The Whitney Biennial 2008
Point of Saturation

Kofi Fosu Forson


Were we at once included in this the thinning of the process, named marketability, programmable means of entertainment, celebrity and fame, art would be a nuisance.

Was it not those who found favor with art programs at an earlier stage, pushing fundamentals of art appreciation that conclusively felt the establishment Whitney Museum of American Art catered to a sophistication best defined as a quandary?

What has become of The Whitney Biennial is neither a revelation nor should it be a renouncement of what is American art and more so the burgeoning linked to art overall as privilege, class and whitewashing.

The Whitney Biennial 2008 was plainly and simply an effort that met its desires and pre-requisites. Ironically I was in favor of it as an acknowledgement which out-rightly removed any notion meant to reprieve the forecasting made vocal by a public which continue to express a vilification about art’s end.

Seemingly art has been transferred from an allocation of genres and or movements to a disciplined philosophy. This can be estimated as the systematization and method by which language and semiotics has manifested.

The Whitney Biennial 2008 in my eyes was successful as an understatement. Without any repercussions it can be said biennials never gratify what in terms is desirable as fine art. Progressively The Whitney Biennial has reached a point of saturation as compared with the several years past which left more of an impression on me.

This is due to the transference of intellectual light justifiable within marketing, advertising and art not as product but reviewable in conscientious output. Much of this can still be found in genres such as video, film and installations.

I think back to a show at The Jewish Museum in the late nineties made by Israeli artists in the post Rabin era.

Will art ever make us bleed intellectually ever again?

I think so. Just render a notion of class, philosophy and pate.