Biennale Arsenale:

Video ain’t my strong smoot, and most of this show was video. It is the art form that will define this Century, and if you’re a young artist this is your media. If it isn’t right now, it will be. It is pushing painting into the recesses of art practice, and it makes painting look reactionary and dated. After all, what could be better than real time interactivity involving more than one sensory experience? Painting doesn’t describe life as we live it now, at least, not if it continues to play the same postmodern end games.

There were some wonderful non-video pieces at the Arsenale that really got me excited. I loved the first room by the Gorilla Girls. I really enjoy watching an axe grind if it’s honed sharp and shiny. There was a great deal of humor mixed with the message and that to me is priceless. I thought the tampon chandelier was pitch perfect. The bamboo architectural sculpture out back was fantastic. I thought Mori's spacey thingy was too cool. But I had a hard time experiencing the rest of the show.

The flow of the exhibition took us through dimly lit spaces outfitted with floating screens displaying looped videos one after another. I tried, I really did. I stood and watched as Runa Islam pushed her crockery off the table to smash on the floor one piece at a time. Sometimes in slow motion, sometimes with overhead camera shots, sometimes in close up detail of the action. Regina Jose Galinda shaved her body in one video and had her hymen reattached in close up detail in another. Stephen Dean chose to show slow motion crowds of people from sporting events or religious gatherings. There was an appreciation of Leigh Bowery with a display of his costumes and a video of a raucous drag show. Those were the ones that stuck with me either for good or ill. Some of it was interesting and effective but most of it was tedious. A number of these artists need to hone their skills as storytellers. They need better scripting, more sophisticated camera work and incisive editing. Maybe art school is not the answer. Maybe there should be training in some university hybrid of filmmaking and conceptual art, with emphasis on the filmmaking.

The videos that I find fascinating are tied into the object. They are not simply documenting an action or telling a story like a movie or television show. The video becomes part of a sculptural experience, like Tony Oursler’s sculptures or Pipolotti Rist’s projected room or at the Arsenale the video boxes by the Blue Noses. These artists use the video image to “sculpt” an object or create an object around the image. The video has none of the connotations of a bad public access cable television show or an interminable art movie. Instead the video image becomes part of our existence in the same way that the NASDAQ video screen has become part of the architecture of 4 Times Square. It is this radical folding of image, space and time that I find extremely compelling. This allows video to change the spaces of visual interaction and allows one to participate in the artwork in a new and fascinating way. The Blue Noses also have a deft humor, and each box contained a goofy video skit on stereotypical male behavior sending up the ridiculousness of the male ego. Very Benny Hill and very clever!

Just to make a point I want to talk about Valeska Soares’ video hut out back. This octagonal structure was mirrored on the inside with a video screen projecting dancers without partners tracing steps on a lighted dance floor. Why not enclose the entire space in video? Record the dancers from every angle and have them dance along the walls, floor and ceiling of the hut giving us the perspectives from above below etc. The opportunity for this artist to really push the boundaries of real versus virtual would have made this artwork far more interesting. Maybe there wasn't enough time or money. Maybe it wasn't thought through. I think video artists still have a lot of exploring to do.

I guess what I respond to is informed by the way the Venetian painters faked architecture or nature and opened the limits of visual interaction. You can see this in so many of Venice’s churches. The outrageous ceiling of St. Patalone comes to mind. Man, what a mind melt that is! The ceiling of that church literally explodes from the heavens and the painted reality comes pouring down the sides of the church. Does it achieve greatness? No. But you won't ever forget it. St Pants is way over the top. Whatever the outcome it took guts to lay it all out there.
Maybe that's my problem with so much art at the moment. There's no risk involved. No one is tipping at the greats. No one seems to be pushing the boundaries. Hell, say what you will about Schnabel but he sure pushed everyone's buttons. Too bad he never developed his work. It would be great to have a strong painter to react against! The ABEX guys complained a lot but they had Matisse and Picasso to push against and look what they did. We do not have comparable painters.

I did not enjoy the Arsenale as much as the Giardini. The show felt unfinished and unfulfilling. I know there are a lot of interesting new artists, but somehow these big shows keep on missing the boat. I guess curators grow up with certain ideas. In the end these shows reflect their tastes, their histories and their expectations. Back home the art press has started to grind out publicity for our much-hyped showcase of new talent, the Whitney biannual. This show is always awaited with great expectations, but rarely does it satisfy. Everyone always seems to feel that something has been missed. The promise of the next survey is that it will get it right. The same criticisms can be leveled here as well. Maybe an artist needs to curate the damned thing. Who knows? This Venice biennale is competent, professional and well stocked with academic pleasures. I believe that’s exactly the problem.