Art and Accountability: A Critique of Pure Aestheticism

By Blessing Greer Mathurin

"For the outsider, everything in the world seems an insuperable barrier. For the insider, it is all an open door." Virginia Woolf 

As a young curator, I often come across young artists and even older administrators lamenting the almost divine right of art for its own sake. Aestheticism, in all its valor, views beauty as pure contemplation—beauty for beauty’s sake, symbolized in the beholder's eyes. But herein lies my critique: Whose eyes do we truly see through, and what aesthetic culture  is dominating our personal taste? In light of the clear economic crisis that diminishes frivolity, even the most seasoned collectors find that art is not the best investment at the time, whether as luxury or simply as "good," the frivolity ceases to amaze me. Let me be clear: I am not romanticizing a bygone era of excellence rooted in fixed standards, nor am I throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am proposing an existential question: Why should we care about Art? And how do we redefine the terms of engagement in a society that is simultaneously advancing and regressing? My first critique is somewhat personal, and I will own that, but what is to be said about the rise of the 'influ-artist' and its companion—the 'influ-curator'? Social media has become an increasingly influential tool in shaping the art market, particularly among younger collectors. According to Artsy Reports, “platforms like Instagram have been pivotal in helping artists and collectors connect more directly, bypassing traditional market structures. In fact, as of recent surveys, 91% of "Next-Gen" collectors, a group primarily composed of Millennials and Gen Z, have bought art online, demonstrating how technology is transforming purchasing behaviors” At first, this may seem like a democratizing effect. But when we examine algorithms, moderation rules, and access, the reality becomes somewhat grim when thinking about the future of who gets to be an artist. Black creators are 25% less likely to have visibility on social media platforms. White cisgender men are the least likely to face harassment and tend to receive more engagement than their non-white, non-male, and non-cis counterparts.  Men, in general, receive higher engagement and more positive reinforcement to continue posting and interacting in the public space of the internet, all according to the Center for American Progress. Yes, this is oversimplification, yes everyone works very hard, Why am I saying all of this? Pure aesthetics in a world that has an asymmetric approach to access is bankrupt. Disclaimer: many cis straight white men make thought-provoking and well-made, rigorous work—that is not the problem. The problem is that in a world where beauty is commodified by the dominant culture, and so-called beauty garners attention, where does that leave disruptors or discerners? Or ugly word alert, the unbeautiful? Really, this issue is not a new phenomenon; it transcends eras. Proximity to power and/or proximity to aspiration has always dictated who gets to do what. Think of Ivy League institutions, academia—it's very much like the internet. Instead of grades and scholarships, which once marked the divide, now it's Instagram engagement, proximity to celebrity, and co-signs. And it's unregulated. See, the internet serves to simply magnify the latent bias in us all. Art has historically been seen as a tool to convey social, political, or moral messages across various canons, including European, Asian, African, and Indigenous cultures. When unearthing artifacts or restoring pieces from bygone eras, we don't just see the beauty of form, but the aesthetics of morality. This morality is often intertwined with views of religion and politics. In the past, key holders—such as merchants who commissioned works, witches who created talismans, or other religious or spiritual figures—used art to reflect their beliefs, or better yet, to mirror the value systems and mores of the cultures around them. Think of Roman antiquity, Egypt, India,  Moche Pots (if you're feeling more expansive in your worldview), or the Bronze Age in Nigeria (if you're like me). In a digital age, where there is no border unless there is economic inaccessibility to the internet. Why can’t we all be authors to a canon, the contributes to implementation of theories to praxis in the form of art, why stop at generic expression when we can reveal in rigor, why not be passionate through work and think, not just about out creative impulse- but what we truly want everything to mean when we are gone if only to ourselves. This is why the curator, gallerist and art writer is indispensable—there is a need for context, discernment, and a love for art and all its uses. To curate, derived from the Latin word curare, means 'to take care of.' This translation has evolved through many forms, from religious practices to contemporary art and artifacts, and it continues to expand in the digital age, where those who truly care take responsibility not just for the art, but for the way we view life and ourselves.