DEC13_SUPERDUPERFINAL

Ratia Mufida (Biennale Jogja) revealed that Biennale Jogja started
as one of Yogyakarta’s provincial government programs. It evolved
through numerous names and models of implementation. Following
the dynamics of the Yogyakarta art scene its format changed from
painting to installation. In 1992 there was an event called Binal
Express put up by young people who did not agree with the format of
an earlier biennale organized by the government. In the 90s the artist
went international when they got invited to Australia and Japan. In
order to transform Biennale Jogja into an international one, some
people took up the initiative of setting up an organization called
Yogyakarta Biennale Foundation. As a result of which, discourse on
art became more dynamic.
Unchalee contended theirs was the first biennale in Bangkok. After
they set up one came a deluge of biennales. These were: Bangkok
Art Biennale, Thailand Biennale, Triennial or Ghost 2561, and
Painnale. The reason why there were so many was because when
Apina Posyanada, an important figure in local part announced
Bangkok Art Biennale everybody else said, “We’re gonna resist”
because they considered this “a challenge to the authorities of access
to representation in art.”
Easily the most colorful among the three speakers was wearer of
many hats, Carlos Celdran (Manila Biennale) the self-proclaimed
Intramuros artist- in- residence, who believed that the amount
of money the biennale earned as well as the acceptance of the
community it served was the measure of its success, not the amount
of reviews from art magazines. In terms of these, he believed he was
successful because he changed the lives of the community he served
for the better. Thus, the Intramuros calesa drivers earned so much
money they were able to buy a horse from their earnings which
they named Biennale. The vendors were also able to increase their
earnings until a writer spread the fake news that Manila Biennale
was charging P5,000 per person. This, despite the fact that if one
researched there were days where one could get in for free while
for a P80.00 ticket one could actually watch movies, do immersive
theater, attend an arts or performance art festival and see attractions
like Felix Bacolor’s Thirty thousand Liters on Duterte’s drug war or
Latvian artist Aljars Bikse’s The Red Slide.
Unfortunately, because the Supreme Court’s upheld his prison
sentence of a year, a month and eleven days in jail, his Manila
Biennale might very well be his last since he was leaving the country.
Consequently, he was passing on his Manila Biennale to Patrick
Flores who believed a good biennale was one that was sympathetic
with what was good for a better world.
Considering its controversial subject matter, the session on
Censorship, Conflict and Complicity drew one of the biggest
attendees from its 400 participants. Moderated by Merv Espina of
Green Papaya, it called attention to the “pursuance of independent
cultural initiatives, particularly of the festival format, despite
the internal challenges and external contradictions, including
interactions with institutions like the government and the market.”
Its speakers were Nguyen Quoc Thanh and Thanh Qui Chi of
Nha San Collective, Cheryl Anne del Rosario of Ang Panublion
and Alejandro Deoma of Escalante Massacre Commemorative
Foundation.
Nguyen Quoc Thanh focused on two things in their presentation:
negotiation with the state and the art and culture institutions that
belong to the state and exchange of knowledge between all parties.
Thanh Qui Chi on the other hand, zeroed in on the success and
failures of three of their larger projects. These were In: Act, a
performance art festival, Skylines With Flying People, and their most
complex project: Queer Forever. He contended that censorship
did not define their work and it concerned them only when they
needed to find ways to present the work to the public. From their
experience they had always found ways to navigate the organization
of the exhibit because their laws and the actual implementation of
censorship were quite ambiguous and depended on content and
situation. He pointed out that their presentations were based on
164