“When they go low, i go lowER” - Eric Mays.

I will start with the news: I have a piece included in the March for Art: PEEK at InLiquid Gallery !

I don’t generally do auctions but i thought this one aligned with what i believe in so it might be worth checking it out if you happen to live in Philly or its surrounding areas. Whether you are a first time art collector or just someone who has an extensive art collection this is for you! Always wanted an original of mine in your home? Now is the time to bid! Advanced tickets time is now over so make sure to get the regular ones!

Also, also, and- including my latest painting here for those who are interested which is the result of today’s topic:

“I know what you are running away from, please come back to me”

Acrylic on canvas.

30×40

Now let’s get to the main event:

I had another topic planned for this week’s newsletter but ended up wanting to talk to you about something that, in a way, relates to a lot of work i have come across including my own (because we are all guilty of something) and something that has been on my mind: Identity Politics and its binary use in the Art world. This is going to be analysis/response to my listening (or half listening until…) to “The Art Angle” Podcast that came out on Thursday called “Critics Say ‘Identity Politics’ Ruined Art. Here’s A Better Argument” which features Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò who teaches philosophy at Georgetown University in D.C. The podcast was hosted by critic Ben Davis who brought Táíwò on where he made a set of arguments that scratched my brain in the best way possible and I thought you might appreciate if this is your sector of Art.

In the wake of sections of the population blaming everything on DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and “wokeness”*, The Art World has its fair share of things to say. In a world where Identity gets redefined, weaponized and used in our personal rituals and ceremonies. Let me talk about where the term “Identity Politics” comes from. Táíwò explained in the podcast, and I quote: “Identity Politics was coined by a Queer Black feminist socialist collective that met in the Boston area in the 70s called the Combahee River Collective* and what they were describing at the time was a way of thinking about how to do politics… There’s this big social system that we are in and one of the differences in a way that changes how the system is for you is what kind of person you are. There’s certain expectations when you are a woman, queer etc.. but you can respond to that in a political way but it also doesn’t mean that you will one respond to the problem showing up in your individual situation. Doesn’t mean that you only have to work in groups and with people that are like you. It just means what kind of politics do you want to do”.

In the 21st century, identity politics is now commonly referenced as essentially what happens when people talk about identity more than what others might be comfortable with. It is more or less a derogatory term at this point. I wanted to take that concept of Identity Politics and what it means to us and apply it to the Contemporary Art World that I know. We tend to think in this very binary way most of the time; “this is right and this is wrong” “I have won, you have lost” so on and so forth. When certain notions are taken by systems of power and they start working with it, the actual meaning gets lost in the tracks. I think about how Identity works in different ways in the things that people choose to portray depending on race.

Much of the time, people of color will make work based on the relevancy of their experience in a larger context whereas our white counterparts will often make work based on their individual experience. For example, most artists of color in the contemporary art world work with themes rooted in (but not always) Ancestry, Community and the world around them while the other side of this will make work that includes their particular individual experience. I think about works from the 20th century and how some of the popular white artists from that period would make exploratory work/studies about the self, I.e. painting portraits of themselves. People of color get less opportunities to explore themselves in that way as systems of power have already established what their work should be about and what it should continue to be about which unfortunately makes people less keen to think outside of that and more likely to keep making works checking those boxes. Táíwò gave the example of a student who went to a private high school and applied to a private university who would use the fact that they are marginalized/oppressed in their essay. What do you think the point is? Optics. Simply put, both parties are benefiting. The people in positions of power in this case, the admissions office will see this as an opportunity to make themselves look good, like they are contributing to a sense of progress. The student would have gotten what they needed by being given access to an institution of power.

A lot of the use of identity feels a little opportunistic in some contexts; what’s the conversation being had and what’s the noise? How much of the discussion is optics? Is it worth thinking about identity in politics that involve who we should listen to and who we shouldn’t? I think a lot about my own practice as someone who paints the self vs what some of my peers in the art world tend to make and in a lot of ways I feel less taken seriously because my work does not engage in the discourse and boxes that have been placed onto us by people in positions of power which now brings me to my next point: Why do we think of conversations surrounding identity in the contemporary art world as saturated when we could maybe be acknowledging that we haven’t even scratched past the surface towards what might be the real issue?

Unfortunately, I think and as Táíwó explained we’ve come to the gamification of identity. In other words, we’ve taken complex themes and notions and simplified them, reduced them to what we want to make of them. This might be a side effect of skimming through things and taking what resonates without understanding why it resonates/where it comes from and why it was used in the first place. Games are such a clear way to indicate how structure influences behavior; we have these established rules about Identity now (Individualistic vs community driven) which is why I am talking about games. The structure that we have established around Identity (“who does what”) has influenced the response that it produces. When the optics of identity are rewarded, people will participate in the game. People stay in their lanes, there is little to no risk taking. The same cliched narratives are rehashed over and over. Dare to be outside of these established structures and best believe you won’t find a larger market. Another thing I am thinking about is because of the current state of Identity Art, there will always be a market for it and I think a lot of artists tend to fall back on “oh there’s a market for my work so I might keep doing what works” because the moment one chooses to think outside of that binary logic, things might start looking different.

My last point will be that because of the currently unstable state of the market, risk taking might be the last thing on people’s minds especially emerging artists. Playing the game as it’s been established makes sense. As audiences, we too respond to the things that relate to our own experiences the most. But what happens when we break free of the structures of optics, of making institutions feel good? But the Art World, let’s note, is a privileged world so what does it mean to have all these big conversations when, in a way, we are also a part of that privilege?

I will let you all ponder on these questions. I hope reading this essay opened you up to a new perspective and hopefully together we continue to peel off the layers.

Thank you for reading, take care and see you in a month!

Zeinab

Definitions:

*Wokeness, stemming from “woke” is a woke being term that got popularized amongst the Black community in the 60-70s as a way to tell people to stay informed on what was happening around them and made a comeback in 2016 following the cases of police brutality towards Black people. 

*The Combahee River Collective was a Black feminist socialist Lesbian organization active in Boston MA, from 1974 to 1980. The Collective argued that both the white feminist movement and the Civil Rights Movement were not addressing their particular needs as Black women and more specifically as Black lesbians.