Are artist collectives collaborative?
Collaboration has become a buzzword among contemporary art’s cultural bureaucrats and market operatives.
Collaboration has become a buzzword among contemporary art’s cultural bureaucrats and market operatives. This officialdom appears out of step with the non-institutional forms of collaboration suggested by the term “collectivity.” And yet artist collectives, as closed-loop systems, are antithetical to the collaborative wellness mantra we are used to hearing in the global high-end culture industry. In this world, “collectives” of cultural, corporate, and market partners collaborate with artist collectives — often awkwardly, as seen at documenta fifteen, curated by Indonesian-based ruangrupa. Without centralised curatorial power, the mega-exhibition’s bureaucratic structures were not prepared for democracy in practice, despite their virtue signalling.
Related
Archie Moore’s “impoverished aesthetic” transforms memory, class, and race into immersive, unsettling worlds. Rejecting the tidy self-disclosure of trauma narratives, his work lingers in ambiguity—neither confession nor critique, but something in between.
The Tennant Creek Brio’s art isn’t a legible script, a tidy lineage, or an easy metaphor—it’s a rupture, a refusal, a site of resurgence. This story sends us somewhere else, reaching for something that came before or after, looking for what’s out back, round the back of the house, the shed, the art centre, the “outback.”
Derek Jarman’s Blue (1993) is a film without images—just a luminous ultramarine field and an evocative soundtrack. Made as he was dying of AIDS-related illness, Blue resists spectacle, embracing abstraction, memory, and loss. Thirty years on, it continues to evolve, expanding across artists, mediums, and generations.
