The New Yorker's Peter Schjeldahl starts his review of the most recent Whitney Biennial as follows:
The startlingly coherent and bold Whitney Biennial is a material manifesto of late-pandemic institutional culture.
And, really? That's the pitch? Who out there has a yen to put on their shoes and go out to see a good material manifesto?
If you read on you see it's not entirely all bad. No show with newish work from Charles Ray can be all bad. And some of the work I've looked up for Rebecca Belmore looks interesting.
But we're at a certain point in history, and you have to look back and see how we got here. One of the premises of twentieth century modern art was "It might look ugly at first, but its beauty will reveal itself in time." This could describe Picasso, Pollock, and many others. Very often it bore fruit. But often now the underlying message seems to have changed to, "Ugliness and beauty don't matter. It has a message we agree with." It's hard to see how this can lead to art of lasting value.
Another recent article, by Michael Lind, says that:
The centralized and authoritarian control of American progressivism by major foundations and the nonprofits that they fund, and the large media institutions, universities, corporations, and banks that disseminate the progressive party line, has made it impossible for there to be public intellectuals on the American center left. This is not to say that progressives are not intelligent and/or well-educated. It is merely to say that being a progressive public intellectual is no longer an option, in an era in which progressivism is anti-intellectual.
Well, arts institutions tend to be funded by the same people waving the same money on very similar terms. That doesn't mean that good or even great art isn't being created. But there has hardly ever been less reason to trust the major institutions to find it.