Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

de fiecare datæ øi deja monoton, familialæ, simulatæ, „între noi“ øi „ai noøtri“), cæ se
doresc o structuræ care sæ „spargæ izolarea culturalæ“ (fie chiar øi prin faptul cæ numærul
artiøtilor români a fost foarte mic la BB3, de doar trei – Lia Perjovschi, Cezar Læzærescu
øi Adrian Matei) øi sæ creeze un dialog dinspre local cætre global, cu un public
format în mod sistematic.
Pe fundalul existent, BB este încæ o manifestare destinatæ unui cerc restrîns. Sæ ai
succes printr-un eveniment de artæ contemporanæ – sau cel puflin sæ reuøeøti sæ obflii
o anumitæ normalizare a frecventærii artei contemporane în societatea în care te
plasezi – este un proces formativ complicat øi de lungæ duratæ, cu atît mai mult întrun
spafliu estic cum sînt România øi capitala ei.
BB îøi creøte singuræ publicul „ventilînd“ cu artæ øi spafliind, astfel, nu numai un cadru
urbanistic, ci øi unul mental, pe cît de înghesuit, pe atît de lipsit de aer. Harta intervine
în teritoriu.
(H)arta ca „intercept“: mesajul e zgomotul
BB3 face încæ un pas în demersul ei. Se plaseazæ pe o scenæ artisticæ „deocamdatæ
cælduflæ“, pasivæ, aøa cum o numeøte Ræzvan Ion într-un interviu 2 realizat împreunæ
cu Eugen Rædescu, luat curatorilor acestei ediflii, suedezii Jan-Erik Lundström øi Johan
Sjöström (primul, director al BildMuseet din Umeå, muzeu de artæ contemporanæ
øi culturæ vizualæ din Suedia, al doilea, curator la aceeaøi instituflie). Îøi asumæ, „preia“
acest spafliu, prin faptul cæ orice proiect artistic realizat aici are implicaflii sociopolitice,
cæ foloseøte drept instrument „energia“ øi eclectismul Bucureøtiului (energie
a opozifliilor øi a disputelor, la nivelul scenei divizate a artei contemporane
bucureøtene), „istoria (sau isteria) lui zbuciumatæ“ (Eugen Rædescu), decizînd ca tema
BB3 sæ fie cartografierea contemporaneitæflii.
Cartografierea lumii de azi ca temæ a unei bienale aflate într-un proces de autolegitimare
øi, mai mult decît atît, lansatæ într-un demers de „alfabetizare“ a publicului contemporan
local, care urmæreøte „încurajarea alfabetizærii cartografice“, aøa cum îøi
definesc curatorii demersul la un moment dat, înseamnæ alfabetizarea inevitabilæ pe
care un asemenea eveniment trebuie sæ o facæ. Cæci, încercînd o definiflie a fenomenului
extins al bienalelor, am putea spune cæ acestea sînt cartografieri ale spafliului
care le produce, sînt hærfli ale lumii contemporane, inter-hærfli deopotrivæ ale vieflii
artistice, sociale øi politice actuale, intercepturi ale societæflilor actuale. Bienalele sînt
cele care au capacitatea sæ deseneze o societate, sæ o marcheze, sæ defineascæ starea
de lucruri prezentæ. Or, alegerea cartografierii drept temæ este echivalentæ cu însæøi
legitimarea fenomenului øi, deopotrivæ, cu tentativa de a deschide larg ochii publicului
neavizat cætre o „politicæ a cunoaøterii“ („Un aspect foarte important al BB3
este producerea cunoaøterii sub forma unei definiflii cuprinzætoare“, spune în acelaøi
interviu Johan Sjöström). Bienalele de artæ contemporanæ, deci øi, incipient, BB3,
„ascultæ“ societatea øi o „pun în mesaj“. Conceptul de intercept, propus de cætre tînærul
filosof Mehdi Belhaj Kacem, vizeazæ tocmai aspectul „rumoral“, difuz-auditiv,
pe care îl presupune arta contemporanæ în raportarea ei la realitate.
Alegerea cartografierii ca temæ de bienalæ presupune definirea unui nivel interceptiv,
de primire-codificare a „mesajelor“ prin insinuare în distingerea producfliei
lor indistincte, amestecate, de „zgomot“ care este mesajul. Ea este, implicit, øi
un act de autoreflecflie, fapt care are darul de a defini „fenomenul“ contemporan
al bienalelor de artæ ca ocazii autoprovocate de meditaflie asupra artei înseøi,
pe viu.
Autocartografierea artei: metabienala
Este interesant de observat contextul internaflional în care aceastæ a treia ediflie a
Bienalei Internaflionale de Artæ Contemporanæ Bucureøti se poziflioneazæ. A doua
director of the 1951 São Paulo Modern Art Museum Biennale, has
pointed in the opening catalogue, using that hopeful and optimistic
post-war rhetoric. The biennial has achieved its two major tasks, that
of placing Brazilian modern art not in a mere domestic competition,
but in a live contact with the world’s art and, at the same time, of
positioning the city of São Paulo on the map of the world’s major art
centres, since now it is a reference point on the globalized art scene.
Mission accomplished.
An old biennial which in the 21st century becomes, as its curators
state, “redundant in its local context and yet is unable to critique the
globalized age in which it is inscribed“. The São Paulo Biennale case
is emblematic for a pathological international state of this phenomenon.
Recycling the topics, exhausting the artistic practices – a repetitive
mechanism with “limited possibilities”, an “exhausted and
trivial” model. At the same time, Ivo Mesquita discusses the issue of
biennials competing with a more recent phenomenon, that of the art
fair, and the disappearance of the border separating the two phenomena:
the exhibition space as a selling, commercial space is no
longer specific to an art fair, but also to a biennial, which is currently
undergoing the danger of becoming a “political and social alibi for
the transnational capitalism”.
The text of the two curators of the São Paulo Biennale performs a
critical excurs, in just a few pages, on the phenomenon of contemporary
art globazization. Their radical gesture (leaving, among other
things, an empty, suspended exhibition space, “The Void”, dedicated
to the reflectinon on the contempoary art mutations) is meant to
draw attention on all the other world biennials, to prompt them
towards this “pause for reflection“ which can deliver still valable
positions, an inevitable pause if we don’t want to witness, very soon,
the total death of the phenomenon.
Instead of exhaustive visions on art and of a continuous, excessive
imagistic presence, Ivo Mesquita advises biennials to produce
“detailed cartographies” and to interrogate “the movements and
transformations perceived in a pre-determined circuit, including its
reverberations and echoes”.
The Inter-Biennial:
Between the Global Mapping Panopticism and the Lived Map
What does the BB3 do within this global context? How does it position
itself? It follows exactly the wiser advice of the São Paulo Biennale
through an extremely actual and comprehensive topic, maybe
the most comprehensive for now, within an emergent space,
unmapped (that is uncoded) yet, as the Romanian one is. The BB3
“manifest” seems to be a pure act of “interception”, looking like an
intuitive act, emerging from a small, young biennial which didn’t
have the time to give up its content, but which was born in an international
context of exhaustion and a local one which, above all, still
needs a demarcation, the establishing of the specific difference.
It does not put forth a meta-biennial, but chooses mapping as the
ultimate way of representation, as a “total significant“.
As it defined itself, BB3 whished to be “an exhibition, a project,
a centre for resources and a manifest” (according to the curators’
text in Pavilion, vol. 1). This edition wasn’t very spectacular or, in
other words, its spectacular was not at hand, immediate, but only
perceptible after a thorough examination, which took much time
and patience. The spectacular of the contemporary world, a world
made out of charts and networks, a world reduced and highly simplified
through different techniques and focusing on certain aspects.
At the same time, it is a world infinitely reduplicated, arborescent,
open, demountable, rhizomatic. It is the world map looked at exhaustively
and successfully exhausted: the BB3 has presented not only
artists projects, but also complex maps created by organizations
interested in various networks and relationships at a planetary level
and massive world atlases. We can only abide on several projects, as
their number is far too large, making the act of mapping a compulsive,
excessive one.
90