You make a sharp point about how identity-based framing can flatten artistic nuance. As a woman artist—though not an artist of color—who explores body, gender, motherhood, and identity, I see how market forces and curatorial narratives often box artists into a narrow rubric of “defying the canon.” It’s a disservice when artists like Yiadom-Boakye and Sherald, with vastly different approaches, get lumped together simply because they depict Black subjects.
The issue isn’t identity in art—it’s how it’s framed. Artists should be free to engage (or not) with identity on their own terms, without being reduced to a single expectation. We need space for both resistance and ambiguity, allowing for complexity rather than forcing a universal narrative. How do we push for that shift?
I think that's right and I think that's a distinction that Kissick doesn't really flesh out in the article. It generally blames artists and doesn't take the market into consideration as a major player in this flattening.
I agree with you on this article. While it is a larger conversation, I would say I don’t escape my identity as a white female artist, which implies a sort of laziness and arrogance. I don’t think about it until I’ve made the work and then attempt to figure out what I’m trying to express. Some of us (white/nonwhite) are more political in our lives, and make work about another side of our psyche. I am aware of being female when I market the work and sometimes it involves the work, sometimes not. It probably comes into play more when I am looking at the work of others and exploring its meaning.
It IS a soup, and far more layered than what curators think it should be. I’m sure there are some artists who are more global, some more personal, and some who try to make work they think is relevant to current themes or are driven by what they think the world will respond to.
While this often is written about painters, it is about all of us. There is no universal narrative as Sally says in her comments here. Kind of theory vs actual practice.
It reminds me of some of the flack that Lena Dunham got in relation to her show "Girls"— so many people were incensed that the show didn't represent women in the "right" way, or that it didn't represent their lives, as if the show had to be universal. It would never occur to anybody to say the same for The Sopranos or Mad Men— "Tony Soprano doesn't reflect me or my life!" Ha!
Definitley a soup! Good points about how layered this all is... Curators, museum folks, writers often prefer to take the shorter, safer road, taking the complexity, layered-ness out of their conversations... it is not a universal narrative by any means!
You make a sharp point about how identity-based framing can flatten artistic nuance. As a woman artist—though not an artist of color—who explores body, gender, motherhood, and identity, I see how market forces and curatorial narratives often box artists into a narrow rubric of “defying the canon.” It’s a disservice when artists like Yiadom-Boakye and Sherald, with vastly different approaches, get lumped together simply because they depict Black subjects.
The issue isn’t identity in art—it’s how it’s framed. Artists should be free to engage (or not) with identity on their own terms, without being reduced to a single expectation. We need space for both resistance and ambiguity, allowing for complexity rather than forcing a universal narrative. How do we push for that shift?
I think that's right and I think that's a distinction that Kissick doesn't really flesh out in the article. It generally blames artists and doesn't take the market into consideration as a major player in this flattening.
I agree with you on this article. While it is a larger conversation, I would say I don’t escape my identity as a white female artist, which implies a sort of laziness and arrogance. I don’t think about it until I’ve made the work and then attempt to figure out what I’m trying to express. Some of us (white/nonwhite) are more political in our lives, and make work about another side of our psyche. I am aware of being female when I market the work and sometimes it involves the work, sometimes not. It probably comes into play more when I am looking at the work of others and exploring its meaning.
It IS a soup, and far more layered than what curators think it should be. I’m sure there are some artists who are more global, some more personal, and some who try to make work they think is relevant to current themes or are driven by what they think the world will respond to.
While this often is written about painters, it is about all of us. There is no universal narrative as Sally says in her comments here. Kind of theory vs actual practice.
It reminds me of some of the flack that Lena Dunham got in relation to her show "Girls"— so many people were incensed that the show didn't represent women in the "right" way, or that it didn't represent their lives, as if the show had to be universal. It would never occur to anybody to say the same for The Sopranos or Mad Men— "Tony Soprano doesn't reflect me or my life!" Ha!
Definitley a soup! Good points about how layered this all is... Curators, museum folks, writers often prefer to take the shorter, safer road, taking the complexity, layered-ness out of their conversations... it is not a universal narrative by any means!
It would be interesting if all art were presented by anonymous.
The art market would collapse! Or at least I think the upper reaches of it would—
Yes yes and yes.
You're so right Hall - our culture needs the salt and herbs to produce the aroma of our times. Enjoyed reading .