Abstract

As part of a remarkable wave of perennial contemporary art events in Thailand, the Bangkok Biennial was organised for the first time in 2018. Without central curation or funding, the organisational strategy of this artist‐led, open‐access event was strikingly different from the state‐organised Thailand Biennale and the corporate Bangkok Art Biennale that were inaugurated several months later. Through the eyes of the literature on “commoning” as a third way of organising next to the state and market, we explore the “common spaces” that the Bangkok Biennial has produced. Reflecting on arguments articulated in the introduction to this thematic issue, as well as on Chantal Mouffe’s analysis of the detrimental nature of an “exodus strategy” for counter‐hegemonic action, we focus on the connections—if any—of the Bangkok Biennial with the state and corporations. Specifically, we address the following research questions: What are the characteristics of the Bangkok Biennial as a common art event? Which connections with the state and market have its organisers developed? And what are the consequences of this strategy for its sustainability and counter‐hegemonic potential? We conclude that the organisers have consciously resisted developing relationships with the state and market, and argue that this “exodus strategy” is a necessity in Thailand’s socio‐political setting. And while this strategy might endanger the sustainability of this biennial as an art event, we argue that at the same time it supports an infrastructure for counter‐hegemonic action inside and—possibly more importantly—outside art.

Highlights

  • Issue This article is a part of the issue “The Politics and Aesthetics of the Urban Commons: Navigating the Gaze of the City, the State, the Market” edited by Peer Smets (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Louis Volont (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • We do so through the following research questions: What are the characteristics of the Bangkok Biennial as a common art event? Which connections with the state and market have its organisers developed? And what are the consequences of this strategy for its sustainability and counter‐hegemonic potential?

  • We show that the organisers behind this biennial have deliberately resisted engagement with the state and market, arguing that this is a necessity in Thailand’s socio‐political context

Read more

Summary

Introduction

“Why ‘biennial’ and not ‘biennale’? The two words mean the same thing, just in different languages. We aim to reflect on the counter‐hegemonic potential of these common art initiatives vis‐à‐vis the state and market in Thailand. Following the discussion of Volont and Smets (2022) in the introduction to this thematic issue, we will especially focus on the relationships that the Bangkok Biennial organisers have established with the state and corporations. After all, as these authors have pointed out (Volont & Smets, 2021), while establish‐ ing such relationships might risk appropriation of com‐ mon practices, without them the sustainability of com‐ mon spaces is at risk. Throughout, we stress the importance to study biennials and other commoning art practices as “art” events, but to instead place these events in the world, and to broaden the scope of analysis beyond contemporary art and its institutions

Contemporary Art in Thailand
Researching the Bangkok Biennial
The Bangkok Biennial and Its Pavilions
The Necessity of an Antagonistic Approach
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call