On Ideology: A Case Study
I don’t fully understand the world we’re living through, so this work is an attempt to make sense of it. Through self-directed research, I explore complex social and cultural questions, blending academic inquiry, artistic curiosity, and creative interpretation in pursuit of deeper insight rather than definitive answers.
I believe society has an ideology problem, not because any particular ideology is inherently wrong, but because ideology is increasingly being imposed upon us at an alarming rate. The issue is not that people hold beliefs, the issue is the manner in which those beliefs are delivered and reinforced.
Today, ideology is often presented through mechanisms that are subtle enough to evade scrutiny and persuasive enough to shape perception without conscious awareness. In many cases, people are not invited to examine concepts surrounding the ideology critically, they are guided toward accepting them through forms of social and cultural influence that operate beneath the surface. The result is not simply disagreement over ideas, but a diminished awareness that ideological persuasion is taking place at all.
This may sound obvious given the state of the world today, or it might sound too abstract, but my purpose here is not to offer a comprehensive critique of ideology itself. Rather, I want to examine a specific case study that illustrates how these dynamics can operate in practice. The example comes from a controversial artist-in-residence program, which, I believe, demonstrates how ideological assumptions can be embedded within and transmitted under the guise of cultural participation. For the sake of my own career, I will not identify the residency program or the individuals involved. However, I will discuss the program in as much detail as possible based on my research and publicly available information, using it as a case study to illustrate the broader dynamics I am examining.
Destutt de Tracy coined the word idéologie in 1796 as the name for his "science of ideas," drawing on the work of John Locke and Étienne Bonnot de Condillac. Idéologie emphasized the importance of sensation and the activity of the nervous system. The four principal realms of conscious behavior, perception, memory, judgment, and will, were understood as employing different combinations of sensations. Napoleon later suppressed idéologie, viewing it as a threat to both religious doctrine and secular authority.
Unfortunately, the threat today (and arguably the threat has always been) is the interference with people developing their own frameworks for understanding the world.
Today, we use the word ideology somewhat differently. An ideology is generally understood as a structured set of beliefs, values, and ideas that shapes how individuals or groups understand the world and guides their political, social, or economic behavior. At its best, an ideology is something a person consciously inherits and refines rather than passively absorbs. It should be concrete enough to guide your life, yet flexible enough to allow for doubt, revision, and the free will to change your mind.
Karl Marx said something along the lines of, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.”
Meaning the dominant worldview of any era isn't neutral, it's a reflection of whoever holds power, dressed up to look universal. This takes particular importance in the case of the artist-in-residence program and its origin.
The Case Study
It's important to note that ideological influence within the art world is not a new phenomenon. The Bauhaus is a strong example, founded in Germany in 1919 by Walter Gropius, it was explicitly ideological from the start.
They openly outlined their beliefs: that art and craft should be unified, that design should serve society, that beauty and function were inseparable. They transmitted a particular set of values, aesthetics, and ways of thinking about art and the world. The Bauhaus wasn't hiding what it stood for, their transparency is what separates it from what I am going to describe.
This particular residency is an offshoot of a contemporary art magazine, one that exists exclusively online, with no physical publication. The organization was founded in 2016 in Eastern Europe.
The magazine has a polished online aesthetic showcasing artists I admire, some of which are peers of mine. They have a following of one million people on Instagram and their artist residency account gaining traction with over 200k followers. Some followers have argued their online aesthetic has changed more recently. Noting that perhaps the art has become secondary to the aesthetic of desire.
The residency is marketed as a fully funded two-week program. Last year it took place in the South of France; this year it is being advertised in Georgia. Selected artists are promised travel, accommodation, meals, materials, exhibitions, and gallery connections. As an artist, it sounded like an incredible opportunity. It also sounded too good to be true.
And apparently, I was not alone in that assessment. Artists on Reddit thread, r/ContemporaryArt, began documenting a series of concerns: anonymous organizers, undisclosed funding sources, vague logistics, and a social media presence that appeared far more polished than transparent. For a program claiming to fully fund dozens of international artists, there was remarkably little verifiable information available.
However, the Reddit users were not entirely correct. There is, in fact, a team spread across various parts of the world organizing the residency, and the 2025 program did take place at a château in the South of France. A group of artists attended, but from what I have been able to determine, the reality looked quite different from the image being sold online. Fewer than twenty artists ultimately participated and there were no dedicated studios. It was as much a social gathering, not excluding drugs and sex in shaping the experience, as an artistic residency.
This year, the organization returned with another open call and another application fee of $25. The acceptance process, however, unfolded in an unusual way. Large numbers of people received emails indicating that they had been accepted for the residency, including some individuals who claimed they had not applied. Artists, gallery owners, and previous applicants all reported receiving similar messages, creating confusion about whether the emails had been sent intentionally or by mistake.
In response, many of the artists who attended the 2025 residency began sharing identical statements across social media, assuring applicants that the residency was legitimate and that they had personally attended. While those online who spoke poorly of the residency or raised red flags were blocked immediately. Whether coordinated or not, the effect was the same: skepticism was redirected away from the organization and toward the concerns being raised about it. And to voice skepticism would have you blocked online.
Whether the program is fraudulent is almost beside the point. The parties, the drugs, and the sex are not, in themselves, unusual at an artist residency. Artists have long been associated with experimentation, freedom, and unconventional ways of living. To give the organizers the benefit of the doubt, building and funding an international residency is no easy feat. The logistics alone are substantial, and any team attempting such a project is bound to encounter challenges.
What interested me was something harder to define: the methods being employed by a highly sought-after contemporary art residency. What appeared to be deliberate confusion, marked by contradictory information, and the polished aesthetic masking an incoherent reality.
These are not merely organizational failures; they resemble techniques increasingly familiar in contemporary politics.
What makes this worth examining is that such techniques have begun to appear within a sphere historically associated with independent thought and freedom. Art has always been a site of ideological contestation, but there is a meaningful difference between ideological inquiry and an ideology that operates through force (or worse, deception).
The goal is not to convince people of a particular truth. The goal is to make truth itself feel unattainable.
The residency does not appear to be transmitting a political doctrine. It is not asking artists to endorse a party, a religion, or overtly inserting its worldview. Its values are communicated through its methods, aesthetics and social incentives. In fact, its ideology may be more effective precisely because it does not appear ideological at all. What it transmits is a subtle way of triumphing in the world.
Participation requires suspending skepticism in favor of belonging, and overlooking the costs imposed on others in pursuit of one's own advancement.
The residency becomes an example of ideology because it teaches participants how to orient themselves toward a presented reality.
It is impossible to move through life without an ideological perspective, just as it is impossible to do so without influencing and being influenced by others.
What this residency understands is that desire is a more effective recruitment tool than transparency. Its imagery creates an atmosphere that appeals less to reason than to the senses. And Its viral social media strategy keeps the residency at the forefront of artists' minds while accelerating the account's growth.
The magazine and the accounts associated with the residency increasingly feature images of women, often partially undressed and posed in ways only tangentially related to artistic practice. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, artists have long engaged with nudity and the body, but it contributes to a broader aesthetic designed to appeal to the senses. The emphasis appears to shift away from artistic work itself and toward an atmosphere of social status and sensuality. What presents itself as creative opportunity functions, beneath the surface, as a mechanism for reproducing a particular set of cultural values.
Tracy's idéologie was built on a hopeful premise, that human beings, if given the right tools, could examine their own thinking and consciously choose their beliefs. Marx dismantled that optimism. He argued that ideology had already been captured by power, that it shapes how people understand reality without their awareness, and that the dominant worldview of any era serves the interests of whoever controls the conditions in which it is produced.
This residency does not contradict Marx’s argument. It confirms it.
What it reflects is a broader cultural shift in how ideology is delivered, particularly within the arts. It no longer arrives as a position to be debated or a philosophy to be examined. It arrives as an aesthetic to be inhabited for belonging. And belonging, for a young artist navigating a difficult industry, is not a trivial offer.
I once believed the art world would be a place of unyielding support. Instead, I have found it to be an epicenter of many of the cultural distortions that have seeped into our broader society, manifesting both within its institutions and in the interpersonal dynamics among artists themselves.
What has troubled me most is not simply the existence of ethical failures, but the willingness to tolerate them. Too often, individuals remain silent in the face of misconduct, avoiding the discomfort of confronting peers, powerful actors, or entrenched systems. In doing so, complacency can become its own form of participation embedded in a quiet ideology.
The irony is that much of the contemporary art world presents itself as a defender of democratic values and social progress. Yet when examined closely, it often lacks the transparency, accountability, and structural integrity required to embody those ideals within its own ecosystem. The gap between its rhetoric and its practice is difficult to ignore.
The residency concludes on its website with a quote by Soviet fillmaker Sergei Parajanov,
"The worst thing is to miss the beautiful."