Art, The Final Frontier For Cultural Equality

By Jerry Thomas (November 1, 2006)

In the United States we, African Americans, have made significant progress in our quest for equal rights. Fortunately, the days are behind us when people of color are palpably excluded from most private and public venues, including corporations, schools and neighborhoods. African Americans are no longer excluded from museums or required to visit during limited days and times. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of the day when little black boys and girls would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. I too have a dream. My dream is that the day will come when the art of African American artists and other people of color will be judged by the quality of their artistic production rather than how closely it mirrors mainstream American and European art based on their art history and standards.

In many ways the mainstream art community continues to have little tolerance for diversity, aesthetic or cultural vantage points which deviate from its own. Many of the most important decisions in the art world are made persons from culturally homogeneous backgrounds that have little or no sensibility to others. Art may in fact present the final frontier for cultural equality.

Art is an important marker of who we are and how we will be viewed by later generations. It can significantly impact how we see the world and how the world sees us. The exclusion of art and culture which does not reflect the tastes of mainstream has far reaching consequences. The imposition of mainstream art to the detriment of other groups is achieved more subtly than was historically the case. In earlier times invading forces would forcefully impose their art and culture on newly conquered or colonized subjects. Rather than forcing us to accept their art as being superior, we are required to subordinate our artistic and cultural sensibilities to museums and art historians and other gatekeepers. They have nearly unfettered power to determine the validity and value of material culture both within and outside of their cultural and educational experiences.

Should the arbiters of taste, quality and importance have the license to make important judgments which have the effect of marginalizing any art which is not from their cultural or educational orientation? Few of us ever reflect on the motivations or consequences of decisions determining which art is important and that which is not. Is there really high art and low art, and if so, who gets to decide? Is it based on objective or subjective criteria? French President Jacques Chirac recently stated at the unveiling of a new museum (part of the Louvre in Paris) that “. . . all cultures are equal . . .” While this statement is politically correct, there is little evidence that all cultures are in fact treated equally.

In the United States, much of the more valued art by people of color is often referred to as “universal”. If we examine the application of this term, it becomes apparent that it is actually code for art that is acceptable to people of European descent. When the mainstream art community refers to universal art it is rare that African, Asian, Caribbean or Latin perspectives are taken into consideration. Truly universal art would be judged by culturally neutral criteria. Art in fact is no more universal than language which is culturally and geographically determined – at minimum it should be acknowledged that there are different dialects.

By affording greater recognition and value to “universal” art by people of color, it sends a subliminal message that mainstream European derivative culture produces the most significant art. If we accept this premise, then it follows that to the extent that people of color produce quality art, it is because they have adhered to so-called universal, e.g. Euro-centric principles governing art. It has the net affect of conditioning African Americans and other groups to subordinate their own cultural and personal creativity because it is less likely to be valued by the mainstream art community.

Mainstream cultural bias is further exacerbated by the increasing influence of corporate media on culture and values. The challenge in a multi-cultural society is to extract culturally neutral criteria and to make every effort to apply the criteria in a fair and unbiased manner. It is not possible to construct wholly objective criteria since there is no empirical means for eliminating cultural bias. However, to the extent that genuine efforts are made to consider and value other cultural viewpoints, then tremendous progress can be made in achieving cultural equality.

Cultural differences should be welcomed rather than marginalized. It is inconceivable that jazz, blues and gospel music could have originated from any place other than African American culture. Likewise, reggae could have only evolved from a Caribbean culture and Salsa could only have evolved from Latin culture. We would have been deprived of the richness which these musical forms have given us, if they were only judged by Euro-centric notions of musical quality.

Artistically, if mainstream standards were the only gauge, the hugely popular Gees Bend Quilt Exhibition would never have received widespread recognition and critical acclaim. As a sidebar, it should be noted that initially not a single museum agreed to accept the quilt exhibition, organized by The Museum of Fine Art, Houston, as a traveling exhibition due to the fact the quilts diverged from standard Euro-American notions of art worthy of acclaim. Alternatively, the explanation may be that the quilts did adhere to standard notions of significant art but the artists were Black women living on a remote economically challenged peninsula in Alabama – an improbable setting for celebrated artists. In addition to embracing differences of different cultures and art, great benefits can also be derived from being influenced by other cultures and even incorporating their aesthetics and form. Picasso did it and the western art world has been the beneficiary –there simply needs to be more intellectual honesty about contributions of other cultures.

We now live in a flat world where technology links people without regard to nationality, ethnic, geographic origin, and even time and distance. The challenge is to find meaningfully ways to integrate and exhibit art based not only on diverse ethnic and geographically based cultures, but also on cultural differences anchored in personal preferences such as hip-hop, sexual and political orientation. Cultural equality can only be achieved in the arts if the art is judged from the vantage points of the culture(s) which informs the art and artists.

As a prelude to meaningful change, it must be accepted that all cultures deserve to have their art judged on their own merits. Next, art historians, curators and other leaders in the mainstream art community must educate themselves about the art and cultures of other groups so that they will have a framework from which to critically judge art grounded in other cultures. Finally, exhibitions and publications must be made available to the general public with an interest in art and material culture. Only then are we likely to experience significant progress towards cultural equality.

Ultimately, art history needs to be re-written in the same manner as is increasingly done in general American and world history. There must be recognition of the creative genius and artistic contributions from broad and diverse groups. Otherwise the mainstream victors will continue to get art history, while everyone else gets fading memories.