Although many of the works in International 06 appeared to be based on in-depth field research, many of them adopted an unengaging quasi-anthropological approach. Hans Schabusí­ Log Book of Ballast, for example, charts the journey from Liverpool to the United States, revealing how American streets came to be paved with stones dredged from the Mersey. Anu Pennanení­s A Day in the Office draws out local residentsí­ reflections on the environment in which they live and work, paying particular attention to the plethora of office buildings that are springing up throughout the city. In Obscure Moorings Matthew Buckingham updates Herman Melvilleí­s short story about an old sailor facing retirement ashore to examine contemporary Liverpool. As spectators our role is hardly challengingówe are asked to merely consume the artistsí­ special knowledge of a site. We are not asked to become actively engaged, to visualize the role we play in the continual co-construction of the city, or to utilize our subversive potential to transgress established codes of conduct. This seems to undermine the idea that exhaustive research of a site is always a necessary prerequisite for engaging and pertinent place-specific works. Such concentrated reconnaissance can only produce interesting results if there is an engaging point of departure to begin with, an awareness of onesí­ complicit relationship with a given context, and an concerted effort to involve the viewer in a two-way conversation.

Argentinean artist Amalia Picaí­s intervention, Whitewash, which manipulates the boundaries between history, myth, and reality, seems to approximate "complicity" more closely. Collaborating with a number of local newspapers, Pica fabricated the rumor that an important local monument had been painted white for the biennial. The evolution of this urban myth involved numerous Liverpudlians whose became unknowing participants in its ongoing dissemination. Rather than "uncovering" something about Liverpool, Pica activated one of the key processes that produce "places"óthe production of shared narratives that are filtered through communicative structures that bind us together. What was disappointing, however, was the fact that no documentation was provided regarding whether or not the urban myth was tracked as it unfolded. The display materials for the project consisted of copies of the front pages of participating newspapers. Does this mean that we should interpret the project as the representation of the fabrication of a myth rather than the real activation of one? Perhaps this points to the problematics of framing works such as this in the biennial context, where the emphasis tends to be placed on the exhibition moment rather than the preceding process of investigation/activation.