Is there such a thing as a Chicago artist?

posted January 11, 2009 in news

The Ren hosted this forum this afternoon with Philip Von Zweck, Lynne Warren, Chuck Thurow, Paul Klein and representing our team, Elizabeth Chodos. Many have stated before me that Chicago has this discussion rather regularly, which, given its repetitiveness, must mean that the question nags at the collective Chicago art-conscience.

In short, there was no agreed upon thesis (what makes a Chicago artist) although the idea that Chicago has a remarkable work-ethic and, perhaps by, extension, notable 'craftsmanship' in its practices seemed to elicit nods of acknowledgement from the panel and audience. Being labeled 'Chicago' is for some a positive, others a non-issue, and in the case of Thurow, perhaps an exciting possibility that Chicago is on the cusp of - that is, a time when Chicago artists would find an advantage in associating themselves specifically with this city, just as artists do, say, from Los Angeles or Berlin.

In regards to work ethic, it was suggested that one of the advantages to Chicago, is an ability to work here unfettered by a 'system,' perhaps a robust commercial scene, that puts specific demands on artists work. Without that golden-noose of the kind of patronage, say New York artists 'enjoy', Chicago artists take risks or make decidedly non-commercial art. At the same time, Warren expressed disappointment in the cities commercial galleries for not supporting enough experimental, risky projects in 'their back rooms' - something that makes exhibitions here too 'provincial.' No doubt there are those that will agree and disagree with that assessment, but it begs the question that if in fact Chicago did have these 'back rooms' that Warren laments, would we have the same art.

The conversation degenerated a little bit when the idea of 'rehashing' was raised, as the negative result to our not having any historical perspective (i.e. a common holding of Chicago art). This missing link seems to still dog many in the community looking for that elusive 'room' in one of our institutions dedicated to Chicago artists or a biennial of sorts to collect them up. Whether or not this missing link adversely affects the work made here or its ability to be taken into account outside of this community was not elaborated on, but it seemed clear by the tenor of the discussion that there still is a need to be acknowledged. Chicago artists, administrators, curators, collectors or historians-at-large are just not in total agreement on who and how and for ultimately, whose benefit that perspective is for.

There is vitality to our scene, that moderator Hamza Walker was careful to reiterate, that the margins are the center in our community, and with that is ushered in a certain kind of energy. When I asked the panel if Chicago (visual art) wants to or needs to be acknowledged or branded, and by who, in order to achieve some kind of tangible marker of its own value, influence or maybe even sexiness, Walker (in short) said our acknowledgment came internally. That is, it is the energy generated here in Chicago for our artists, exhibitions, projects, curators and so on, our cultural work and its workers, that, when done again and again, with integrity and vibrancy, will keep our scene vital and spread beyond our city limits.

Please feel free to leave your thoughts and insights.

- Shannon