In recent years, the art world and various creative industries have become obsessed with the idea of “finding essence” through biological metaphors. While intended to signal a foundational core, this linguistic habit has become more than just a cliché, it is a problematic framing that promotes genetic determinism and cultural essentialism which can lead to discrimination.
To preserve the integrity of creative expression, the arts world must move toward a revisioned vocabulary that reflects the fluid, socially constructed nature of art rather than any implied biological inevitability. Using such clinical terminology to describe culture suggests that creativity is fixed, inherited, and unchangeable, which creates a narrow and restrictive view of human innovation, often enforcing a monocultural narrative or singular view that excludes the possibility of change.
This reliance on biological imagery implies that an institution or artist is “programmed” to behave a certain way, effectively erasing the role of human agency, choice, or even evolution. When we speak of a culture’s “innate makeup,” we risk implying that certain traits are inherent to specific groups of people, which historically echoes dangerous pseudo-scientific rhetoric once used to justify the discrimination and genocides towards peoples.
Adopting the language of a laboratory, inadvertently sanitizes a history of “blood and soil” ideologies that sought to categorize human creativity through birthright rather than merit or movement. This usage propagates scientific misinformation. Art is a product of environmental influence, historical context, and messy collaboration. Comparing creativity to a rigid biological blueprint is not only inaccurate but fundamentally misrepresents how social systems function.
In the commercial sector, the drive to identify a “corporate code” often results in the commodification of identity. When a brand claims a specific creative output is “in their genes,” they are attempting to lay claim to a history that is likely a result of stolen ideas, collective labor, or accidental genius and not the sum of actions from those currently conducting the work.
Creative processes are not a closed-loop system of replication, but a series of sprawling, elective, and often contradictory ideas. Relying on metaphors of inheritance and code oversimplifies complex social and creative processes which allow art to breathe and change over time. It creates a false sense of permanence in industries that should thrive on disruption and the dismantling of old structures.
The art world should be a space for transformation, not a prisoner to a metaphorical blueprint. Specific cultures determine artistic expressions through self-representation of community over time, constantly renegotiating shared concepts between members. Societies must acknowledge the complexities of many groups and many cultures alongside each other in order to form progressive exchanges and seek mutual benefit between people and communities.
By retiring jargon, we step away from essentialism and embrace a more nuanced understanding of culture between peoples, one built through action and intent, rather than imaginary biological scripts. We shift the focus from what an artist is to what an artist does, leaving the double helix to the scientists and keeping the language of art as dynamic, unpredictable, and inclusive as the communities that make it.