Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Venice Biennale is introduced as 'important' and 'prestigious' visual arts event 'ever'.
Singapore is invited to participate. But not many people know that 'national' pavilions are costly and artists are chosen by the participating country and hence, validated by the country.
Debbie say only... mission not accomplished.
Venice Biennale consists of two curated sections at the Arsenale and Giardini and national pavilions. There is some unspoken competition with each other.
Hence, Singapore taking a pavilion in Venice Biennale is seen as a declaration of having arrived at a certain level of cultural power
or rather seen as having an ambition towards such an 'arrival'.
'Creative' generation? None of the 3 artists claim to be 'creative' but seems that the programme writer can only say this much about their art practice and artwork.
Noticed that the artists interviewed are never seen in the same shot with the hosts?
That's because they are not there in the interviews, the hosts kind of fill in and 'act' like they were actually interviewing the artists. Strange.
Why do they waste time on being funny? I wonder.
Does this even make art easier to understand?