That’s what I keep saying in my head, over and over again, and yet I am bombarded by comments on the biennial (Thinking About Art, From the Floor, New York Magazine, The Village Voice, NY Times, Bloomberg, Blake Gopnik)–
Of course I have thoughts on it, and I keep thinking about what is good and bad about the ‘curatorial thesis’ prior to even seeing the show! So here’s what I am going to do, I am going to write a serial response to all the Whitney Biennial input that is so pervasive in NYC. (Its funny that it passed virtually un-noticed in SF except the year that celebrated the -ugh – Mission School).
So, here are some initial thoughts on the curatorial thesis (given that my responses are based MERELY on the media saturation, and not on having actually read the catalog or thesis – yet).
Internationalism - I support this viewpoint, I think it made sense in the early years for the Biennial (and at times Annual) to focus on American artists, but with globalism as a reality of our time, it would be shortsighted and contrived to only have ‘American’ artists in the show. And what does it mean to be an American artists anyway?
This years Whitney takes the leap and explores what the ‘American Experience’ is – whether that is by an American living abroad, or a foreign born artist living in America. I think it is an important issue to review, and applaud the curators for taking it on (successfully or not).