The following is a brief preview - the full content of this page is available to premium users only.
Click here to subscribe...
John Clark and Pamela Gutman discuss the wider implications of The Second Asia- Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art at the Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane. Pamela Gutman I didn't get to this year's Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) but last time, I remember, Humphrey McQueen in a review in The Australian suggested that it could have been more politically correct in its representation. This year, I hear, there was great deal of political correctness. John Clark Of course an enterprise like the APT faces many problems. No one can gainsay its achievements, which are significant for Australia. Other organizational policies would have achieved different results. Seen from the outside, it's difficult to make statements about the nature of its management. It's important to recognise that two distinct agendas are operating. Firstly, foreign policy objectives which promote interchange between artists and curators. We should ask if this is the best way of achieving cultural relations. Secondly, the APT now operates on such a scale that it involves a great many curators and significant resources. Is the APT now not functioning as a series of site-specific organisational exchanges reflecting priorities of institutions rather than artists? I am concerned that longer-term curatorial relationships might have priority over artistic exchange. And I think that it would be naive on the part of those involved to say that just because exchanges have been effected the APT was a good thing. This ignores the scale of resources employed, which must be justified. There has always been a tension between the different government bodies engaged in furthering Australia's artistic relations with our region. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is concerned to enhance Australia's image, while... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline