Hot Topic: Biennials

There has been a lot of controversy in the past years over the structure of biennials.  They have been criticized for being both overly exclusive as well as too safe.  When interviewing Portland artist/curator TJ Norris I asked him what he thought of the People’s Biennial exhibition in the works by curators Harrell Fletcher and Jens Hoffmann.  He had a lot to say on the subject.  Please feel free to chime in on his comment or to add your own thoughts on the subject in the comments section below.

TJ: A biennial is traditionally somewhat of a glorified county fair, or perhaps the Oscars for the fine arts. A blue ribbon social event, taunting the best of the best. They are time capsules created by entrusted luminaries honoring the curve of the past, present and future.  The trick is not to lose the bearing of history in the process.  With all due respect, there’s something yawn-worthy about the signature in certain works by artists like George Segal, Red Grooms, William Wegman, Jim Dine and even Jasper Johns to an extent.  I guess stylistic choices that you make today, or the artistic “brand”, is something that should totally be in question these days in order to be looked at by curious eyes into the next century.  But many artists (and curators for that matter) are ignoring this approach to the “test of time” in lieu of responding in kind, and with a wink, to the collapse of the two ecos (ecosphere and economy). So much work is temporary, constructed from homey materials without factoring in the longevity of the archival.  We’re a digital culture that has supplanted the copy for the original, so on the other hand this semblance seems about right.  But for generations to come, how will we make our mark?

Locally you could also note Disjecta’s attempt to resurrect the Oregon Biennial with Portland2010 curated by Cris Moss.  I’ll reserve my thoughts until I see for my own eyes how he plans to present some of these area-based artists all over again, many of whom we have seen in various shows over the past handful of years. The idea behind a “People’s” biennial may be forward thinking for right now.  What will it, can it, say about the next generation?  Or do we need to focus on the raw, be in the now, encapsulating the pained voices of war, poverty and other corruption? How can be inclusive without tokenism?  The idea that we could possibly democratize the curatorial process seems awkward at first, especially since here and everywhere else the fairness of such a lottery seems almost novel.  But perhaps that’s the artist in me talking and not the curator.  In Portland I am probably most anticipating what Bruce Guenther has to say with the aptly titled “Disquieted.”   Seems like an appropriate adage for our time and he’s certainly gathered a boastful bunch of worldly artists.

There is something about quality, voice, awareness, dexterity, commitment, access and so many other aspects that go into the whole process.  The last Whitney Biennial I attended was back in 2006 and already much of what I witnessed seems a little bit dated materially.  What still seems  fresh is work by artists like Marilyn Minter, Paul Chan and Monica  Majoli – and other than the well deserved “lifetime achievement” nod  to the ubiquitous Kenneth Anger thin air has risen.  Yes, it was also great to see the acknowlegement of artists using sound like Jim O’Rourke and Momus included who would otherwise be overlooked.  How will this year’s be any different?  What keeps these gigantic affairs enticing is the whole sense of creative promise, and clever curatorial foresight that takes risks. Let’s hope for that.