The Biennale

OK John, here goes: the Venice Biennale. I posted an entry about some of this on the other blog too. Anyone who's not especially interested in contemporary art will skip the post that follows here.

The setting (at least the area we saw yesterday, the Giardini) is quite beautiful. About 40 countries have permanent pavilions nestled into a lovely park full of old trees and tended gardens. Canada's buliding is protectively tucked behind that of Great Britain, so let me tackle those two exhibitions first. I like Shary Boyle's ceramic/porcelain work. The small pieces I have seen are inventive and playful and tragic and intelligent and beautifully crafted. Seeing some porcelains from hundreds of years ago (in the recently reopened treasury atop San Rocco,eg), gives me a new appreciation of just how good Shary's work is. And I liked the big reclining figure too, as sculpture, although less than the smaller porcelains. My own difficulty is that, when the projections start, this piece takes on too many big ideas for my taste. I would prefer something more focussed.

On entering the GB pavilion, you see a huge (20' wide x 15' high?) realist wall-painting of an endagered hawk, native to Britain – didactic labels and pamphlet explain. This pavilion was one of the Globe's picks, and at first I thought "uh oh, super graphics?" But this guy (Jeremy Deller) fills the 6 or so spaces in the building with a variety of very interesting work. This exhibition felt more like a spotlight on the artist's many areas of interest, rather than any attempt to play one theme song throughout the entire building. Works for me. Most fascinating is a high-def video featuring several subjects/ideas. The extreme close-up, very slow-motion footage (pixels?) of hawks and owls is jaw-dropping.

Absolutely hilarious (my funny bone) is the Tea Room on a big patio and adjoining hallway between exhibition rooms. How very English. We had a hot cuppa – very welcome as it has turned cold here.

The American pavilion left me cold. Again not focussed enough for my taste, but more like a warehouse full of junk, odd mecanical and electronic parts, packaged foods, scraps of wood, fake boulders and on and on ... stuff that someone with too much energy felt she had to assemble into an infinitely large and way cool Rube Goldberg. But most people seemed to like it.

Japan showed videos of "difficult things to do." These included one of 5 young people playing the same piano simultaneously, and another of styling a young woman's hair by committee (9 hair stylists). That one was both fun and irritating to watch. The general idea was OK, but these would have been more appropriate in a documentary film fest (I thought).

The big question that consistently arose was "exactly what belongs here at the Biennale?" The lines around what we consider fine art as opposed to video, science, craft etc. are very blurry; moreso than at any time in the past I think. I don't have the answer.

The Dutch artist, (Mark Manders) was great, in my opinion. The photos don't adequetaely illutrate what I thought were beautiful uses of varied materials. The pavilion's windows were papered over with very funny, nonsense newspaper clippings. 

Finland presented trees that had been wired to respond to the CO2 in the room by making noise. That was very interesting, but again ... at the Biennale? 

Portugal was on a boat on the canal, outside the Biennale Giardini. Lower deck featured "underwater" wonderland.