Katerina Gregos: Freedom of Art vs. Political Correctness- On the Complexities of Curating Political
On November 8th, independent curator Katerina Gregos gave the lecture “Freedom of Art vs. Political Correctness: On the Complexities of Curating Politically Contested Subject Matter" at Castrum Peregrini as part of the program curated by Nina Folkersma. Gregos’s lecture questioned the cultural appropriation practices of artists and art institutions, arguing against the idea that social or cultural groups cannot represent a cultural group different from their own. In short, she was arguing against or rather, in nuance of, the current claims of anti-racist movements who hold as a criterion for anti-racism that, for example, a white artist such as Dana Schutz cannot depict Black suffering since it is a subject matter not ‘her own.’ Accepting such restrictions in the artworld, according to Gregos, goes against what art is about and represents an ironic neo-conservative turn within left-identifying artworld circles.
In the second part of the lecture, Gregos discusses how one might go about curating culture, particularly ‘not one’s own’ in an educated and sensitive way through providing an in-depth account of the biennial she curated in Samos, Greece “A World not Ours” which centered on the refugee crisis. Gregos, however, begins the first part of her talk by contextualizing her own case within a wider scope of accusations of cultural appropriation within the artworld and the artworld’s response of censoring itself because of ‘political correctness,’ taking down whatever show or artwork. For Gregos, this is an alarming censoring of freedom of speech and the “silencing of artists,” which is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes, and uses the same essentialist discourse as white supremacist movements.
Gregos’s choice of contextualizing her own case within a wider ‘trend’ in the artworld rather than directly within the motives of de-colonial movements is itself telling. For Gregos, the problematic is in unjust censorship of artistic or curatorial work which might actually be well-researched, carefully thought out, and generally significant to the subject matter represented. This focus itself reveals an already positioned perspective coming from a generally privileged social and cultural standing, which at least seemingly misses the wider scope of what appears as unjust censorship. While claims against appropriation might at times target good work, this is done in light and in context of both a greater cause and an oppressive history carried on in the present; acknowledged by Gregos in a peripheral remark. Having a principle which is dogmatically applied, such as going against cultural appropriation, is a necessary method of anti-racism and of social cause movements at large, and not a sort of ‘counter’ oppression. It is responsive to a mistrust of absolute freedom of expression, the opposite of dogmatically applied principles, which could result either in an endless realm of constant ‘discussion’ with no conclusion and moral anchors, or be given up, again, to artworld authorities for final decision. This would be a more likely result rather than the “more informed” debate Gregos advocates for, and it is such precisely because artistic education is not critical or socially oriented nor responsible, as Gregos herself says. It seems obvious that the ‘political correctness’ reaction of the artworld to supposedly censor itself, rather than revealing the fear of being “allied with the right,” instead reveals the artworld actors’ lack of education on these subjects. That is, it reveals their desire not to be racist without having much knowledge about racism, which would have contributed in the first place to the more informed debate Gregos advocates for.
Finally, the argument was weakened by anecdotal examples of artworks and exhibitions that were censored by ‘political correctness’ rather than a more in-depth, theoretical, and systematic consideration of examples. In addition to artworks and exhibitions which were taken down as a response to accusations of being unethical, there are many examples of artworks and exhibitions which, despite protests, were defended by curators and institutions. Comparing between such examples and the specific accusations as well as institutional responses, would have given a deeper understanding of how the artworld thinks and operates in relation to social causes on an underlying level. Such a comparison would have also been a more accurate and critical way of contextualizing Gregos’s own work experience. Certainly, both types of decisions (censoring or not censoring a work) are motivated by artworld agendas which have little to do with social causes, and it is precisely such agendas and their influence on meaningful artistic and curatorial work which needs to be not only discussed, but changed.
