"But the notion of the Guggenheim controlling US representation rubs some people the wrong way; many feel that allowing this would travesty the democratic process."
"Guggenheim may gain control of US pavilion at 2005 Venice Biennale by default" in The Art Newspaper (link via ArtsJournal.)
I can't imagine any grounds for concern. Besides, the Guggenheim's leadership is renown for its integrity, management skill and judgment. What a mess...
UPDATE: For those visiting from MAN, it's not that I have nothing good to say about Thomas Krens (I'm very grateful for his role in getting Mass MOCA started.) Nor do I think that the Guggenheim isn't justified in wanting some input, given their contribution to the US presence in Venice. But if it's a national pavilion, it should reflect a broader viewpoint than that of one museum. And the arrogance and poor management involved in drawing down the Guggenheim's endowment (or its Vegas adventure), as well as the low aesthetic quality of a number of its exhibitions, provide strong arguments for not leaving such a prominent venture in uncertain hands.
Comments