Art Biennial of "Europe" and "Asia": Comparison Between Manifesta European Art Biennial and Fukuoka Asian Triennale

Today the number of art biennials are estimated between 80 and 140 around the world. The art biennial itself is “European” considering its history, but many non-European cities, which had been recognized as “periphery” in the contemporary art world, started to host art biennials since 1990s. This phenomenon has been often discussed as marketing and promotion of the city in the neoliberal globalized world. However I am wondering if it is possible to discuss “art biennials” as a monolithic entity. Then, what is really happening in the name of “art biennial”? This research studies the development of art biennials and compare Fukuoka Asian Art Triennial in Japan and Manifesta European Art Biennial as case studies to analyze how the notion of “Europe” and “Asia” are entangled with their contemporary art practice. On one hand Manifesta tries to expand the scope of Europe with including the former Eastern Block; on the other FT tries to establish local values against those symbolized with “modern Europe”. What kind of project is conceived with using the word Europe or Asia, which is more than a mere geographical entity? Both Europe and Asia are concepts which have been changing its meaning, scope and power dependent on the actors who use them. It is necessary to examine the politics of these concepts to clarify the global prevalence of “art biennials”.