In Jerry Saltz’s 33 Rules for Being an Artist, he argues the statement that “All Art Is Identity Art!”. In my opinion, while it’s true that all art is created by individuals and thus inherently reflects some aspect of their identity, this view fails to account for the multifaceted nature of artistic creation and interpretation.
The assertion that art is a confession, “more or less oblique,” holds merit. Artists such as Kazimir Malevich, Mark Rothko, and Agnes Martin created abstract works during periods of significant global conflict, which can be interpreted as personal expressions or responses to their circumstances. However, this perspective may be reductive, as it does not fully account for the artists’ intentions or the broader cultural and philosophical contexts that shaped their work.
Kazimir Malevich – Black Square and Red Square (1915)
Mark Rothko – Untitled (1952)
For instance, Malevich’s Suprematism was not merely a reflection of political turmoil but an attempt to transcend material reality and explore pure artistic expression. Similarly, Rothko’s color field paintings, while often viewed through the lens of post-war existentialism, were rooted in his desire to evoke profound emotional experiences beyond personal narrative. Agnes Martin, on the other hand, sought serenity and spiritual transcendence in her minimalist grids, which resist direct autobiographical interpretation.
While historical and social conditions undeniably influence artistic production, reducing abstract art to a mere reflection of personal or collective trauma risks oversimplifying its philosophical and aesthetic ambitions. These works often aim to communicate universal themes-such as the search for meaning-rather than serving as direct confessions of the artists’ struggles. Thus art can be a space where artists engage with ideas that extend beyond their immediate personal or political realities.