Yoshitomo-nara, Seoul House, Shanghai Biennale – Hyper Design, 2006
At its inception this body of research sought to locate the following:
…criticism of the international contemporary art survey on the World Wide Web focussing specifically the subject of homogenisation. This criticism will be contextualised within a general critical framework looking at the contribution such ‘events’ have to general debates on contemporary art practice both in a global and local context….
Throughout the course of investigation it has become apparent that such a topic would require greater definition, a more specific focus to produce a rounded argument or even comprehensive body of research. This may be as result of a number of factors; such as Web content being insufficient, undeveloped Web search skills on the part of the author or simply that the ‘contemporary international art survey’ is an extraordinarily complex phenomena requiring investigation and dissection from multiple perspectives. I am inclined to think that it is a combination of all three factors heavily waited to the last.
The web proved a labyrinth, as one would expect, with references to the research topic, well hidden, or commonly small aspects of the sites in which the information was located, such as online journals whose focus is broadly contemporary arts practice (/second), on the sites of artist run initiatives (Pilotlondon) or as part of the online components of contemporary art surveys (telecomprospect).
A good percentage of the information is derived from sources other than the internet ie information not produced specifically for the WWW. Sources include reference to or the publication of critical comment from traditional publishing sources (looseprojects) and much information derived from papers delivered at academic conferences (arts.unwa).
A small number of online sources, where information was produced in the first instance for online audiences, proved extremely useful (/second and govett.brewester).
The lack of information was unexpected to say the least. I had expected to source information that would broadly inform the area of research which in turn would lead to more specific concerns and debates. The information at best provides a very initial starting point for investigation into the topic in terms of the impact of the ‘contemporary international art event’ on the ‘global’ concerns and debates surrounding contemporary arts practice, and some isolated examples of specific concerns in relation to local context, thus far, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.
Despite the limitations in the scope of information available, the research did uncover useful sources that would inform the topic, much located within broad discourse on contemporary arts practice or the ‘unmediated’ musings of the everyman’s critic: the blogger!
But getting back to the third factor (in the attempt to identify the reason for the dearth of information available), the topic itself, ‘the phenomena of contemporary international art survey’, the extraordinarily complex phenomena, one, which occurs, in increasingly diverse formats and contexts. Whilst it is obviously important and valuable to identify the places occupied by these ‘phenomena’ within contemporary art debates, in order to do justice or undertake an argument of any depth or weight in relation to specific debates or critique of the international art survey it would appear necessary to identify and address these concerns at a more micro level.
Homogenisation in the recycling of artists and curators, whether such events are best served by well-defined curatorial rationales or more open interpretations of current directions in contemporary art, the impact, benefits of such events on ‘local’ practitioners and arts industry are but a few issues of current debate but (may) result in vastly different responses when discussing such events in places such as Italy, Lithuania, Istanbul, Korea or Australia.