Joanna wrote---------
The best part of this Biennale is not to be found inside either the Giardini or the Arsenale, but in the many exhibitions scattered throughout the city. This is the context for Once Removed (curator Felicity Fenner; artists Vernon Ah Kee, Ken Yonetani, Claire Healy & Sean Cordeiro) at the Ludoteca.
As well as the freshness and strength of these installations, the actual placing of the exhibition is brilliant. It is on the path that leads out of the Arsenale so the jaded visitor coming from that seriously disappointing exhibition walks into its unpretentious open door and is bowled over by Claire Healy & Sean Cordeiro’s huge monument to video cassette culture. This is followed in the second room by Vernon Ah Kee’s assertion of surfing as a part of Aboriginal resurgence and completed with Ken Yonetani’s magical sugar corals.
-One begs to ask were you actually in Venice; from what I hear from people WHO WERE THERE, the Australian exhibit was sadly lacking vision, talent etc etc
Gobsmacked - is it possible to HAVE BEEN THERE and have a different opinion? Maybe if you HAD BEEN THERE you might not have to rely on speculation and rumour.
Thank goodenss the Kleenex are on special this week at Mates rates.
http://www.ssfa.com.au/artists/3...sts/3/art/1360/
Gobsmacked, I was in Venice for a week. I walked the streets, rode the vaporettos, and discovered the exhibitions the blow-ins didn't see. In an effort to get some value out of my season ticket (60 Euros) and to make sense of that incoherent exhibition I paid several visits to the Arsenale. Each time the only way to get back to the Grand Canal was to walk past Once Removed.
Each time the art looked better in comparison with much of what was on view in the 'official' Biennale. I should also add that the Mexican exhibition — Teresa Margolles' installation made by washing with the blood of murder victims http://universes-in-universe.org...all_tour/
mexico is another unexpected highlight — but very bleak. It too is best discovered by accident.
Diversity of opinion is ok so long as your opinion is the same as mine eh Gobby?
Shaun Gladwell's work was sadly undergraduate. It was an embarrassment that it was chosen to represent Australia in the pavilion.
'Undergraduate' is a juvenile (and meaningless) sneer to use in attacking any work/exhibition/performance. It's a demonstration of intellectual laziness.
'Embarrassment' of course is one of our great cultural cringe words, resurrected from the 1950s.
Have you had a look at Ulysses's blog? Pshaw.
Joanna,
I am absolutely floored by the characterisation you've made of Daniel Birnbaum's exhibition, and even more so that you've described Felicity Fenner's 'Once Removed' as 'fresh and strong' in comparison to the works in 'Making Worlds'.
I'm not surprised by the comments of Gobsmacked, as I too am struggling to make any kind of sense of your assessment. On one hand one of the most mature and sophisticated themed group show I've experienced, with some excellent accompanying essays which for once act as expansive departure points. On the other a confused exhibition that bordered on illiterate (eg Yonetani's blind parroting of Vanessa Beecroft's vacant, scantily clad models), and was accompanied by desperate invigilators approaching anyone who lingered for a second near Cordiero and Healys' VHS stack to blurt 'do you know what this show's about? All the video tapes add up to 66 years...' etc - (they didn't by the way - they were quite a way short as I'm sure you're aware).
The enormous unpaid effort by COFA students to turn the exhibition space into a quasi white cube was further embarrassment (and yes that is the right word). This was further exacerbated in light of the terrific presentations of Scotland's Martin Boyce and New Zealand's Francis Upritchard who staved off the panicked urge to gloss up their spaces, and concentrated instead on working with it. Thankfully we can assume not many critics saw the exhibition, or thought it unworthy of their time to comment (imagine if Jerry Salz had? Boy oh boy, frankly I think we got off lightly there.)
Further, Birnbaum's exhibition never claimed to be centred around displaying 'the new, the cutting edge' (thank god), perhaps this urge will be sated instead by David Elliot's forthcoming Sydney Biennale which will certainly contain the spectacular art-star installations you require (John Bock! Paul McCarthy!). To rubbish a work as extraordinary as Lygia Pape's because the artist is dead (recently mind) is completely ludicrous, as is the idea that the exhibition is dismissible because it uses historical work to contextualise current practices.
If indeed we did see the same exhibitions, the only conclusion I can come to after much rumination is that some external factors may have coloured your response.
Perhaps your affiliation with COFA, where I understand you are a member of the teaching staff, along with your colleague Felicity Fenner? COFA of course having provided considerable support for the 'Once Removed' exhibition, along with your own trip there no doubt. Though I'm sure your omission of these conflicts of interest in your article was merely an oversight, it's dismaying how far this blog has fallen from its earlier willingness to tackle or expose such discrepancies.
Dear 'Stunned', unlike your good self I don't conceal either my name or my place of employment. Nevertheless, as my academic colleagues will testify, I don't go out of my way to praise their efforts. Indeed my failure to praise the work of those close to me has caused not a few problems over the years.
Your 'facts' are closer to pure unvarnished opinion. As other informed reviews have started to come in I've enjoyed seeing how there are quite a few coincidences of opinion (especially as I made my views known before reading the work of others) "mature and sophisticated themed group show" doesn't seem to appear outside of media bumpf. I did not rubbish Lygia Pape, in fact I indicated that her work is the high point of the Arsenale exhibition. She died in 2004 — that is hardly 'recent' in 2009.
As I made clear in my piece, the main reason Once Removed looks so strong is the context. Daniel Birnbaum's exhibition is so disappointing that Fenner benefits from being the first exhibition people see after leaving the Arsenale. If 'Stunned' thinks the Ludoteca is a 'white cube' space he/she needs remedial lessons in geometry. The Healy/Cordiero installation is appropriately placed in the chapel — a monument to recently dead technology. Vernon Ah Kee's most seductive impact came from its context as a great lively surf movie on a hot Venice day as much as its well stated political message, while Ken Yonetani's giant blue-lit sugar corals are simply beautiful, although I must confess I kept on wondering how they managed to avoid being eaten by Venice's resident rats.
The Master of Art Administration students undertook a special project course with Felicity Fenner for which they received academic credit. Unlike the students who had free travel I paid my own fare to Venice (but COFA has rented a flat for the Biennale so I was able to stay rent free).
For the record I also enjoyed the Martin Boyce exhibition, but it suffered from being off the beaten track and hard to find. There was also the lack of context for people unfamiliar with Glasgow street furniture and Scottish granite. It was the contrast between the Glasgow and Venetian aesthetic that made it especially strong, so only those with specialist knowledge get that extra layer of meaning.
FYI
ABC Radio National Artworks first broadcast on Sunday 12 July
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/artworks/
Joanna,
Nice link,
and-------------
Dear Joanna
I read your review believing it was an honest reflection of what you had seen. It is very disappointing to learn that you are employed by COFA. It is clear by your comments above that at some point you have come under some pressure to praise those who are close to you, even suggesting it has caused you problems. How are we to know that you have not succumbed to this pressure? Receiving free accommodation and being a professional colleague of the curator at COFA certainly makes it a biased review especially as COFA are using the Australian participation to promote its interests widely by various media including the web and art magazines (Broadsheet). I feel it would have been proper to reveal your connections and receipt of free accommodation in or at the end of the text.
Your review also did not tally with my experiences in Venice, which I recorded for Art Monthly Australia (July 2009). This review, ‘The Beauty of Distance’ is available from my web site at www.johnkellyartist.com (under Critical Criting).
Sadly it seems that the 2009 Australian participation at the Venice Biennale was a shallow marketing exercise for various interests including COFA, the Sydney Biennale etc. This is confirmed by Felicity Fenner herself in an interview with a COFA student Elizabeth Thorpe on Youtube where she says her role involved a "lot of marketing".
See - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...?v=gcfkF_0_zm8)
You also raise the question of cultural cringe in your comments above. Coincidently or not this subject is also addressed by Felicity Fenner in her interview with Thorpe. Fenner makes the statement. “Its like we’ve come out of that cultural cringe, we don’t have to be embarrassed that we're Australian and its OK to portray Australia in the artworks” The question I would like to ask is; if we no longer suffer from a cultural cringe why does Felicity Fenner need to address the issue?
Fenner makes it clear that a vision of Australia was carefully selected and the Australia Council through PR companies both in Australia and in Europe, as well as the curator set about marketing the work. This included writing catalogue essays about site-specific installations months before the artists had installed the shows. It leaves one feeling rather embarrassed to be an Australian artist when the support is only given when the event can be shown to provide tangible benefits to other interests. It makes one cringe!
regards
John Kelly
Ps: I think what the commentator was referring to when he mentioned the White Cube above was the London gallery and their practice of using young enthusiastic staff to invigilate their exhibitions. Not a white space or gallery as you interpreted.
John Kelly - so what you're saying is that Joanna must be biased because a] she wrote a postive review of the Australians in Venice and b]since she works at COFA she therefore c] must be biased. Is that it? The only way she could escape this accusation then is if she'd totally slated the show. It's what I think is called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And speaking of full disclosure you perhaps should have mentioned in your own review of Venice that you are no longer a resident of this fair land, now residing in the country of your ancestors [Ireland] where you can choose to be either Australian, or Irish, as it suits you. You might also have mentioned your long running feud with the Australia Council and their refusal to fund any more of your grant applications resulting [if I'm not mistaken] in that hilarious sculpture show of yours where you mocked the Oz co logo? Some might say that such behaviour is typical of someone with a massive chip on their shoulder. Or would such a view be incorrect and dare I say, selectively reading the situation?
Dear C’nT
You seem to make three points, which I will address.
Firstly your over-simplification is far from what I am saying: I said it would have been appropriate for Joanna to acknowledge her connection to COFA in her text. Joanna could have praised the show or slated it, however all her readers would be aware she has received a free benefit and works for the organization sponsoring the exhibition. Surely this is reasonable?
On your second point, I have many personal reasons why I choose to live outside Australia at this time, however I am still an Australian citizen. Maybe you have not realised that the world has changed. We live in a technological global economy, which is encouraged by the Australian Government. The tyranny of distance is no more, I am a day trip from Sydney, I can read Australian newspapers in the evening here, whilst you are still asleep there. Wake up to the fact Australians exist outside of Australia!
Thirdly I am not involved in a feud with the Australia Council. From 2002 my work has addressed the Australia Council’s decision to ‘Brand the Arts’ following on from the Saatchi and Saatchi report ‘Australians and the Arts’. ‘Branding the Arts’ was an anti-art strategy and needed to be challenged. My use of the Australia Council’s logo was as a direct result of a successful application in 2001/02 and not the result of a dispute.
I have checked my shoulders and no chip exist. I have been successful three times in applying for grants from the Australia Council. I believe it is a critical support structure for Australian artists. However based on real experience I feel the Visual Arts Board could assist Australian artist’s working internationally far more constructively. How do I know this? The answer is I am regularly invited to international exhibitions, which lately have included the Guangzhou Triennale and at the MAMAC in France. On both of these occasions I have subjected these invitations to the VAB process for international opportunities. Both times it was embarrassingly woeful in its response. This does not simply apply to me, but to all Australian artists with international opportunities. What was the Australia Council’s response? They removed the opportunity for individual artists to apply through ‘Out of Time’ in Skills and Arts Development.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s view was “…that there was an opportunity for systemic improvement that could be realised in the way the Australia Council informs the public about its grants programs.” The Ombudsman went on to say they “…would draw the apparent inconsistency in the information provided on the Australia Council’s website to their attention.”
In fact the Australia Council could improve in a lot of areas and hopefully they are trying to do this. However if they lose the ability to constructively engage with artists who are prepared to challenge their thinking, we really are looking at a dysfunctional Arts institution.This will be reflected in their work. The 2009 Venice Biennale is a prime example.
The point being JK was that I was *deliberately* over simplifying your argument to make the point that one can slice and dice these arguments to suit one's own pov, to pump up a position regardless of how silly it is. Good for you living in Ireland and lecturing the natives back home on cultural cringe. Onya. Maybe Joanna or TAL should have stated that she was given free accommodation while in Venice, or that she works for COFA, but you seemed to be implying that the lack of this admission was a fatal flaw in her argument and that one must take anything she says, "honest" or not, with a grain of salt. To which I say BOLLOCKS. Oh, and this thing between you and Oz Co - maybe you should ask them if there's a feud. They seem to think there is...
Dear C'nT
Firstly how would you know what the Australia Council think?
Secondly. If the Australia Council think there is a feud maybe they should try discussing their issues with me. Generally a good way to resolve an issue is to discuss it. (My request to meet with Kathy Keele in Venice was ignored).
Thirdly, if you feel I am lecturing from afar it is a sign you might be suffering CC!
Commenting by HaloScan
