
In discussions of decolonizing the arts, the term is too often conflated with surface-level efforts: temporary exhibitions of underrepresented artists, hiring diversity officers, or public commitments to “inclusion.” While such initiatives are not without merit, they fail to address the foundational structures—leadership, curatorial practices, acquisitions, education, and funding—that perpetuate colonial power dynamics. Decolonization is not about representation alone; it requires dismantling and reimagining the systems that determine whose art is seen, valued, and supported. It demands a reckoning with how these structures have historically excluded, marginalized, and exploited communities under colonial frameworks.
Understanding the Foundations: Colonialism and the Arts
Colonialism shaped the global art system by establishing Western Europe as the central authority for defining art, culture, and taste. Institutions like the British Museum and the Louvre were built on the plunder of colonized nations, amassing artifacts as symbols of imperial dominance. In a 2020 report, the Open Restitution Project estimated that 90% of sub-Saharan Africa’s cultural artifacts remain outside the continent, held primarily by European museums. These acquisitions were not just thefts of objects but deliberate acts of cultural erasure, framing non-Western traditions as “primitive” or “exotic” while elevating European art as the universal standard.
This colonial legacy also extends to art education and funding. Art historian Gauri Viswanathan, in Masks of Conquest, outlines how colonial powers used art and education as tools of cultural domination, privileging Western aesthetics while dismissing Indigenous knowledge systems. The impact persists today: Western art histories dominate museum collections and university curricula, while non-Western art is often relegated to ethnographic or “folk” categories, denying it the same status as European works.
Leadership: Who Holds the Power?
Leadership in arts institutions remains overwhelmingly homogenous. A 2019 Mellon Foundation report found that 84% of museum leadership positions in the United States were held by white individuals. This disparity is even more stark in acquisitions committees and boards, where decisions about what is collected, exhibited, and funded are often made by a privileged few. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, in Decolonizing Methodologies, argues that “the power to define, classify, and value cultural practices is a core function of colonial dominance.” In other words, as long as leadership structures remain unchanged, colonial hierarchies will continue to dictate whose art is deemed significant.
Decolonizing leadership requires rethinking governance models to include historically excluded voices in decision-making roles. This means not just hiring directors and curators from underrepresented backgrounds but also creating shared governance systems where communities have equal authority over institutional priorities. As artist and activist Edgar Heap of Birds writes in “Decolonize the Museum,” “Decolonization is about the redistribution of power, not the rebranding of it.”
Curatorial Practices and Museum Acquisitions: Who Decides What Is Seen?
Curatorial practices are another site where colonial logics persist. Even when museums include works by marginalized artists, these are often framed through Western interpretive lenses. As art historian John Clark notes in Asian Modernities, “The insertion of non-Western voices into Western institutions often occurs on terms dictated by those institutions, preserving the dominant framework rather than challenging it.”
This issue is especially visible in acquisitions practices. Museums prioritize works that fit within established Western canons, often ignoring or undervaluing art forms rooted in non-European traditions. For example, the restitution of the Benin Bronzes—thousands of looted sculptures from Nigeria—has sparked debates over ownership, but few institutions have addressed the broader question of how these objects were valued differently from European art. According to the Restitution Study Group, only 5% of European museum collections that include artifacts from Africa or Asia have been repatriated, illustrating the reluctance of institutions to cede control.
True decolonization requires shifting curatorial practices and acquisitions policies to center non-Western epistemologies. This means not just expanding collections but also relinquishing authority over how these works are interpreted and displayed. Collaborative curation, where communities determine the context and narrative for their own cultural heritage, is a critical step toward this goal.
Arts Education: Rewriting the Canon
Art education has long been a mechanism for perpetuating colonial narratives, privileging the works of European masters while marginalizing non-Western traditions. In most Western art history curricula, the “canon” remains dominated by figures like Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Picasso, with token mentions of non-European art relegated to specialized courses. This framework teaches students to view Western art as universal and non-Western art as other.
Decolonizing arts education means dismantling the Eurocentric canon and creating space for pluralistic narratives. As Jolene Rickard, an Indigenous artist and scholar, writes in “Visualizing Sovereignty,” “Education must move beyond inclusion to transformation, re-centering the voices and knowledge systems that colonialism sought to erase.” This includes integrating Indigenous, African, and Asian art histories into core curricula and ensuring that these are taught by scholars and practitioners from those traditions.
Decolonized arts education also requires addressing accessibility. In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts reports that low-income students are 30% less likely to have access to arts education in K-12 schools than their wealthier peers, further entrenching systemic inequities. Public investment in arts education, particularly for marginalized communities, is essential to creating equitable opportunities for artistic development.
Funding: Redistributing Resources
Funding is one of the most entrenched mechanisms of colonial power in the arts. Major institutions like the Met, Tate, and MoMA receive disproportionate funding, often sourced from philanthropic foundations with colonial histories. In 2022, the ten largest U.S. art museums received over 50% of private arts funding, while community-based organizations received less than 10%. This disparity reinforces existing hierarchies, ensuring that resources remain concentrated in institutions that uphold colonial narratives.
Linda Tuhiwai Smith emphasizes that decolonization must include “reparative justice, whereby resources are redistributed to those who have been historically dispossessed.” Decolonizing funding requires reallocating resources to Indigenous- and Black-led organizations, creating grant programs that prioritize historically excluded communities, and addressing the colonial origins of philanthropic wealth.
For example, the Native Arts and Cultures Foundation has developed funding models that center Indigenous self-determination, prioritizing projects led by and for Native communities. These initiatives demonstrate how redistributing resources can empower marginalized voices and challenge colonial funding structures.
Moving Forward: Structural Change, Not Performative Gestures
Decolonizing the arts is not a one-time initiative or a metaphor for diversity efforts. It requires systemic change across leadership, curatorial practices, acquisitions, education, and funding. Representation alone is insufficient; without structural transformation, efforts to decolonize will remain performative.
Institutions must relinquish power, redistribute resources, and prioritize collaboration with communities that have been historically excluded. As Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang remind us in “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor,” “Decolonization is not about inclusion; it is about restitution and the repatriation of land, resources, and power.”
By addressing these foundational inequities, the arts can move beyond colonial frameworks and toward a future that values all voices equally—not as tokens or supplementary narratives but as central to the fabric of global art and culture.
Works Cited
• Clark, John. Asian Modernities: Chinese and Thai Art Compared, 1980 to 1999. Power Publications, 2010.
• Heap of Birds, Edgar. “Decolonize the Museum.” Decolonial Aesthetics, 2012.
• Open Restitution Project. “Status Report on African Cultural Heritage.” 2020.
• Rickard, Jolene. “Visualizing Sovereignty in the Time of Biometric Sensors.” Theorizing Native Studies, University of Minnesota Press, 2014.
• Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, 1999.
• Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012.
• Viswanathan, Gauri. Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India. Columbia University Press, 1989.
• National Endowment for the Arts. “Arts Participation by Household Income.” 2021.
inequities. Let me know if further refinements are needed!
Kommentare