If you take a survey course in the history of twentieth century art at most universities in this country, there is typically minimal, if any, substantial recognition of the art of totalitarian states. One exception I recall from my own art education was a survey course in the art of Asia in the past century, where it was unavoidable. But the generic line for most surveys of Modern to Contemporary Art follows different sorts of formalism into more thematic or identity-based art practices. Most textbooks on twentieth century art tend to be organized around these lines. Along the way, the two Futurisms (Fascist and Marxist) will pop up, Surrealism’s extremely dubious political implications may arise, the anarchistic aspects of Realism, Expressionism, or Dada may be mentioned, and so on. By the time you get to the 1960s, this more “activist” side then gets exploited as part of the genealogy that leads to the more seemingly overt political art that follows from the 1960s. The art of the Na...
It would not occur to us to demand a prescription for nostalgia. Yet in the seventeenth century, nostalgia was considered to be a curable disease, akin to the common cold. Swiss doctors believed that opium, leeches and a journey to the Swiss Alps would take care of nostalgic symptoms. By the twenty-first century, the passing ailment turned into the incurable modern condition. The twentieth century began with a futuristic utopia and ended with nostalgia. Optimistic belief in the future was discarded like an outmoded spaceship sometime in the 1960s. Nostalgia itself has a utopian dimension, only it is no longer directed toward the future. Sometimes nostalgia is not directed toward the past either, but rather sideways. -- Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (2001) I will preface this with an obvious statement. When reviewing a biennial, one is not reviewing the works as they exist autonomously, but how they exist as part of a collective curation. Even with the demarcation by author...