1. Briefly, what is the concept of the project with which you have applied / what artist/artists have you proposed?

2. What is the motivation for applying for the Romanian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale?

3. What are, in your opinion, the qualities that would meet the organizers’ requests and that your project possessed?

4. If you were invited to be a member of the jury for the next edition, how would you improve the evaluation procedure?

1. KM – Model of a project
Knowledge Museum/ Muzeul Cunoaşterii
An interdisciplinary research displayed in the entire space.

2. a) At the proposal of Raluca Voinea, I said to myself why not, the political context was a little bit more normal in January 2007.
I wanted to make a statement (which I think is urgent and important).
b) I wanted to check how the mainstream is thinking, how they select the proposals, who… why…

3. The project did not coincide with the requests of the organizers.

4. I would insist for:
Transparency
Selection criteria
Method
Probably it wouldn’t change much because:
The Romanian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale is a business in the Romanian, « expired » style
The Biennial is not approached in a professional way
The competition is announced late
There is no allocated budget
There are no professional criteria for the approach, selection, presentation
The jury, with small exceptions, has the same members – the always present Hăulică was replaced with the always present Oroveanu, and many members of the jury do not have the necessary expertise.

Lia Perjovschi