Diversity within the arts:
Neo Matloga, Moshoeshoe, 2023, Collage, charcoal and ink on canvas,100 x 140cm
Institutional critique: a term which is freely thrown around by academics and art world folk alike. Critical? Yes. Relevant? Extremely. However, I feel that especially within a European setting a true understanding of this act is shallow. Yes, we can identify when something is problematic (which is already half the victory) but, what can we do to enact real change?
What is institutional critique and why do we need it?
Institutional critique is a systematic inquiry into art world institutions (eg. museums, galleries) which seeks to dissect the hierarchal/problematic tropes which institutions uphold. Factors such as: racism, sexism, classism and imbedded cultural codes. In essence, institutions perpetuate social determinisms. This constructed relationship between society and the individual explains why we have bias, cultural codes, norms, prejudices, opinions, feelings and relevant to this essay, how institutionalized racism lives on.
The term ‘institutional critique’ first originated in the late 1960’s by artists/historians that started to view institutions as a form of cultural confinement as opposed to empowerment. This prompted the onset of critical theory debates surrounding the concept of the institution as the problem, but also the solution. In simplest terms: this form of critical analysis presents itself as a dilemma as it is shrouded in mystification. But through this mystification, one element is ever present: the importance of critical debate and understanding the power these structures hold within society, and the role they play in upholding institutional whiteness.
In the art world I believe the concept of change is subdivided in two:
Real change: An act which seeks to break traditionalism within the arts. This is done by combating the residual effects of colonialism on the cultures affected whilst clearing space for silenced voices to be heard. Mutual respect, knowledge distribution and re-learning are at the forefront of this discourse as the subaltern voice is incorporated.
Tokenistic change: As defined by the Cambridge dictionary, is when institutions “seem like they are helping a group of people who are treated unfairly in society, but their action is not meant to make lasting changes to how those people are treated”. In the arts, this can be seen when institutions adhere to trending social movements for the sake of popularity and relevance.
Mary Evans, 1976, History Painting (2023). Courtesy of Dillon Marsh, 2023 and Zeitz MOCAA.
You may ask yourself, “but at least the institutions are still trying?" Trying on a surface level and understanding are two very different concepts. Lets explore this notion of tokenistic change which is prevalent within majority of European institutions. Generally, this tends to take the form of institutions exhibiting a show with an overarching theme of a ‘reparative/post colonial aesthetic’. The concept is great, but more often than not it is within the execution where we find the shortcomings. Such as: the only curatorial links between the presented works are that the participating artists are all of African origin. And that is where the line stops. No curatorial nuances, care or sensitivity is employed. That is what I find problematic, and shallow. I do not wish to name any particular institutions which employ this problematic behaviour, but instead I will direct you to an institution that is succeeding. And for that, we leave the European canon and return to South Africa. The Zeitz Mocaa, always, without doubt, exhibits topical and socially relevant exhibitions which allow for a rebalancing of power dynamics in the arts seen below:
So, how can we employ this into a European sphere? There is no straightforward answer to this. I believe understanding is the first step towards change. Understanding why the system is broken and how it got to this point. Power dynamics within society are no different when applied to the arts; political activism and cultural activism have now merged into one - as they should. As a core value, I believe it is our duty to constantly question the world arounds us. Structures are deeply implanted within history, and as a result enacting change proves difficult. But once again, from which vantage point is history being written?
Comments