Since the early 2020s, the global
art world has undergone a rapid reconfiguration. At the heart of this
transformation is an unprecedented focus on Black artists. From major museum
exhibitions to art fair demand and collector interest, the entire ecosystem
reflects this shift. Yet this isn't merely a passing trend. Rather, it is the
visible outcome of two converging cultural forces: Postcolonialism and
Political Correctness (PC).
These twin 'PCs' each signify a
structural response—the former critiques the legacies of colonialism, while the
latter attempts to address social inequality through institutional and
linguistic inclusion. The rise of Black artists signals that these forces
are no longer peripheral but are actively shaping artistic discourse and
systems.
The Shift on the Exhibition Floor
Since 2020, leading art
institutions across the U.S. and Europe have rushed to center Black artists in
major exhibitions. The Whitney Museum in New York, Tate Modern, the New Museum,
SFMOMA, and the Berkeley Art Museum have all featured landmark shows.
These curatorial efforts are not
framed as gestures of diversity alone, but as acts of ethical and
institutional responsibility. Tate, for instance, declared its intent to
"restore perspectives befitting a postcolonial era," and has mounted
group exhibitions focused on artists from the Black diaspora.
Collection policies have shifted
accordingly. Since 2021, Arts Council England has earmarked dedicated budgets
under its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) guidelines. Major
American museums, in the wake of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, have
made significant acquisitions of works by Black artists.
The Rise of Artists, The Politics
of Representation
Among the most prominent names in
this wave are Kehinde Wiley, Amy Sherald, Wangechi Mutu, and Mickalene Thomas.

케힌데 와일리(Kehinde Wiley) / Photo by Frank Xavier / ©Out Smart Magazine
Kehinde Wiley upends historical power by
rendering Black male subjects in classical portraiture styles.

에이미 셰랄드(Amy Sherald) / Photo by Tiffany Sage / ©BFA.com
Amy Sherald became internationally recognized for her portrait of former First Lady
Michelle Obama.

왕게치 무투(Wangechi Mutu) / ©Singulart
Wangechi Mutu, originally from Kenya,
dismantles colonial anthropological imagery and reimagines identity through
Afrofuturist aesthetics.

미케일린 토마스(Mickalene Thomas) / Photo by Emil Horowitz / ©Mickalene Thomas
What these artists share is not just identity, but an incisive critique of
historical power. However, the institutional
framing of their work doesn't always foreground this nuance.
Institutional Inclusion or
Ideological Reframing?
DEI (Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion) has become a de facto curatorial protocol. But critiques of this
framework are emerging.
Gavin Jantjes, former Tate
curator and cultural critic, remarked in 《The Times:》
"Many institutions made hurried acquisitions of older Black artists
under the guise of ethical consumption. This isn’t true restitution—it’s more
like a rinse cycle."
Following BLM, many museums
scrambled to acquire works from Black artists active in the 1970s and 80s. Yet
critics argue that such decisions were driven less by aesthetic merit and more
by a desire to symbolically check the box of representation.
From Identity to Token: A
Slippery Slope
This moment of visibility carries
an inherent risk: that under the banner of 'diversity', artists are reduced to
singular emblems.
As Taylor Crumpton wrote in 《Artsy》:
"The tokenization of Black artists flattens their aesthetic complexity
and narrative interiority. They now exist solely as the 'representative Black
artist.'"
(Tokenization refers to the
institutional practice of elevating a minority figure to appear inclusive,
while reducing them to a signifier of identity. Their complexity is sacrificed
for symbolic utility.)
We are thus witnessing a dual
impulse in today’s art world: the restoration of identity and its simultaneous
commodification.
Postcolonial Aesthetics Absorbed
and Depoliticized
Even artists known for deeply
political postcolonial work—such as Yinka Shonibare and Donald Locke—now risk
becoming institutionalized as safe symbols.
In 《New Left Review》, critic Niru Ratnam describes Chris Ofili:
"Ofili didn’t just depict hybridity; he revealed its political tensions
through irony. Institutions stripped that irony and absorbed him as a face of
surface-level PC."
The moment a postcolonial
aesthetic is absorbed institutionally, it runs the risk of being
depoliticized.
What Exactly Are We Restoring?
The current movement can be read
as either institutional progress or performative repetition. The deeper
question is whether it truly restores the subjectivity of the artist.
Identity-based curation is vital,
but when it overrides formal experimentation, personal narrative, and aesthetic
strategy, real diversity becomes hollow.
The rise of Black artists is a
positive development, but if their practices are domesticated by a politically
coded distribution system, we may be witnessing a new kind of colonization.
Two PCs, One Trend—And a Mirror
for Korea
The ascent of Black artists today
is not simply about expanding representation. It is proof that the two PC
discourses—postcolonial critique and political correctness—are actively
reshaping art institutions and markets. This is not just about inclusion; it's
about the ideological frameworks that govern inclusion itself.
What "Substance" Is
Korean Contemporary Art Chasing?
The global rise of
"K-Art" is no longer just about sending Korean artists abroad. It now
poses a deeper question: how does Korean art respond to the moral order
structured by Western cultural hegemony, which has defined the terms of both
PCs?
For decades, Korea has promoted
its national identity through state-led exhibitions. Yet that identity has
often been sanitized—politically neutral, aesthetically safe—produced for
consumption by the Global North.
Korean art must now move beyond
this. It must escape the symbolic choreography demanded by the U.S. and
Europe—nations that designed the languages of diversity and the politics of
correct representation.
The goal is not more invitations
or strategic positioning. It is to build the conditions where individual
artists can confront, negotiate, and resist the world on their own terms.
We now stand before a question we
can no longer evade:
Will Korean contemporary art continue to replicate a "safe identity"
for global consumption, or will it evolve into a subject capable of dissent,
dialogue, and originality?
This is no longer about global strategy. It is a universal question—one
that demands we move beyond the frameworks defined by the West.
References
- - Taylor Crumpton, “Black
Artists, Gallerists, and the Myth of Inclusion,” 《Artsy》, 2020
- Gavin Jantjes, interview with 《The Times》, 2023
- Niru Ratnam, “Chris Ofili and the Limits of Hybridity,” 《New Left Review》, 2005
- "Postcolonial Art," TheArtStory.org
- "Postcolonialism and Art," Tate.org.uk