De centralizing Art….re thinking Venice Biennale in a poly-centric world.

Tracing the conservative neo liberalism informing key curatorial positions : a case study of Robert Storr's positioning of the 2007 Venice Biennale. 

At the Arsenale, "Dusasa I" by El Anatsui

Photo by Romero/The New York Times

We are living in an era that is slowly beginning to celebrate anything which is polycentric and/or heterogenous in its nature or claims. This celebration of polycentricism is fairly recent, it coincides with the flowering and acceptance of the world as a multicultural soiety, and is often positioned in theory as a strategic resistance against a unipolar world. It is this pedestal of resistance that has made polycentrlism one of the intellectually most fashionable positions to take. In the realm of high art, the effects of increasingly polycentric world has lead to mutliforation of ‘centers’, and a blurring of geographical boundaries in terms of art production, exibition and patronage. This phenomenon coincides with the de centralization of financial capital and in many ways is collaborative to the process.  Sometimes it is important to remember that polycentricism (in culture) is not just a simple utopic discourse that enables artists and art works to travel widely and invites multicultural viewership; polycentricism in the realm of culture often takes up a centalizing role by enveloping cultural production in the ambit of a particular kind of centralized late capitalist market economy.

When the School of Art and Aesthetics, JNU, and The Biennale Society or organized a talk First Venice, then...Biennials in a polycentric art world, by Robert Storr, Director 2007 Venice Biennale and former ‘Senior Curator of Painting and Sculpture’ at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, there was no space to wonder about the agenda behind the hosting. Robert Storr’s talk has in a certain way made the campaign for the Delhi Biennale visible, or as the mood during the question answer session reflected, in a certain way the Delhi Biennale has begun. However what raises certain questions is the need for an argument around polycentricism to legitamise the Biennale campaign, and more so the manner in which Robert Storr put forward his argument in favour of polycentricism carried so much baggage of the first world neo-liberal understanding of multiculturalism that one wonders how is it relevant for an audience and the ‘The Biennale Society’ which is seeking to use the Biennale to participate in the discourse of multiculturalism from a third world location. 

This takes the shape of a contradiction more so because of the oxymoronic manner in which Robert Storr put forward his argument for biennials in a polycentric art world. There were essentially two parts to the argument put forward by Robert Storr; he began by articulating a defense of the ‘Institution’ in the context of patronizing and show casing art and then moved on to trying to establish the ‘Biennale’ as a major ‘institution’ with a certain mandate to polycentralise the art world. On the face of it Storr’s seemed like a perfect argument, arguing for (or assuming) a neo-liberal role of institutions, and how through such liberalism (great) artistic exchange can take place. In that context Storr’s talk was like a re-visitation of modernist thought to the extent that he glossed over ideological ground realities and elements of cultural location along with the location of power. It is not that Storr does not mention the take over of institutions by (what he called) conservative forces, but surprisingly he gives us an utopist “all is well” story telling us that ‘intrinsically’ institutions are good. I thought we had left behind the idea of ‘intrinsic’ goodness some ten years ago.

It is Storr’s theoretical conservatism that leads to the oxymoronic quality of his talk. Polycentricism is theoretically a reaction against institutional monopolization of power and culture, and this comes from our experiential realizations that ‘intrinsic’ goodness is a myth, and powerful institutions use this myth to maintain their hegemonic value, hiding behind it power location and cultural biases. Infact the manner in which Storr spoke about MOMA’s founding Director, Alfred H. Barr is telling about a lot of locational biases that Storr refuses to acknowledge. Painting Barr as a great multiculturalist, Storr argues strongly that Barr’s curatorial taste did not carry any class, regional, gender or sexuality bias…it is strange to see someone still pulling off such an argument confidently at our age of theoretical anxiety, especially after so much has been written about the biases that informed the works of Barr and other such liberal modernists. Infact Storr might claim a neo liberal position for himself, but throughout the talk one got a clear hint that he was trying to legitimize his position by tracing a lineage from Barr, and Barr’s location can at the most be described as conservative liberalism.

It is this masking of conservative thought in guise of liberalism that is dangerous and needs careful attention. So when Storr goes on to give us a brief history of Biennale’s and argues for it to be a platform for multiculturalism one cant help but be skeptical. But Storr is one step ahead of us, he does not waste time and warns us that it is futile to criticise institutions and instead one must engage with them. That statement has a rhetorical value that has the power to sway many, however its rhetoric helps to divert our attention from certain important questions.

Monika Sosnowska, at the Poland pavilion.Photo by Romero/The New York Times

What about the possibilities of exploring alternative non-institutional modes? Is there any space that allows one to practice art, have a free flow of culture, and not operate under macro institutional modes and generate macro rhetorics? Art in a polycentric shold be able to adress such possibilities…other wise the stress on poly become minimal and centric shines out in bold.