Whitney Biennial season has arrived, and the 2014 edition’s unusual three-curator structure appears to have produced one notable outcome: critics, who usually rush to deliver the harshest verdict, have been forced to step back and treat each floor almost like a separate exhibition. In this week’s installment of Critical Reduction, we count no fewer than nine reviews of the 103-artist show.
In the New York Times, Holland Cotter finds the biennial dull, even as he spends much of his review discussing the many works that did hold his attention. At moments, he says, the exhibition feels little different from an art fair.
The mixed critical response underscores just how sprawling and uneven this year’s Whitney Biennial has been perceived to be. Rather than inspiring a single, unified reaction, its divided presentation has encouraged reviewers to assess each section on its own terms.
That fragmented structure has also helped shape the debate around the exhibition, with commentators weighing individual rooms and floors against one another. For better or worse, the format has become part of the story of the biennial itself.
