The Whitney Biennial is Horrible: Part 2

Here are some more thoughts...

1.  Its not that the art is horrible (I'm not saying it was good either), its the curation of the exhibition.  Most of the art has no room to breath.  The 2010 Biennial really utilized each gallery, nook and cranny to envelope the viewer and focus our attention from artist to artist.  That worked!

2.  There was little diversity in the show.  The exhibition contained too much of the same kind of work and after awhile you felt as though you were walking through an immense solo show.  If there had been a wider range of styles and mediums of art it would richen the viewers experience of each piece.

3.  The Biennial claims to "provide a look at the current state of contemporary art in America".  Firstly, I think they under represented painting, drawing, photography ... etc. in American art.  Secondly, if its true that this is the current state of contemporary art in America then they must  have a poor opinion of American artists... and that's just plain wrong... there are plenty of great young artists out there.

4.  Instead of claiming to represent art in America they should come forward and say that they represent conceptually based art in America.  At least that way people like me wouldn't be so agitated.

5.  The Whitney, like all art museums, should be places of high standards... a venue that can be trusted to exhibit only the best art.  If The Whitney continues to show mediocre art then why pay $20 when you could see must better work for free in Chelsea and the Lower East Side?

6.  If the museum really wants to show work that's different and original stop exhibiting art that "reeks of art".  That's whats been happening for decades already and its become way too predictable.  Surprise us next time!