From White Cube to Community

By Denis Alize Ünal

In the evolving landscape of contemporary art, the traditional “white cube” gallery model that is characterized by its sterile and minimalist aesthetic has increasingly become a point of discussion. Once celebrated as a neutral space that elevated art beyond the context, the white cube is now often critiqued for reinforcing detachment, exclusivity, and Eurocentric hierarchies. 

The origins of the white cube gallery model can be traced back to the early 20th century, to the rising of Modernist art movements and notable institutions like the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York. The term “white cube” gained further recognition through Brian O’Doherty’s influential 1976 essay series Inside the White Cube. O’Doherty argued that the gallery’s pristine, controlled environment—a seemingly sacred space—didn’t simply highlight the art, but also imposed a particular way of seeing. In other words, O’Doherty observed that the white cube model creates an artificial space that separates art from the outside and everyday world. He criticized this sense of artificiality and sterility by arguing that the white cube, while claiming to be neutral, actually imposes a specific way of experiencing and interpreting art by stripping it of its context. In this framework, the sense of “clean”, neutral arts and art space creates a hidden power structure which dictates how viewers should behave and how art should be received. According to O’Doherty, this serves commercial interests more than other concerns art should have, all while pretending to transcend commerce and context.  

Over time, the white cube model became the dominant framework in galleries and museums worldwide, shaping not just how art is shown, but also how it is made and valued. Grounded in Western modernist aesthetic traditions, the white cube often marginalizes forms of expression that fall outside its visual language and exhibition style—such as craft-based, narrative, activist, or culturally rooted practices more common in non-Western or historically marginalized communities. Besides the cultural and aesthetic limitations, galleries and museums using the white cube model often maintain hierarchical curatorial systems where a small group of professionals determine what is shown and thus, what is deemed “important.” This tends to reproduce dominant tastes and biases, and reinforce systemic inequalities especially around race, gender, class, and geography; limiting visibility for BIPOC, queer, disabled, and working-class artists. As a result, artists who don’t conform to marketable styles or create political and community-oriented works often struggle to gain access into the art world. This reinforces systemic inequality in terms of who can make a sustainable career in art.

On the contrary, the mold created by the white cube gallery model is increasingly being challenged by contemporary artists and institutions who recognize that the supposed neutrality of such spaces often masks the exclusionary practices. Through interactive installations, site specific works, community-based projects, and decolonial curatorial approaches, a fresh sense of art is emerging that reintroduces context, dialogue, and political urgency into the exhibition space. These practices disrupt the sterile aesthetic and hierarchical power structures of the white cube, making room for marginalized voices and diverse cultural narratives. In doing so, they align with key DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) metrics through focusing on underrepresented narratives, fostering accessibility, and questioning the institutional biases that shape who gets to produce, present, and engage with art. This shift broadens the scope of artistic expression as well as redefining the role of the audience, inviting more active, inclusive, and socially aware manners of participation into the art world.

As the art world slowly confronts its structural tensions, the question is no longer whether the white cube model should be reformed, but rather how this transformation should occur. Artists, curators, and institutions that challenge this rooted system are reshaping how art is displayed, but also who feels entitled to experience and make it. While the white cube model achieved a milestone and freshness in its time, now it is also time for other models that value transparency, inclusion, and community-driven validation of art. By expanding the spaces where art can physically, socially, and ideologically exist, we move closer to a future in which the art world truly reflects the diversity of the world it seeks to represent.

– In the Organization for the Democratization of the Visual Arts (ODBK), we create and support mechanisms, projects, ideas, and initiatives that democratize those decisions that affect and define the art world. If you are interested in creating an art world more equal, democratic, and diverse, join us! – 

Works Cited:

O’Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. University of California Press, 1999.

Further Readings:

Paul O’Neill – The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Culture(s) (2012)

Tony Godfrey – Conceptual Art (1998)

David Carrier – Museum Skepticism: A History of the Display of Art in Public Galleries (2006)

Andrea Fraser – From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique (2005)