For Whom the Biennales Toll by Hyunjin Shin "Shifting Gravity," the first World Biennial Forum, took

place last October at Kim Daejung Convention Center in Gwangju. The title seemed to hint at the aim of the Gwangju Bienniale, now one of Asias premier events, to make its home city a center of gravity in the international art world. My prediction that this "shifting gravity" would be a power grab was bolstered by the speech given by The Belgian professor, Chantal Mouffe, famous for her theories on hegemony. But my guess turned out to be somewhat off. Hou Hanru and Ute Meta Bauer, who were responsible for the contents of the forum, explained that the theme given to the keynote presenters was a "new cosmopolitanism." New or old, cosmopolitanism certainly seemed more of a political term. The three scholars invited to give keynote presentations proceeded to hold forth on this very cosmopolitanism, discussing democracy, the globalized contemporary arts environment, and negotiating with reality. On the day one, literary historian Wang Huitalked about a contemporary environment of China where the democratization process, under the relatively recently adopted capitalist system, has triggered a loss in "representativeness" on the part of the government, which can no longer speak for the actuality of its society. Wang said, the state has failed to bring together the differences of the members of society. The following day, aesthetician Nikos Papastergiadis declared that the cosmopolitanism discussed today should be a different variation from the one advocated by Eric Hobsbawm. He pointed out the old cosmopolitanism in principle promoted equal rights for all citizens of the world. However, in practice, it took the form of a kind of assimilation of all members-like totalitarianism, if put it extremely. According to Papastergiadis, the "new" cosmopolitanism had to be something different, something that permits reality to be viewed from completely different view point. For instance, he presented case studies art works and artists that already practicing viewing from the different angles. He continued we can adopt their practices to explore the potentialities emerge from their attitudes. The next day saw Chantal Mouffeoffering a presentation fit for a political scientist, drawing on her logic of hegemony to introduce its mechanism through which even todays problematic forms, even neo-liberalism, are viewed as things that can eventually be overturned. Hegemony, she said, can certainly be changed, if we can just recognize the problems at hand and form the right questions that effectively points the "differences" we desire. Together, the three scholars was saying that in order to create new frameworks for us to survive in a society where socialism has crumbled away and capitalism has failed to achieve fair redistribution, we, and in particular our artists and biennials, must sit down at the bargaining table with reality, approaching it with the new cosmopolitan attitude and presenting our own versions of difference. Then, it is safe to say what they presented was to underscore the importance of this new cosmopolitan approach in exploring the potentiality of differences. However, at

the same time, speakers suggestions did not sound to offer specific enough topics on the table for biennial representatives who came here with an agenda to form a committee together. Wouldnt a specific topic have helped the event and representatives to speed along the objective of the event? After all, the gravity shift, Gwangjus aim, taking over the hegemony as a world leader, would seem to conflict with the cosmopolitan vision. And if the kind of different perspective Papastergiadis talked about came from an ontological perspective, which looks beyond those domains that can be represented by knowledge or put into language, then it could also be taken as a declaration that he did not intend to offer something and/or any course of specific direction within a concrete epistemology. By not proposing "something," he could also be sending a message of hope to the citizens/spectators who make up the community of differences. He might be telling potential communities that they have the right to choose from "differences" presented before them and have the authority on the decision making "what" that will be pursued. Still, given that these biennials can cost tens of millions of dollars, one can wonder if they can escape from the criticism and can free of burden proving they actually do what their moneys worth.

Whom Does the Bbiennale Represent? What the forum ultimately showed is these large-scale art events like biennials are played by the subjects/ several players who have different agendas and positions. First, one should realize that the keynote presentations represent the perspectives of one set of players, led by moderate elites of academics who provide biennials with content. They are only one set of players who represent the biennial event. Who are other players out there to lock their horns? Now is the time that they must come forward at the forum. At this years event, under the same theme as the Gwangju Biennale, had biennial officials gathered around round tables sharing details about their successes and concerns one after another. Some did so as chairmen, others as artistic directors, still others as administrators. Some emphasized aesthetic themes they chose, others effectiveness of their operations. Who are they? Who are the players in the biennials of the world? In Gwangjus case, is it the officers from the Biennale Foundation? Can one-time deal artistic directors serve as representatives even when they typically fade away after one finishes their respective exhibitions? . Is it right for the government or administrators to represent this gigantic art event since they supply the funds and they stay after the artistic directors are gone? Or is it proper to strip the representativeness away from artistic directors even though they shaped biennales programs? What about the visitors who pay taxes and admission for the biennales? Or the state governments and sponsors who hope to see the biennials bringing in tourist dollars to the city? If we take into account the demographics of the typical biennials, we can isolate the variables determining the future of the biennial: content providers such as the international discourse of cosmopolitanism, state officials with efficient management policy, and the differences that will be presented to viewers to choose. We can even put names on these players: the elite, the government, the spectator/citizen. As a result, the Biennial Forum is not an player working to shift the center of gravity, but an arena where these players fight it out for the gravitational force called hegemony.

Taking the Battle Field of the Three: the government, the elite, the citizen/ spectators Let me interests you with mock game simulation and recap of the forum played by aforementioned players divided into three teams. The Team No. 1 in the game consists of the scholars and the elite, who are looking for areas of improvement in modernism. Among them, the moderates are looking within the system to find solutions to the problem of hegemony among players, using the aforementioned differences and theories like cosmopolitanism. At the same time, they are working to protect experimental art (which has been suffering under a lack of support) and, as described above, defending diversity by advocating experiments with topics like difference to improve the ideals of democracy and humanism. In the Team No.1, Mouffe hints at a radical segment within the elites top roster as she described political scientists and sociologists like Giorgio Agamben, Antonio Negri, and Jacques Ranciere. While they agree with the idea of defending difference, they are more interested in reclaiming the authority of class, as identified with the citizens and laborers (spectators) who were once the objects of discrimination against ruling class. As a result, the viewers are now able to compete in modern art and the biennial arena as players of the Team No.2 in the formats in which they participate in relational aesthetic with art and share responsibility with government within their governance policies. Last, not the least is the Team No3, government. Nine out of 10 biennials take the name after their host city, and most of their funding comes from the host city and the national government. This high level of dependence means that it is difficult to imagine them being immune to interference from the (local) governments political agenda. Thus this Team No.3No .3 of this game is strongest and richest of them all. So following is how the competition looks: Once the opening ceremonies of the first World Biennial Forum ended, even more heated portion of the game started in the debate. From the Team No.1, Prof. Bae Hyeong-min opined that biennials and public art are turning into government tools for urban entertainment, arguing that the question of how to transcend this should be the focus of discussions at the forum. It was such a dazzling dribble from one of the star athletes. To my surprise, the cheering section of the Team No. 1 seemed to be too calm. They were busy arguing each other that while they have difficulty to go along with the idea of equating government led art events with an experimental art exhibition because they find those big and expensive government-sponsored cultural events too dumb and only tacky provocations, they also shouldnt simply dismiss them because such logic conflicts the cosmopolitan the logic of "difference." At this moment, one of the radical elite player from the Team No. 1 landed an own-goal by arguing that the citizen-spectators should be the ones defining what beauty is as well as choosing what is and isnt art. This added one more point to the Team No.2. Also this time the cheering squat for the Team No.1 still continue arguing instead of booing. The verdict from the stands announces that the own-goal was that of justice. Only the ones cheering for the Team No.2 began to scream and keep rolling in excitement convinced this was their match to win. Frustrated, the captain of the Team No.1 defended the own-goal, arguing that their defense of experimental art is as a necessary element, but not the greatest element. Then move on to attacking Team No. 3 Entertaining the public is not something for their benefit, but an affront to the development of

humankind and cultural diversity! The head of the Team No.3, a cultural policy researcher, replied with a grin. Experimental artists were always poor, he said, but they always managed to survive, and they would continue to do so. Because policy lumps the whole public together, new policy might cause reduction to grants for experimental art relying on their abstract promises to be helpful for human development in the long run. In other words, it is beyond HIS control about the fact that experimental art was not, could not, be a top priority. His comment blew the players of Team NO.1 so hard that their legs were sagging. They were about to lose consciousness when the referees whistle blew. Then calls the assistant referees for a consultation. It was told that they have discussed the political punch like that is something of a borderline when it comes to calling sportsmanship when he named so-called "experimental elite," in their disappointment at populist cultural policy, would feel bummed out when they get fewer grants. The same as that we acknowledge the scholars may express things out of for their own interest, we may admit a limit to particularity should also be recognized for policies crafted in language that are obliged to lump people into some abstract "public." But the public servants who use the money earmarked for policy are also human beings. Each player on the Team No.3 has no right to say their hands are tied because the policy is what it is. They are different from policies but actual human beings who interpret and allocate such fund to specific projects and expenditures after all. The referees returned to positions for the time being. After a while when a player from, Team No. 1 scorned the players of the Team No.3 have lousy, shallow taste again, the player No. 3 should not defend themselves saying that it reflects something from high above. Or, they should not have change their uniform into that of the Team No.2s while shouting that their taste is that of Team No. 2s. This is plainly a foul. And the chief referee, Rene Block, a Dutch veteran of biennale circle seems to agree. The referee decided to handed the Team No.3 a yellow card. "Keep this up," he said, "and were going to have to take the forum to a different country every time like the Olympics."