|
|
| INTERVIEW WITH FRANCESCO BONAMI Laima Slava Together with the German radio reporter Claudia Henne we patiently waited for the possibility to interview Francesco Bonami. I thank her for solidarity and support! | |
|
Does the concept of this biennial include a political accent - such a tendency can be read in the Arsenal expositions?
No. Perhaps some political moments emerge but primarily it is a romantic attitude that dominates here, it is view of the curators on the artists, a personal vantage point. I don't think that this is a biennial that wants to be political, but a biennial that wants to underline the significance of individuality and the individual's identity in relation to politics. And yet one of the themes running through the entire exhibition is the hardship in which people live. One can find it in the African section, in the Chinese section - everywhere. Is that not politics? Yes, it is politics but you also see how people react under these conditions creating even contemporary art, you can see how the political conditions provoke the artist to create his answer. Your choice to work in this biennial with 11 curators was disputed. But the result is convincing. Would you say it is the narrative of this biennial - yes, the world is global but not everyone is at the same point of understanding? Yes, my idea, my thought was that there are different times, places, various roads in the attitude towards modernity, to the world, to globalisation and I asked myself the question whether I can interpret this development, diversity of vision only by myself, because my - single - vision interprets many visions. Perhaps I should grant a possibility for other visions to develop autonomously within their framework and not through my viewpoint. I believe that the aim to grant total autonomy to the curators has given the results that can be felt at the exposition - you walk through different times, across different boundaries, you go through many beginnings and ends. In this exhibition you can see one section, another section - each of them is a separate exposition and you come out of the exhibition with a total vision. If that had been only a single vision you would have seen only a part of the whole. Yes, there are differences between the sections of the exhibition and I let them be. I am asked what is the red thread of the exhibition - it has no such thing. No. Each of its parts is indeed something independent. This biennial is extremely international. And still there are the national pavilions and everyone wants to be in one. Isn't there a contradiction? Yes, and that is very typical for "Dreams and Conflicts". The dream about an international art exhibition means in a way a universal language, and then there is a contradiction of the national pavilions - it is a contradiction but it also reflects reality. As individuals, human beings, countries, we need something to protect us - boundaries, economics, psychological borders, and private borders. I believe it expresses the essence of our world. Of course, we live in a global world, we want to be part of the world, and at the same time we need to return home. And I believe it is essential. It is a contradiction. This biennial is full of contradictions; it is a result of the world contradictions, and exposing of these contradictions, I think, is the success of this biennial. There was little money for the biennial, the curators were asked to do without long videos, empty rooms to get many people coming. Was it in this sense the spectators' dictate? No, but considering the previous biennial which was very impressive and which had about 200 hours of video I was still asked to take notice of that. I am in no way against video, I'd like to underline that I have even tried to defend such a medium as video film. But people usually come to such a big exhibition for one day - or at most for a day and a half, and they have to choose between a video or a documentary which lasts for 20-30 minutes and sculpture and painting. Hence as a result of natural selection these artists remain unnoticed. I believe that the film has to be presented in its own integrity, and I defend this integrity. Otherwise the spectator comes in the middle of the film or sees only its beginning or the end, but these films are usually made by the principles of real film. Therefore it is impossible to perceive the work. And at the same time the choice has to be made between watching the film or the rest of the exhibition and that spoils the exposition. This is why I organized the exposition in this way. The retrospective exhibition of painting is dedicated to the history of the biennial. Why painting and why exactly "since Rauschenberg"? Are those your private commitments since you have been living in the USA for a long time? No, no, no! I wanted to offer to the 50th anniversary of the biennial contemplations about painting. The biennial consists of various media and painting is only one of them. Painting does not express the history of the biennial. But I chose a moment that is essential not only for the biennial history, not only for the history of European art, but also for history at large. For each of us. It is 1964 when Rauschenberg received the painting award. It was the first time when America received it. Big polemics started, European artists violently reacted to the increasing impact of the American art. Painting was defended, Europe was defended. Rauschenberg transformed the canvas, he used it not only as a surface, similarly to European artists (even to such who used it in so radical a fashion as Burri and Fontana). He transformed the canvas from surface to a screen through which flew the world. Therefore one can say that with Rauschenberg identity crisis came into painting. But in 1964 his 1963 painting received an award. And what happened in 1963 in the USA? Kennedy was assassinated. For the first time a historical moment was seen in the television. It was the first historical moment that I as a child saw on TV. And at that moment the spectator's position changed radically. At that moment our eyes became lenses in front of which the world was sliding past. I used Rauschenberg's metaphor mostly for that reason. Not only for the sake of painting or Rauschenberg as a symbol of American painting. We are talking about a transformation moment. "Utopia Station" - would that be the last utopian look at the world? I seriously believe that art is a never-ending, eternal instrument for contemplation and opening of utopia in the world. Art is the most significant of all useless things around us. It does not change anything. It does not solve a single problem in the world. But the desire for art shows man's wish to step over a threshold into another world - to the world, which appears as transformed, changed. They want this experience, they want their imagination stimulated. And while you are stimulating your imagination, you will be e positive subject of society in the sense that you are active. Your mind is active. Even if you do not like this art you are protesting against it, you are arguing, you are active. And the art in "Utopia Station" represents the non-existent place of art in our world. In this biennial you in a sense also bring to light contemporary art of Italy. What are its major problems? Italy is a very strange country. It has a good gallery system, good system of collectors but it lacks a good system of exhibition halls for the contemporary art and good education system for the artists, a good art school system. It is a big problem for us. Now things are changing a bit but most of the outstanding contemporary artists do not teach at schools and that creates a gap from generation to generation. If you are not taught and evaluated by a single professional linked with the events of the real art world, you cannot develop a self-awareness about what you are doing, about your language. That should be radically changed. But what is the strong aspect of the Italian art? What could be the basis of a new wave of contemporary art? Like Oliva used to form the image of contemporary art of Italy. I don't believe in groups, in new waves. Italian artists can be good international artists in dialogue with many artists all around the world. The strong side of Italians is the sensitivity to medium that arises out of its history, experimental attitude to the material, to the mode of materializing one's narrative. And the last question. Our Ministry of Culture this year made a decision that there is no need to allocate money for the participation of Latvia in Venice biennial. One of the arguments was that the Latvian artists have not yet managed to get into the main exposition, have not been noticed by the curators. Why aren't you interested in the Baltic region, what makes art works or their authors sufficiently interesting for the big exhibition? Why shouldn't I be interested in the Baltic region? But I myself did not go everywhere, this time 11 curators were working, one can see their choice at the exhibition. But tell your ministers that investing in culture is always good because art is a way of activating imagination. An active imagination makes people better, turns them into better citizens even if they do not deal in art themselves. Society without art is a society with no hope, it is too much linked to the present. Art links past, present and future. And this link is very important. If you find resources for art, culture, you find future for your state. Is the future of the biennial in the direction you have chosen this year? I don't know, I've just done this one. | |
| go back | |
