Let this post be an archive of all the responses to Dean Kissick's article in Harper's Magazine titled "The Painted Protest", subtitled "How politics destroyed contemporary art."
Kissick had kicked open quite a beehive, but I think that the beehive of Identity Politics in art was already in an overripe mature stage, with an ever thinning skin ready to burst. Conversations among my circle of friends have been pinging back and forth, mostly via text, with each new article crackling online and this blogpost has been in formation for at least a month now, swelling my Notes app.
It's fitting yet coincidental that today's date is the Inauguration Day for an extremely contentious presidential election in the USA. November 6, 2024 was a watershed moment and catastrophic for the institutional sphere who depended so dearly on a stable status quo to secure the power structures assembled to date. No doubt, Harper's Magazine intentionally published Kissick's a month after that fateful date but I estimate that not only had Kissick been formulating his thoughts about the topic years earlier, but Identity Politic's latest manifestation as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) within all facets of the superstructure corporate, governmental, educational and of course the arts had imparted... some would say an overconfidence and some would say a fatal level of hubris. This, a fulcrum in a topic full of fulcrums.
There's much to be said about the articles linked below. In my Notes app, each I read each closely, marking up passages, changing the type color red and bolding, italicizing and underlining, adding my own commentary interspersed between paragraphs in blue type. I'll content myself with holding this back not only for the shear tedium it would cost me but probably for you too.
This topic is aging fast not only because it is currently pivoting on what I consider to be an absurd binary of Art-for-Art's-Sake versus Art-for-Politics-Sake but also because a question is yawning about whether there is more to Art than it's current definition. Regarding the former: this is what happens when "live or let die" makes war on "live and let live". Regarding the latter: this is what happens when Fukuyama's "End of History" comes home to roost and the eschatological fever dream tries to force-foreclose on the horizon of utopia, a beat too soon.
I predict that in a year's time, we will all be off to new pastures because, as I like to say:
The marquee will change.
It must change.
That is its nature.
Kissick's subtitle: "How politics destroyed contemporary art." Art can never be destroyed, but it will go underground if it has to.
***
To the links:
PostScript: More articles coming in:
*
Tangential:***
My favorites were Saul Ostrow (He's chasing down the socio-economic aspect) and Ben Davis (encyclopedic, and yet a bit hedgy with too much passive voice but he saves the day in the final paragraphs by flagging Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (and Everything Else)).
***
TLDR?
Summary via Saul Ostrow's ChatGPT (January 7, '25):
1. Ajay Kurian criticized Kissick's assumptions about identity art and institutional exhibitions, arguing his views align with anti-woke culture wars and fail to address systemic issues in art discourse.
2. Patrick Nathan highlighted the discomfort of partially agreeing with Kissick while finding his critique reactionary and coded against diversity.
3. Saul Ostrow argued Kissick overlooks historical and economic factors shaping art, critiquing his call for a return to romantic ideals.
4 Jonathan T.D. Neil critiqued the article's length and editing, while acknowledging its articulation of a shared sentiment about the art world's political turn but questioning its nostalgic call for Romanticism.
5. Johanna Fateman published Ajay Kurian's detailed critique, which challenged Kissick's stance on identity art and institutional exhibitions, framing it as reactionary and aligned with anti-woke rhetoric.
6. Discussions on platforms like Threads expressed concerns about the article reflecting a broader cultural shift to the right.
7. Christian Viveros-Fauné published a response in The Village Voice to Dean Kissick's article, "The Painted Protest: How Politics Destroyed Contemporary Art." Titled "The Culture of Complaint 2.0: White Guy Wants His Museum Back," Viveros-Fauné critiques Kissick's perspective, suggesting it reflects a nostalgic and dismissive view of contemporary art's political engagement
On Substack
1. Rob Fields critiqued Kissick's call for self-involved art, emphasizing the need for work that fosters empathy and understanding in a divisive era.
2. NewCrits labeled the piece a "clickbait manifesto," challenging its logic and framing Kissick's critique as resentment toward identity-focused art.
On Reddit, notable responses to Dean Kissick's "The Painted Protest" include:
1. LandscapeRocks2: Agreed with Kissick but emphasized the potential for dissent and experimentation in traditional gallery spaces .
2. NationalHunter5407: Critiqued identity-focused art, expressing hope for a new artistic direction beyond current trends .
3. SufficientPath666: Strongly disagreed, highlighting the necessity of addressing transphobia and personal struggles in art .
4. Glass_Purpose584: Praised Kissick for voicing a bold opinion but criticized his perceived dismissal of contributions from artists of color
Posted by Dennis at January 20, 2025 4:47 PM
Leave a comment