This trip has been an amazing opportunity to see so much art! Both Contemporary and historical. I am very grateful to have this truly once in a life time opportunity. While I have loved being able to see all of this art I have often found myself feeling kind of gross. On this trip I am effectively joining the very few whom are privileged enough to have the time and the means to come to these exhibitions. This art is truly inaccessible. The biennale tickets are no pocket change. Venice is an expensive city to visit in addition to being a difficult city to travel to in the first place. The inaccessibility of this work makes it only seen by a select privileged audience. I do know that the importance of these exhibitions in the art world require many art scholars to attend. As mentioned before, this is not easily done. I know many academics can get funding from their respective institutions to attend but there are surely many people who must pay out of pocket to be here and many of these people have jobs in the contemporary art world that effectively require them to attend if they want to stay up to date with the art world (This includes artists). This means that these large scale biennales perpetuate the narrative of the art world being inaccessible with it even being difficult for people whose jobs require them to see this art to attend.
This makes me question why any of this matters. How can the art that we are seeing really be relevant or important when only the smallest fraction of the population sees or even has the ability to see it? Is my participation in this biennale mean that I am not only complicit in, but also furthering the narrative of the inaccessibility of the art world? If so what am I doing here? I recognize that these thoughts are somewhat cynical but I have at times found myself asking these questions. This doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be here, but I think these questions can serve as a reminder to never forget how lucky I am to have this opportunity. They also remind me that it is important to keep the inaccessibility of this art in mind when going forward. How can we make sure that art is accessible? Maybe biennales never will be this space but maybe there is a way to improve their accessibility. I think that our program is a great example of how at least institutions can help make these places more accessible. I could imagine that potentially these large scale exhibitions could team up with schools to start programs that could make it easier for, at the least, students to access these spaces.
I also recognize that some of my unsteady feelings stem from the culture of the Venice biennale. I think in large I am disheartened by the commercial and consumer culture aspects of the Venice biennale. At times it feels like these international exhibition could be interpreted by a public as “the thing to do” if one wants to experience culture. This kind of attitude could make these exhibitions feel like people are practicing art consumption versus art viewing. But this is a minor criticism that is more based on vibes I have perceived than actual concrete evidence.
I do recognize the many ways that these biennials are important and relevant. They are important for the artist themselves who are represented and are great opportunities to help up and coming artist establish careers. Also Great art can leave the viewer with a new perspective. While these exhibitions can be hit and miss in terms of the successfulness of their art, there will always be at least some pieces that leave an impression. These pieces have the power to change the way people see the world. Even if this art may be only reaching a select audience there is the power to change people with these exhibitions and this surely is relevant. Also on a more personal note, it has made me more critically question how I may want to approach engaging in art or some aspect of the art world as a young artist myself.
So when I find myself doubting the importance of my traveling to see this art I remind myself of the good things that can come from these incredible spaces that have so much art to offer and be thankful for this opportunity. At the same time it is still important to not turn a blind eye to the aspects of these international exhibitions that can be exclusive.
Dear Lanzillow and colleagues,
I hope you will keep on writing about the art you see. I–as you say–who am not able to be at the Biennieale in Venice, the Cologne art show, and the Muster sculpture show and who am reading your blogs get to experience the art a little bit through your blogs.
10% of Americans visited Europe in 1982 partly because the dollar was strong. We did experience what it was like to be an American in Europe. As you point out, we did not get to go to the big art shows. Please, Lanzillow and fellow-students, bring us into the show with you through your descriptive blogs.
The blog that I keep thinking back on is the one that, like yours, discusses accessibility. Yours was financial accessibility/ S/he wrote about physical accessibility for able-bodied people. The title may have been one-minute art. That blog blended making a point, which you just have about financial accessibility and I agree with your point, and kneeded that in with a memorable description of the art s/he saw. Can you give me a free ticket into the art show by writing about it? Thanks.
Mom,
This blog is for more than just talking about the art itself.
We are also discussing what it’s like to be abroad, to be a tourist, to be an art viewer and critic, etc. We do at times go into detail about certain pieces, but we also look at the bigger picture. We look at the ways in which museums or global exhibitions are put together. We’re interested in how the art world fits into the greater world. A big concern in the art world today is how to reach out to the general public.
William,
I feel ya in regards to art-viewing being the “thing to do.” People come to Venice because it is a Place to Visit, and they visit the Biennale because it is a Thing to Do in Venice. And then they leave. To some degree, that’s their (the tourists’) fault. But I also think that the artists can do a better job of igniting or stirring the viewer (without manipulating them). This year’s Biennale felt rather non-provocative. If artists should somehow frustrate viewers’ expectations, I think that would be really effective. By that I mean really upset the passive-viewing-process in some way so that viewers feel more implicated — less like they are doing The Thing To Do, and more like they are relating to the art on a more personal level.
The solution to the problems you bring up is difficult to come by. Graffiti artists like Jean-Michel Basquiat bring thought-provoking art out into public. Not that all art should be sketched onto the exterior of buildings, but this might be one direction to go. Since you are the studio art major, I’ll leave that up to you 🙂