Venice Biennale

A fuss too far...
Much has been written about the so called controversial selection for the 'Welsh' representation at the 50th Biennale in Venice. Most of the controversy seems to be centred upon the involvement of selectors and artists with tenuous Welsh connections. This debate could rage on for months, if not years, to come, but with just a few days left before the start of the exhibition perhaps it is time to move the debate from issues of national validity to one of artistic merit.

The Biennale has long been the focus of controversy, the work on show being 'cutting edge' and often difficult to understand. Venice is a place where artists have the opportunity to rise above national boundaries and insular practices to become household names. On a personal note, I don't really care whether the artists representing Wales are Welsh or not. If an artist is living and working within our country then surely they are entitled to represent us, if they so wish. However, I do have a problem with the selection of an artist who no longer lives within the Principality. How can the Welsh representation really portray the best of contemporary art in Wales if the representatives are not part of what's happening in Wales? Surely, if we wish to present the best of what's happening today within our visual culture we need to ensure that the artists are a part of that culture and in connection with what is relevant to artists in Wales today.

Perhaps my argument is also missing the point. Do we really need to show what's happening in Wales? Can't we just present a bunch of artists (with a Welsh connection of some sort) and say, " have a look at this !". If this is all we wish to do then that's fine.

I do have a problem with the selection of Bethan Huws as one of the Welsh representatives. Bethan obviously knows how to play the system. She is a very bright artist with a very healthy bank account from sales of her work. However, as much as I have tried to connect with her work, and to recognise the reasons for the hype surrounding her, I somehow fail to do so. I constantly look for something that's different, something that sets an artist apart from the rest. It is this evidence of originality that is surely what artists should be striving to achieve within their work, whether on an aesthetic or intellectual level. I cannot find this in Huws. I am reluctant to write this because I realise this must be because of MY failings, my inability to engage with her work, or is it?

A criticism I often hear aimed at painters and other more traditional artists is that everything they do has been done before. However I feel that an awful lot of what we see at Venice and the Turner Prize is also now falling into a category called ' seen it before '. There is always the exception though, and it is these exceptions that I hope will fill the pavilions of the Biennale this year, if not, I would argue against the value, or merit of such a ridiculously expensive exercise. From what I have read to date ( Western Mail 13th June 2003 ) it seems that Huws may well be putting me firmly in my place at last, and I'll be glad to witness, finally, the beauty of the Emperor's new togs I so far have failed to see.

Nigel Williams.

To find out a little more about the Biennale you click on the link below to read an American web site description of the event.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1248/9_87/56458959/p1/article.jhtml