Interview with David Elliott

Two days after the opening of the First Kyiv International Biennale of Contemporary Art, ArtAsiaPacific caught up with its artistic director, David Elliott, for his reflections on a triumphant, if somewhat chaotic, occasion.

So why was this the right time for Kyiv to host a biennale?

They said they wanted one! I liked the site very, very much, and I thought, well yeah, that could be really great. A biennale is really just an exhibition of contemporary art and, like other exhibitions, there are bad biennales and good ones.

But some places need another exhibition, and some don’t.

Yes, but Kyiv hasn’t had a big exhibition of international art ever. It’s got Victor Pinchuk battling away, with his displays of Hirsts, Gurskys and Kapoors and all the rest of it. It’s great that he’s opened up an audience for contemporary art in Ukraine, but it’s not a huge space, and it’s a very particular kind of art—one that is securely niched in the market. The Biennale is an entirely different proposal, which is actually about what artists do in different places in the world—it’s not about market value; it’s about other values.

There are a lot of stakeholders in a biennale. Has it been a struggle to avoid their expectations of values that are perhaps more familiar?

Well there have been no attempts to censor me—or at least if there were some slightly covert attempts to pressure me, I was supported by the Arsenale in rebuffing them. They were very decent in that respect!

You mentioned in the press conference that you wanted to select art that was “adult” about the problems confronting the world. What were you looking for that had that sort of seriousness?

Yup, well there were really three things involved. One was the concept behind the biennale, but then, within that, quality is absolutely paramount. You wouldn’t want to show artists if you have any doubt at all about their work. Then of course there is the Arsenale itself—the physicality of this building. And there’s Kyiv, and its tumultuous history during the twentieth century. But before that the area was really cosmopolitan, and had been for many thousands of years—constantly being occupied and unoccupied. Today there is some surprise about people from further East, but there shouldn’t be, because they’ve been marching through here for centuries, with all that entails. . .

And have you found artists and curators enthused by the range of Asian artists you’ve brought in?

Certainly. People from around here have seen nothing like it, but then they haven’t seen anything much else than a few art stars, so that’s their view of contemporary art. But there is a lot of talk here about theory and collectives—it’s all very socially engaged. It’s a generational thing, made up of people in their late 20s to mid-30s who came of age at the time of the Orange Revolution. But it’s diverse too—there’s quite a bit of street art, which we’ve included.

Is there a market?

I don’t know about that, but there are some very good galleries! It’s sort of unfair to mention just one, but an example is Ya Gallery, which has bases in Dnipropetrovsk and Lviv, as well as here. I don’t know if they’re making any money, but they’re getting stuff out; they’ve got very good artists, and they’ve got good taste! So it’s certainly not a desert. It would be so dispiriting if it was, and I’m certainly not dispirited. And it’s not just about art, it’s also about something else. I really do think it’s about another life after years and years; moving from the Soviet system to a different one, and wondering what that new system might be. There is a strong political center that deeply believes in open discussion and political freedom, and more interaction with outside. It’s a struggle, but I think they are really trying hard.

So do you think you might come back to Kyiv?

Well, you know with biennales, I don’t think you should piss in the same place twice. If you do it well, you’ve kind of shot your load, because you’re making something special. And it’s all here in this  biennale, which is probably why the organisers have found it so hard. If we’d just had lots of concessions and lots of TV sets on plinths, we’d have had no problem at all, but forget that—if you want to have a proper show then you have a proper show. It’s what they wanted, and okay, it’s been a bit tough but their attitude has been to get it right. When doing it again they’ll need slightly different ways of doing things, and that’s fair enough. You find out these things the hard way.

So how is the installation now? Are the bits that weren’t up all done? There were rumours of withdrawals at the opening.

Yup, I think it’s 95 percent done. They’re working on the last two or three things, including bits looking at the post-Soviet condition and Chinese attempts today to digest the Cultural Revolution that weren’t clear when you were here. There was only one withdrawal and that was because of an administrative cock-up. As I said they have to learn the hard way. But only once!

And are you still happy balancing the freedoms and burdens of being an independent curator? Do you ever feel you want your old support structures back?

Being independent you work a bloody sight harder—people in museums, God, they have such an easy life! But it all depends. I was able to do exhibitions when I was in Stockholm and Tokyo that would still be unthinkable in British institutions. It’s great to have a support structure if you use it dynamically. You could never accuse the Tate of doing that!