The 53rd International Art Exhibition of Venice Biennale, titled aking Worlds?has unveiled in the Giardini and the Arsenale venues. Director Daniel Birnbaum excluded those artists who has been regarded as heroes or stars in market and attempted to re-define the actual contributors who have made the world. Rather, those artists who are highly praised by art critics and curators of public art projects made aking Worlds.?
As a part of his attempted to ?ake the new world,?the Golden Lion for the best pavilion is awarded to the USA in Bruce Nauman? art while Tobias Rehberger is awarded the Golden Lion as best artist.

An Attempt to Put an End to the War between Heroes and Gods

Yongwoo Lee

Having amassed over the past 114 years?history, the Venice Biennale has created a unique yet heterogeneous its density, color and the format of discussions. Even the womb of the biennale appears to be flashy, yet the weight of the discourse has historical depth. Yongwoo Lee says that there are obvious limitations to events which chase after the fantasy of globalism through the activities of heroic curators and artists adorning openings and parties.

The surrealistic yet romantic scenery ornamenting Venice ?piercing sunlight on Palladio architectural forms, alternating narrow and broad canals linking buildings like mazes, as well as drifting gondolas tottering between those canals ?appears as though affirming the fickleness of the tales of seriousness of the Biennale? contemporary art. The history of the Biennale, having amassed over the past 114 years, has created a unique yet heterogeneous Biennale culture by the entangled labyrinth of the organizers, Venice citizens?society, artists and tourists from both within the nation and abroad.
Although all biennale events are not exactly like the ones in Venice, its density, color and the format of discussions possessed by Venice as the womb of Biennale appear to be flashy, yet the weight of the discourse has historical depth. The 53rd Biennale which opened under the title ?aking Worlds?is no exception.

Making Worlds, Making Art

It is most often dream and mythology which adorn the grand finale in art, whereas it is tales of heroes that make up the grand finale in war. However, when popularity and market trends and tendencies take  precedence over creative spirit, mythology deteriorates into mere tales of heroes. A case in point is the contemporary art world in which the power of the art market has surpassed those of art movements, aesthetics and art ideologies. In other words, rather than art living off mythologies, tales of heroes abound where it is regarded as more important for artists to become famous and manufacture high-priced artwork in order to   subjugate and conquer the market.
Both domestically and abroad, it is stars and heroes of market who are revered and given power in today? contemporary art. In a capitalistic society, it seems to be natural for the power of capital to sway, to a  certain degree, the aesthetic individuality or the very fundamentals of  art philosophy. However, upon closer examination, the end results are  neither beautiful nor permanent. The very first thing which gets   weakened whenever global capitalism is faces a crisis of any sort is  capitalized art and money-centered art surviving off market logic. Furthermore, those heroes and gods who have enjoyed higher status within those lands are then faced with demands of paybacks which are worth as much as what they have enjoyed through their previous power or status.
Through the title ?aking Worlds,?Daniel Birnbaum, the artistic director of the 53rd Venice Biennale, has excluded those artists who are enjoying the status of the past heroes and attempted to re-define the actual  contributors who have made the world. Accordingly, he did not invite those artists who are regarded as stars in market or are frequently talked about in journals into the selection of Birnbaums ?aking Worlds.?The reason why many Biennales have recently began using the word ?itle?rather than ?heme,?may very well be a way of minimizing the exclusivism of artist selection while supplementing deterministic perspective.
The artists selected by Birnbaum are neither the artists who frequent  racetracks nor those who have exhibitions in art galleries in New York, London, Berlin or Milan. Rather, they are artists who are highly praised by art critics and curators of public art projects, such as Carsten Holler, Tomas Saraceno, Nathalie Djurberg, Tobias Rehberger, Paul Chan, GUTAI Group, Joan Jonas, Cildo Meireles, Marjetica Potrc, Rirkrit Tiravanija, and Tony Conrad. Korea? Haegue Yang and Koo Jeong A are not far from this category of artists.
In his catalogue essay, Birnbaum presupposes that ? work of art is more than an object, more than a commodity,?and defines that ?a work of art) represents a vision of the world, and if taken seriously it can be seen as a way of worldmaking.?However, even though the process of translating this Biennale? title, ?aking Worlds?into many different languages had been rather complex and inaccurate, he does not seem to be too   concerned as long as the original meaning is conveyed, which is the idea of making the world we are sharing more warm and blessed. In turn, he retorts that there are beautiful traditions where cultures evolve through the exchange of mutual meaning.
Therefore, the title of ?aking Worlds?Daniel Birnbaum is contending can be seen as another politico-philosophical reflection, question and proposition towards globalization which has been discussed numerous times previously. He reveals that the origin of such thought was  excerpted from Nelson Goodman? book, Ways of Worldmaking.
Having had an immense influence in art philosophy of the late twentieth century, Nelson Goodman attempts to utilize deconstructing measures against unique truth and the framework of the fixated thinking of the indestructibly stout and absolute world, while emphasizing the meaning of ?he world which is being made?as a counter proposal. Since the  context of the discourse as revealed in Goodman? writings stipulates  ?o make means creating again those which already exists in front of us,?he contends that unchangeable and absolute world does not exist. Therefore, he regards the existence of the new world as obscure, since making worlds starts anew from the existing world within our grasp.
Birnbaum shares Goodman? contemplation and thought processes, and expresses his interests towards how the act of making possesses freedom and become re-created within the visual arts, despite the fact that they are already fixated mythologies or icons. For instance, although the national flags of each country are absolute and symbolic emblems, the artistic  tradition which daringly dissects that iconic tradition while making others is regarded as making worlds which are always valid. The designs and the languages of those designs which have been developed for the  purposes of exhibition foretell accelerating change and evolution.  He explains that those repetitive yet infinite variations create the new world. Accordingly, Birnbaum proposes that the new world truly appears in places where other worlds meet.

Altermodernistic Cultural Globalism

Birnbaum? interpretation is not the globalism of existing political,  economical or post-colonial historical terminology, but rather, to   associate another beautiful globalism borne by a newly-created world and artistic language. It can be seen as advocating globalism which encompasses the new cosmic thought ?namely, the gradual increase of communication and travel, migration, and the phenomenon of cultural nomadism.
His interpretation can be seen as on the same ground as an altermodern attribute by revising and proposing the existing modernity by Nicolas Bourriaud as shown in Tate Triennial organized by Tate Britain last Spring. Having casted the attribute of another modernity into the   language of visual arts as altermodern, Nicolas Bourriaud has previously clarified that although the lifespan of modernism came to its end as a  scientific-technological terminology originating from the Western way of thinking, focus should be on the newly-emerging order of altermodernistic thoughts and patterned after the extinction of postmodern  discourse.
Goodman? thoughts also arose from the two categories of makers: from the position of the principle of relativity between God ?which is the absolute existence and the foundation of the world within theological thoughts ?and against people who have again put finishing touches and nurtured the world made by God. Namely, by disclosing the difference between materialists and non-materialists, thoughts may be compared vividly in order to organize the points of dispute between relativism and nominalism.
It reminds us that the process of creation is putting annotations, inserting subtitles and finishing dubbing through the process called adaptation in order for the text to become completed. Having had the experience of managing an art gallery in Boston prior to becoming a philosopher, Goodman was able to nurture students such as Noam Chomsky through frequent communication between philosophy and positions of socio- cultural or cultural-political perspectives and influenced the establishment of ideologies of today? important scholars.
Birnbaum? making worlds and its application to Biennale brought forth a drastically different result from the exhibitions of Robert Storr, the  director of the 52nd Venice Biennale. The artists selected by Robert Storr, the artistic director in 2007, were European and American blue-chip artists who were the mainstays of the present-day auction market such as Sigmar Polke, Gerhard Richter, Louis Bourgeois and Mark Rothko. However, Birnbaum is proposing to us that we should attempt to make the world against things which had become the past to us or mere  historical icons, and therefore, the act of making worlds and the value are not fixated to one perspective.
The exhibition space in the Giardini, the renewed Palazzo delle Esposizione and the Arsenale showcased refreshing stimulus in   conjunction with such thematic consciousness. Perhaps, the proof in regards to the reason why Biennales are different from art gallery   exhibitions is, after all, neither the planning of exhibition space and  exhibition engineering nor the overwhelming reputation of exhibited  artworks or value of wealth, but rather, a determination possessing the value of ideology to realize and fulfill the living spirit. In that sense, Birnbaum? thoughts are, without any doubt, social and public.
Therefore, having been situated at the edge of Venice the ?ity of Waters,?Biennale is a clinical laboratory where varying discourse are weighed and confronted in each event along with 114 years of history. It was quite apparent that visitors did not flock to Biennale this year, perhaps due to a shrunken market as a result of the world-wide economic recession. However, visitors come to Venice to see the Biennale along with famous artists while, on the other hand, the participants themselves come to Venice to be seen by others, just as Carol Vogel of the New York Times has pointed out.

Biennale and the Economic Recession

The allotted budget for this year? Venice Biennale was reduced by 1.4 million dollars (approximately 1,8 billion won) less than the previous Biennale. In order to make up for this reduction in revenue, the Venice Biennale Foundation hiked the admission price from C15 to C18 won. Despite the financial shortcoming, all planned projects commenced according to schedule, with only slight changes in policy, while the artists and organizers exerted greater efforts in order to actualize the stage of dreams.
In order to showcase new projects and to emphasize their distinction, Biennales of the entire world including the one in Venice request that participating artists submit newly created works. This being the reason that production costs for the Biennale are much higher than any other exhibition format. This time around in Venice, there were many cases where it was requested that production costs be paid by the artists out of their own pockets, or transferred to the art galleries that represent the artists. Simply put, selected artists were invited to the party, but the  organizers demanded the artists bring their own food and drink.
What was particular about this Biennale was that the overall atmosphere of the exhibition remained subdued, due to the fact that the theme of the Biennale was far from the formalities of grand narratives. This approach was regarded as a wise decision, in a certain sense, to overcome the  economic hardship, and metaphor and suggestive expressions ensued, with the phrase ?t? easy to miss unless you take a closer look,?having frequently been heard.
In this Biennale, the U.S. Pavilion, Denmark and Nordic Pavilion,  German Pavilion and Australian Pavilion were the most talked about offerings. Among the participating artists, Tomas Saraceno, Nathalie Djurberg, John Baldessari, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Tobias Rehberger, Paul Chan, Mona Hatoum, and Haegue Yang garnered significant attention, due to their clear thematic consciousness, understanding of exhibit  engineering and installation methods befitting the exhibit structure of the Biennale.
In contrast to past Biennales, works shown at this Biennale were both less politicized and violent. Nevertheless, a few works persistently emphasized the fact that the meeting between art and political themes is one of a very special and intimate nature. Especially notable was the  animated work by Hong Kong-born artist Paul Chan where the themes of the war against terrorism being carried out by the U.S. and what   transpired in Abu Ghraib prison were depicted in a severely cruel and  shocking manner. Tomas Saraceno, a young artist from Argentina in his thirties currently working in Germany, produced a gigantic spider web, utilizing the largest room in the Giardini Exhibition Space. Giving an impression of having actualized the architectural imagination of Buckminster Fuller, this artwork is in the form of a gigantic spider web linking the floor of the exhibit space to the ceiling. The structure linked by black elastic cords expresses the present politico-social tension having been woven like a mucous tissue system, and simultaneously, it emanates the affect of a cosmic show.
The work ?ollector?showcased at the Denmark and Nordic Countries Pavilion was produced by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, who reside in Berlin. Having utilized objects befitting theatrical, literary,  situational and circumstantial elements to create exquisite harmony, this artwork was quite popular. A fabricated story about a handicapped  family, their neighbors and a gay couple, this artwork centered around an unexpected turn of events, abundance of humor and multi-national  sensibility, while placing its situational focus on Walter Benjamin?  writing, ?npacking My Library: A Talk About Collecting.?The method of inviting artists and the overall production of Biennale  initiated by the Venice Biennale this year? as necessitated by the   economic recession will most likely become a topic of discussion for other Biennales. Since an invitation to the Venice Biennale would be seen as an honor for any artist, it appears that the Venice Biennale Foundation regarded it as not out of the ordinary to request a certain  portion of travel expenses and artwork production costs be paid by the participating artists.  But will that logic be accepted as persuasive? Whether fortunate or otherwise, it appears that no one publicly refused an invitation this time around.

A Possible Danger of Globalism

The accomplishments established by composition, pluralism and deconstruction aesthetics have weakened the aesthetic hegemony caused by the past political hegemony and contributed to individualization of the supremacy of consumerism achieved by the so-called economic system of capitalism. On the other hand, a problem can be pointed out where it has brought forth the weakening of aesthetic consciousness and nurtured market-centered structure derived from the fragmentation of the judging standards.
One of the issues of discussions frequently raised in today? global scale art events is the clash in logic in regards to aesthetic judgement or critical standards. For instance, some art critics and artists gathered during the press opening could be heard to praise the 53rd Venice Biennale as  ? superb exhibition,?while others remarked ?t is quite disappointing.?While some insist that ?t is an extremely elegant exhibition,?it is possible for still others to criticize the Biennale for being ?oarse.?
sSuch polarized responses about the same exhibition no longer seem surprising. When the meanings of aesthetic consciousness or artwork are assessed as either good or bad by each individual? preference and taste, it would be regarded as sufficient enough. Since the critique by an art critic is regarded as subjective, it is considered natural for critique to be degraded into merely an individual? opinion.
Therefore, the aesthetic absoluteness towards artworks has been extinguished entirely, and the assessment standard about art has created an exquisite system where the fame-centered artists supported by journalism and the market have additionally acquired aesthetic accomplishments. Now, a trade-centered systematic order is taking over where materialistic values are flourishing over spiritual. By introducing new programs with an additive of cultural amusement, the market is creating slogans which control the publicness of art or communal value, such as ?rt fairs are more fun than art exhibitions,??rt fairs are more beneficial than Biennales,?and ?ublic art projects are not interesting.?
Most unsuspecting readers who do not understand the difference between each capacity and the diversified accommodation channels give absolute approval to these market-centered capacities. For instance,  it appears as though a balanced education concerning the beauty of  difference or unique capacity is not valid. Nevertheless, such thoughts are not permanent.
Therefore, the imaginative power about globalism utilized wrongly everywhere or intentionally distorted settles down as a synonym for  standardization, despite its economic value and supreme value of information. It is quite unfortunate. Especially noteworthy is that cultural production and consumption structure ?such as typical market economy  system where advertisement and public relations decide consumer  market ?has a tendency to paralyze the tradition of visual culture which had been coalescing around beautiful aesthetic activity.

Globalization and Archipelago

The globalization is a non-rejective and vivid phenomenon, as well as a means to rectify our regressive consciousness. However, shouting the phrase, ?hanks to Globalization!??which an American monthly art  magazine had mentioned when summarizing this Venice Biennale or Basel Art Fair ?merely increases the voices calling for a reconsideration of the global art banquets which are increasingly being recognized as a  consumption-centered extravagance or party culture. There are obvious limitations to events which chase after the fantasy of globalism through the activities of heroic curators and artists adorning openings and parties.
Globalism appears to be the proper economic terminology for expressing the actualization of profit through a multi-international enterprise?  multinational currency. Especially noteworthy is the appropriateness of defending today? market-centered thoughts and tendencies of global networking with the evolution of information technology and the   ensuing digital nomadism, as well as the expansion of consciousness and unfettered thought as a result. However, when the global economic thought processes are applied to a pattern of cultural production, they are met with resistance because the method of economic synthesis and cultural reception differ greatly, and there are limitations as to explaining the variation arising between cultural production and cultural consumption in common terminology. Therefore, we must take into consideration the criticism that the exhibitions of Biennales are violent exhibitions  actualizing the ideals of globalism is essentially derived from the size of the exhibitions and the blockbuster-like economic methodology.
Today? terminology of explaining the contemporary art or culture is not the aesthetic terminology of the past, but is acceleratingly inflated with scientific technology, informational terms, psychology, anthropology, philosophy and cultural political phrases; the reason being that an eternal expansion has been established in today? cultural phenomena which cannot be explained in previous definitions and methods of regarding them as those of a homogenous nature within a single territory. Every culture exists through a mutual organic relationship by transcending regional boundaries and forms an archipelago similar to the collective body of a gigantic group of islands. Those migration and displacements become habit. The phenomenon which induces a state of ?o fixed  destination?consciousness contributes to the demolition of the previously steadfast geological boundaries. It may lead to a process of producing the politico-economic unification through neutral culture, hybrid culture, and tactful cultural domination.
Archipelago is both a beautiful tiny island, as well as the collective body of islands. A spore of cultural propagation expanding around this archipelago is coming forth as another predicate, replacing the tradition of discourse we have enjoyed using, such as hybrid or multiculture of the past.