Groupthink in the art world
group·think ˈɡro͞opˌTHiNGk/
noun - NORTH AMERICAN
the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.
(Written to "Dissolve" by Absofacto)
We've stagnated as artists. Allow me to explain...
Once upon a romantic, and perhaps mythical, time in the past, artists spoke truths that no one dared. Truths that were so anti-establishment that in fact, establishments waged wars against artists.
Now, we have artists whose narratives basically correspond to-a-T with one major political party.
These are our anti-Establishment, outside-of-the-box heroes? Artists whose opinions are shared by every major news outlet and all famous politicians?
That's not a revolution being led by artists. That's artists being used by an Establishment movement.
Now, I have no doubt there are great artists within that thought space. But there are also artists who are not good, getting play simply because they fit the narrative. Unimaginative, unclever, unoriginal, mind-numbingly basic work.
Undeniably, some artwork today is being promoted because it fits a narrative, not because it's any good.
I attended the Whitney Museum a few weeks back and one specific floor was dedicated to modern political art.
And to be certain, there were creative works there- clever approaches to expressing provocative ideas which gave me pause, impressed with the artist who conjured up the idea. What wasn't very clever was the seeming lack of diversity of political thought being expressed.
There was no spectrum of political opinion being expressed. There was only one side of the argument.
The arts have always been more liberal, in many respects actually.
But to express the most popular opinions of the day is not provocative. It's not clever or imaginative. It's essentially giving a sermon to people who are already believers.
And it's not just the Whitney. It's everybody in the art world.
Where are the artists who speak on anarchy? Where are the artists who promote absolute libertarianism?
Where is the diversity and variety of political thought? It would appear in the modern art world that, if you don't fit neatly within the trendy and sexy Narrative Du'Jour, you're not invited to the gallery and museum parties anymore.
What I would love to see is a spectrum of political thought represented in art.
I am a libertarian, which I believe to be the most anti-Establishment stance that there is.
Being a libertarian means that you don't think any group of people should tell any individual how they should live. (Murderers aside. They need to contained, obviously.)
I believe that the most abstract idea that still exists is one of absolute freedom for persons. I don't mind that employers have sexually harassed me and paid me less than male counterparts. It has only taught me the value of either finding a better employer or becoming my own. I don't need to change anybody. The revenge inflicted upon them is the departure of me and my talents from their organization.
Freedom means options. And right now, in the art world, it would appear that there are only a select number of political options. There is only a select amount of freedom we are allowed to express.
And some freedom is really no freedom.
I want to see communism art. I want to see alt-right art. I want to see tyrannical and anarchical art. I want to see it all. Show me all of it.
Shock me.
Appall me.
Expose to me, art world.
Because that's our jobs as artists, to explore the far recesses of our minds that other "normal" people do not want to explore.
Our job is not to nod and agree, but to disagree, even if only for the sake of embodying the important presence of dissent.
TRISHA WILES
(written several years prior to its 2022 publish date)