Let me be the same

The canon basically is a corpus of the works of art that conventionally represent the ideals of art, beauty and aesthetic, and it is the framework through which a lot of art will be understood and compared to. The thing with the construction of that art canon, is that it is ostensibly constructed with a very specific perspective in mind, and also, with a very specific goal, as well. The elements that are chosen to be part of the art canon are considered to be crucial and exemplary of the culture, in this case, of art. It tries to write in stone permanently the works of art that are the ones that are the real fundamentals and critical artworks that construct the most important pieces of art history.

One of the things that is important to talk about when it comes to the canon is the value of neutrality. Which is one of the things that it boasts itself as, the understanding is that the art canon simply IS, that the works of art that are part of it are because they are objectively the best work of arts that art history has to offer, but we know it is not the case and we all know that the neutral is everything but neutral. The same way the straight white able bodied man is not the neutral, it stands to reason that it is impossible to create a canon of work that is universal to everyone and therefore Neutral. The simple act of choosing what is part of the canon is a biased action, as well as taking the decision of excluding certain works of arts from it. The creation of the art history canon, even if not explicitly, is a tool of white supremacy.

You can even see how the art canon has often been used as a power tool by white supremacists and fascists throughout history, for example with the nazis and their term of « degenerate art », a very degrading term for whatever was not in their very narrow and bigoted definition of art. The heralding of a certain canon of art as the superior one, as a way of asserting the Right Kind of Art History, a very white, western, cis and heteronormative vision of classical art history, is only complementing their understanding of life as they try to systematically eliminate anything or anyone that doesn’t fit. The nazis had a very rigid and bigoted idea of what art should be, comprehensibly as they were the scum of earth, and they systematically got rid of any art that didn’t fall in those categories. This is a very concrete shaping of the art canon on a practical level, because they confiscated and either sold or destroyed all the artworks that were considered to be an attack on the nazi regime and their values.

With some of these confiscated and stolen art, the nazis created an exhibit of « Degenerate Art » to showcase the art they thought was the example of degeneracy as they called it, and consisted of mostly modern art and more contemporary and avant-garde art, from jewish, non-white or queer artists, or anyone who didn’t conform to the white supremacist ideals of the nazi regime. Their use of the word « degeneracy » is one that connected the art to the racial element of the nazi ideology, that said that « racially healthy people » would create objectively « good art ». God I’m disgusted just by writing this…. Anyway, this exhibit of degenerate art was contrasted to classical art and used as a way to assert what kind of art and cultural assets was the right one, and which one was the wrong one.

With these informations in mind, it’s really important to not fall into the trap of that specific discourse that theorizes that «art was so much better before and now everything is not real art» as it is a very slippery slope to some very bigoted ways of communicating and thinking, that are the way the alt-right, as well as fascist ideologies frame art and art history. I think there’s nothing wrong with having aesthetic preferences. I for one am very much a sucker for 19th c. style book illustrations as well as very cutesy illustrations in general. But there is a line that can be easily crossed over, and alt-right groups and fascists use this term in a very purposeful way that is very exclusionary and in a way to assert Traditional values as they consider it, associating only a certain type of classical, traditional « clean » art, made by also a certain type of artist, as objectively superior to other types of art, and this is why the art canon is a tool of white supremacy.

When it comes to how the art canon was constructed, there needs to be a brief overview of art historiography, just to make sure I explain a bit what the concept is. Art historiography is the history of art history, which we are going to do here. Even though the concept of talking about art and critiquing art and understanding art is far from being a western concept, the discipline of art history as we now understand it, is definitely a western construct. I think one of the first publications of art history would be from the Italian Giorgio Vasari and his book « The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects» A book that was published for the first time in 1550. And in this book, Vasari who was mostly a biographer, chronicled the lives and work of the artists who he personally thought were skilled, talented and worth talking about. And we can see that it is thus his personal canon of art history that he developed here. And this personal canon, that he constructed subjectively choosing the artists with his own set of criteria, ended up being the basis of a lot of how western art history got constructed especially a he talked about his contemporaries during the renaissance, an era that would end up being considered a pinnacle of art, and the peak of art, with artists such as Michelangelo, Caravaggio, DaVinci and more.

Afterwards, during the 18th century, a period that will also be crucial for the development of art history as a discipline, notably with the writings of Winckelmann, which will end up being foundation texts when it comes to western art history The History of the Art of the Antiquity. His research will have a focus primarily on ancient greek art, specifically sculpture, but also ceramics and pottery, and will heavily bring back the fundamentals of the classics, of the antiquity and of the society and ideals of Ancient Greece. (I’m sorry to be crude here but Winckelmann simply wanted to f*ck a greek statue) This book, as well as his general writings such as Reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks are usually credited for being the beginning of art history as an academic discipline as we now know it and understand it. The methodology that he chose to apply to the study of the art of the greek antiquity became the basis for the art historical methodology and the construction of the discipline as a whole.

I have to mention here though, that it was later discovered that the « greek » statues that are the basis of Winckelmann’s studies were later found to be roman copies of greek statues, but that still does not invalidate his research, his methodology, or what he brought to art history as an academic field. He did the research he could with the information he had available at the time, and this is also a stark reminder that everything we consider as part of the current historical knowledge definitely can be invalidated, as new historical and archeological finds are happening. Knowledge is never immuable and it is constantly evolving, and it is something that one needs to always keep in mind, whatever discipline one is specialized in.

But when it come to Winckelmann, though, it is important to see that it is his personal tastes and interests, and him being literally in love with greek statues and ancient Greece which he viewed as the epitome of male masculinity and of aesthetic taste, that really shaped his personal canon of art history, and this canon, which was created with Winckelmann’s own personal subjective vision and tastes, then became the basis, along with Vasari’s ideas of what real art was and which artists were worth studying and remembering, of the objective truth of taste in art.

The canon has been considered, until only very recently, as a sort of an immuable facet of art history. And while, I agree that a lot of these artists and works of art were definitely deeply influential in their own right, and in the field of art history. Once again there needs to be a reflection about why these specific artists and these specific works of art were chosen, because that did not happen by chance. I genuinely want to stress, as a historian of art, and just generally as someone who thinks a lot about history, that while history is composed of facts and events, the way these are presented is a constructed history. A narrative. The perspective in which history is told is almost as important as the events themselves. It is being said that history is written by the victors, and that is incredibly true, whether we’re talking about general history, art history or whatever else. Who has the voice and who has the ability to talk is the one in control of the story being told. Because as much as we want to deny it, there’s a certain form of storytelling when it comes to the creation of History™️ that is inherent to the discipline, and of the way History is understood and framed. What are the events that are focused on, which part of history is made important, while others are devalued.

I was listening to a podcast the other day, that made me think about the concept of the Middle-Ages and of the way it is often called the Dark Ages. Mostly, because there were not a lot of things that have been written during this period, so it is very difficult to unravel what happened, and what is facts and what is legend. But mostly, it is the fact that…. nothing much was happening… in Europe. If you simply turn your focus to the arab world, to Asia, to Africa.. to anywhere else but Europe, the world was thriving. Art and culture was flourishing. It’s that focus and perspective that strictly focuses on Europe and its history that deprives us from that global outlook on history.

There is history and art history done by non-western people, even lesser centered european countries, but because this research is not done in english, it’s almost as if it does not exist within the western / english speaking / centered manner and I think there should be a concerted effort to either a) learn the language or b) translate that research, because most of the time it does exist, and it has been done in a way that will be more mindful of that society’s particular history and culture, and i simply do not want to pretend it doesn’t, i think once again i want to reassert the fact that while western history and art history is being imposed as a sort of cultural hegemony in non-western countries, rarely so the focus is given the other way which is once again a product of colonialism and imperialism.

That period was thus called, because Europe was not where the action was centered, for once. But even in Europe, the medieval period was very fascinating and interesting and there is a lot to learn and to study, but this framing of that historical period as « The Dark Ages » gives the impression of a wasteland of history, when that was far from the case. For me,  medieval Europe is a bit of a ghost in history. It haunts us. There is so little that we know, because of the lack of written sources and the mystery and mystical legends that came out of these times, the history of the medieval era in Europe feels shrouded in mystery and obscurity, and I so long to learn what’s hidden behind those shadows. (Especially, when it comes to the historical basis of Arthurian Legends, I would oh so love to finally learn the truth about that).

We always love telling stories about ourselves, and even within non-fiction and more factual-based media, the way you choose to communicate these informations, to present them, is a way to control the narrative. Everyone does it, from books to documentaries, to podcasts (hello my dear friends, listen to my art history podcast IMAGINARIUM: an alternate history of art) to me in this current article. The narrative is continually evolving and moving. We constantly re-contextualize history, as well as our vision of history, to better understand ourselves, to better understand the past and our current present, where we are heading, or where we want to be heading for our futures.

History, and art history is a continual shifting of narratives, a same story can be told in manners that will give it opposite and contradictory meanings, and a single work of art can also be understood and interpreted in so many different ways, and it is naive to pretend otherwise. There is no such thing as pure objectivity, whether in art history, or in fields such as journalism or science, where this concept is being heralded as being paramount to the work being done within those disciplines. And while I think it is very important to try and be as objective as one can, there is a great danger to the myth of objectivity, because I do not think that anyone can be truly objective.

We have seen it in the field of what is considered to be objective sciences such as chemistry, biology, basically anything that has to do with S.T.E.M.. By refusing to accept that, as human beings, we simply cannot attain a state of perfect objectivism, we put ourselves at risk of falling victim to the biases that we hold. Instead, it is a better idea to interrogate the biases and prejudices that one has. So often, we hear about an A.I. that is somehow very racist and sexist, and it is not surprising that these sorts of biases go into the programs that are developed, after all, these A.I. adopt the biases of those who created them, and it is important to consider this aspect. All of this to say that it is that while it is paramount to think about these concepts critically, it is honestly irresponsible in my opinion to pretend that any of us can truly be objective. The myth of objectivity is the same as the myth of neutrality, they’re both dangerous in the way they assume a white, male heteronormative perspective as the norm and the center of all things, which is extremely damaging for everyone. This is why white people get offended when you remind them they are white, because they are simply so used to being the Default, while everyone else constantly has a qualitative term next to them.

There is simply no such thing as a common default for everyone, we all have our differences and unique experiences in life, and I think it’s paramount to simply accept that, and move forward with that reality, instead of trying to create one single unique default and neutral perspective, which will never exist. This is why I’m a huge advocate for diversity in inclusivity in all fields, whether it’s advocating for more people of color behind the scenes in Cinema, more diverse art historians (hello hi 💖 ), or simply more diverse stories being told. I do not believe that the current way representation is the focus of a lot of activism will liberate any of us. Representation is only as good as so far as it is, what is truly needed is a re-structuration of the entire system, of diversity and inclusivity at all levels and areas, and not only as characters of a movie or media, even though it is also very much a good thing.

Needless to say, that we’re truly all bringing our own biases and perspectives, and the construction of the art canon is equally biased. It hasn’t been long since the concept in itself of the canon has been challenged and put as a subject to be criticized, analyzed and understood. For a really long time, the art canon was considered to be this very static and immovable thing, this is how it is, and it’s only recently that I see people from the field truly interrogating how this art canon even came to be in the first place, and what it means for the broader field of art history.

It is due to the influence of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, that the canon is now being considered to be this entity that is set in stone. It is coming from the idea that aesthetic judgement and tastes are somehow separated from the «practical realm», so to say historical circumstances, societal influences and socialization. This way of understanding how someone can appreciate art totally ignores the actual consequences of inequalities, the disparities of access to art and media (Even though this is certainly changing with the democratization of art through the internet), the influence of power dynamics and culture. This approach to the development of taste that is strictly formal and aesthetic adopts the view that there’s an objective beauty and Good taste across the board. Which I have to say that I simply disagree with this statement.

The tastes we develop are intricately linked with the art we have seen, the art we have experienced, the general aesthetic tastes of the society, socio-economical circumstances as well as simply personal preferences. But these personal preferences are not created in a vacuum, and if we live in a world where the work of art that are deemed as the epitome of art and the talent and skills of artists are predominantly created by cis white men, well this creates a situation where it is the art of cis white men that has been historically constantly valued over all the rest. I cannot stress it enough the place of the art canon as a tool of oppression and imperialism. It legitimizes and validates the work of arts of white cis men as the exemplary model of art and it is a way of solidifying the western art in a superior position. The way the art canon is constructed is part of the colonial agenda, and it simply is not accidental that it disseminates the ideas that it does.

The art canon is a tool of power, and it is something that needs to be discussed and then deconstructed. The way art history is currently set up is in a way that constantly uplifts and amplifies white western artists voices, as well as diminishes and silences non-western artists, women and generally ignores the art of non-white people, and this is something that is inherent to the canon in itself. The simple act of deciding which artworks to legitimize, to mythologize even, creates a system that keeps perpetuating and validating the same ideas of what is art. Even if the art styles evolve and change, even if the medium and materials change, the goal of the art canon, as we know it, has always been to consolidate a certain idea of white culture. These canons of art history still are very much anchored in a very white and euro-centric perspective that still dominates the way the subject of art and art history is approached to this day.

The canon has constantly been used to exclude marginalized communities from the main conversation about art, and it is only recently, in the fifty-ish or so past years, I would say, that there seem to have been a cultural shift in terms of what kind of art is being prioritized and who is being listened to. I mean, the art coming from white men is still the one that is very much prioritized, whether we’re talking about fine arts, books, movies, or something else, but it feels like the tide is changing somehow, and people are finally being able to be heard and apply real pressure for systemic change. Once again, while I agree that representation in the field of art is paramount, this needs to be coupled with real change on a systemic level, because if we only focus on representation, it is a very shallow concept to focus on, and that will then only tokenize, alienate and capitalize on marginalized people. A person of a marginalized community achieving mainstream success does not mean anything for that community in itself, unless they in turn make efforts to wrench the doors open for other people. So there needs to be a concerted pushing and pressure for real concrete change, to ask for more than tokenized representation, and a real voice for marginalized artists of all kinds.

During the 1970s, the activists of the second wave of feminism were challenging the art world and its very male focused perspective when it comes to the artists that are exhibited in the institutions of art. The Guerilla Girls infamously created this poster that says « Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum » along with some of the statistics concerning the number of female artists exhibited, as well as the statistics of how many of the nudes are representations of women. This is once again a very concrete way to push back against an institution that is constantly exclusionary of women, and of people of all genders that are not cis men, and an interrogation of the canon of art, and what kind of art and artist is legitimized by the institutions of art.

The article written by Linda Nochlin in 1971 : « Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists ? » is a foundational text of the feminist approach to art history, but also of this use of the art canon as an exclusionary tool. There is a single experience that has been repeated time and time again pushed, and it is the one of the western white man, as universal. White men have the freedom of simply being considered as people, meanwhile marginalized people are often being the sole voice for their entire communities, and held to standards that are impossible to uphold. When a white man messes up, it simply reflects on him as a person. If a person from a marginalized community messes up or makes a mistake, this thus becomes a reflection of the whole community. Their mistakes become the mistake of everyone, and it is a very heavy weight to put on marginalized people, especially on artists coming from these communities.

I think it’s a debate that has been happening a lot lately, but people from marginalized groups and their art should not be representative or a voice for their entire communities. Their experiences are theirs and not necessarily relatable to everyone of that community, nor an exact perfect representation of that specific experience. I think it is incredible unfair to demand that, while white men have the opportunity of being considered simply as individual people, and that their experiences are simply theirs, and have the liberty of being complex, layered, and complicated, and create equally complex, layered and complicated art, meanwhile marginalized people are not being afforded that privilege.

So the question that Nochlin explores of «Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists ? » is incredibly crucial to this understanding of the art canon, and the thing to consider is that yes, there have been less great women artists generally in the scope of art history compared to men. But this is a byproduct of misogyny and not of capability, or incapability of women to create and create great art that is compelling and beautiful, and this applies to marginalized artists in general as well. It is also important to consider that even if certain artists from marginalized communities have known mainstream success and material achievements, history will still hardly remember them, and that the success of a few people, does not mean systemic change. They have been systematically excluded from the system of art within western society, and artists from non-western countries have also been systematically excluded from the broader narrative of art history even though they have been creating amazing art.

The framing of the art canon as a meritocracy, and not as the cultural tool that it is, ignores the fact that marginalized people have been constantly excluded from this art canon, and of the wider narrative of art history, because of racism, bigotry, misogyny, and etc. The art canon is simply a way to consolidate that system and the power it holds. The question of « Why have there been no great women artists ? » or as a matter of fact, you could insert any kind of marginalized people here, sort of brings the answer that there has been no great artists from these communities because they weren’t worthy enough, talented enough, or did not work hard enough to do so. This ignores the fact that the system is created to stop these people from succeeding and being acknowledged as great artists in the canon of art, and, that as I have mentioned, there are artists of these communities who have had succeeded in western countries. It also ignores the fundamental and inherent quality of the art canon, as it is a tool of white supremacy, used to assert a certain idea of what art should be, and what kind of art is worthwhile, and what kind of artist should be talked about. And this is why there are no [insert any kind of marginalization here] artists. Not because they weren’t talented. But because the system is not built to recognize them.

Which brings us to the fact that we simply need to be more inclusive ideas of art and art history that historically excluded people of color, queer people, disabled people and anyone who is marginalized in any kind of way. There has definitely been a cultural shift, with a renewed desire to create more diversity and inclusivity in the world of art and culture, a desire to be more inclusive, a dynamic that is somewhat new, and that I totally attribute to the changing landscape of the world of art to the new tools of mass communication and the internet. I think that we are still finding our footing when it comes to our relationship with this new tool and this new way of relating to the world. But globalism, the internet and mass media brought to us a democratization of art and art history, an almost unlimited access to art and knowledge about art in an unprecedented way, with art collections being available online, google arts and cultures, resources and the possibility of learning about art and art history that is easier than ever before in history.

This democratization of the world of art also brings a new platform for artists that doesn’t need the validation of artistic institutions to exist. Which makes it possible for everyone to find a possible audience for their art, without needing to be legitimized by the higher institutions of art. Even though the world of fine art is as elitist as ever, being an artist is no longer as exclusionary as it used to be. Social media has been a tool that’s been used by artists to be able to promote, market and share their art without the need to abide by the strict confines of the art world. There’s a lot of things we are still figuring out with social medias, a lot of negative aspects and downsides to it, but there’s no denying that it has been at least an equalizer of sort, as it provides everyone with an internet access a voice and a platform to which to display their art, especially for marginalized people who would not otherwise have this access.

I also have to specify that people of color in their respective cultures and countries will of course be part of the artistic landscape in a way that they might not have been in a western context, but the canon of art is a very western notion, that is very euro-centric and is very exclusionary. As I explained earlier, it is a tool of white supremacy, and art history as a field has been historically western centric, even though with globalism, the work of non-white people in the field of contemporary art is brought to the limelight, and the art historians bring a new and needed perspective to the way we think about art. Because as it stands, art history poses a very western gaze on all of art history, whether its own history, or the art made by non-white people and cultures. In my opinion, it is a way of looking at non-western art that is very fetishizing, and still does not hold it up at the same level of western art. Consciously, or unconsciously, the art history canon is a way of determining what is important and what is not, and with the fact that this canon includes mostly only white men…. Well, it does tell you what it needs to tell you.

Even when the world of western art was including non-white people in their arts, the way they depicted and represented them was very stereotypical, offensive in the best of times, and straight up racist and disgusting in the worst of times. These are pervasive ideas that will form the vision that will be popularized of non-white cultures, a stereotypical and artificial vision, but that will nonetheless articulate the way the Occident will comprehend these cultures, but also assert its own vision of the west on non-western cultures as well. Once again, I beg all of you to read Orientalism by Edward Said, which I think is a foundational text of the post-colonial approach to art history. The art canon is a colonial concept, and so it is with an understanding that it has to be unraveled and completely deconstructed, that we move on forward.

There have been a number of artists coming from marginalized communities to try and face the concept of the art canon, of these ideas and aesthetics that have been held up as the epitome of what good art is. Some artists will then reappropriate the aesthetic of classical western paintings in order to center themselves in the historical and artistic narrative. These aesthetics center only white people, a certain idea of what the world order should look like, and of who is permitted to be represented in this kind of way, and so a lot of contemporary artists use this canon and those visual tropes to present a new idea of what art could be, and whose voices and art can be uplifted.

It’s art so as to create a new canon of art, in which the inequalities and injustices of the past no longer exist. It is a post-colonialist angle that is taken by these artists from marginalized communities, so that they can put forth a perspective that’s been historically ignored, and to give a voice to people whose artistic output subverts the western art canon. The simple existence of this kind of art creates a dialogue between the art of the past and the art of the present, all the while using the visual language that was established by this same canon. This act of using these visual symbols is usually called « artistic reference ».

This anti-colonial point of view on the reference and artistic citations in painting and on the way racialized artists will use that iconography in a way as to appropriate the canons of traditional western classical painting. It is possible to mention the work of Yinka Shonibare, a nigerian-born british artist, with his dark skinned sculptures inspired by western classical paintings, but clothed with traditional african textiles. His works of art put this hybridity of cultures in perspective with the canon of art, as well as the notions of colonialism, taste and art. As he says himself in his biography

« Although I speak Yoruba well, I think in English and it’s rather strange, you know. You move from one way of thinking. Then you think in Yoruba: sometimes you think in English and you dream in English sometimes. It’s that kind of existence that in a way my work tries to talk about; my work is actually not about the representation of politics but the politics of representation. »

With his creative output, he truly looks to bridge the feeling of otherness that the simple fact of existing as a non-white person in a western society brings, no matter how long you have been there. The politics of representation, as he calls it, is something I have mentioned earlier, but it truly reveals itself in how this canon of art is devoid of any sort of representation for any person that deviates from the mold it looks to assert, and thus these artists will reclaim the conversation and draw themselves as part of the portrait of art history. With sculptures such as Mr & Mrs Andrews without their Heads (1998) which is a direct reference to the Thomas Gainsborough painting Mr & Mrs Andrews (1748), of these two characters, without their heads as the title would indicate, dressed in typical 18th century fashion, but using, instead of the usual fabrics, Dutch wax-print textiles with african motifs.

In doing so, Shonibare uses the visual trope of the portrait of the rich white british aristocracy of the 18th century, and by dressing them in african textiles, brings a commentary on imperialism. He contrasts this classical style of portrait by staging instead these forms that are dressed in traditional african textiles, and use the visual analogies in these classical portraits, that communicates the subjects as being of a certain social standing, and transposes them onto these sculptures dressed in traditional african textiles, which subverts the historical meaning of these portraits. It turns the concept onto its own head. My personal favorite work of Shonibare is his recreation of The Swing by Fragonard ; The Swing (after Fragonard) (2001). A sculpture based on the rococo painting of Fragonard, that is the representative work of art of the genre, in my eyes. This sculpture replicates the pose of the woman in a three dimensional form, with a dark-skinned mannequin wearing the same 18th century dress, but replicated in african textiles. It is a stunning recreation of these garments, that really is so pleasing to the eye, but most importantly brings to the mind, questions of colonialism, of who has been historically represented in this favorable light throughout western art history, and who was invisible, or negatively represented. This artwork juxtaposes these two realities and blends them. The colonial history, and the post-colonial work that is being done.

The entire artistic production of the canadian indigenous artist Kent Monkman also is a deconstruction of this art canon, and of a constant dialogue with the works of the past, especially of the classical oil paintings of the 18th and 19th century. His art output is an anti-colonial work whose goal is to center indigenous experiences in scenes visually inspired by 18th and 19th c. paintings, and also create a fictionalized universe set in these scenes, but he completely subverts the colonial gaze by making them queer, indigenous, and anti-colonial.

Monkman created a lot of art that’s amazing, and he has been exhibited in several museums, and I have been very lucky to see a lot of his work exhibited, but personally none of it was as striking as his Trilogy of Saint Thomas (2004). This collection contains Not the End of the Trail , The Fourth of March and The Impending Storm. These three paintings are huge, roughly 180cm x 240 cm, and it is simply a sight to see in person. At first glance, they would seem like a traditional landscape painted in a very classical style, it would seem almost generic. We have all seen hundreds and hundreds of landscapes of the same genre, but these ones feature queer indigenous characters as well as colonial figures, in dramatized scenes. He references not only the general style of the era, but also specific poses and paintings, such as the two characters from The Impending Storm being directly referenced from the painting The Storm by the artist Pierre-August Cot in 1880. By centering his own characters, his own indigenous perspective, Monkman shifts the narrative of these paintings by using these colonial paintings as a starting point. He uses the language of these western classical paintings, the visual language that has been employed to paint a very precise narrative of indigenous people, and asserts the colonial power over the territories of North America, and a colonization that is still ongoing. Monkman takes that visual language that we all come to understand, even unconsciously, and turns it around to create his own narrative, and begin a discussion with the past.

This is an artistic process that lets marginalized artists, and specifically racialized people, put a critical view on the past and confront, if at least on the artistic and theoretical level. Instead of having to bear the western gaze, and the narrative written by white people, as a way to assert white supremacy and further the goals of colonialism, imperialism, as well as the modern iterations of imperialism, it then becomes a way to reappropriate the visual portrayal of themselves. It is thus an opportunity to define their own identity, with their own voices and art, as to take that fake and imagined vision constructed by the western gaze, built of images from fabricated aesthetics, and create something genuine and authentic. What we can see in Monkman’s work of arts, but also in Shonibare’s work and other artists that have the same artistic process of using the art canon, is a way to interrogate and disrupt this tool that has so long been considered as the objective basis for any appreciation of art.

One of the interesting things when it comes to this sort of art, is the juxtaposition of times and perspectives. The paintings that are being reappropriated being painted during the 18th and 19th century, and these pieces of art that are being created today, there are these two conflicting timelines and two conflicting worlds that are being melded and manipulated to create art that truly interrogates the consequences of colonialism on the art that has been created, but also on the way art history and art functions as a communication device. This deconstruction of the art canon does bring us a better understanding of the role of imperialism in art, by melding these timelines and reconstructing the art canon, but also art history.

Monkman’s art practice consists in taking the visual tropes of the western canon and using them and subverting them in a way that really centers his narrative and his understanding of history. Of course, as a queer artist, his art also has a lot of focus on sexuality, gender and the constructs of masculinity, especially as an indigenous artist, but always through the understanding of colonialism and the continuous effects of imperialism on his existence as a queer artist. This post-colonial practice is a central perspective of his art, and is a way of telling a different history that has been silenced so far, but using the visual language that we all understand. It is by using artistic citation and artworks that are established in the art canon, as well as the common imaginary and a common iconography that it can make a re-contextualization of art history possible through these works of art.

This is what the art canon also does, it gives us all a visual language and a common visual ground that we all can reference and understand what it means and what it wants to convey, even if we do not analyze it but only understand it implicitly. The iconography is far from being universal, it is definitely very euro-centric, but because of a little thing called imperialism, it is something that is comprehended on a global level, because this art canon truly imposed its visual language. And it’s by using these common tropes and this common visual understanding that we all have, that these artists, such as Monkman, can efficiently and immediately communicate what they mean, and subvert the original works of art and turn a colonial tool into a post-colonial analysis.

The gaze, as overdone as it might seem a concept when it comes to talking about art and media, is still, in my opinion, a core tenet of the understanding of art. What, or more specifically most of the time, who is the art representing. But also who is doing the looking. It is extremely paramount, when it comes to the understanding of how a work of art is created, and then received, to see who is being seen. It’s important who has the voice, and, essentially, the power, when it comes to art. For too long, white people and western art institutions held the sway on the conversation around art, and the control in the way non-white people were represented in works of art, if they were visible at all.

The essays of the art historian John Berger Ways of Seeing is a good starting point, in my opinion, of a deeper comprehension in the way we see art, and how it influences the way we will create and understand that art. The perspective from which we look at something influences how we see it and how we understand it. The art of looking at something and how we perceive it, all of us have a specific gaze that we put upon the media that we consume and create. There’s a reason so much has been written about the male gaze in regards to art created by men and the way they represent women. In the same vein, I think there’s unmistakably a western or white gaze that is being put upon non-white people, their art, and also the way they are being represented in medias. Understanding this concept is thus extremely important when it comes to truly understanding the deconstruction of the art canon by non-white contemporary artists, from people who were always being seen and depicted, to artists who are now actively looking back.

When it comes to works of art that actively use the art canon as a basis for their reflections on art, a lot of women from the MENASA communities use these visuals tropes in their work. Contemporary artists, such as Lalla Essaydi and Zoulikha Bouabdellah, to mention only a few of them, try to confront in their artistic production themes of colonialism, representation and gender. It then becomes a way to face the colonial past and to reconstruct their own identity, with the use of an art practice that opens a dialogue with these artworks of the imperial past. To take these images that were used to impose a western perspective of their own identity and history, and use the specific tropes of orientalist art is a way to discuss and subvert those ideas. By doing this, these artists bring back the focus on their own perspectives and own history, and the artists from the MENASA communities reappropriate the canons and visuals of the western orientalist paintings of the 19th century, and re-contextualizes their own identity with the colonialism they endured.

Orientalism, the art movement, is a genre of painting from the 19th century that was created by western painters, mostly french painters, of the vague and exotic Orient. You can think of the works of western artists such as Eugène Delacroix and his famous painting Women of Algiers in their apartment in 1834, along with more than 80 oriental inspired paintings, as well as Benjamin Constant or Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, to name only a few of them. These french artists represent in their art an imagined and romanticized vision of the Orient, a vision that is still pervasive and influential to this day on the way people will comprehend and imagine these cultures. Some of these artists will paint these landscapes and scenes, only from the descriptions of travels and travelogues and will never even set foot in the actual place they’re depicting, which solidifies the fact that these paintings are works of fiction more than a faithful representation of what truly are these places and people. Orientalist paintings are truly about the fabricated vision and representation of the Other.

When it comes to the notion of orientalism, this time around, it is a concept developed by the theorist Edward Said and is truly essential to the understanding of post-colonialism in art history. Said posits that the western identity will construct and express itself in opposition to the Other, in this case : The ~ Orient ~. The west truly builds its own culture and character, not based on what it is, but on what it is not. And so, it is constantly in a (very violent if you ask me) dialogue with non-western cultures as well as the ever shifting concept of whiteness. But the Orient that the west talks about truly only exists in the western mind, created from an amalgam of non-western cultures, from North Africa to the Middle-East, India and East-Asia.

Lalla Essaydi is a north-african artist whose artistic output and body of work also lies in a deconstruction of these western perspectives on North Africa and the arab world. With the use of photography, she reinvents the stereotypes and visual tropes associated with arab and north african culture as a way to rethink this identity from a point of view that is not white nor western. The artistic reference of western orientalist paintings becomes an essential part of her art, and so is that constant dialogue with the past, with these canons of western art that are still so anchored in the popular consciousness when we think of art and they contribute heavily to the propagation and harmful effects of these particular clichés.

It is thus in this same idea that Lalla Essaydi will play with in her artworks, she is an artist who uses and overthrows this orientalist imagery of the 19th century in order to reappropriate these aesthetics and visuals that were once used to assert a very colonialist, fetishizing and demeaning gaze on the north african woman. She will depict the image of the north african woman that will not be the one in popular consciousness, the western imagery of north african women, that was looking at them in a very fetishizing and stealthy way, but that did not give them their own voices. These women were depicted by white western men, in a context often of colonization, which really brings again here the concept of gaze, it was white western men looking at the north african woman. The languid and exotic woman that is being looked at stealthily and covertly. But this gaze is violent and there are layers of both sexism, racism and otheri-sm in this look that is being put upon these women. These women are being seen, often against their consent, and are depicted in a way that does not represent reality. These are the stereotypes that are still very much overwhelming our imagination of the arab woman. It is the orientalist vision that has been privileged for so long in the western art world.

Essaydi chooses to use the archetypes that are so prevalent in these orientalist paintings and the vision that has been established of the arab woman and of the « oriental » world by western painters of the 19th century. Her series of photographs artwork, such as The women of Morocco  will often stage moroccan women in poses that will be very reminiscent of orientalist paintings of 19th century, but instead of presenting these characters as a faraway and exotic vision, she will put them in the forefront and ground them in reality. These are a sharp contrast between the real woman and the imagined fictionalized version of her. Essaydi’s artworks will often be covered in arabic calligraphy written in henna, a reference to the traditional north african arts.

The photography of La Sultana (2008) for example, will directly visually reference the orientalist painting of Ferdinand Roybet titled Odalisque, a painting created in the 1870s. She also has a series called Harem Revisited where she really explores the concept of the Harem, where she subverts the violent and sexualized gaze of western men who depicted these women as something to be furtively seen, in a space that is so foreign to the west, so far from the european way of life that the only way they could comprehend it was in a fetishizing way, that both excited and aroused them, and yet gave them the freedom to still condemn them. And once again, I have to repeat that this whole story that was being fabricated about The Orient, is fake. Simply stories that the west was telling itself, in order to construct its own identity.

The work of Shonibare, Monkman and Essaydi, but also of many artists who come from racialized and marginalized communities, can be considered as a rewriting of the history of art, and of the context in which that history has been written. Their body of work can be taken as an affirmation of their own identity within the world of art and their places within the bigger canon of art history. It is a revisionist work that uses the artistic references of classical works of art, that are ingrained in the common imaginary, but also the understanding of what art history is, to start a dialogue between the colonial past and the present that is working toward a post-colonial reality. I will say that I do not think that we are currently in a post-colonial present, there’s still a lot of damages to be undone, and a reshaping of the entire field of art history and its use as an imperialist tool. There is a desire to deconstruct the concept of representation in the world of art and see how stereotypical depictions influenced the constructing of non-white people’s identities, especially when they are living within a western society, and have to deal with the systemic racism that still inhabits the world of art, art criticism and art history.

There is still a long work of post-colonialist analysis to do to be able to really reconcile and understand the way imperialism shaped the world of art, but also the way certain kind of people are perceived and constructed, while others have been afforded the luxury to have complex and favorable representations. Once again, it is a breakdown of the way the western art canon interacts with the contemporary non-white artists that creates this dialogue, which is an important process, in my opinion of the deconstruction of the concept in itself of the art canon. In re-appropriating these artistic tropes that are prevalent in the visual language, especially in the way non-white people are presented and represented, these artists can begin to reconstruct their own identity and facing their traumatic past and hoping for a better future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The canon in art history: concepts and approaches

Questioning the Canon - The Baltimore Museum of Art — Google Arts & Culture

Leiden University Master Arts and Culture Specialization: Museums and Collections Master thesis Towards an Inclusive Art Histor

Evangelizing the 'Gallery of the Future': a Critical Analysis of the Google Art Project Narrative and its Political, Cultura

Feminist Art Histories and Masculinity: Reading the Mainstream Art Museum

How to Make Art History More Inclusive

An Illustrated Guide to Linda Nochlin's “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”

Commissioning the contemporary: museum brands, art trends and creative networks

Art History, Postcolonialism, and the Global Turn

A Kantian Theory of Art Criticism

V&A · 'Entartete Kunst': The Nazis' Inventory Of 'Degenerate Art'

Canon of art history | Glossary

Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? by LINDA NOCHLIN

TRANSLATION AS A CREATIVE ACT: CULTURAL HYBRIDITY AS A CONCEPT IN SELECTED CONTEMPORARY ARTWORKS

'The Swing (after Fragonard)', Yinka Shonibare CBE, 2001

Kent Monkman's work fascinates. An artist of Cree origin he revisits North American historical events and western cultural rep

The Otherings of Miss Chief: Kent Monkman's Portrait of the Artist as Hunter By Roland Maurice BA, BFA A thesis submitted

https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=art_design_theses