Comments on: Death in Venice, Part II

Comments on: Death in Venice, Part II http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/06/29/death_in_venice_part_ii/ Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo. Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:06:59 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Eric Fredericksen http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/06/29/death_in_venice_part_ii/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Eric Fredericksen Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:19:26 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/06/29/death_in_venice_part_ii/#comment-83 I'm uncomfortable with the unexamined notion, here and in Mr. Knight's piece, that the Venice Biennale is an "opportunity" that can be lost (Knight) or a "spotlight" that can be denied someone (Lacayo); or, at least, that anyone but an artist should see it thus. Art does not serve the artist, and a pavilion at the Venice Biennale should not be allocated based on "need" (Knight). It also occurs to me the selection of the work of an artist whose career was cut short prematurely is a brave, even politically potent choice. If Gonzales Torres had not been felled by AIDS, he'd be under 50 years old today, very likely still making significant new work. That his work speaks so strongly to the times is reason enough to select it. I'm uncomfortable with the unexamined notion, here and in Mr. Knight's piece, that the Venice Biennale is an "opportunity" that can be lost (Knight) or a "spotlight" that can be denied someone (Lacayo); or, at least, that anyone but an artist should see it thus. Art does not serve the artist, and a pavilion at the Venice Biennale should not be allocated based on "need" (Knight).

It also occurs to me the selection of the work of an artist whose career was cut short prematurely is a brave, even politically potent choice. If Gonzales Torres had not been felled by AIDS, he'd be under 50 years old today, very likely still making significant new work. That his work speaks so strongly to the times is reason enough
to select it.

]]>