Individuality still counts

Without the slightest doubt, collectivism is a boon for like-minded artists who're yearning to articulate their raw emotions and stances - be it contentious, defensive, rebellious or aggressive - through arts. But, does it mean collectivism is the Holy Grail of the art sphere? The answer is negative. Excessive accentuation on collective endeavor could eclipse each artist's individuality and signature artistic license, which are equally important, argues Collins.

Take the collective commitment by similar-minded women artists to eliciting the public contemplation and reappraisal of women's roles, identity and merits beyond exterior beauty. Their approach or "painting brush" to the canvas varies, contends Collins. Their ethos alluded to in their artworks are aligned, "but they're done with a great degree of variation", he notes.

Social media, in some way, encourage the collective culture in a globalized and interactive contemporary art world, reckons Collins. "Global interconnectedness means artists are easily able to see each other's work and share ideas. It's exciting to see so much exchange, but it also ends up with artists exploring similar themes more often than they would otherwise."

Then, there's market demand - what sells best, what are most endearing to art collectors, what are coveted as home decorations? "The market always impacts the kind of work artists make because they've to earn a living. But, artists always have a choice to work with or against the collective trend to express their individuality."

"There's no question that to be noticed, an artist has to be unique, but then that uniqueness can make the artist a prisoner of their own market," caveats Collins.

Whether collectivism in arts provides an empowering cocoon, where the creative find expressive solidarity, or sets a dangerous trap cocooning creative individuals from minting their artistic dialect can be a tough balance to strike. However, it's probably this fuzzy distinction that makes arts per se fascinating.