52ND BIENNALE DI VENEZIA AND 12TH DOCUMENTA KASSEL
The most frequently asked question in regard to the Venice Biennale, particularly from those whose countries do not support a national presence at this international art exhibition, is: ‘Why?’ Why spend a disproportionate amount of arts funding on this one event and struggle against Italian bureaucracy to compete in what is colloquially referred to as the Olympics of art exhibitions? New Zealand, having sent artists to three previous Venice Biennales, refrained from returning in 2007 while it evaluated the benefits of a substantial investment of limited resources. New Zealand’s arts funding agency, Creative New Zealand has announced the nation’s planned return in 2009, however, with the aim of building upon past exposure, and linking participation in the Venice Biennale to other international market development initiatives for the visual arts of New Zealand.1
The question of why be there only arises for those nations taking responsibility for the housing, presence and communications of their artistic representative(s), as distinct from the curated component of the Biennale. Other mega-art events, the over seventy international biennales and triennials, are generally based on the model of the curated exhibition that national arts funding bodies assist as required. Only in Venice do Australia and thirty-three other countries invest in constructing and maintaining their own built infrastructure.
Australia’s rationale for the Venice outlay as the showcasing of national visual art and architecture is subjective, and arguably as much directed at national political and economic strategies as at cultural promotion. The extraordinary initiative of sending three artists to the 52nd Biennale, made possible through the patronage of John Kaldor and a range of supporters, was motivated by Kaldor’s aim ‘to show the richness and diversity of Australian... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline