Can we begin with a reference to a Magritte painting?1 This is not a review of the Artspace Critical Reader for Zones of Contact, the 2006 Biennale of Sydney.2
To caricature the argument I would like to make, there are two kinds of discourses about biennales. The first kind, which purportedly explains the art works and curatorial concepts, is a demonstration of intentions accomplished, and often celebrates new ground being broken. One is tempted to say this discourse should not be taken seriously, as it merges with marketing and publicity, despite its often sophisticated language and numerous citations of theory. The other kind, which is indeed taken seriously, too seriously, criticises the biennale—in the particular and in general—and is ultimately dismissive. Between the two, the second kind of writing is more demoralising for the art world. In the first, the space between thinking and selling collapses; in the second, however, the collapse is between knowledge and despair. The critic is always more clever than the biennale curator, who inevitably fails to realise his or her ambitions, does the opposite of what he or she claims, and so on. The critic may be best able to see and say all this, but then criticism becomes strangely impotent: it is a discourse of the symptoms of a hopeless situation.
It may sound that I do not like art critics or, worse, that I am self-loathing (being one myself). Far from it. I have begun my argument, not by summarising but caricaturing it. Why? Perhaps because sometimes you cannot point exactly to the thing itself; rather, the most insightful thing to say is that this is not such-and-such, so as... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline