I've just been re-reading the Biennale news article in today's (arts-and-culture-section-of-our-competitor-so-cannot-be-named). The one titled "Biennale's Kallang site not ideal". There's one point in there that struck me as irritatingly interesting. It wasn't the fact that Old Kallang Airport is hard to get to or that taxi drivers don't know where the hell it is (same thing happened to my colleague, The Abang -- you can read his impressions of the Biennale and er, taxi drivers, here.) or that there seems to be a shortage of shuttle buses to and fro or for that matter, the fact that, well, the news article seems to be one huge complaint letter. (Personally, I think it's still breezier than the previous one at South Beach. That was hot.) It's the fact that some people think  the space was not used "optimally", that the location is "just too big for the installations and the space looks sparse." Some folks also suggested, for example, that more works be stuffed into the hanger to complement the German barn or to put more outdoor works. Is it a built-in thing in the local psyche to want to cram a lot of stuff in a place? What's wrong with letting a work breathe? I can go on and on and elaborate on this, but really, that's my point. What is wrong with letting an artwork breathe? PS, there was also one comment about someone complaining that the place was dusty and that organisers "spruce up the place a bit more." Well, one place was spruced up -- the control tower where Ned Solakov-by-way-of-Liao Jiekai's  interventions were. Cleaners actually swept the place before the opening. In the process of "cleaning", a work was defaced. If that's not an interesting point in the politics of site-engagement in art, I don't know what is.