Artists, to keep creating, have to play the economic game they’ve found themselves in. Whether it’s in the Renaissance with patrons and popes, in the guilds, working with curators, or with algorithms and artist statements.
I’ve dived into the history of artist statements, and they seem, to me, to be utterly intertwined with New York’s emergence and sustained position as the worldwide art capital. But the idea that one place is the epicenter of an entire pillar of culture is shifting. Actually, it’s crumbled.
In this post, we’ll go into why artist statements sound like they do today, marketing, and what a potential future looks like.
Language: In-Group, Out-Group
I recognize the inherent issue of incorporating my education into this discussion of forced top-down processes. But language, whether intentional or not, reinforces structural and societal boundaries. There is an in-group and an out-group. The groups can be based on anything: baseball, generations, or how to “correctly” pronounce a street, you name it. Words help shape who you are and people’s perceptions of you. If you know the lingo, it’s the same as if you know the “correct” table manners.
Here is a recent example. In 2025, “6-7” took off. As a completely new term without meaning, leagues of journalists and thinkers alike argued that “6-7” is a sign of brainrot, an appropriate meme for an absurdist time, or the harbinger of Gen Alpha. Marketers, knowing this content would get clicks, sped this process along until you could not escape. “What does it mean?” came the cry of so many annoyed millennials clutching their faces in despair as children only shouted it louder.
Not knowing what 6-7 meant drove some people batty. And, even in its non-meaning, it designated an in-group and an out-group. Those who knew it meant nothing, and those who (cringingly, I’m sure) tried to find out.
All that to say, language carries more weight than just sharing communicative information. It’s a key indicator of who you are, where you’re from, what groups you are a part of, and so forth. How does this litmus test apply to artists?
Art Speak: International Art English
We’ve all encountered pompous art speak. At its worst, it excludes or intimidates people from art; at its best, it’s lampoon-worthy.
As we saw with Abstract Expressionists, even those abstract artists engage with language to explain their work, despite stating that their work is undefinable. One of the joys of visual art is that it can cross any language barrier, so perhaps, like Louise Bourgeois said, literature around art is a bonus.
Except it’s now mandatory.
What is International Art English?
Even the term is lofty. International Art English, or IAE, refers to the overly written and rather pompous way some art is marketed.
The fantastic project, International Art English, by Alix Rule & David Levine, identifies some of the common themes seen in IAE:
- IAE prefers more rather than fewer words. It’s bloated.
- A proliferation of nouns: “Visual becomes visuality, global becomes globality, potential becomes potentiality, experience becomes … experiencability“.
- An influence from the French language: “most obviously the suffixes -ion, -ity, -ality, and -ization.”
- Overuse of definite and indefinite articles “the” and “a/an”, such as in “the political”, “an influx”, etc.
- Art that “actions”, such as interrogates, questions, subverts, displaces (but generally does not actually do these things)
I know, I know, fellow English Majors. Strunk and White would be appalled.
But why is it like this? It goes against most commonly accepted “how to write well” rules.
…Why is International Art English?
Supposedly, IAE is meant to bridge gaps between languages, hence the strong influx of French. We’re global now, baby. Curators, artists, collectors all together writing and speaking in…well, evocative bullshit. “Art speak”.
Whether or not intended, the result of IAE is exclusionary rather than inclusive. Again, you see the in-group and out-group. If artists use this “elite” language, they signal that they are, in fact, an Artist, with a capital A.
For some groups, speaking “well” seems to outweigh actual work. As universities and the C-Suite slowly grow to be more diverse, some people apparently seem to think there still needs to be some sort of barrier. And when in doubt, language can always “other”.
You can see this literally in the terms “naive art”, “outsider”, and “self-taught”. Lately, “visionary” is used more broadly, which admittedly is more witchy-coded, and I’m into that. Regardless, artistic institutions push themselves as the norm. Others who did not go through the institution are the marked.
(A quick example of what “marked” in semiotics means: the male form is considered “unmarked” [e.g. “actor” can be used for anyone], while the female form is “marked” with an extra suffix [e.g., “actress”] to signify a woman, which needs to be noted, for reasons.)
If an artist’s statement doesn’t make any sense, that doesn’t matter. For many, it isn’t the critical piece of it. It’s whether or not you can play along with this theatre. If you “don’t get it”, you’re not subscribing to the theatre. Therefore, you’re not worthy to participate.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, IAE began in earnest in the 1990s.
Alongside internet marketing. (We’ll get to that.)
Alongside big millionaire self-help books. (Which isn’t relevant, but maybe it’s relevant?)
Alongside “outsiders” making their way into institutions.
Diversity in Artist Statements: I’m a [x] artist…
Who defines taste? Who defines how to speak about that elusive thing, art? Generally, the people in power.
As we saw with the trajectory of trailblazing curator Dorothy Miller, artists are obviously not the only ones speaking about art or crafting how audiences perceive it. You have curators, collectors, gallery owners, PR, mass media, and the algorithm shaping the perception of art and artists.
As a frequent art museum-go’er, I have noticed a shift in museums purchasing and showing more works from BIPOC and women, but often it’s framed in such a self-congratulatory way instead of just… normal. In 2019, a survey revealed that in the United States, BIPOC held less than 20% of art museum leadership positions. And in collections, 85 percent of the artists represented are white, and 87 percent are men. In the UK, the Royal Academy staged its first solo exhibition led by a woman…in 2023.
Art from BIPOC, women, artists with disabilities, and working-class people, when they actually do appear, are often spoken about with an extra little adjective thrown in, as a treat, as a qualifier, as a mark.
In addition to a lack of diversity, there seems to be a check-box approach to collecting art that goes hand in hand with IAE.
For me, there’s no more cringe-inducing LinkedIn-coded phrase than, “What’s your personal brand?” Artists frequently have to engage with this, even if they don’t call it a “personal brand”. Identity has become a part of “art speak”. And for good reason.
It now sometimes seems as if the most important product of certain artistic careers is the artist’s own personality.
– Movements in Art Since 1945
I think artists have cleverly clocked onto that galleries aren’t just purchasing an artist’s work, they’re purchasing a piece of the artist to add to their cultural cachet. The awareness around a lack of diversity has led to artists celebrating whatever marginalized identity or identities to (hopefully) help museums, galleries, and collectors create more diverse collections that reflect the entire population’s taste, not just the people in power.
Artist as Commodity: Jean-Michel Basquiat
But there is something more going on there when it’s a third-person speaking about an artist. Language shifts from when an artist first starts to when they become a commodity. It’s capitalism, baby. Take a look at the trajectory of 1980s New York graffiti artist and icon, Jean-Michel Basquiat.
I threw in a couple of 1980s articles of Jean-Michel Basquiat into a word cloud to see if any language trends emerged.
In some of the first articles written about Basquiat, like THE RADIANT CHILD, these words appeared the most: art, graffiti, generation. In another article from The Village Voice: SAMO, graffiti, alternative, subways.
With just a few words, you get a feel for Basquiat’s work and where he worked. The writing feels more alive. His art, alive.
Of course, modern-day articles focus on what he brings to an institution and why you should see this work. Nothing really stands out in these word clouds.
Yawn.
It took a while for Basquiat’s star power to solidify. For example, in 1992, a proposed tour of the Whitney Museum of American Art’s Jean-Michel Basquiat retrospective was canceled when no other museums showed interest. Imagine. They would be gagging for it today.
Basquiat and the Billionaires
But in 2026, Basquiat is a full-blown brand. Mass-produced Uniqlo shirts feature both him and fellow graffiti artist, Keith Haring.
And on this Guy Hepner page… the tension between creation of art and ownership of the result becomes clear.
While major paintings dominate auction headlines, the most dynamic segment of the Basquiat market in 2026 lies in prints, editions, and works on paper. These categories offer collectors genuine access to Basquiat’s visual vocabulary at price points substantially below his unique canvases, while still participating in the appreciation potential of a blue-chip artist.
Basquiat is not just a blue-chip artist, but a blue-chip brand. And you can be a part of this brand! (For a cool few million… or just buy a shirt!) Just a few weeks ago, “Billionaire Collector Ken Griffin’s Basquiat Buying Spree Continues.” The guy who thinks rich people have too little say in politics…while also this week threatening to stop the construction of a new Citadel building if there’s a new wealth tax in New York.
In another instance of commodification, Beyoncé and Jay-Z collaborated with Tiffany on an ad. Art News swooned over it. His friends did not.
In a way, Basquiat’s work has become a new Che Guevara t-shirt, a mass-produced icon of rebellion slipped into a friendly commercialized frame. SAMO indeed, same old shit. (No judgment, by the way, if you wear any of this, his work is incredible, but read up on him and don’t let the corporations defang him.)
Oh, and by the way, today a lot of artist publications are owned by the same billionaire: Art Forum, Art in America, and Art News. You may want to fully understand how much of the entertainment industry is owned by him.
All this to say, there is a perennial friction between the artist and the establishment. Artists frequently have to brand themselves to the same people they often despise or lampoon. And what’s an easy way to brand yourself? The artist statement.
Artist Statements, AI, and the Future
While the creative world is basically run by investors, like everything else, let me first say, it’s not all bad. I think artists now have a better chance to engage with a smaller niche audience than ever before. Just start sharing online, and someone will likely see it.
Today, the “establishment” is not limited to galleries and universities; it’s also the algorithm. The technobillionaires feast because eyes and clicks mean sweet, sweet dosh. Investors want a return. Art, today, is treated as content. And algorithms reward engagement, though the scales may unevenly be tipped towards the wealthy and extroverted.
Artists have to speak the language of the institution and use their tools and software to get accepted into the institution. So I wouldn’t blame artists for plumped-up, meaningless artist statements.
SEO and the Artist Statement
I worked in marketing for ten years, and I guarantee SEO is shaping artist statements (and writing around art) more than we would like to admit.
One way you can see this is through how-to websites and content. These garner a lot of engagement and promise viewers a good artist statement. But buyer, or seller, beware. Most are regurgitating information, which leads to more “art speak”.
I came into writing this series about artist statements because I was angry about writing mine. I still don’t have it down. But I thought the whole concept was bullshit. At the end of writing this, I actually see some of the merit in writing about your work. Artists were not always able to do so. But the bloated crap language we often see now is not it. I sense this shifting. If you’ve read this far, you probably have, too.
Even if you’re into something niche, try being honest about it in your statement. Honestly, the algorithm will likely reward it. Avoid imitating that elitist language; it’s not pleasing anyone worth pleasing. Use plain language; it’s accessible and inclusive. Don’t ruin the mystery and give space to other interpretations. And definitely answer: Whatcha workin’ on? Why? What are your future plans?
AI and Artist Statements
You know what’s really, really good at bullshitting, sounding the same, and being confident about it? AI. AI is built to flatten language, art, etc, and appeal to the widest common denominator. It’s also verbose, uses a lot of nouns and actions that may not mean anything on closer inspection. Sound familiar?
I wonder how AI will further blur these lines between art speak and “oh that’s AI garbage”. Perhaps authenticity will come back around as AI excels at writing a lot of nonsense about nothing. I think so.
Does AI stretch intertextuality to a logical and utterly bland conclusion devoid of humanness? I don’t know, maybe. While I did find it useful to dig through an entire catalog that would have taken me days otherwise, I can’t imagine using it to write this piece, for example. I guess I have more of a problem with inequality and using AI to further this divide and steal creative work to run it using tons of energy and AI psychosis, than, say, genome sequencing.
When an artist cries ‘I am against machinery!’ he means he is against this worshipful focusing on robot machines as if they were a triumphant point of life when they are just added evidence of the invention of man’s imagination.
– The Tigers Eye
Like the satanic mills in William Blake’s time, AI seems here to stay. And I think creatives are clever enough to deal with it.
Maybe one day we can break down the pillar of art as just a commodity. And rebuild it as a pillar of community. Maybe.
Read More
- A user’s guide to artspeak
- Re-Visioning the Visual: Making Artistic Inquiry Visible
- Toward a History (and Future) of the Artist Statement
- NEW ART, NEW MONEY – By Cathleen McGuigan Feb. 10, 1985
- International Art English
- Artspeak. The Bullshit Language of Art – The Polish Journal of Aesthetics
- Female art world leaders are taking gender equity into their own hands
- Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Making of an Icon
