11 paragraphs

11 paragraphs: A brief exploration of the Liverpool Biennial Press Release.

One month on from the beginning of the third Liverpool Biennial of Modern Art and the local press, the broadsheets and the new tertiary level of rehashed, reproduced internet wordage is pretty much out of the way.

We now await the 'considered view' from the expert niche journals, various lifestyle mags and of course, the commissioned writers of Press Corps.

So what have we learnt from the event so far?

Well, we can see that the majority of the press led on the Yoko Ono story (currently responsible for 70% of all headlines relating to the Biennial [source: www.presscorps.org.uk]). However, the John Moores painting exhibition, the red house dedicated to ABBA, the BOMB, and the BALLROOM all receive their fair share of coverage.

This is no fluke. The Press Release sent out by the Liverpool Biennial 'informs' the reading journalists and broadcasters in the first paragraph what they will be expected to cover. This is of course the art of the Press Release, it informs and dictates at the same time, a textual meritocracy of sorts. Paragraph 1 is top of the hierarchical chain, this is the passage to hook them in, the signifier portal. The rest of the text matters, but not as much as Paragraph 1, and so it reads, "Paintings selected by Jarvis Cocker, a house on the Mersey dedicated to ABBA, a bomb suspended above a street, dancing in the infinity ballroom, and a new commission from Yoko Ono - just some of the highlights of Liverpool Biennial 2004."

All of these items, with the exception of Jarvis's selection, are part of the International section of the Biennial.

It is also worth noting that the subsequent piece written by the invited journalist/writer or the film produced by a TV company will normally be syndicated for reproduction to other media outlets, for a fee. This is why we see the celebrity highlighted immediately, because it sells. As an example, Press Corps analysis shows the Yoko Ono (A list) story being covered on all continents, via both mainstream and niche outlets.

Paragraph 2 highlights, in order of significance, the production of Britain's art graduates (New Contemporaries), a thirty-foot ICE BERG (International) a work that didn't even materialise and the UK's longest running painting prize (The John Moores).

Paragraph 3 introduces the third Biennial in more detail. We are told that "the character and culture of Liverpool lie at the heart of the Biennial", and that the show is delivered by the city's "major visual arts organisations, Tate, Walker, Bluecoat and FACT as well as smaller galleries and some surprising alternative spaces." Just as celebrity matters in press-land coinage, size also matters and in this case equates to cultural capital and importance. However, this is not 'actual' size but 'perceived' size as the likes of the Static Gallery and the new independent district galleries are far bigger than the Bluecoat and FACT in terms of public art space (the public gallery space in the Bluecoat equates to approx 15% of the overall complex, in FACT, the actual gallery space, the non-paying elements of the building represent less than 10% of the usable public space, a project which received 95% public funding), yet these spaces are still referred to as "smaller" or "surprising alternative spaces." 'Alternative' in all cases referring to the Independents section of the Biennial, the part that hasn't been mentioned yet in the Press Release, yet it is the part of the Biennial that is most often used as spin by local politicians and art bosses to show that there is indeed a 'vibrant, edgy grassroots element to the show'. Edginess in this case meaning cultural capital of a different type, a definition that demonstrates inclusiveness, that counteracts the proposal of elitism and promotes the virtues of variety and thus echoes the city's newly found cultural identity, one that suggests it is in actual fact a 'world in one city' (logo of the European Capital of Culture bid).

It is also worth noting that all galleries in the Biennial are free of charge with one exception, Tate.

The end of paragraph 3 concludes, "Energy and creativity define the Biennial's programme." We are then informed that there is indeed a fourth section of the Biennial. The Independents have arrived, although only briefly.

Paragraph 4 promotes the International. It informs the reader that this is "the critical focus of the Biennial…with 40 artworks newly commissioned." The intention therefore is to inform the reader that 'critical' and 'new' are the remit of the International strand. A slightly misleading view. A view however that seems to have hit home with the journalists, as we can now announce that to date, the International has accounted for 65% of wordage written about the Biennial, with the remaining strands listed as follows: New Contemporaries 16%, John Moores 14% and the Independents 5%.

The paragraph also describes the commissioning process that "emphasises research of the city as a context for the artworks, and the development of the relationship between the artist and the organisation or community in which it is placed. Researchers Sabine Breitwieser (Vienna), Yu Yeon Kim (New York), Cuauhtémoc Medina (Mexico City) and Apinan Poshyananda (Bangkok), proposed artists whose practice has an affinity for Liverpool’s culture."

This paragraph ensures that the structure of the Biennial is now also seen as relevant in terms of reviewing an art exhibition. It is not an adjunct, it is intrinsic and no reviewer can review a piece of work without this knowledge. That is the conclusion drawn by the fact that it is in the press release. We need to know that there were four researchers who passed on the 'baton' containing the names of forty artists to the curators of the city's leading arts organisations, who in turn curated the already selected show.
The inclusion of this item ensures that less is written about the work of the artists.

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 respectively quickly run through a brief history and explanation for the Independents, the John Moores and the Bloomberg New Contemporaries.

With one important difference, again, the text for the John Moores and the New Contemporaries relies upon the insertion of the name, the celebrity or the star in order to accrue its global word currency. The five judges of the John Moores are named: "Ann Bukantas, the Walker's curator of Fine Art; Jarvis Cocker, Musician and Collector of Contemporary Art; Gill Hedley, Director of the Contemporary Art Society; Callum Innes Artist and former John Moores prizewinner; and Gavin Turk, Artist." Similarly, on reading the New Contemporaries section, we are informed that "Curator Kate Bush and Artists Dinos Chapman, Tacita Dean and Brian Griffiths", have selected this year’s exhibition.

This allows the press to name names.

The Independents have no names, no stars, no celebs.

Described as a "medley of exhibitions generated by artists, architects, filmmakers and other practitioners", the emphasis on the Independents is unlike the other three strands in that it has no visible attention points. It is general and confused and even its one specific 'name' happens not be an artist but the organisation who part funds it (or doesn't part fund it as the case may be), the afoundation. The text speculates on the "variety of venues, ranging from existing galleries, to temporary spaces in disused buildings, and the new Independent District", then firmly locates the show in the unwanted region of parochialism, the opposite cultural condition of Internationalism, by stating that the Independent "provides a platform for the region’s artists to exhibit their own work and to present art from the UK and abroad".

This text ensures that this work is either seen as 'of the local' or to have been selected 'by the local'. It does not consider that the work produced or curated can be international.

The concluding four paragraphs rely upon quotations from the main players, Lewis Biggs
Chief Executive of Liverpool Biennial, City Council Leader Mike Storey, CBE, and Peter Mearns, NWDA Director of Marketing, with one paragraph being dedicated to the principle sponsors.

Biggs not unwisely states that the "Liverpool Biennial gives an adrenalin boost to the bloodstream of the city, one dose every two years…..Liverpool residents and visitors from wherever can enjoy art within and beyond the museum walls, and can even become part of the UK’s largest visual art event." Cultural injection of capital and we can all join in. The fact that this happens every two years has raised the question of what actually happens in between the "adrenalin boost", widely regarded as a slinky metaphor which may also stand for kick-start or even resuscitation.

Mike Storey, presumably having just read the Press Release that had landed on his table, states that the Biennial "examines, explores and expresses all the weird and wonderful things that make Liverpool so unique. I can't wait to see the ABBA House and Iceberg installation in particular (ABBA and ICEBERG)." In an expression of city patriotism that can presumably only make the Biennial hierarchy sit uncomfortably for printing such clichéd views, Storey declares that "The Biennial is as quintessentially Liverpool as the Liver Birds, the Mersey, football and The Beatles."

Clichés aside, are we therefore to conclude from these brief observations that the amount of column space per Biennial strand directly equates to the selected information given in the official Press Release? Or is it a reflection of the budgets available to each strand? Or is it the case that as the Biennial is charged with the responsibility to promote and coordinate all four strands as the 'umbrella organisation', that in effect, they have used their position to promote their project, the International strand, more than the rest? Or is it just the case that far from questioning why the press write mostly about the International, we should consider that their view is relevant and objective, in that the free-press saw the whole Biennial but in fact chose to write about one particular strand more than the others?

It is also argued now that the inclusion of Yoko Ono's work has been excellent for the Biennial, in that it has caused controversy and has filled column inch space and TV reportage on an international level. As one local journalist pointed out "at least an old granny sitting in Solihull has now heard of the Biennial." A great piece of marketing for the Biennial and Liverpool. However, the counter argument is that the inclusion (or lets be specific, it was the decision to show the work 'My mummy was beautiful' - which shows two photographic images, one of a female breast and one of the female pubis – widely across the city on banners and Biennial bags which made the work controversial. If the piece had been shown in a gallery context, the story wouldn't have existed) of Ono's work has turned the Biennial into a one trick pony at the expense of a serious critique of the overall impact of the event and work undertaken.

There is also the accusation that the press had pretty much written their reviews before even arriving in Liverpool. This is an area that Press Corps will be investigating more fully over the coming month but it is clear that many of the broadsheets have not only followed the template of the 2004 Press Release, but they have also shadowed each others articles, counteracting or agreeing with certain observations or stereotypes, or even jostling their egos a little as many of them actually suggest that they indeed should be on the next John Moores jury.

As a historical footnote, the Press Release for the 2002 Biennial emphasised the 'challenge of art and the Biennial to act as a force for regeneration', and cited the importance of winning European Capital of Culture. It has generally been considered by media observers that this was the lead that was picked up on by much of the written press, to the detriment of the actual artists. In effect, the art was if not secondary to, at least equal in importance to the cause that it was representing. The problem was that no one told the artists.

Therefore, on one level it shows the power and directness of the Press Release to get to where it needs to go in order for the issues contained within it to be circulated widely, irrespective of whether those issues are out of context, or of the opinion of the organisation who sends it, rather than the opinion of the artists that it purportedly represents. In some ways, it could be argued that the journalist is the instrument of distribution, the thing that sits in-between the press officer and the public they seek to reach. On another level, it demonstrates that if the press follow the key indicators of the Press Release without subsequent interrogation, they are not necessarily being critical of the work on show but are in effect responding to the propositions and sentiment contained within the text, a complaint that has been aired widely especially by artists and organisers during both the 2002 and the 2004 Biennials.

Paul Sullivan

Press Corps 2004
http://www.presscorps.org.uk

Visit http://www.biennial.org.uk/news_release9.htm for the original Biennial press office Press Release.