FIRSTS: When did fashion first appear?

Fashion is much older than the modern fashion industry. Long before fashion magazines, fashion houses, department stores or even the word “fashion” itself, people used clothing, textiles, jewelry, hairstyles, body decoration and color to express identity, status, wealth, religion, political power and belonging.

There was never one single history of fashion. Different societies developed their own systems, sometimes based on changing silhouettes and garments, sometimes on textiles, colors, patterns, layers, hairstyles or forms of body decoration. What we now call fashion emerged in many different ways and at different moments around the world.

Fashion can be just the way we dress. But it can also be about the new fashion: a need to look different from one's parents for example. The need to look different from last year and show we belong to a group that knows what should be worn now to be cool/hip/hot/fire (see below text for a definition of cool)***. However in modern times, when fashion change every year in terms of color of whether pants are narrow or flared, there has been a tendency to recycle our parents' fashion: in the 70s, the 40s look came back. In the 80s there was a reemergence of some 60s look. etc.

Here's a look at the history of fashion.

Prehistory: Clothing, Adornment and Identity

The earliest clothing was probably practical: animal skins, plant fibers and other available materials provided protection from cold, heat and the environment. But clothing and adornment quickly became more than protection.

Body painting, jewelry, hairstyles, feathers, shells, beads, scarification and other forms of decoration could communicate age, gender, social position, religious affiliation or membership in a particular community. In societies where relatively little clothing was necessary because of the climate, the decorated body itself could become the principal surface of fashion.

This distinction remains important throughout fashion history. Fashion is not necessarily about how much of the body is covered. It is about the ways people use appearance to communicate.

The Ancient World

By the time of the first great civilizations, clothing had become closely connected to social hierarchy.

In Egypt and Mesopotamia, clothing and jewelry distinguished rulers and elites from ordinary people. In the Mediterranean world, Greek and Roman clothing relied heavily on draped and wrapped garments rather than the fitted tailoring that would later become characteristic of European fashion.

India was developing its own sophisticated textile culture. From the Indus Valley civilization onward, Indian artisans became highly skilled at cultivating and weaving cotton and developing sophisticated dyeing techniques. Rather than relying primarily on cut-and-sewn garments, many Indian clothes were constructed through draping. The sari and dhoti represent traditions in which a length of fabric can be transformed into clothing through the way it is wrapped and arranged around the body.

China developed another crucial textile tradition: silk. Silk weaving became one of the defining technologies of Chinese civilization, and silk became a major marker of wealth and status. Chinese clothing was generally based on wrapped, T-shaped robes, but its appearance changed considerably from one historical period to another.

Meanwhile, across Africa, clothing and adornment developed in enormously diverse ways according to local climates, materials and cultures. Textiles, animal skins, hairstyles, scarification, pigments and jewelry could all communicate identity and social status.

In the Andes of South America, textile production was already extraordinarily sophisticated. The Paracas culture of coastal Peru, which flourished roughly between 800 and 100 BCE, produced highly elaborate textiles decorated with complex embroidery, figures and animals in many colors. Textiles were not simply clothing; they were objects of extraordinary artistic and social value.

500 BCE–500 CE: Textile Worlds Begin to Connect

As trade networks expanded, textiles and clothing began traveling farther across Asia, Africa and Europe.

The Silk Road connected China with Central Asia, the Middle East and eventually Europe. Silk, dyes, embroidery techniques and styles traveled along these routes together with people and ideas.

China's clothing changed significantly from dynasty to dynasty. Fashion did not necessarily operate through rapidly changing silhouettes in the modern Western sense. Instead, dynastic changes could bring major shifts in acceptable colors, forms and decoration.

India's textile production was becoming increasingly important to long-distance trade. Indian cotton was particularly significant because it could be woven into extraordinarily light fabrics suited to hot climates.

In Africa, different regions developed their own textile and adornment traditions. Clothing could be relatively minimal in hot climates, while elaborate hairstyles, body painting, scarification, jewelry and skins became important elements of appearance.

In the Andes, textiles were among the most valuable objects in society. Long before the Inca, sophisticated weaving traditions were already flourishing.

500–1000: China, Japan and the Cosmopolitan World

The Tang dynasty in China, from 618 to 907, produced one of the most cosmopolitan fashion cultures of the ancient world. The Silk Road brought China into contact with Central Asia and beyond, and the Tang capital became a major center of international exchange.

Women's clothing could be colorful and expressive, with high-waisted skirts, draped shawls and elaborate hairstyles and makeup. Fashion reflected the wealth and international connections of the period.

Japan developed its own sophisticated approach to fashion.

During the Heian period, from 794 to 1185, court dress became an elaborate art of layering. The famous jūnihitoe, or twelve-layer robe, was not simply about the quantity of clothing. The colors and combinations of the layers were carefully considered, with different combinations associated with seasons, flowers and other elements of the natural world.

This was fashion, even though it worked differently from the later European model. The cut of the basic garment changed relatively little; fashion could instead be expressed through color, layering, textiles and the subtle arrangement of the clothes.

Across Africa, kingdoms and communities continued to develop distinctive textile traditions, while trade across the Sahara and along the eastern coast connected African societies to wider commercial networks.

1000–1400: Medieval Worlds

By the medieval period, sophisticated clothing cultures existed across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.

In Europe, clothing was still primarily based on relatively simple shapes and draping, but this began to change dramatically in the fourteenth century.

In China, the Song dynasty, from 960 to 1279, saw a movement toward more restrained and modest clothing. Straight-cut garments and muted colors contrasted with the more exuberant fashions associated with the Tang period.

Japan's kosode, the ancestor of the modern kimono, was becoming an increasingly important garment. Its shape remained relatively simple, but textile patterns, colors and methods of layering could change considerably.

India continued to produce exceptional cottons, silks and dyed textiles. The sophistication of Indian textile production would eventually have enormous consequences for European fashion.

In Africa, textile traditions varied enormously. In West Africa, kingdoms developed sophisticated weaving industries. In the region that is now Ghana, the Ashanti developed kente, woven from narrow strips and assembled into larger textiles. Colors and patterns could communicate social and political meanings.

In Central Africa, the Kuba developed elaborate textiles from raffia fibers. These could be constructed into velvet-like surfaces with geometric designs and used to create dramatic ceremonial clothing.

In East Africa, barkcloth was produced by stripping and beating the inner bark of trees. Animal skins could also function as markers of status, with particular skins reserved for rulers, chiefs or warriors. The Fourteenth-Century Revolution: The Birth of Fashion in Europe

There was an important change in Europe during the early fourteenth century.

Upper-class European men's clothing began changing much more rapidly. Garments became shorter, more fitted and increasingly shaped to the body. Tailoring became more important, and clothing could now be cut into pieces designed specifically for an individual body.

Previously, valuable fabric was often treated as something to be draped around the body with relatively little cutting. The development of more sophisticated tailoring, together with buttons, lacing and other fastening systems, made it possible to create fitted garments.

The result was not simply new clothing. It was the beginning of a system in which styles could change rapidly enough for people to notice what was fashionable and what was no longer fashionable.

This is why historians often identify fourteenth-century Europe as the period when fashion, in the modern sense of rapidly changing styles, emerged. The word itself also evolved during this period. Fashion came into Middle English from Old French façon, meaning shape, manner or appearance, ultimately related to the Latin factio, meaning making or doing. The French expression la mode subsequently became associated with fashion as a collective system of changing styles.

Trade Creates Fashion

The new European fashion system depended on something larger than clothing itself: an increasingly sophisticated textile economy.

England and Spain produced large quantities of wool. Wool traveled to textile centers such as Flanders and Florence, where it could be washed, spun, dyed and transformed into luxury cloth.

Italian city-states such as Venice and Genoa were connected to trade routes reaching eastward. Silks, damasks and velvets entered European markets. The development of fashion therefore depended on international trade. New materials created new possibilities for clothing, while wealthy consumers created demand for increasingly elaborate garments.

Fashion also became an increasingly obvious way of displaying social status.

Sumptuary Laws: Who Was Allowed to Be Fashionable?

Rapidly changing fashion created a problem for societies organized around rigid social hierarchies. Wealthy merchants and urban residents could sometimes afford clothing that looked similar to what nobles wore. Governments responded with sumptuary laws: regulations specifying who could wear particular fabrics, colors, furs, jewelry or garments. In England, the Statute Concerning Diet and Apparel of 1363 attempted to regulate what different social groups could wear. The rules varied from place to place, but the underlying principle was similar: clothing should make social hierarchy visible.

The Black Death intensified the issue. The enormous loss of life created labor shortages, pushing up wages for some surviving workers. More people could afford better cloth and accessories, which made authorities even more concerned about maintaining visible distinctions between social classes. Fashion had therefore become both an economic activity and a social battleground. Fourteenth–Sixteenth Centuries: Fashion Becomes Global

While European fashion was becoming increasingly rapid and structured, other parts of the world were developing their own sophisticated fashion systems.

In China, the Ming dynasty, beginning in 1368, deliberately emphasized a return to forms associated with Han Chinese identity after Mongol rule. Clothing became highly structured, and rank could be communicated through details such as embroidered badges showing particular birds or animals.

China's long tradition of silk production made textiles central to status. Silk, brocade and elaborate embroidery could communicate wealth and political position.

In Japan, clothing continued to evolve through textiles, color and pattern rather than radical changes in basic garment construction.

In India, the Mughal Empire, established in 1526, brought Persian and Central Asian influences into contact with existing Indian traditions. Tailored garments such as the jama developed alongside Indian draped clothing. Court fashion incorporated elaborate embroidery, sashes, jewelry and luxurious textiles.

And in the Andes, the Inca Empire developed an exceptionally controlled clothing system.

Inca Fashion: Clothing as a Political System

For the Inca, textiles were among the most valuable commodities in the empire. Clothing communicated social position with extraordinary precision. Ordinary people wore awaska, a relatively coarse cloth made from llama wool. Elites could wear qompi, a remarkably fine textile made from alpaca or vicuña fiber. Royal garments could be decorated with tocapu: small geometric designs arranged in grids. These patterns communicated information about identity, lineage, military achievement or political status. The Inca state therefore used clothing not only to distinguish rich from poor but also to make the structure of the empire visible.

Sixteenth–Seventeenth Centuries: India Changes European Fashion

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Indian textiles became enormously important to global trade. European merchants, including Portuguese and British traders, exported Indian cotton textiles to Europe. Indian painted cottons, chintzes and calicos were light, colorful, washable and highly adaptable. European consumers became fascinated by them. Indian textiles did more than provide Europeans with new fabrics. They challenged existing European ideas about what fashionable clothing could look and feel like. The enormous popularity of Indian cottons eventually contributed to major changes in European textile production and consumption.

Seventeenth Century: Japan's Fashion Revolution

Japan experienced its own major fashion transformation during the Edo period, from 1603 to 1867.

The growth of cities such as Edo and Kyoto created a large urban consumer culture. A wealthy merchant class developed a taste for fashionable textiles even though the social hierarchy placed them below the samurai elite. Kabuki actors and courtesans became important fashion influencers. The government also attempted to regulate what people could wear. Merchants were sometimes prohibited from wearing expensive silk, gold embroidery and other obvious signs of luxury. The response was particularly Japanese: luxury could become deliberately hidden. The aesthetic known as iki favored understated outer clothing, sometimes made from plain, dark cotton or hemp, while expensive, brightly colored silk could be concealed inside the garment. Fashion had become a language of knowing what was expensive without necessarily showing it openly.

1644: The Qing Transformation of China

China experienced another dramatic break in 1644 when the Manchu established the Qing dynasty. The new rulers imposed important changes in dress. Men were required to shave the front of their heads and wear the long queue associated with Manchu rule. Clothing styles also shifted. Over the following centuries, Chinese dress continued to evolve. By the 1920s, in Shanghai, traditional Chinese clothing was being transformed through modern tailoring. The result was the fitted qipao, or cheongsam, which became one of the most recognizable forms of modern Chinese dress.

Eighteenth Century: Fashion Becomes an Industry

By the eighteenth century, European fashion was increasingly organized around court culture, urban consumers, textile manufacturers and specialized artisans. Fashion could change from season to season, and increasingly elaborate accessories became important. At the same time, European consumption was increasingly connected to the rest of the world. Indian cottons, Chinese silks and other imported textiles fed European tastes. Fashion was becoming an international economic system. But it was not yet a truly global fashion industry in the modern sense. That transformation would come with industrialization.

Nineteenth Century: Industrialization and Colonialism

The nineteenth century fundamentally changed how clothing was produced. Industrial textile manufacturing made fabric cheaper and more widely available. Mechanized spinning and weaving, improved transportation and eventually mass production transformed the relationship between fashion and ordinary consumers. Clothing could now be produced on a much larger scale.

At the same time, European colonialism profoundly affected clothing traditions around the world.

European dress was increasingly imposed or encouraged in colonized societies, while local clothing traditions were often reinterpreted through colonial ideas about class, modernity and respectability. But cultural influence did not move in only one direction. European fashion continued to depend on textiles, patterns, techniques and materials originating outside Europe.

Africa in the Nineteenth Century

African clothing cultures continued to evolve despite colonial intervention. Traditional textiles, weaving techniques, hairstyles, jewelry and body decoration remained important markers of identity. The earlier traditions of kente, raffia, barkcloth, animal skins and elaborate hairstyles did not simply disappear. Instead, African societies continually adapted them to changing political and economic circumstances. Clothing became one of the ways communities could maintain cultural identity in the face of enormous political change.

India in the Nineteenth Century

India's textile industry was profoundly affected by British colonialism. India had once been one of the world's great textile exporters. Under British rule, its textile economy was increasingly reorganized around the needs of the colonial economy. At the same time, Indian clothing remained central to cultural identity. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, clothing would become increasingly connected to debates about nationalism, colonialism and independence.

1900–1950: Modern Fashion

The twentieth century accelerated everything. Fashion magazines, department stores, photography, cinema and eventually radio and television helped create a much more international fashion culture. In Europe and the United States, designers and fashion houses increasingly dictated seasonal styles. Haute couture became an important part of the fashion system, while ready-to-wear clothing expanded access to changing trends.

In China, Shanghai became a major fashion center. The qipao was transformed into a more fitted and modern garment during the 1920s and 1930s.

In Japan, Western clothing became increasingly common alongside traditional garments.

In India, clothing became deeply entangled with the independence movement. Traditional dress could express resistance to colonial rule and affirm an Indian national identity.

Across Africa, clothing remained connected to local traditions while also reflecting colonial influence and the emergence of new urban identities.

1950–2000: Fashion Becomes Global

After the Second World War, fashion became increasingly international. Mass production, television, air travel and eventually global advertising allowed styles to circulate rapidly across continents. But this was not simply a matter of Western fashion spreading outward. Ideas began moving in every direction.

African and African-diaspora styles influenced international fashion. Japanese designers transformed global ideas about construction, silhouette and fabric. Indian textiles, colors and garments continued to influence designers internationally. Latin American and Indigenous traditions became sources of inspiration and cultural expression.

At the same time, young people increasingly used clothing to challenge established social conventions. Fashion moved away from being controlled exclusively by courts, aristocrats and established fashion houses. Youth cultures, musicians, artists and street communities became important creators of fashion.

2000–Today: Fashion Everywhere

Today there is no single center of fashion.

Fashion is produced and consumed simultaneously in New York, Paris, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, Lagos, Johannesburg, Mexico City, São Paulo and countless other places. Social media has accelerated the process enormously. A style can emerge in one neighborhood and circulate around the world within hours. Historical clothing traditions have also returned in new forms. Young people in China have revived interest in hanfu. Traditional African textiles and silhouettes are being reinterpreted by contemporary designers. Indigenous designers are reclaiming and transforming traditional techniques. Japanese, Indian, Andean and other textile traditions continue to influence contemporary fashion. The distinction between "traditional dress" and "fashion" has also become less clear. A garment can be hundreds of years old and still be part of contemporary fashion if people continue to reinterpret and wear it.

What Is Fashion, Then?

Looking across this history, it becomes difficult to define fashion simply as the history of changing clothes. Fashion can mean different things in different societies. In fourteenth-century Europe, it became associated with rapidly changing silhouettes and tailoring. In Heian Japan, it could mean the sophisticated combination of colors and layers. In China, major changes could follow dynastic transformations. In India, fashion could be expressed through the draping, weaving, dyeing and printing of extraordinary textiles. In Africa, textiles, hairstyles, body decoration and ceremonial dress could communicate identity and status. In the Andes, the quality and coding of textiles could express political power and social position. What these systems share is the use of appearance as communication.

Clothing tells other people who we are, where we come from, what we value, how much power or wealth we have, what group we belong to, and sometimes what we want to become.

The modern fashion industry is therefore only one chapter in a much older human story.

Fashion did not begin in Paris, London or even fourteenth-century Europe. What emerged in Europe in the fourteenth century was a particular kind of fashion: a system of rapid, visible changes in clothing styles.

The larger history is much older and much more complicated. It is a history of textiles, technology, trade, power, identity, migration and creativity—and it belongs to the whole world.

*** The philosophical concept underlying "cool"—an aesthetic of spiritual balance, composure, and grace under pressure—originated centuries ago in West Africa, most notably among the Yoruba people, where it is known as itutu.The African Roots of Cool (Itutu)The Location: West Africa, specifically within Yoruba culture (and shared across neighboring West African traditions).The Meaning: Itutu translates to "coolness," "spiritual balance," or "mystic synthesis". It represents an inner state of divine composure, gentleness, and emotional self-mastery that allows a person to remain calm and graceful in chaotic or tense situations.

The Transmission: Historians and art scholars like Robert Farris Thompson have traced how enslaved West Africans brought this profound ethical and aesthetic framework to the Americas. It survived and transformed within the African diaspora as a tool for psychological survival, dignity, and resistance against oppression.How It Became Modern "Cool"While the philosophy of cool began in West Africa, the modern English slang word and cultural attitude of being "cool" as we know it today was coined and popularized later by African-American jazz musicians in the 1930s and 1940s in U.S. cultural hubs like New York City.

Figures like saxophonist Lester Young blended the West African-derived ethos of inner composure with modern urban survival, turning "cool" into a global linguistic and cultural phenomenon.

Last night (Sat Sept 5) at the Allan Ginsberg celebration, some outstanding individuals performed for us. 

They sang, they read, they strutted, they tottered, they shrieked, they cried. One was a radiant drag queen, Taylor Mac. Another was someone who must have already been performing in the womb she is such a stage animal: Little Annie. Davóne Tines sang for us, and we didn't want him to stop, his voice is so beautiful and has such range, does he sing opera? Jennifer Charles swooned us with her original, skilled singing. The poets were there too : a Black poet (name?) and Anne Waldman. What a treat it always is to see Waldman on stage. At an undisclosed age, not only does she pack a punchy power in her performance, but she understands words inside out from her long practice as a poet. Her delivery of Ginsberg poetry was inspiring.

The show was brilliant and original. Instead of a linear reading of Ginsberg poems, it ran circles around his art. The songs' lyrics were not all by him, but related to who he was. 

It seems Thomas Bartlett who performed beautifully on the piano was the mastermind behind the evening. Hoping for more poet-centered evenings such as this one.

The musicians were dispersed at the four corners of the stage, surrounding the performers - an unusual setting. For backdrop we had the Hudson, the lights of New Jersey, a boat going majestically by, I thought I even saw a meteor. But the helicopters every 3 minutes were annoying (Mamdani, can we do something to reduce the helicopter traffic over our heads?)

Nota Bene: I have a friend, an architect, who refuses to set foot on Little Island, she says it's a privately funded wart on the Hudson. She has a point.

I came away with two conclusions. First, how lucky I am to be living in NYC where such amazing, unique, talented, bold human beings have chosen to develop their art.

I didn't research much what the show was about when I bought our tickets. I thought, well, we'll see, our friends are going, whatever. Second take away: be prepared to marvel when you go to a show on Long Island. More likely than not, it's going to surpass your expectations: remember Costanza playing/singing all the parts in Le Nozze di Figaro?

Not written by AI

In Minor Keys? That's not the music I heard.

This is not a very serious survey of the Venice Biennale of 2026, yet some of the points I make are important to me. Now you're warned. - Also blogspot is an old platform and I've been here for many years: its formatting is a bit problematic!

In my opinion, the title for the 2026 Biennale In Minor Keys** has to be ironical for this show.

Opinion*, because this is what this text is about. I'm not sure about anything except what my reaction is. No one knows, not even critics with a PhD in Art History. Everyone can look at art and have a valid reaction to art.

The exhibition was conceived and curated by Koyo Kouoh, who died unexpectedly in 2025 from liver cancer, before she could see it open. The Biennale decided to realize the exhibition according to her vision, including the artists, works and overall curatorial project.

I was impressed by the strong curatorial direction to the Biennale. I could tell they were very personal choices, yet the personality of the curator was not intrusive.

But to me, it's anything but minor keys. It's spectacular. Impressive. Beautiful. Striking. Intriguing. It has a lot of "wow" factor. Many of the works come from Africa, and many, whether African or not, offer a profusion of images. A lot of African art is highly stylized by opposition to busy and complicated. In fact the stylizaton of forms hugely influenced 20th century contemporary art, allowing to get rid of the overwrought styles of the 19th century Western art. The curator went for complexity and exuberance.

Africa seems to be in creative effervescence: literature, music, cinema, visual arts. Maybe it always was but we didn't know. It's the moment for Africa right now internationally: a long history of beautiful art and lots to say from being the most direly exploited continent by capitalist forces.

The blue walls give the work the magical quality of the night: glamorous, mysterious, unexpected.

Many of the works are intricate, convoluted, bizarre. That's what the world is like. Human emotions are complicated when not contradictory. Nature is complicated. Economy is complicated. Politics are complicated.

Fascists try to tell us things are simple: you're hurting financially? It's the fault of the immigrants that take away our jobs! Your energy and food are more expensive? It's the fault of the environmentalists!

In this sense, this Biennale is a great antidote to the veering of the world toward the far right.

110 artists participated but it feels like there are less in this Biennale than in others because some of the artists are represented by many works. I enjoyed that an artist's work might be in more than one room.

The juxtaposition with other works brings out different qualities in a particular artist's art. I found that I appreciated an artist's work in one room, after having been left indifferent by that same artist's work in another room's juxtaposition.

I realized that I like to marvel when I see art. I'm not saying that's a particularly appropriate way to approach art, to criticize, to curate. Everyone is different in their approach to art, and that's one of the beauties of our humanity.

Some people might want to be stimulated intellectually: think conceptual art. Others are looking to be impressed by skills and techniques: think oil painting and sculpture. Others look for narrative, and they find it in figurative art. Other prefer subtlety and understatement rather than big and powerful.

I prefer to look at art like a four year old sitting at the circus for the first time. I like the spectacular, the dramatic, the stunning effects. And there is plenty of that in this Biennale.

I like large works, and many were offered, it gets monumental when people are represented larger than in life, and then arises the question of a monument to what? And very small can be dramatic too.

So I am renaming the Biennale. And I'm not going to look for something smart along the lines of "Personal Structures" or "The Exchange Value" or "Memory For The Future" but here are some:

Wait Until You See This!

If This Doesn't Blow You Away, Nothing Will!

The Bold and The Beautiful.

I Prefer Art That Is Strong, Daring, Exciting, Powerful, Dazzling. How About You?

The Big Exhibit With Big Art for Big Hearts And Big Minds.

A few years ago, exhibit titles had to be long, at least one sentence, such as It Doesn't Have To Make Sense. A great title - not that long even - for a show by Amoako Boafo, but now the trend for titles is back to being short. This Argentinian artist also didn't catch the trend, and just as well that not all artists & curators follow the same trend.

First I went to the Giardini, enjoyed it thoroughly though I did skip some pavilions, and that include the Russian Pavilion. I would have also skpped the Israeli pavilion and it seemed closed.

Then I went to the Arsenale. And I did get a bit numb from the art after a few rooms. This is the pieces where I felt I had seen something like it before, and had no reaction to it:

I spoke with a German man at the restaurant. I asked him how he liked The Biennale. He said: It's too much. I asked: Is it too much art (it is) or is the art too much? He said the art was too much. I understood what he meant.

The pavilions at the Arsenale ended up being a relief from the main show. I enjoyed the Italian pavilion, the Indian one, and one I didn't identify that seemed to be a large landscape made out of salt and ashes.

But I always get numb by the end of the Arsenale. My mind, my psyche, whatever it is, stops taking in the art, it refuses to wrap itself around a new perspective, a new process, a new creativity.

Nota bene: An untold theme of the Biennale is its challenge to the visitors to find the bathrooms. They're few bathrooms, they're few stalls, and they certainly don't put them on their map. Also, once you're in the Arsenale it's very difficult to find an exit. Typically you have to go through exhibits that you've already taken in, adding to the saturation.

By that time, I was reconsidering contemporary art. Maybe it should be just really different, fill in simple needs, answer simple quesions. Does it have to be so esoteric? So unclear? So complex (wait, I'm contradicting what I said above)? So challenging? So provocative? Then I run into this video, and it's so simple, yet not fascistic at all: It shows the pure joy of people of modest means as they have a day of leisure. It's so beautiful. So needed.

I did make it to the Prada Foundation to see the Arthur Jaffa exhibit. His conveying of the Black experience is so poignant, so convincing. In one of the videos, a mother driver gets arrested in front of her children, then one child comes out of the car with their hands in the air. It's so painful to watch. The mother looks like such a good person, and the way she is treated is abysmal. I couldn't rip myself from watching Arthur Jaffa's work, it's so powerful.

I hope my reaction is of interest to other people, whether they have visited the Biennale and want to compare notes, or have not visited and want to have an idea what it's about.

Also, the walls separating exhibiting spaces seemed to have been made from recycled cardboard and they were not only ecological (help, I sound like AI!!) but also just beautiful.

Also here's an art installation for our enjoyment, that has something contemporary in its randomness:

*Opinion:a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular mattera belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

A minor key;**a minor key is a tonal system based on a minor scale. It uses a specific set of seven notes that generally create a darker, sad, or melancholy sound compared to a major key.

I really apologize that I can't name the works and the artists, I am on vacation, and it was too much organization for a leisurely stay. After the Biennale, I went to eat bacalà with cuttlefish-inked polenta that was blacker than the night.

Some of the artists whose works figure below.

Khaled Sabsabi Pauline Oliveros Kaloki Nyamai Tammy Nguyen Manuel Mathieu Issa Samb Josephine Alacu Kambui Olijimi Daniel Lind-Ramos Ebony G. Patterson

And here's an installation by Nature, the great artist: