Julia Bethwaite – The Scale, Politics and Political Economies of Contemporary Art Biennials (2018)

Julia Bethwaite – THE SCALES, POLITICS, AND POLITICAL ECONOMIES OF CONTEMPORARY ART BIENNIALS – Arts & International Affairs February 2018

Full article can be found under the following link:

https://theartsjournal.net/2018/02/07/the-scales-politics/

Julia Bethwaite’s article begins by giving us a good overview of the opposing fields of scholarship: the one seeing in the proliferation of biennials a democratizing force in the art world and the other understanding this phenomenon as a homologizing factor driven by the demands of neo-liberal rationale and thus commodification of arts and culture.

Bethwaite’s analysis, aside of giving us a fairly good overview of the academic research done in this field, proposes a reading based around three key concepts: scale, politics and value; her stated intention is, through this reading, to be able to overcome what she defines as a very polarised field of research.

The first section of the article, careful to give us a relatively wide perspective on what has been written so far on biennials, highlights a fundamental issue with biennial scholarship: the reference to the Venice model when referencing biennials globally. Especially when trying to come to terms with the relation between nation and biennials, think also about Jeannine Tang’s article which we reviewed just a few weeks ago, most research focusing on this aspect references strongly or even only the Venice model and ultimately the XIX century’s Universal Expos. In the light of biennial development of the last two decades this genesis seems at least questionable, and in this sense Bethwaite’s research is an additional reminder that more research and scholarship is needed to challenge this perception. Her reminder that today the reference to national representation is also characterised by a refusal and critical stance towards it does not really break the bond with this concept which in many biennials we see today just does not seem the appropriate lens.

The second section of the article moves away from this discourse to focus on the cultural politics of biennials, or in other terms whether these institutions allow for or hinder the democratisation the art field. Here a few important arguments are highlighted, especially when it comes to the distinction often made between biennials, museums and other cultural institutions. Partially again still too focused on the case of the Venice Biennial, the articles proposed do highlight a fundamental entanglement between biennials and western structures which, even the articles we presented in the past weeks about south-south connections that biennials allow for not entirely refute. Certainly there is a heightened awareness about this in current biennials, however the question of whether the model itself is inextricably linked to a western, colonial logic remains and rightfully so as a research topic.

On the other hand however, the article also offers an overview of those researchers and practitioners, notably quoted Okwui Enwezor, who focus on the power of biennials to fragment the audiences, by creating regional focuses as well as having the possibility of including subjects relevant to a specific region but with global repercussions and implications, think of indigenous rights as a key example.

In the third section Bethwaite focuses on the cultural political economy being created in biennials, or the kind of value produced by them. Again her analysis separates literature into two opposing factions: the first which focuses on the problematic relation between biennial’s funding structures and their theme, “ideological” agenda to quote the article. Many aspects come together in this part of the analysis, from a general consideration about the urban-spatial behaviour of biennials that have to adapt if not foster a certain symbolic urban economy to the relation between biennials and the art market. The latter being often disputed by biennials and yet ever so often claimed by commentators and researchers. But the articles taken into consideration by Bethwaite are not limited to these themes also representing research, notably Sassatelli, which notes in biennials a production of value in the arts away from the logic of commodification of the galleries or art fairs for example.

All in all as said at the beginning, the overview offered by the article allows us to grasp a feel about the scholarship produced in biennial research, the biggest limit of the article however seems to be an excessive focus on those articles and publications produced about the Venice Biennial as well as a relative monolithic understanding of the model which, through other researches appears as much more diversified and heterogeneous. Nevertheless an article we feel to suggest to those who want to gain a first overview of the field.