The art of authenticity
The Struggle for Authenticity in Art
I want to speak today about authenticity.
And about what we quietly give up to be accepted.
We’re told that contemporary political art values autonomy.
That artists are free.
That inquiry sits at the centre of practice.
But autonomy, in reality, is often something we *perform*—
not something we’re allowed to exercise.
Freedom is celebrated rhetorically,
while legitimacy is granted only when work conforms
Autonomy isn’t denied outright.
It’s curated.
This system doesn’t fail artists by accident.
It functions mechanically.
It rewards work that aligns with predetermined frameworks
and filters out work that doesn’t speak the sanctioned dialect.
Many voices are excluded not because they lack skill or meaning,
but because they refuse to translate their experience
into institutionally legible language.
I’m not saying all excluded work is good.
I am saying much of it is never heard.
And that matters.
Because the greatest threat to cultural expression
is not radical art.
It’s the slow erosion of the artist’s voice.
Autonomy is surrendered incrementally—
for access,
for legitimacy,
for approval.
Conviction becomes compliance.
Inquiry becomes insulation.
Authenticity is replaced by sanctification.
Ambiguity plays a role in this.
Ambiguity itself is not the problem.
Ambiguity that invites inquiry is essential to art.
But ambiguity that cannot be questioned—
because it is institutionally protected—
stops being openness
and starts functioning as authority.
When obscurity shields work from dialogue,
especially from those outside institutional literacy,
it ceases to be generosity
and becomes enclosure.
Meaninglessness mistaken for sophistication
does not protect art.
It protects systems.
Accessibility is often treated with suspicion.
But accessibility is not simplification.
Public intelligibility is not populism.
Complex ideas do not collapse when explained.
Fragile ones hide behind jargon.
The public is not incapable of depth.
What the public is denied
is access.
Art grounded in integrity does not dilute complexity.
It clarifies purpose.
People respond to work that is honest, rigorous,
and rooted in lived inquiry—
especially when that work challenges dominant narratives.
Political art that cannot withstand disagreement
has already abandoned politics.
This is not a call for simplification,
but for responsibility;
not for consensus,
but for courage.
Institutions often defend exclusion by invoking standards.
I’m not arguing against standards.
I’m questioning how they operate.
Standards that require conformity of language or ideology
are not neutral.
They are political instruments.
Curation becomes coercive
when legitimacy depends on fluency in a narrow theoretical dialect
rather than the force of inquiry itself.
Culture doesn’t sharpen under those conditions.
It narrows.
This is not a crisis of expression.
It’s a crisis of discourse.
Obscurity neutralises critique.
Silence masquerades as depth.
Fear of disagreement is used to justify insulation.
But fear of disagreement
is not a defence of culture.
It’s an abdication of responsibility.
Political art must not hide behind theory.
It must stand behind intention.
Accountability doesn’t mean agreement.
It means ownership.
It means standing by the *why* of the work—
and entering dialogue
that invites challenge, interpretation, and response.
The “why” does not close meaning.
It grounds responsibility.
So this is the position I’m taking.
Art that refuses to trade voice for access.
Clarity without simplification.
Complexity without concealment.
Autonomy without performance.
Because authenticity is not a style.
It’s a position.
Comments
Post a Comment