What a brilliant piece in response to what I thought was an interesting, if at times disagreeable, article by Kissick. You're so correct in zeroing in on the cynicism of the commercial art market. And I do wonder if, like everything in the marketable world, this trend of hyper-identity-driven art (or art whose primary purpose is to codify an identity through aesthetic means) will soften in the coming years; hopefully, the value of art created by people from marginalized identities will remain in this new trend, although it's certainly something we'll need to keep advocating for ...
I did find myself disagreeing a little with the scope of this aspect of your argument, however:
"In writing about art he finds flat, Kissick reliably quotes exhibit catalogues, artist statements, and program copy. “The text asked”; “as the catalogue puts it”; “the accompanying wall text explained” — all of these mediations cede Kissick’s critical judgment to the dynamics of what is essentially a form of advertising."
In a gallery setting (or at a Biennale, at which Kissick seems to spend a lot of his time), then yes, the purpose of that copy is advertising and its core audience is the prospective buyer. But when that same text is reproduced in a museum setting (which Kissick also includes in his sample of the art world), then its purpose becomes educational and its audience widens to the general public. It's fine to be cynical about the market dynamics of the former, but I do think we need to keep some level of sincerity when it comes to the latter.
Because, to take Kissick's most earnest point about art having a value beyond politics at its face value, it does matter how we educate audiences to receive art. Especially in America, where our education system deprioritizes arts education, museums and public-oriented galleries become even more critical institutions than they always were. If those institutions are teaching audiences to evaluate a piece of art based primarily on its politics, then those audiences are going to take away the lesson that art's primary purpose is its political objective, which ultimately seems like a backslide to pre-Enlightenment (or arguably pre-impressionist) interpretations of art, which put the highest value on a piece of art's moral messaging. And I appreciated Kissick's inclusion of art from outside the Western canon that utilizes other cultural symbols, etc., to transcendent impacts, because it's entirely possible to curate and present art in a way that celebrates the diversity of humanity without degrading the value of diversity to a political trend.
Once again, fabulous and thoughtful piece -- thank you for the work of writing it and sharing it!
To take an economic perspective for a moment, I would argue that social justice/politics/what have you actually does qualitatively change the market. Because social justice and politics are moral concerns and therefore change the way people actually produce, consume, publish, and purchase art along moral lines.
In other words, political concerns have an effect on the behavior of the individual economic actor, in ways that simple matters of novelty or style don't. Politics actually changes the way people make decisions, not just the one-by-one decisions they make -- based on whether a certain trend is met. It becomes not only un-trendy and unsophisticated to be involved with the wrong art, but morally reprehensible. And that's a hell of an economic incentive. In fact it's downright bullying.
In any case, really enjoy your writing. Very dense with meaning, very well written.
I loved reading this just on a stylistic level (great, great intro paragraphs) but also obviously on an argumentative level! You’re so right that there is something off about critiquing identity-driven art through examples of identity-driven art writing…and not even critical writing but the more PR-y wall text and catalogue statements &c. Such writing, when it invokes themes of identity and marginality, tends to do so out of commercial interest, not any ethical obligation.
I actually quite liked parts of Kissick’s article—especially the bit where he notes that everyone is seeking refuge in SOME heritage or ancestral artistic tradition…but overall it felt like he was critiquing trends I am also frustrated by, but attributing them to (imo) a very vague spectre of wokeness/identity politics
I’m not sure that we can continue to play the “market” card though. There are other things that art (advanced art, art that takes itself seriously as a project) needs to be dealing with, and the market isn’t one of them, at least not directly.
What a brilliant piece in response to what I thought was an interesting, if at times disagreeable, article by Kissick. You're so correct in zeroing in on the cynicism of the commercial art market. And I do wonder if, like everything in the marketable world, this trend of hyper-identity-driven art (or art whose primary purpose is to codify an identity through aesthetic means) will soften in the coming years; hopefully, the value of art created by people from marginalized identities will remain in this new trend, although it's certainly something we'll need to keep advocating for ...
I did find myself disagreeing a little with the scope of this aspect of your argument, however:
"In writing about art he finds flat, Kissick reliably quotes exhibit catalogues, artist statements, and program copy. “The text asked”; “as the catalogue puts it”; “the accompanying wall text explained” — all of these mediations cede Kissick’s critical judgment to the dynamics of what is essentially a form of advertising."
In a gallery setting (or at a Biennale, at which Kissick seems to spend a lot of his time), then yes, the purpose of that copy is advertising and its core audience is the prospective buyer. But when that same text is reproduced in a museum setting (which Kissick also includes in his sample of the art world), then its purpose becomes educational and its audience widens to the general public. It's fine to be cynical about the market dynamics of the former, but I do think we need to keep some level of sincerity when it comes to the latter.
Because, to take Kissick's most earnest point about art having a value beyond politics at its face value, it does matter how we educate audiences to receive art. Especially in America, where our education system deprioritizes arts education, museums and public-oriented galleries become even more critical institutions than they always were. If those institutions are teaching audiences to evaluate a piece of art based primarily on its politics, then those audiences are going to take away the lesson that art's primary purpose is its political objective, which ultimately seems like a backslide to pre-Enlightenment (or arguably pre-impressionist) interpretations of art, which put the highest value on a piece of art's moral messaging. And I appreciated Kissick's inclusion of art from outside the Western canon that utilizes other cultural symbols, etc., to transcendent impacts, because it's entirely possible to curate and present art in a way that celebrates the diversity of humanity without degrading the value of diversity to a political trend.
Once again, fabulous and thoughtful piece -- thank you for the work of writing it and sharing it!
To take an economic perspective for a moment, I would argue that social justice/politics/what have you actually does qualitatively change the market. Because social justice and politics are moral concerns and therefore change the way people actually produce, consume, publish, and purchase art along moral lines.
In other words, political concerns have an effect on the behavior of the individual economic actor, in ways that simple matters of novelty or style don't. Politics actually changes the way people make decisions, not just the one-by-one decisions they make -- based on whether a certain trend is met. It becomes not only un-trendy and unsophisticated to be involved with the wrong art, but morally reprehensible. And that's a hell of an economic incentive. In fact it's downright bullying.
In any case, really enjoy your writing. Very dense with meaning, very well written.
I loved reading this just on a stylistic level (great, great intro paragraphs) but also obviously on an argumentative level! You’re so right that there is something off about critiquing identity-driven art through examples of identity-driven art writing…and not even critical writing but the more PR-y wall text and catalogue statements &c. Such writing, when it invokes themes of identity and marginality, tends to do so out of commercial interest, not any ethical obligation.
I actually quite liked parts of Kissick’s article—especially the bit where he notes that everyone is seeking refuge in SOME heritage or ancestral artistic tradition…but overall it felt like he was critiquing trends I am also frustrated by, but attributing them to (imo) a very vague spectre of wokeness/identity politics
Enjoyed this response. Here’s my own:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonathantdneil/p/on-dean-kissicks-article-in-harpers?r=i2p6&utm_medium=ios
I’m not sure that we can continue to play the “market” card though. There are other things that art (advanced art, art that takes itself seriously as a project) needs to be dealing with, and the market isn’t one of them, at least not directly.
Bingo! Spot on! Amazing writing!
“He isn’t critiquing art, just the way it’s marketed.” Bingo!!! Modern critique in a nutshell imo. Plato’s cave is very, very full these days.