3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A nice catalog of the show plus an enjoyable historical appendix, April 29, 2010
This review is from: 2010: Whitney Biennial (Paperback)
This is not a review of the 2010 Whitney Biennial itself, which I have not attended, just of the catalog which accompanied it.
As the Amazon product description indicates, the book consists of two parts, a record of the current 2010 Biennial and a look back at previous biennials and before them annuals, back to 1932. (The Whitney was founded, by Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney, in 1931.)
The first section includes, apart from usual forward, acknowledgments, lists of trustees, etc., a single essay by the two curators, an illustrated catalog of all 55 participating artists and teams, a checklist of work in the exhibition, and a four page spread on architectural work by Jeffrey Inaba commissioned for the exhibition.
The illustrated artist catalog is nice. Each artist, in alphabetical order, receives two facing pages, the right one presenting a full page illustration of their work (or one of them, if they had multiple in the show), the left one a blurb briefly summarizing the background and past work of the artist and a describing in more detail what they have in the show, with particular reference to the work in the illustration. It generally does not include the date and place of birth of the artist, but the provided information is usually enough to tell whether the artist is young or has been practicing a long time.
The single essay, by curators Francesco Bonami and Gary Carrion-Murayari, is entitled "The Fence and the Bridge, or Regeneration Through Art", is illustrated only by two 20+ year old photos of Philip-Lorca diCorcia and (of a performance by) Matthew Barney, and runs to just three and a half pages not counting the photos. Though it makes reference to some of the work in the show, it is not a survey so much as a general discussion of how the curators see America in 2010 (or should we say saw it in 2008-2009?) and what they want to achieve in the biennial. The regeneration referred to in the title comes across as being of a primitive kind, as the regeneration of tissue around a wound, as opposed to the fully restorative regeneration of, say, a severed limb (possible in some life forms though not in ours). The regeneration of the title, in any case, is what the curators see in the wide range of fairly personal and (with some significant exceptions) to my mind relatively apolitical/non-socially engaged work of the selected artists. For all its brevity the essay is worth reading, especially within the context of reviews of the exhibition.
The second, historical, section includes, first, a design piece which takes the motif of the cover of the catalog and projects it back eight decades to the beginning of the Museum, then a one page introduction by the two curators under the heading Appendix, then a 40+ page collection of photographically reproduced New York Times articles about the Whitney annuals and biennials dating 1932-2006, interspersed with photos of various exhibitions, and finally a 60+ page section listing the shows in reverse chronological order from 2008 back to 1932, with complete lists of artists and curators.
I personally found the historical section enjoyable. It was fun to flip between the old articles on given shows and the lists of artists and curators for the same shows. For example it was a kick, after spotting the 1977 Biennial as a standout, to read Hilton Kramer's review headed "This Whitney Biennial is as boring as ever" (pp. 176-7 of the book). I found Roberta Smith's 1993 article "A Remembrance of Whitney Biennials Past" (pp. 185-7), especially interesting. I had to do a bit of work to determine the proper sequence of the sections, but once I did it all made perfect sense. (The key is to supply a missing "1977:" above "Welcome to the 70's" on the second page. Once you do that the pieces will fit together for you. Or, if archaeology is not your thing, you can find the article on the web.)
I think only someone who has seen both the book and the exhibition can say whether the former does justice to the latter. As noted I have not seen the show, so I can't say myself. I liked the artist catalog a lot and found the artists and their work very interesting, independently of their inclusion in the Biennial. I would have liked to see a little more in the essay area, and better production in the historical section. I give the book four stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
