Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Art and Embarrassment

Today I received the following announcement regarding the Lyon Biennial of Contemporary Art (don't laugh for too long: there's something not so funny hiding underneath the foolery):


2007 Lyon Biennial of Contemporary Art

00s - The history of a decade that has not yet been named
September 19, 2007 - January 6, 2008

Artistic direction : Thierry Raspail
Conception : Stéphanie Moisdon & Hans Ulrich Obrist
Production Management : Thierry Prat
Visual Identity : M/M (Paris)

Membres du jury:
Présidente Susanne Pagé, directrice de la Fondation Louis Vuitton pour la création, Paris
Gunnar Kvaran, directeur du Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, Oslo
Knight Landesman, Artforum
Samuel Keller, Art Basel
Elaine Sturtevant, artiste
Kasper König, Sculpture Project, Münster
Silvia Karman Cubina, The Moore Space, Miami

Preview : September 17-18, 2007
Opening : September 18, 2007

Conceived of as a history and geography manual in the form of a game, the 2007 Lyon Biennial is inviting sixty-six Players from all over the world, distributed in two circles. Forty-nine of them (curators, art critics...) are being asked to answer the following question: "Who, in your opinion, is the artist who best represents this decade?" A second circle is composed of nineteen other Players - mostly artists - each devising a program, a system or a problematics intended to define the decade in progress.

Labels:

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's something "unusual" going on if there are 66 distinct Players and the First Circle contains 49 and the Second Circle contains 19. Maybe the press release was supposed to say 68 Players and it was just a typo---or perhaps two Players are participating in both Circles!

Patrice

September 11, 2007  
Anonymous daniel a. siedell said...

this is depressing. i think of two things. first, i think of marcel duchamp and his deep interest in chess and how he came to understand art (or so i think) as a game: that is, it is governed by certain rules that participants work within. i believe he understood art as wittgenstein understood philosophy, as a language game. however, he (and wittgenstein) never understood it in such a crass and cynical way (or so i would like to believe) as 'merely' a 'game. second, i think of my friends who are stock brokers and how they see their work as 'game.' they are rewarded by speculating on companies, but not too much; they can't take too much of a risk; they are basically betting on horses everyone's betting on. the goal is to get on before everyone does and get off before it dumps everyone off. where's the vision in that?

September 11, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home