Contemporary Art Under Fascism

The main realization I came away with this semester (Spring 2026), while organizing Contemporary Art Under Fascism and at the same time taking classes on “Dada, Surrealism and SI” and “20th Century European Art to 1940”, is that political art has a history not everyone is aware of and that making political art has real consequences for the artists involved as well as the greater society. My understanding became clear when the Department of Art and Art History introduced new rules that directly affected my exhibition and that had not been in place for any previous exhibition in the UT Art Building. What initially felt like a logistical obstacle became in my mind and now on the historical record as part of the artistic work of the exhibition itself.

The restrictions were specific: I was told 1) I could not offer cash awards because that would “incentivize political speech” (I wanted to offer $500 for Best in Show, plus lesser amounts for other awards); 2) I could not include non-UT students despite my exhibition The Last Art Show before Fascism in 2025 and other exhibitions in the building having included non-UT students in the past; 3) that I could not hire an external installation company as I did last year; and 4) that all posters advertising the call for submissions had to be submitted for approval or they would be removed from the Art Building bulletin boards. This prior approval poster rule was a new rule placed on the bulletin boards after the administration took down my posters. 

None of these rules existed before my exhibition this year. Experiencing this institutional obstruction while studying political art of the 20th century gave me a fuller understanding of what artists in the past faced from people in positions of power. What I encountered was not comparable in magnitude to what other artists have faced, but it operated on a similar principle: control over how and where art can appear, and under what conditions it is allowed to exist.

Dada’s refusal of institutional norms was a logical response to their society and its constraints on art. Their rejection of coherence, professionalism, and even the category of “art” was their reaction against systems that define and limit expression. Organizing my exhibition within an institution that was actively shaping its terms made me more aware of how institutions function today. The new rules didn’t just affect logistics, they shaped the meaning and content of the show. Prohibiting cash awards framed political expression as something that must not be encouraged. Restricting participation to only UT students or faculty narrowed who could speak and cut off participation and interest in the art show from the larger community. Controlling posters regulated visibility. Each decision altered the conditions under which artists in the Department of Art and Art History could operate.

Surrealism, particularly through André Breton, proposed that liberation must occur at the level of thought and perception. What became clear to me is that artistic work is negatively impacted by educational institutions even today. Surrealist political ideas have had and continue to have a direct impact on societies. Reading Suzanne Césaire’s 1943: Surrealism and Us reinforced this by showing how Surrealism and other ideas behind political art could be adapted as tools within specific political conditions to motivate change. That idea became concrete for me: the exhibition went on but it had to operate within a set of constraints that were imposed in a way that decreased students’ artistic opposition to fascism. One of the submissions I had already accepted for the show was not allowed to be in the show because the faculty advisor felt that they might face professional repercussions and could lose their job if it was in the show. I agreed to take the submission out of the show out of respect for my faculty advisor, one of my favorite professors, who felt vulnerable to repercussions because people sharing aspects of their identity have been consistently targeted by fascists. 

One of the more unsettling realizations I had is that many students in the UT Studio Art program seem to accept these conditions without questioning them. There is a tendency to work within the given framework, to produce work that fits institutional expectations, circulates easily, and avoids friction. In that sense, rather than challenging dominant structures, much of the work created in classes ends up reproducing those dominant structures. This is not necessarily intentional, but it reflects how deeply those expectations are internalized. Many students live within the spectacle, so to speak, without knowing it.

Organizing Contemporary Art Under Fascism under these conditions forced me to confront the gap between what artists want to express in their art and what and when they are allowed to express it. It is not enough to present work that critiques power if the conditions of its presentation reinforce oppressive institutions. At the same time, the restrictions themselves clarified what is at stake. If encouraging political speech is seen as something to limit, then the act of creating space for it becomes more significant.

The most important shift for me this semester is understanding that political art remains vital and must not be discouraged or set aside in favor of just pretty images. Dada and Surrealism confronted oppression directly. Experiencing institutional constraints while organizing my exhibition and taking a class on Dada, Surrealism and SI shaped my understanding of the obstacles facing artists who are willing to challenge fascism. It turned what could have been an academic historical discussion into something immediate and personal, and it changed how I understand both the possibilities and the limits of art in our times.

US News and World Report last month released its updated 2026 rankings of Best Fine Arts Graduate Schools in the United States. The University of Texas at Austin dropped from number 23 to number 34. The rankings are based on peer assessment surveys of academic leadership at more than 200 fine arts programs. Art school should be a place of more freedom than what students encounter outside art schools. The UT Department of Art and Art History reacted to my art show under the assumption that art produced while in school should not destabilize the institution. The University of North Texas reacted in an even more oppressive manner than UT when it canceled an art show from a national artist that had already been set up in order to avoid problems with the Texas and federal governments, such as reduced funding.  The UNT show was created by Dallas‑raised artist Victor Quiñonez – known professionally as Marka27. The exhibition was titled Ni de Aquí Ni de Allá – "Neither from here nor there".

If the UT Department of Art and Art History actually wants to increase its reputation among academic leaders and rise in the national rankings of fine arts grad programs, it should do the opposite of what its administration did in reaction to my art show. They should have offered to fund it, promote it and expand participation, not discourage participation. That is the difference between top-tier art institutions and a program that cowers in the face of fascism. 

“Revolution Now and Forever”, as Breton said.