs: 2.3: Autumn/Winter 2017 | Page 83

THE SCALES, POLITICS, AND POLITICAL ECONOMIES OF CONTEMPORARY ART BIENNIALS
A related claim is that the popularity and expansion of contemporary art biennials does
not signal the emergence of a decolonialized, democratic, and global art world. Chin-
Tao Wu argues that the biennials embody “the traditional power structures of the con-
temporary Western art world; the only difference being that ‘Western’ has quietly been
replaced by a new buzzword, ‘global’” (Wu 2009:115). In this interpretation, hegemonic
power is at play in the mutually shared agreement to obey the established conventions of
the biennial institution. In a similar way as Kabov, Wu argues that the “culturally domi-
nated” feel the need to be present at biennials in order to have their identity recognized
(Wu 2007:385).
Sites of Resistance and Dissent
In contrast to arguments that biennials cannot avoid reproducing cultural hegemony,
some scholars see possibilities for resistance in them. Rafal Niemojewski, for example,
highlights the need to foreground the significant differences among biennials. While
some biennials may indeed be seen to reproduce existing power structures, others do
provide a site for “promoting peripheral art scenes as part of the global circuit” (Niemo-
jewski 2010:95). Niemojewski problematizes the commonplace treatment of the Venice
Biennale as the hegemonic form to which other biennials should be traced. He fore-
grounds the role of the Havana Biennial as the “most important point of reference for the
contemporary biennial” (Niemojewski 2010:101; see also Basualdo 2010 [2003]:128).
In this interpretation, the establishment of the Havana Biennial in 1984 marked a new
turn in biennial history; it established the biennial as the platform for the critique of the
modernity that the biennial institution can be argued to have sprung from (Niemojews-
ki 2010:100). “By focusing on creating horizontal connections (South-South) that pro-
vide alternatives to the art routes inherited from modernity the Havana Biennial enabled
a new type of global exhibition that debunks the myths of teleological modernity and
explores the plurality of modernism” (Niemojewski 2010:100). However, the capacity
of the biennial institution to provide an alternative to the existing institutional frame-
works within the contemporary art world is a question that, according to Niemojewski,
remains open (Niemojewski 2010:101).
As economic and cultural hegemony has been one of the often-discussed subjects among
the scholars and representatives of the art world, it has also inspired opposed actions.
For some, the utopian promise of the biennial has been, and is, the promulgation of
counter-narratives and experimentation with counter-models (Filipovic et al. 2010:23).
For Filipovic, biennials remain a site of ambiguity, inquiry, and experimentation, a crit-
ical site of experimentation. They offer counterpoints to the regular programming of
the museum and other traditional art institutions, platforms for addressing politically
charged issues as well as eliciting a questioning of artistic practices (Filipovic 2014:47;
see also Basualdo 2010 [2003]:124–135; see also Hoskote 2010:308). Paul O’Neill ar-
gues that it has been through providing platforms for critical discussion and recognizing
wider audiences that biennials have been able to provide models of resistance to the
81