For the first time this country appears at the most prestigious contemporary art festival, the 49th Biennial, in Venice
The Biennial in Venice is often compared with the Cannes Festival, even with the Olympics. Ukraine has never appeared in this festival’s history of over a century, unlike Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Russia whose pavilion was built in the early twentieth century (interestingly, the project was financed by Kyiv patron Mykola Tereshchenko).
The previous Biennial featured 59 countries represented by 102 artists and the exhibition space exceeding 10,000 square meters. “The Biennial cooperates with such arts as the cinema, music, theater, and dance. In 2001, we plan to appear as a scene of mankind (platea dell’humanita), rather than a display of arts. This scene will not be the theme but a declaration of responsibility before history and the contemporary world. Various creative disciplines coexist within the Biennial, they can interact and influence each other, even though the events are planned autonomously. In accordance with this concept, the ‘scene of mankind’ allows every art to evolve regardless of any obstacles,” says Harald Szeemann, director of the Biennial’s Visual Division.
The Venetian Biennial consists of a so-called International Exhibition, representing Italy and national presentations by member countries. There is a commissioner responsible for every such presentation, officially representing his government at the show, and a curator in charge of the exhibition’s creative idea and its implementation. Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture and the Arts appointed Yevhen Karas, Deputy Minister as commissioner of the Ukrainian national presentation, and Yuri Onukh, director of the Modern Art Center, as curator.
In keeping with the curator’s concept, Ukraine will display one artist in Venice. The name and concept of the display will be announced in early February 2001.
The Day: Why do we attach such importance to the Ukrainian presentation at the Biennial now?
Yuri Onukh: In fact, Ukraine’s participation in the Biennial has been discussed for quite some time, but mainly in coffee shops. This will be the fourth Biennial since Ukraine became independent, featuring post-Soviet territories as veteran participants: Russia, the Baltic states, Armenia, and Georgia. While the Baltic participation is quite natural, as these countries have always identified themselves with Europe, in the case of Armenia and Georgia it is another way to prove that they exist as independent states.”
The Biennial has always specialized in identifying and displaying everything modern. In other words, our concept of what is modern might change, but the Biennial remains the same, it is a barometer of what is happening in the art world. There are always many tourists in Venice, but the Biennial gathers another 2-3 million, including over 2000 journalists. What happens in Venice at this time could be described as the world’s largest bohemian gathering staged every two years, meaning that everybody who cuts any ice in the creative world is always on hand. It is always an opportunity to prove that we exist. Solo painters from Ukraine cannot find access to and exist in this world because Ukraine is regarded as a cultural terra incognita. It is good to know that the state presents Ukrainian culture in other countries (e.g., France and Germany), yet this is an export to the domestic market. Often good works are exported, yet each such work serves to confirm the old stereotype of Ukraine. We rely only on our folk heritage or classical art; we sing beautiful songs and perform beautiful dances, it is common knowledge, but there is nothing modern there de facto. It is the style worked out by the old culture; what must be shown outside Ukraine and how. We must build our image as a progressive country with an interesting and multifaceted culture. To do so, we have to participate in especially interesting international events, thus showing Ukraine’s being prepared become an inherent part of modern Europe. It should be pointed out again that, outside Ukraine, there is practically no information about its modern art, which is of great importance in the context of European cultural integration. The very fact of participation in the Biennial does not solve the problem of our so-called nonexistence within the context of modern art. However, without this participation we cannot hope to overcome the stereotypes embraced by the notion of being a place unknown. So far as Ukraine is concerned, participation in the Biennial primarily means creating the image of a state open for the determination of its identity by addressing the future. For Ukrainian artists, it is a confirmation of their belonging with the European tradition, an opportunity for public dialogue in the heart of Europe.
The Day: Fine, now we know why we must participate in the Biennial, but from what I can gather, another question — precisely how we will present ourselves — is just as important.
Y. O.: Yes, and we must allow for our limited capabilities, above all our financial status. By participating in the Biennial we are investing in the future development of Ukrainian art. We believe that this is a good investment. Of course, being present at an event of such caliber is not cheap, but being a member of the international community is worth it.
Planning the Ukrainian presentation, we must take into consideration the Biennial tradition and its traditional strategies. Different states have worked out their presentation techniques. I proposed one showing the commissioner’s and curator’s stands. If there is a committee made up of, say, fifteen persons, where the responsibility is shared by all, except that no one wants to take it himself, it just won’t work. In the Netherlands, for example, the Ministry of Technology, Science, and Culture formed an appropriate agency and the state gave it a budget of $200,000 — and this considering that the Netherlands have their own pavilion. This agency appoints the curator and attends to all the relevant matters. And no one objects to the appointment. The curator is replaced every two years. There are well- developed patterns that are strictly observed. A situation when some say I have a right to do so, as in Ukraine, is simply impossible there. Abroad, they have a clear concept of succession to this right and a mechanism making it possible to implement this right. We propose a system which is mobile and productive at the same time. Also, and as importantly, it means responsibility assumed by those who invite an artist or artists. Why artists? Because my first idea was to invite three artists, but after talks and contacts with colleagues that are or used to be international curators, I became convinced that a one-man show is the best option, because the Biennial is a kind of festival representing over fifty countries, so the competition has to be reckoned with. To make ourselves known, we must buck the tiger. Of 51 countries 28 have confirmed their participation, among them 22 represented by one and six by two artists. In other words, no one is deviating from the set pattern, because when you expose more talent, people won’t remember the name of the fourth painter; in fact, they won’t remember even the first three.
The Biennial harbors a lot of ideas and projects. To attract attention, one has to present monumental creative ideas. By monumental I understand not physical size, but rather the strength and scope of creative vision. I know the situation in Ukraine, so I made a list of artists that have been most active over the past five years. Who will be chosen? Someone in his prime. We have such artists, they are classics. Others are quickly getting to the top, but most are still at the foot of the mountain. There are artists at various stages of ascent. Thus we must present an artist who has achieved something, so participation in the Biennial will improve his prospects further. I chose five out of ten artists. Each is a potential Biennial participant, but it’s not a beauty contest and not a situation in which we should exhibit our best artist, because no one can be considered the best; they are all so very different. Here we must pursue a definite strategy. There are lots of elements and knickknacks to make this presentation most effective. Now I can say that of those five we have three artists and I think that just two will be left shortly. This is not a matter of taste or influence. I am not making it personal. There are many factors helping make rational decisions. In other words, there are the specifics of institutions, their dynamics and internal culture. I have many friends among international curators. They charge me with powerful positive energy. Almost all of them want Ukraine to take part in this event.
So what is the Biennial? It is tremendous inner strain. It is competition. I hope we make as few mistakes as possible, even though it is our first presentation. To do so, we must reduce our personal emotions to a minimum and channel our energy into the work of direction. The presentation’s success would mean the artist’s success, the whole team’s success. In the end it would be the success of Ukraine as a country that proved sufficiently open and took the risk of vying in the Biennial for the first time in its recent history.
The Day: You have repeatedly stressed that placing things right at the Biennial is most important.
Y. O.: Yes, I have. Most countries have their own pavilions in Giardini di Castello. Others rent premises. So we had a problem. We had to rent an exhibition hall downtown, with easy access and preferably on the usual Venetian tourist route. We found a good place and it wasn’t easy in view of our limited finances. It’s a floor at a palazzo, but the environs are breathtaking. It will cost us $35,000. Not expensive, all things considered. The Biennial lasts six months, from June until November.
The Day: How much did you get from the Ministry of Culture?
Y. O.: We have a budget worth $120,000 and I expect it to help us do what we plan to do. Of course, we are no match for the Germans with their $250,000 and their own pavilion, let alone the Netherlands. We will look for sponsors and try to convince our so-called new Ukrainians that contributing to such projects is very prestigious.
Our participation in the Biennial will make no revolution in current art with its hierarchy and paradigms. We are entertaining no such illusions, but nor should we suffer from any complexes. What we can actually achieve is getting involved in international creative discourse. We are what we are, and others will be interested to see how we determine our place in the world, to use the artistic parlance; they will want to see our response to the surrounding world. We will be able to accomplish this only when we start discussing our things using the language spoken by the modern world of art, when we take an open and clear stand.
THE DAY’S REFERENCE
Yuri Onukh has been active in Ukrainian art since 1990. In 1994, he was the curator of one of the largest modern Ukrainian art exhibits abroad, the Steppes of Europe, held in Warsaw. Since 1997, he has been head of the Modern Art Center under the Kiev-Mohyla Academy National University, acted as curator of such broadly discussed expositions as He (Taras Palataiko), The Obvious Secret (Andriy Sahaidakivsky), ID (Andriy Sahaidakivsky and Oleh Holosiy), A Lesson in the Fine Arts (Leon Tarasevych and Tiberi Silvashi). He is a member of the board of ICAN [International Current Art Network] Association, based in Amsterdam, Art Centers of Europe (Altkirch, France), and Modern Art Center (Odesa).
Yevhen Karas, the Ukrainian presentation’s commissioner, has long operated on Ukraine’s creative market; head of the Karas Atelier modern art gallery, chairman of the Gattamelata Foundation, and chairman of the board of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Modern Art Center.
