I was very excited to see an artwork by Maurizio Cattelan accompanying the Sydney Morning Herald's Article on The Biennale as a 'consumer item'. I remember reading 'Maurizio Catttelan' (Phaidon) and in it they were discussing his first Biennale, in which he rented his alloted space to an advertising company- I think it was a perfume company- and used their billboard as his artwork. In an interview Cattelan said that he did this because he had run out of time to do his own work and this seemed like an easy way to get something in there and to make some money. This seems to parallel a common opinion of the Biennale.
The article also said that in this Sydney Biennale was 'revolutionary' as, rather than being commericial it was giving it's 'product' away for free. But in we are all well aware that revolution is hugely popular in the art world, and that being revolutionary or different is going to attract attention, not just from the public but from the media and the art world creme.
"do you listen to the radio?YES, A LOT, BUT I LOOK FOR COMMERCIALS."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You're right - the theme of revolution was a sure way to attract particularly close scrutiny (or have I missed the point completely?). And I suppose big Biennales are always going to have an element of commercialism, with the amount of promotion they require and the fact that they are presented as open and accessible being like they're being foistered on everyone - but as you said, not for the sake of profit, which kind of destroys that idea.
Also, I can't seem to get the link at the bottom of your entry to work.
It was the 1993 Venice Biennale.
Um if the link isn't working the website is http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/cattelan.html
I was actually referring to the second paragraph of your entry... unless I've totally missed the point again.
Post a Comment