By Harriet Thorpe
The World Biennale Forum No. 1 in Gwangju, South Korea
This October, the World Biennial Forum No.1, titled ‘Shifting Gravity’ and co-directed by Hou Hanru and Ute Meta Bauer, took place in Gwangju, South Korea. The forum was initiated with the purpose of providing a discursive platform for the international biennial community and a space for networking and exchanging common practices while celebrating global diversity. The three-day conference at the Kim Dae-Jung Convention Center succeeded in establishing an international group of leading biennials, selecting important agendas and of course exchanging diplomatic niceties. Case studies were punctuated by keynote speeches between which questions comparing biennial structures, development and futures were approached, posed and pointed, yet never quite fully addressed. The status of biennials has changed strategically over the past 10 years; their structure has become fluid and their subjects broadened, which is perhaps why the definition of ‘biennial’ was never quite reached in plain language at this forum.
Hans Ulrich Obrist, Wang Hui and Nikos Papastergiadis at the World Biennale Forum No. 1
The site of the forum was relevant as Gwangju hosts one of Asia’s oldest biennials and is also as a city of political significance in South Korea. Not only was this year’s 9th Gwangju Biennial, ‘ROUNDTABLE’, noted for its political focus, but biennials globally are also taking an increasingly political point of view toward contemporary art. During the forum, Nikos Papastergiadis of the University of Melbourne spoke refreshingly of ‘cosmopolitan aesthetics’ in art. He explored how ‘culture’ is becoming a buzzword for governments, used to troubleshoot problems where other mediums of control are ineffective – a problem-solving device rather than a creative force. Aesthetics, meanwhile, have weakened in priority for curators working in a competitive political art scene. According to Papastergiadis, perhaps art in its simplest terms – shape, medium, and colour – needs to be re-understood.
Case Study – Korea at the WBF No. 1
The ‘Case Studies’ of emerging biennials were the most applicable to addressing the future of the form. It was here, within these alternative biennial structures, that funding was addressed in its most transparent and creative forms. In Shahidul Alam’s inspiring introduction of Chobi Mela, the Bangladeshi photo biennial, he described finance through the simple terms of ‘being resourceful’ and the way restrictions can force one to become truly creative. Through donations, exchange, trade and barter from local people to organizations, patrons make a personal investment in the arts and can really take ownership of the biennial. When donations are taken, funders sign a zero control contract making sure no aspects of politics are involved with the money. The Emergency Biennial of Grozny, Chechnya, introduced by founder and independent curator Evelyne Jouanno is ‘rooted in reality’ and although it is a biennial it cannot rely only on funding every two years, like the large government funded biennial machines in Venice, Sao Paulo and Istanbul. These limitations require a greater sense of belief, creativity and determination from organizers who face political limitations.
World Biennale Forum No. 1, Gwangju, South Korea
A highlight of the conference was Hans Ulrich Obrist’s interview with Moon Kyung-won and Jeon Joon-ho, an artistic duo whose video work El Fin del Mundo (2012) was featured at dOCUMENTA (13) and the Gwangju Biennial this year. Their broad approach to contemporary art today combines interdisciplinary aspects from fashion, set design and sound into a short narrative film, which explores Utopia and apocalypse, drawing from sources from history and the future. This piece questioned the definitions of contemporary art within these biennials and evaluated to what extent biennials are becoming integrated into mainstream culture: Is this because curators are selecting work more appealing to the general public or is the general public becoming more interested in attending these biennials, regardless of curators’ intentions?
Discussion session at the WBF No. 1
Over the course of the three-day forum, important debates arose yet never quite reached a climax. But first times are never perfect and, as the guest of honour René Block quipped, ‘No.1 must mean No.2.’ The World Biennial Forum No.1 shows promise in developing a necessary discourse for biennials relevant to their distinct needs: their physical existence as temporary structures; their organization, involving communication with a vast international pool of individuals; and their intentions, particularly in relation to the social aims of the cities in which they are based. These concerns vary in many ways from that of museums, galleries and art fairs, which is why addressing the biennial as a separate entity is an essential achievement of the World Biennial Forum, important to the continuing success, existence and expansion of these events in the art world.