“Towards a More Inclusive Art History” — What even does that mean?

The final taught block in my Art History MA (before we start focusing solely on our dissertations) is titled “towards a more inclusive art history”. This has led to a lot of interesting discussions about what this means, what “inclusive” means in an art history context and how that relates to both art and academic institutions.

One of the things that’s interesting about art history as an area of study is that it’s affected and sometimes in thrall to three institutions — the art world, the history world, and academia. So much of what we study and how we study it is informed by these institutions and the values of those with power within them. There’s even the “Institutional theory of Art”, created and popularised in 1974 by George Dickie and Arthur Danto, in response to the rise of artworks like Duchamp's urinal that deconstructed previous definitions of art. The institutional theory of art states that “art institutions such as museums and galleries, and specific agents working within them, have the power to dictate what is art and what is not” and that “ There is no property of being a work of art other than being deemed to be such by authorized members of the art world.” The idea that “art” is that which is designated as such by institutions and those with power within them is pretty awful on several levels — as well as it meaning that those with the power and privilege to get into these positions get to define art for an entire culture/society, it also means that any cultures without these institutions can’t by definition produce art, and only objects that can be separated from daily life and exhibited in a gallery counts as “art” (not to mention that many famous works created by “old masters” wouldn’t fit into this as they were created before art galleries and institutions were even a thing). Whilst there is a lot of deconstruction of these ideas, they still persist both within art and art history institutions and influence what is able to happen within these fields (part of this is because of the massive amounts of money involved within the art industry, which can only be maintained if institutions can maintain their monopoly on defining not only what is and isn’t “art” but also what is and isn’t “great art”).

So then what does it mean to have a “more inclusive” art history? The way I see it this question can be answered a few different ways, with increasing depth, complexity and requirements to deconstruct current institutional ideas, and with different ideas about who/what were trying to be more “inclusive” of and why.

First of all there’s the simple practice of researching/exhibiting artists from marginalised groups who haven’t received the institutional attention it’s felt their work deserves due to their gender/race/class etc. This is a good thing to do, and something that’s been done a lot by both art historians and curators, for example in Tate’s 2017 exhibition “Queer British Art 1861–1967.” However it does have its limits, as it usually only focuses on artists who were working within artistic institutions even if they didn’t receive much recognition or exposure at the time.

Secondly, we can look at cases that have been excluded from art institutions because the work itself doesn’t fit into their ideas of what art is, or is not easily approached through traditional art history methodologies. Craft and design are often included in this (particularly craft practises that have traditionally been gendered as female/feminine), as are similar cases which are seen as shared cultural practices rather than the vision of a single artist. It can also include things like zines and street art, as well as visual creative practices from non-western countries and other colonised communities. It could also include things that have become part of the internet’s visual culture, eg memes/selfies etc. I feel this is a step in the right direction as it acknowledges that art institutions shouldn’t be seen as the ruling authority on how we define “art” vs “not-art,” however there’s an inherent risk of institutionalising the work and both missing the point of it and disrespecting the artists by trying to cram it into boxes by the inappropriate use of analytical methodologies that weren’t created for it.

(There is overlap in these, for example an artist from a marginalised group may be more likely to be producing work outside of institutional ideas of what art is, and art historians may be more willing to look at work that breaks the mould of “traditional” art if it’s created by cis white men.)

The third is the most complex and the hardest to enact, which is the deconstruction of the institutions themselves, entirely removing their authority, and instead approaching work that exists outside of them and those who make it on its own terms. It’s also making space and resources available to the people who made the work (or those from the same community) to create their own art histories and exhibition spaces, which would probably look nothing like what has been created in institutions — the idea of “art” as objects that exist outside of, and can be separated from, other aspects of life is a specifically patriarchal western one. It also involves understanding that not everyone considers what they make “art” or wants to do so, in part because of the institutional connotations I’ve already talked about, and deconstructing the idea of “art” vs “not-art” as a hierarchy of value and the label of “art” as giving inherent status to an object or practice (to this end many academics have started using the more neutral and expansive term “visual culture”).

Part of the work I want to do following my MA (as well as the PhD I hope to do after) is to break down the boundaries of the institution, to make the work and ideas within it more accessible to those without university library access and to work to give perspectives from people outside the same level of respect as those within. I’m able to do this kind of study because of the massive amount of privilege I have, and I find the level of reading, analysis and criticism both really exciting and very useful in my understanding both of my own marginalisation as a Queer/trans person and the power structures in society in general. I believe that everyone has the right to experience this, particularly those who experience marginalisation, and until that’s the case we won’t have a truly inclusive art history.