dominant culture sets a high-standard for ‘perfection’ in all endeavors, most noticeably in creative works such as art, but also in so-called ‘intellectual’ work (such as philosophy), as well as spiritual undertakings. our culture sets standards for ‘good’ and ‘bad’, assigns what has value and what does not, delineates what is worthy and unworthy of consideration let alone appreciation.
the ‘Good Artist’ is skilled at their craft, trained in their tools, and an expert of their medium. the Good Artist knows what is culturally deemed ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and has the ability to ‘perfectly’ conform their art to ‘good’ standards while avoiding the ‘bad’.
similarly, the ‘Expert’ is educated, well-read, an expert in their field who can answer any question with confidence from authority. the word of the Expert is trusted, respected, and appreciated, regardless of how ‘correct’ or ‘right’ they may actually be. even the most disagreeable of ‘Experts’, so long as their education and credentials are not in question, are given more consideration and respect than any lay person who lacks such education or credentials.
this is so not only in art or academia or philosophy, but also in spirituality and religion. the religious leader, the scholastic expert of religious texts, or the most orthodox devotee, are seen as the sole arbiters of righteousness and the only ones who can lay claim to true spiritual commitment. thus organized religion dictates what beliefs, practices, and rituals are ‘right’ and which are ‘heretical’, what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’, what is ‘holy’ and what is ‘sin’, for they can point to a passage of religious scripture, or to their own authority as religious leaders, to claim divine providence. who can argue against the word of God? who can argue against the ‘Expert’?
the authority of the ‘Expert’, or even the ‘Good Artist’, holds similar justification as the authority of the politician or leader. the Expert gains their title by being bestowed a position of authority. in academia, the highest ‘Expert’ is usually a professor. in religion, the highest ‘Expert’ is the head of the religious institution or similar leader, such as a priest or bishop in Christian churches. the Good Artist often holds a more subtle authority, generally a combination of fame and critical acclaim, but can also hold similar institutional authority in being a hired composer or producer for major institutions in the industry. being connected to the industry of one’s respective craft, such as a musician being signed to a large corporate label, is generally how a Good Artist can claim institutional authority. more fundamentally, the Good Artist generally holds a similar claim to being an ‘Expert’ over their craft. the Good Artist is, perhaps, formally trained in their craft (e.g. graduating from art school or music school). if not formally trained, then perhaps self-taught but still holding similar expertise. to again speak specifically on music, the ‘good musician’ may be an expert on music theory, a virtuoso on their instruments, a master producer or composer, etc. regardless of art form, the ‘Good Artist’ tends to be an ‘Expert’ of some form, both in knowledge of their craft and in skill.
[it is worth noting that these titles of ‘Expert’ and ‘Good Artist’ (and also, later, ’Skilled’) as i use them are more spectrums than distinct categories. the ‘Expert’ is simply a tendency toward one end or mode of the spectrum of expertise (‘Amateur’ or ‘Layperson’ being the words i use for the other end or mode, depending on context). the ‘Good Artist’ is simply a tendency toward the ‘good’ end of the spectrum of good-bad art, with ‘Bad Artist’ being toward the ‘bad’ end. when i use these terms, with their capitalizations, i am referring to the tendency, not a distinct position]
while it may seem straightforward to value the word of the ‘Expert’ over the ‘Layperson’ or ‘Amateur’, or to appreciate the work of the ‘Good Artist’ over the ‘Bad Artist’, to admire the ‘Skilled’ over the ‘Unskilled’, etc., this is effectively setting a dualistic hierarchy. the ‘Expert’ is above the ‘Amateur’ or ‘Layperson’, the ‘Skilled’ above the ‘Unskilled’, the ‘Good’ above the ‘Bad’, etc. as if the former is superior while the latter is inferior. but while one may feel inclined to excuse certain hierarchies as ‘justified’, the truth is that hierarchy is itself the problem. hierarchy is inherently unjust in all forms. hierarchy, as a fundamental notion, is the basis for supremacy, for domination and oppression. in a society whermarginalized groups of people are judged as ‘inferior’ and oppressed, while dominant groups are deemed ‘superior’ and privileged, any hierarchy at any level, including hierarchies of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’, maps onto the systemic hierarchies of state, capitalism, patriarchy, and supremacy.
to illustrate this, look no further than how one gets to hold the title of ‘Expert’ or ‘Good Artist’, and how one becomes ‘good’ or ‘skilled’ or gains ‘expertise’. as noted, the Expert or Skilled person often holds a formal position of authority (such as professor, priest, politician, etc), or is bestowed a credential of expertise by formal institutions (such as a graduate degree), or is employed at a formal institution for their recognized expertise or skill. these institutions, functioning wholly within the capitalist state, are highly stratified and further reflect the stratification of society. the people most likely to hold such positions of authority, or to be credited or employed by institutions of authority, are people with the privilege to get into those institutions in the first place and, further, gain recognition and renown with those institutions. for example: the Expert tends to be formally educated, often having a graduate degree, which means the Expert was able to qualify for a college education and afford to attend college. thus, wealthier people are more likely to be ‘Experts’. wealthier people are also more likely to be white, male, cisgender, heterosexual, etc. poorer people, and by extension BIPOC, women, queer people, and other marginalized people, are thus less likely to be deemed ‘experts’, or at least to be formally and institutionally recognized or credentialed as such.
additionally—and this is a key point—who, wealth and privilege aside, is most able to go through the process of acquiring ‘expertise’ and hone certain ‘skills’? well, the question answers itself—whoever is able to do so, i.e. able-bodied neurotypical people. an abled neurotypical person is at a much higher advantage in, say, attending and completing college, or getting employed by a prestigious institution, or receiving a position of authority. to continue the example of higher education: some disabled people cannot even qualify for college (or art school or music school), let alone graduate, let alone go on to graduate school, let alone get a graduate degree, let alone do a post-graduate program, let alone complete the program and become a professor or move on to an equally prestigious position. even having a degree, an abled neurotypical person has more opportunities for employment or other post-education routes, and is more likely to successfully be employed in any given application. a disabled person has fewer opportunities, and even among the options that are available to them, the options are often less-desirable, less-prestigious, and even given any particular option, a disabled person is less likely to actually be successfully employed. for many disabled people, the title of ‘Expert’ is unattainable. and, with it, the title of ‘Good Artist’.
even notwithstanding barriers to institutional attainment, the ability to acquire and hone certain skills is a privilege that wealthy abled people have more opportunity to actualize while poor or disabled people may be unable to acquire or hone certain skills at all, being limited by socioeconomic circumstances and/or by limitations of their disability. even without a formal education or employment, a relatively wealthy abled person could afford books and read them to self-learn about fields of study, or self-teach and practice certain skills, thus become a ‘self-made’ Expert or Good Artist. additionally, a wealthy abled person can purchase and use a variety of products, equipment, and other resources that are unaffordable to a poor person or inaccessible to a disabled person. thus, a wealthy abled person can essentially buy the means to becoming a Good Artist, while a poor person may not be able afford such a means and a disabled person may not be able to access or use such means. all the more limiting when one is both poor and disabled.
worth reminding, again, that wealth stratification is deeply intertwined with race and gender stratification. privileged dominant groups, namely white cishet men, generally possess more wealth than marginalized groups such as BIPOC, women, queer people, etc. thus, the titles of Expert or Good Artist are not only withheld from poor and disabled people, but also from BIPOC, women, queer people, and other marginalized people.
setting so much more value on the Expert or Good Artist above anyone else is, effectively, to set more value on wealthy, abled, white, male, cisgender, and heterosexual people above anyone else. by extension, to devalue the Amateur is to devalue poor people, disabled people, BIPOC, women, and queer people. to give all recognition to the Expert or Good Artist, and to deny recognition to the lay person or Amateur, is deny recognition to the marginalized. and yes, this is true even if an individual Expert or Good Artist is themselves poor, disabled, or part of a marginalized group. this is true even if an Amateur is not necessarily themselves poor, disabled, or marginalized. the problem is at the macro scale of whole sociocultural systems, not the micro scale of particular individuals. by valuing expertise and ‘perfection’ above all else, we are valuing the privileged above the marginalized.
the first step to breaking away from this is to begin recognizing non-expert and amateur standpoints. we should not only appreciate ‘Good Art’, but ‘Bad Art’ as well. but this goes a lot further.
‘perfection’ is the guiding force that enforces the hierarchies of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art and separates the Expert from the Amateur or the Skilled from the Unskilled. ‘perfectionism’ is a more active force in this regard, prioritizing ‘good’ displays of ‘skill’ and ‘expertise’ while erasing ‘imperfections’ and any sign of lacking ‘skill’ or ‘expertise’. ‘perfection’ does not merely imply a hierarchy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, it enforces the hierarchy. not only does ‘perfection’ deem ‘good’ better than ‘bad’, it ensures that the ‘good’ is the only thing that is allowed to be recognized and praised while the ‘bad’ is either erased or mocked.
given that the hierarchy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ’skilled’ and ‘unskilled’, or Expert and Amateur reflect broader socioeconomic & cultural hierarchies of privilege and marginalization—in one word: supremacy—‘perfectionism’ effectively functions not only to enforce the hierarchy of ‘good’ & ‘bad’ art or ‘skilled’ & ‘unskilled’ work, or to distinguish the Expert from the Amateur, but also to reinforce the stratifications of privilege and marginalization, to perpetuate oppression
perfectionism = supremacy
not only is perfectionism a modality of supremacy, however. perfectionism is an active force which enforces supremacy by erasing ‘imperfection’ or ‘inferiority’ to maintain a sanitized image that conforms to dominant notions of ‘perfection’ or ‘superiority’
perfectionism = genocide
while it may seem like an absurd reach to equate perfectionism with genocide, this is not merely a metaphor or comparison. it is not merely that perfectionism and genocide share the same methods or goals, but that the two interact in tandem. perfectionism in art does not operate in a vacuum, isolated from sociocultural biases and dominant assumptions. it is society and culture that deems what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in art, what is ’perfect’ and what is an ‘imperfection’ or ‘flaw’ or ‘mistake’. these notions are all socially constructed, they are neither objective nor purely subjective matters of personal preference or ‘taste’. ‘taste’, in this sense, isnt merely innately inherited or acquired by deliberate choice and consideration, no matter how much one may believe that to be the case, but rather is in large part socially constructed and socialized. as shown earlier, these hierarchies of ‘good’ & ’bad’ or ‘perfect’ & ‘imperfect’ reflect hierarchies of privilege and marginalization. the supremacy of ‘good’ over ‘bad’ art reflects, and in turn reinforces, the supremacy of the privileged over the marginalized.
perfectionism in art is another means by which genocide is carried out, another front in the oppressor’s war against the oppressed. perfectionism in creative works such as art, music, writing and other mediums operates by the same fundamental methods as genocide—erasing what is deemed ‘undesirable’ and privileging what is deemed ‘desirable’, typically reflecting dominant hegemonic standards.
among these dominant hegemonic standards are the hierarchical notions of 'beauty' and ‘ugliness’. ‘beauty’ as a concept is culturally tied to whiteness, while ‘ugliness’ is ascribed disproportionately onto traits associated with non-white bodies. similar biases are also imposed onto other marginalized groups. ‘beauty’ is tied not only to whiteness, but also to abled thin bodies, while ‘ugliness’ is levied at disabled and fat bodies. thus, in addition to being racist and white supremacist, notions of 'beauty' and 'ugliness' are also ableist and fatphobic.
'beauty' and 'ugliness' also play a significant role in how queer and gender non-conforming bodies are perceived and judged. transgender and gender non-conforming bodies are often seen as ‘ugly’ compared to cis bodies, even by other queer trans people. this is essentially what ‘passing culture’ reinforces. trans people who do not conventionally ‘pass’ as a binary gender, or do not try to ‘pass’, are often perceived as ‘ugly’ and viewed with disgust, and more likely to have their identities invalidated, their autonomy violated, and their lives threatened. cis people ascribe ‘ugliness’ to queer people most, and are the most likely to respond violently to seeing a queer body. but even some queer people reinforce this. some trans people who do ‘pass’, and even some non-binary people who’s expression can ‘pass’ as binary, judge trans people who do not ‘pass’ or who do not try to ‘pass’, creating a toxic 'passing culture’.
'passing culture' enforces a hierarchy. the most conventionally 'beautiful' or 'attractive' bodies, who conform most 'perfectly' to cisheteronormative standards and ‘pass’ within the gender binary, are privileged at the top. queer bodies that are perceived as 'ugly' and who do not conform to gender expectations are placed at the bottom. this hierarchy, even when it is other queer people enforcing it, carries all the judgemental, hostile, and even violent policing that cisheteronormative society imposes onto queer and gender non-conforming bodies.
art that seeks to attain a ‘perfect’ expression of ‘beauty’ and erase any ‘imperfections’ or ‘ugliness’, reifies racialized, ableist, and cisheteronormative notions of ‘beauty’ and ‘ugliness’, and enforces the policing of these notions not only in art, but onto bodies as well
there is an ongoing genocide of transgender people that is rapidly building up, with right-wing media spewing genocidal rhetoric, ever more extreme anti-trans legislation being proposed and passed, and increasing hate crimes and violence against queer people. reinforcing notions of ‘beauty’ and erasing ‘ugliness’ in art, directly or indirectly, engages in the same mentality of supremacy and disgust that fuels actual real-world genocide. the rhetoric of art may be more subtle than the rhetoric of reactionary commentators and fascist politicians, but its subtlety is its insidiousness. if we, as artists, are to use our creative potential, whether that be through ‘art’ or some other medium, with the aim of liberation and as a means of fighting oppression, we need to deconstruct the genocidal mentality and rhetoric within our own creations, and start creating to destroy.
to dismantle hierarchy and supremacy requires dismantling it at all levels of society, from the macro to the micro. this means dismantling hierarchy in our own lives and relationships with others, in our own communities. this means dismantling hierarchy in our own behavior and actions. this means, as creators, dismantling hierarchy in our creation, and in what we create. dismantling hierarchy means rejecting perfectionism.
it is not enough to merely be an artist who believes in fighting for liberation and fighting against oppression. we must fight for liberation through our own creations. to do that, we must fight the oppression in our own creation. we must give up ‘perfection’.
‘art’, as a concept and cultural phenomena, tends to carry the connotations of ‘perfection’, and is subject to the judgements of ‘good’ & ‘bad’. when we try to reject perfectionism in our creation, the result is likely to be labelled ‘bad’, and perhaps not even be considered ‘art’. this is exemplified in how fascists often argue that ‘post-modern art’ isnt art. the same applies for any experimental, avant-garde, or other subversive or transgressive works, all being subject to the claim of not being ‘real art’. this, however, should not discourage us, but rather encourage us. if we reject perfectionism and subvert conventional standards of ‘good’ or ‘beauty’, and the result is that our works are not seen as ‘art’, thats a sign we are doing something right.
i use the term ‘art’ out of simplicity, but one may very well reject ‘art’ altogether. this is what Dadaists did, posing Dada as something beyond or even against ‘art’. similarly, ‘noise’ is often described as being what ‘music’ is not, or as a rejection of ‘music’ altogether. the term ‘anti-music’ arose as an outright rejection of music. ’danger music’ often holds a similar stance. if terms such as ‘art’ or ‘music’ lead us to replicate conventional standards and reinforce supremacy, then perhaps these terms are contrary to anti-perfectionism. but ‘imperfect’ art or ‘imperfect’ music or ‘imperfect’ writing etc. is a place to start, even if our ultimate aim may be to do away with these notions of art and music altogether. in any case, we cannot be so attached to these labels of ‘art’ or ‘music’, or ‘artist’ or ‘musician’, etc., that we would sooner conform our work to perfectionism than let go of such labels. if ‘art’ or ‘music’ does not lead to liberation, but rather perpetuates oppression, then we are not artists or musicians, we are anti-artists and anti-musicians. if art and music oppress us, then we are anti-art and anti-music.
Amateurs—the Unskilled, the undertrained and undereducated, the Layperson, the Bad Artists, etc.—are in a position with the most potential to dismantle ‘perfectionism’ and, in turn, to wield creation toward liberation. poor, disabled, and queer & marginalized people especially, being in oppressed standpoints and who’s voices are silenced and ignored, we have the potential to liberate ourselves through our transcendent creations. by unapologetically expressing ourselves without shame, we liberate the oppressed potential within us all. and, by expressing ourselves and sharing our creations, we can liberate each other and others.
express yourself as you please. throw away all conventions and rules, all notions of ‘good art’, all notions of ‘aesthetic’ and ‘beauty’.
release your messy sketches, your broken sculptures, your unmastered & unmixed songs, release it all! release your ‘cringy’ fanfic and OCs, release it all!
create whatever you please, however you please. leave in every ‘mistake’, every ‘error’, every ‘imperfection’, leave it all in! dont erase your ‘imperfections’! release it all!