A reflection on the recently concluded 7th General Assembly

Up until now we have dedicated this weekly space to reflect and discuss with our members  about their experiences in dealing with the Covid pandemic. Having had the opportunity to further discuss this as well as other themes in a public arena during the General Assembly, held virtually on December 3rd and 4th, today we would like to summarise these and imagine how we as IBA could be instrumental in turning them into practical tools for our members and continue our role as facilitating a global discussion between biennials.

It was probably easy to foresee that the vast majority of biennial makers facing the covid pandemic placed solidarity at the very top of their agenda, underlining how the continuous support for artists and curators who often find themselves in a precarious condition, was their main objective. However, the idea of how each biennial can contribute and at which level this can happen varied greatly. In many cases, this translated in a stronger focus on local artists and curators, facilitating the creation of projects benefitting the immediate community of the biennial and/or reshaping international projects to do so. In other cases, the pandemic accelerated pre-existing processes of regional networking such as the East Europe Biennial Alliance. The main stated objective of the network is the mutual support of biennials facing authoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies in the region and a consequent structural lack of public support for an open space of dialogue and political emancipation. While apparently not directly related to the covid pandemic, the timing of the creation of EEBA certainly is a sign that the current crisis has exacerbated an already difficult situation. Other example of networks named in this context were LARC, a local network of cultural institutions in Liverpool which showed a great attention to the difficulties of its members by also directly supporting their shortfalls. While these examples show how networking (and the capacity to activate local as well as international networks) has become one of biennials’ key elements it also brings up a more systemic issue within the art sector of precariousness of many of its key actors, first of all artists of course but also curators as well as intuitions themselves. It would be fundamental to start reflecting on these as IBA to come to terms with this situation and ensure more sustainable models to protect our more vulnerable members.

Another topic which raised a lot of attention is that of audience or public. The choice of wording here is in itself contested as it refers to fundamental differences in the relation created between an institution and its wider constituencies. Both in the interviews conducted throughout the past months and in the General Assembly this discussion was sparked by the current restrictions affecting exhibition spaces and the consequent reflection on how to approach the flight to the digital, which many institutions have adopted to salvage the possibility to render the exhibition public. Four strategies are worth mentioning as they caught the greatest attention of the audience: digital exhibition as an extension/augmentation of the regular program, a complete shift to the digital, a refusal of the digital in favour of lo-fi solution to bridge a perceived digital divide and last a radical shift of perspective in which adopting the digital serves as a tool for a redefinition of the role of the audience all together.

The first and most widely adopted strategy, notably Sydney Biennale’s public program, Gwangju Biennale and its extensive program preparing the ground for the postponed 2020 edition, Berlin Biennale’s curatorial walks available on their webpage, re-asserts a key role to the physicality of the exhibition format finding an immediate solution to the lack of accessibility. It guarantees a continuity with programs which had been planned in pre-corona times and adapts as much as possible its content to the new situation. The results vary a lot of course depending on the technical capacity of each institution and team as well as being very dependent on the format of the works presented, some adapting much better to their new space than others.

A good example of the second strategy can be found in the newly born Yerevan Biennial where, also due to a timing coincidence in their advancement at the time the pandemic started spreading, the physical exhibition was postponed giving rise to a second independent project entirely conceived for the digital space. The result is not a proxy “walkthrough” an existing exhibition but the development of works specifically developed for the digital space. So far this is a unique experiment among biennials which raises specific challenges and questions on the essence of web-based projects in terms of curatorial approaches, technical needs as well as audience engagement.

While few biennials have refused to engage with digital content all together, some have raised the need to consider other solutions in order to bridge the digital divide and engage with their audiences in ways that consider their needs and possibilities. Some of the solutions were to use simple and economical forms of dissemination such as zines or reproduceable content like posters, others have made the point for a smaller or episodical formats that could target and/or engage neighborhood networks and community spaces. These reflections also open more general questions on accessibility of art in general and specifically in regard to the biennial format which is sometimes overlooked in the planning of exhibitions and events.

The last topic which emerged is that of “emergency biennials” or biennial of resistance. While most of the biennials had to deal with the covid crisis others in addition to this were dealing with local political, economic or social situations that endangered the event all together. While there is no generalisation to be made in this sense it is worth thinking of how other IBA members could stand in support for these cases, which often fall short of the public awareness. In specific two examples were brought to the panel: the case of the Yerevan Biennial, already mentioned above for their choice to switch to a digital format but which was also caught in the middle of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. The second voice heard was from the organisers of the Lubumbashi Biennale who raised an issue of lack of reliant economic structures making the project and institution very fragile. Looking at the wider biennial community it is certain this point is shared in various degrees by many other institutions, raising a more systemic question of funding structures for the model.

The last voice, coming from Hungary and also part of the already mentioned EEBA network appealed to a support for projects which take place in areas in which basic democratic structured are threatened or actually removed. While regional networks might already create a structure of mutual solidarity the open question for the audience and IBA network stands as to how other biennials might be able to support and defend institutions that find themselves in such situations.

The format of a zoom conference we were forced to adopt due to travel restrictions clearly limits some aspects connected with a General Assembly, not last the impossibility for the attending members to gain an insightful and personal knowledge of the hosting biennale. The indepth discussions on both days as well as the panel discussions presenting the new format of our publication PASS, offered a great platform for many more voices than usual to be heard, leaving open thoughts of how to make the best of both models in future General Assemblies.

We hope, if you did not have a chance of attending in person that you’ve enjoyed this short presentation and look forward to having you present for our next GA in 2021!