I was saying to someone just earlier today that I thought that Ed Ruscha was not the best choice for the American pavillion at the 2005 Venice Biennale. Not because he's not fantastic—he is—but he's had such an extraordinary amount of exposure over the last two years. (Well, maybe not in Venice.) Moreover, several not-insignificant problems emerged for the American pavillion last year, when its traditional sponsors vacated and withdrew their funding, leading the National Endowment of the Arts to delay and then cancel the convening of the selection committee. (The Department of State and the Guggenheim, which owns the pavillion property, eventually sorted it all out.) I idly speculated that circumstances made for a safe choice, and I'll sort of still stand by that.
But it hardly matters. His interview with the LAT inspires my confidence in the decision. And intrigue about what he'll do. Definitely Ruscha will be an artist with whom everyone at the event will be familiar and who probably won't be championing the newest modes on the American contemporary front. But if you've ever been to the Biennale, you know that most of the art is wretched, so it's not so terrible to get a guy in there who will undoubtedly raise the bar. (And it couldn't be said that Robert Gober did the same for the AmPav at the Biennale I attended—it's already so embarassing to be abroad as an American without feeling a vague sense of shame about the work of your nation's art Olympian.)
Posted by Kriston at May 17, 2005 5:38 PMi think you're right on both counts (the possibility that he was a safe choice and that he'll prove a success). i saw the ruscha exhibit at MOCA in LA and the slightly different version at the national gallery, and i have to say that even with overexposure, he's especially american, and multifaceted at that.
Posted by: scott at May 18, 2005 11:03 AMHe may be representing the US there, but he's also representing Venice (California).
Posted by: David at May 18, 2005 4:04 PM> And it couldn't be said that Robert Gober did the same for the AmPav at the Biennale I attended—it's already so embarassing to be abroad as an American without feeling a vague sense of shame about the work of your nation's art Olympian.
Ahh... I've had Gober on the brain of late.
The 2001 Biennale was my introduction to his work and I was less ashamed at the time than flabbergasted by its awfulness—the absolute low point of the Giardini for me (and I never made it to the Arsenale).
My illustration teacher at the time, a bitchy little American ex-pat whose own work tended toward the unfortunate (and his tastes toward the conservative), declared that there hadn't been a good showing from the US since Jasper Johns in '88. In a bit of counterpoint back stateside, a modern and contemporary curator at an institution that will remain nameless told me that, while she didn't quite "get" his work herself, she respected it because... well, because people who know about this sort of thing were way into it. (And above all, she said, showing Gober was a sign of healthy ambition... not like past years when we played it safe—like '88, when we tapped Jasper Johns, of all people.)
Since that time I've become marginally more familiar (through reproduction of course) with some of his works beyond that achingly literal Plunger à la Abner Louima and that ridiculous cellar door, and it's enough to make me wonder if there's something to Gober beyond his Virgin of the Culvert Pipe. I've wondered, too, in retrospect whether I just didn't get it, whether I was unprepared or too easily dismissive... whether, if I were to see it now, I might find a different appreciation for it.
In that light, it's nice to find someone else (albeit another relative young'un) backing up my first impressions.
Posted by: Dan at May 19, 2005 7:25 PM