metropolis m

Actually, I think it has been an outstanding year for biennales. They have become sites of conflict and controversy, which is what I believe they should be. I won’t go into analyzing each one, because they were very different in causes and effects but in general the ones you mentioned have brought a renewed engagement with what such large-scale exhibitions might be. I would celebrate that. In that sense, biennales are being taken seriously because they have symbolic value that can be contested in public. I don’t see anything similar in the international art fairs, which are now the biennales’ main rivals in the event stakes. Art fairs are shamelessly about economic power and promotion and there is little discussion of their cultural significance beyond a recognition that art is mostly in the hands of the richest 1%. Maybe I am missing it, but I don’t see the same plurality of interests gathered around the various Friezes or Art Basel Unlimited. I don’t see protests against them. So, I think 2014 has shown that biennales are where the meaning of art and its function in society is being fought out; alongside a few permanent institutions of course, such as those gathered under the L’Internationale confederation.

There are many aspects to this. Maybe I can start with Van Abbemuseum, which remains my main focus. I have been at the museum 10 years now, and I feel we have built a great team with a lot of solidarity between us. When the offer of the Bienal came up, we discussed it and it seemed to all of us a great opportunity to take a new step. We saw my temporary absence as a way to shift towards a more collective leadership and decision-making, one that breaks the usual hierarchies within what are relatively conservative institutions. To do this, we have established a ‘Kuratorium’ that takes decisions on the artistic direction of the museum together. When I return, I will become part of this structure and we will continue to work collectively. This is really about an institution growing up and no longer needing a father figure – for me personally and I think for the team it is an exciting proposition. Of course, we could have done this without the Bienal but my physical absence makes everything easier as I am less able to obstruct things by letting my ego or sense of authority get in the way. I am also sure that the museum will benefit from all the experiences and connections I am making. If you think back to the 2005 biennale in Istanbul that led to what I still think is one of the best exhibitions we did: Eindhoven-Istanbul. I am already thinking about how the São Paulo Bienal will feed into activities back in the Netherlands.
That in part answers your second question. After Gwangju, Ramallah and Istanbul, the São Paulo Bienal felt a perfect step for me. I can learn the Brazilian and Latin American situation at cross quarters in a way that would be impossible otherwise. I knew little about art and society here when I started, and now I feel I have some sense of what is going on here culturally. It’s an accelerated geo-cultural course for me and has been hugely enriching for my understanding of what art is or can be.

Finally, there is a financial aspect. The payments from the Bienal are a significant income for the museum. After the recent cuts, all the curators have earning targets from external work, so this is my contribution for 2014 and 2015. It points to the way that the Van Abbemuseum is internationalizing its activities in different ways – from teaching collectively in various colleges and universities, to acting as advisors for a potential new contemporary art museum in Jerusalem, to curating exhibitions elsewhere. All this new knowledge, we gain feeds back into the museum in a myriad of ways.

The São Paulo Bienal remains the major biennale in this part of the world. That is mostly thanks to a history that goes back to 1951. If in the past it was mainly about a Brazilian elite showing its taste for high European culture, that changed with the Bienal curated by Lisette Lagnado in 2008 who finally did away with the national pavilions. Yet there were curators before, Paulo Herkenhoff or Walter Zannini for instance, who forged a singular identity onto their Bienals. As a team, we all owe a huge debt to these predecessors and their contribution continues to give the Bienal its identity. Few other biennales can claim such a history. Other important defining aspects are a focus on education, with over 200.000 students coming to visit the exhibition, and the pavilion building. These all combine to make it a unique project with a particular influence and possibility. We have tried to take advantage of all of them.