by Lane Relyea

Like other major business sectors undergoing globalization, the art world over the last 20 years has grown increasingly dispersed and decentered while at the same time achieving ever greater organizational and professional coherence. Since the early 1990s, with the sudden rise of the London and Los Angeles art scenes, and with close to 40 different cities worldwide establishing new international bi- and triennials, the art world no longer resembles a pyramid with one city at its apex. It is now a horizontal matrix. And more than any single city or exhibition or art event, prestige now accrues to the lines between, the routes of distribution and circulation connecting various centers and gatherings.

Likewise, art itself has grown increasingly networked. More and more art practices manifest themselves as codes or programs through which already existing objects, sites and discourses are “repurposed,” the aim being to access and link various databases and platforms (not just those in the art world but beyond, from social acquaintances to research archives to personal libraries to pop-culture inventories like old record collections to the intimately biographied yet anonymous cast-offs accumulated in thrift stores). Just as no single TV show or pop song is as hot today as the TiVo boxes and iPods that manage their organization, so too with art it’s the ease and agility of access and navigation through and across data fields and sites and projects that takes precedence over any singular, lone objet. The sovereign, self-centered, self-anchored object or artist subject or art site or show or art center is no longer what exudes aura; rather it’s the ability to shuttle along the pathways, to partake of the network’s scaffolding of spokes and nodes, that incites real competition.

All this goes for criticism as well. Take Artforum. In 1993 the magazine introduced as part of its monthly format a “contributors page” immediately following the table of contents. Not only does the page personalize the month’s articles, tying each to a singular and unique origin, but it also opens those articles out by using the authors—or rather their 100-word blurbs, the bureaucratic CV written out in prose—as a sort of hyperlink to myriad other professionals, publishers, institutions and projects. To the twin developments of growing dispersion and anonymity on the one hand and increased interconnectedness on the other, the contributors page responds with a standardized professional form of written introduction and disclosure and, on the other, a heightened sense of direct address and personalization gained through the accompanying thumbnail head-shot of the author’s face. Other innovations in the magazine, like increased use of roundtable discussions and multi-authored features, represent, over and above the specific topics being addressed, the connectedness and “liveness” of communicational interface. Art writing today is being replaced by something closer to talk, which is more exteriorized and socialized, addressed and about transmission. Through such tendencies the art press begins to loosen its allegiance to an older print culture and the techniques of silent reading, crucial to ideas of individual autonomy and interiority, of critical distance and thinking as an isolated, independent act, and instead aligns itself more with the practices and effects of user interface and instantaneous electronic communications.

The ubiquitous square of ARTFORUM

Also, whereas up until the late ’80s Artforum refused to run anything but art ads, limiting the few product advertisements that were accepted to the very back of the magazine, over the course of the ’90s more and more product advertising appears—for clothes, liquor, mints, eyeglasses, restaurants, bars, airlines, hotels, even financial services—and these get placed up front, interspersed with the gallery announcements. And whereas formerly the ad section and the editorial content had been strictly segregated, now they co-mingle, alternating page to page. This mingling helps to disarticulate and fragment the editorial content and allows for more flexibility and diversification, as short “think pieces” by intellectual-columnists are now interrupted by upcoming exhibition “previews” and various types of news reporting—on art institutions and their intertwined affairs, on the comings and goings of curators, etc. There are more lists (“Hot List,” “Top Ten”) which function as straightforward information, underlining the ability of the magazine to serve as a database. Many of the new sections in Artforum (“Openings,” “Thousand Words,” “Top Ten,” etc.) also appear regularly, punctually. Which means that, not only does the magazine take on a broader, more diverse institutional art system as its subject matter, but the magazine itself, as it becomes more diverse, more disarticulated and fragmented, also becomes more systematized, more templated, accommodating only those changes in content that don’t exceed its structure’s built-in flexibilities. And finally there is more emphasis on practical information, on news and the art world’s general functionality, which makes the magazine more a resource and guide and less a venue for criticism. It could be argued that this is indicative of a larger tension in art today— between an emphasis on practice and practicality on the one hand, on the everyday and design and even activism, and the supposed continuing need on the other hand for criticism with its refusals and negativity and its tearing things down. The annual “best and worst” section in Artforum, introduced in 1994, had the “worst” half permanently deleted only three years later, in ’97.

A Cultural Tradition on the North Shore

Chris Seeman

Highland Park, IL – The Port Clinton Art Festival returns to downtown Highland Park on Saturday, August 28 and Sunday, August 29 from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. Free and open to the public, the Port Clinton Art Festival is ranked the number four show in the country. Founded and produced by Amdur Productions, this distinguished outdoor festival features fine art from more than 260 juried artists hailing from around country. Young artists, ages eighteen and under, shine in the Youth Division of Show, which offers youth an opportunity to experience participating in a real art festival. More than 250,000 loyal art lovers travel from places near and far to visit this acclaimed show annually.

Today, the Trib Local featured a wonderful interview about the history of the Port Clinton Festival:

Twenty-seven years ago my father, Steven Amdur, and his partner developed Port Clinton Square.  My father looked to me to find a reason for people to come to Port Clinton.  The area needed a draw.  We created a summer line-up of event including the Taste of Port Clinton, Music in the Plaza and, of course, the Port Clinton Art Festival.  I had been an artist and an art lover my entire life and knew I would be able to pour my heart and soul into this work.  Twenty-seven years later the festival is still rated one of the Top Five in the county annually and one of the best attended nationally.  Today more than 260 of the finest artists in the world are showcased at the Port Clinton Art Festival.”

In addition to the incredible artwork available at the festival, fun activities for showgoers of all ages take place. Activities just for kids, including an art BINGO game where children serve as art explorers and an art wall which children can help paint, take place throughout the weekend.

Dale Rogers

Live music from several local bands continues throughout the weekend. When festival-goers are not perusing the fine art available at the festivals, they can often be found dancing to the sounds of the festival’s featured performers. Chicagoland’s Best Acoustic Band Cirrus Falcon, harpist Ariane Lydon, and many more performers will take the stage during the festival.

This year the Taste of Highland Park takes place in conjunction with the festival. Guests are invited to sip, nibble and nosh from several of Highland Park’s most celebrated restaurants. The Taste of Highland Park opens at 6:00 pm on Friday, August 27 and continues throughout the weekend. Chicago area bands will also perform during the Taste. For more information, visit: www.downtownhp.com.

Ari Gradus

Enjoy the 27th Annual Port Clinton Art Festival on Saturday, August 28 and Sunday, August 29 from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm at Port Clinton Square in downtown Highland Park. Admission and parking are free.

Visit online at www.amdurproductions.com or find us on Facebook.

Founded in 1984 Amdur Productions, Inc. is a nationally acclaimed arts festival production company that organizes and directs a selection of Chicago area’s most prestigious and successful juried summer art fairs. All of Amdur’s festivals have been rated in Sunshine Artist Magazine’s top 100 with half in the top 50; and the Art at the Glen Town Center and Port Clinton Art Festival are in the top 10.

Downtown Highland Park is brought to you by the Highland Park CBD Alliance, a partnership of the downtown Property Owners Association, the Highland Park Chamber of Commerce, and the City of Highland Park.  The Alliance was founded in 2008 to enhance the economic vitality of the central business district of Highland Park.

For more information, visit: www.downtownhp.com.

View Photo Album

Robin Dluzen

Group Critique

What is the function of critique? I suppose, in art school, there are two functions. First, it is an opportunity for an artist to witness firsthand how his/her work is perceived by an audience. In my opinion, the second–and this is the one that pertains to students—it is an opportunity to utilize one’s peers for gaining advice on reaching one’s goals of making successful work. This second function is what I am concerned with here.

Perhaps I should frame my experience of critiques. Very often, the critique does not come about through the artist’s own wishes, rather it is a requirement that presents itself whether one is confident and ready for it, or not. So the artist drags his/her stuff out and displays it in front of the group. From here, the critique could go in any direction, depending on context, specific group members and the artist’s relationship to them, or any amount of personal musings of any individual member of the group. This, admittedly, is a risk we all have to take; a risk that at best, it could be minimally helpful in attaining your goals, it could also be totally useless, or at worst, it could be an opportunity to get visibly upset and/or irritated in front of a large group of people including one or more prestigious faculty members, and say things you wish you didn’t.

So how does this all go so bad? Direct, democratic means of feedback sound like reasonable enough intentions, right? Well, under the guise of democratization, a hierarchy rather influences and determines the critique as a result of individuals working solely out of their own self-interests. As in life, the loudest guy wins over a consensus through mere volume, or number of theories/French philosophers cited in proving his point. And not only that, often the outcome of the critique is a vague consensus, halted in agonizingly stunted political correctness, which favors the familiar and the institutionalized over the controversial and the risky. Dave Hickey explains in Sarah Thornton’s Seven Days In The Art World: “My one rule…is that I do not do group crits. They are social occasions that reinforce the norm. They impose a standardized discourse. They privilege unfinished, incompetent art.”[1]

So often those doing the critiquing look for familiar dialogues in which to operate, and therefore an uneasiness occurs when presented with anything that deviates from an institutionalized form. This results in proposing that an artist must mimic a well known artist who works in a similar vein, in order to be able to speak about what you do with more authority. Following the advice of this kind of critique could result in an art student making work for other art students, a marginal, temporary group of viewers. This is, of course, if one is not already impressing the critiquing audience with some fantastically obscure technique or subject; obscurity is often a “get out of critique free” card, with which one can do whatever and still be regarded with respect (that is, until one is employing at length the obscurity to the point that it becomes gimmick; then you are in a whole other kind of trouble). And if you are not so far out of the realms of the familiar that the critique-ers are uncomfortable, then you are inevitably subject to the most inane of questions: “Do you think your work is contemporary?” which means, “I want you to know that I don’t like your work and I just want to be the guy who asks a tough question in front of everybody.”

So the question remains, why is it that people are just saying whatever they want in critique without any regard to the usefulness of their comments? This happens as a result of the separation that is set in place by the artist presenting his/her work in front of a critical audience. Those in the audience are reinforced and therefore emboldened by their strength in numbers. This can be a good thing: it could incite much needed constructive criticism. However, in my experience, it has the tendency to often be a bad thing, allowing for any and all useless comments that are not, in fact, constructive at all, and are merely a place to reiterate individual tastes, or an opportunity to expectorate one’s musings on some recent book or radio program completely unrelated to the art which is in front of him/her. In fact, may artists leave a critique feeling as though the objects presented were not even looked at, much less referred to.

There must be a reason, though, that this formula is still standard in art schools. Maybe critiques are more helpful for those critiquing and learning how to speak up about art than those who have work critiqued; or perhaps this is just reinforcing regurgitation skills.

What are the options, though? In what manner can actual, useful conversations about art in the academic context be prompted? Of course, in my experience, one-on-one, face-to-face conversation almost always works; when the gap is closed between the critique-er and the critique-e, and the hierarchy abolished, it (arguably) forces one to be held accountable for one says, for the critique-er is no longer superficially performing, but is actually being pressured to become engaged. But practically speaking, a model based on this kind of engagement could potentially be a nightmare to implement. How would you do it, just make everyone pair off everyday for one-on-one critique? That is a lot of responsibility for an individual artist, and we know no one likes to be held that responsible. Maybe there is no better model than the group critique, and we should take whatever this practice teaches us, even if it’s miniscule, like everything else in a graduate art program: through not truly knowing exactly how to structure higher education in a subjective field, schools just throw everything they’ve got at you, and you should be glad, and it is certainly worth it, if anything at all sticks.

About the author: Dluzen is about to complete a Masters Degree in Painting and Drawing, and is profoundly grateful for opportunities offered her through that institution, and has found this endeavor to be invaluable to, and irreplaceable for, her practice.

Little low on uploading power today, so I’m punting. But I’ve realized that a lot of people don’t know about the transparency pages (see Transparency in the Nav bar).

So here’s today’s update: http://chicagoartmap.com/transparency/?p=120

Off we go!!

The latest work of renowned artist Otis Hegaln of Iysthulgistan opens today at New York’s prestigious MoCoCo Museum. Determined to trump Tino Sehgal, who has prohibited photos of his works and banned documentation of any kind of his exhibits, Hegaln will require all viewers of his new show to be blindfolded.

“For Mr. Hegaln, it’s about the allowing the audience to experience the installation at in its purest form, without the intrusion of distracting visuals,” explained MoCoCo Chief Curator N. O. Seaman. “The artist believes that if people view the exhibit, they will impose a layer upon it, a lens created by all the visual experiences of their lives. By blindfolding the viewer, the artist’s vision will be not manipulated by the viewers’ personal, physical vision.”

Despite the museum's attempts to keep the installation "unseen", photos taken on mobile devices are finding their way onto the internet.

Despite intense security, images from the exhibit are working their way onto the internet, as have Sehgal’s. However the artist has not commented on this, apparently remaining true to their stated ideal of allowing no one to look at, or speak of, the unseen artwork.

One “viewer”, after experiencing the installation while blindfolded, commented, “Well, it certainly leaves you guessing.”

Photo on Internet described anonymously as "the best I could do, considering I was blindfolded."

[Chicago Art Magazine wishes everyone a safe and healthy April Fool's Day]

image pulled from Google Images

Editors Note: Based on an audio interview of Julie Rodriquez Widholm, conducted by Kathryn Born and adapted and transcribed for the written form by Alyssa Martinez.

Artists are allowed to control the conditions under which their work is purchased. The MCA recently purchased Kiss by Tino Sehgal under the restrictions that  no part of the process was documented in any manner.

Kiss is a sculptural and performance piece in which two dancers move slowly through a prescribed choreography. They kiss and touch, and eventually strike a pose to resembles embracing couples from historical paintings.

For many performative, historic works, the focus becomes the documentation, and the actual art become irrelevant. For example, Richard Long,  who systematically paced and photographed the trodden grass - it is now the photos that have come to represent the work -  the significance of the performative act is largely lost.

Sehgal’s rules are designed to prevent this. When the MCA embarked on the process of acquiring Kiss, they were not allowed to make the decision based on video or other types of documentation of the performance. Per MCA curator, Julie Rodriquez Widholm:

“…Tino Segal Kiss, we just acquired that for the collection. There is no trace. There is nothing. No paperwork. Part of the artist’s instructions, is that it has to be a verbal agreement, and verbal instructions… It has to be a set of instructions verbally passed on through time, so we can’t have anything in writing.”

“Sehgal doesn’t want any documentation because he wants the work to exist as conversations and experiences between people. So that is his very clear intention. And as an institution that values and honors an artist’s intention, that’s what we’ll be doing. And that is extremely challenging.”

As a result, before the piece was actually transferred in New York, before the decision was made, the piece was performed by dancers in front of the MCA collection committee. It was then voted on ad ratified by their board. In essence, it’s a fokeloric version of a contractual agreement. However, there are always some logistic realities – the curator has to document it for purpose of cataloging it, inventory etc., but it is imperative the institution adhere to the guideline set by the artist.

What the MCA owns with The Kiss, the actual “work”, is a series of notes in the file consisting of contacts who are authorized to teach the dancers the choreography of the performance. The actual process of acquiring the work is far more diplomatic, but also truly in the storytelling fashion:

“the whole process of transferring title, if you will, of the work, has to happen in person in New York with the curator, art director, Tino, Marian Goodman Gallery. And it’s just happening like a wire transfer, not like a check.”

“The spirit of it is through the execution,  through the experience of viewing the work itself and not through a paper-trail.  It relies on people to a. honor that, and b. pass it on. Because when he is gone, without the verbal instructions of how this work should be done, the work disappears.”

When the artist dies, the work will die with him.

Sehgal, through his no-documentation process, ensures that the documentation or the objects created as side effect of the performance never become the art. This can be an exciting path for curators. Again, Widholm:

“We’re in a contemporary art museum, so you have to expect the unexpected. I think, for him it’s really challenging the way we do things. It’s so important for him that there are live bodies in the galleries because he wants visitors to have this unexpected experience. I think he’s trying to insert a kind of unknown or just a different way of thinking. A different way of doing things.”

UPDATE: Since I posted this, Ms. Rodriguez-Widholm send me a link to a really outstanding article about Sehgal.  Some quotes:

What is the reason behind the photo prohibition? Those tasked with enforcing it are often tied into knots trying to explain. Sehgal’s project for Massimiliano Gioni’s lyrical “After Nature” at the New Museum in 2008 was one of the best pieces in that show. At the press preview, I innocently snapped a pic of the work, which consisted of a woman, slowly writhing on the floor at the bottom of the museum’s long stairwell. When I used the image to illustrate my review, a New Museum press rep called to request that I take it down, explaining that Tino Sehgal didn’t allow images of his work for ecological reasons, as he didn’t want to add to pollution by having his work printed. When I pointed out that I wrote for an internet publication, she just fell back on asking me to do it out of respect for the artist.

The fact that his background is in economics often comes up in critical debates about Sehgal; he sees commodification as all-pervasive and inevitable, and his medium — performance — expresses his comfort with that fact, not a questioning of it: “The reason I don’t use solid materials or make copies is because I know that the thing-in-itself can be commodified.”

From Artnet.com Photos for Tino, by Ben Davis

Candice Weber

When director Baz Luhrmann set out to create a motion picture of a “mythologized Australia,” he probably should have thought twice about introducing any more mythology into a country that, from the perspective of this outside observer, seems somewhat confused on how to approach its own history.  The story of Australia cannot be so easily boiled down to “good” white people and “bad” white people, as Australia (2008) seems to do at times.  Luhrmann did have good intentions of addressing charged political issues like the Stolen Generation (young Aborigine and multi-racial children taken from their families by the Australian government well into the 1970s), but yet the film still revolves around the motivations and actions of its white characters.  Since the late 1990s, Australia has, like most settler nations, been grappling with the right balance of expressing regret for the past while wanting to absolve current generations and move forward as much as is possible.  Part of this struggle is what’s known among Australian scholars as the “history wars,” with some academics arguing that whole swaths of nasty stories have been omitted from the history books, while others claim the evidence for things like genocide just isn’t there.

Anthea Behm "Australia"

That being said, Anthea Behm’s 157 minute Australia (2009) presents itself like official footage from a “history wars” tribunal.  A steady, head-on shot of Behm seated at a wide table with a microphone stand and a glass of water recalls countless images of officials, lobbyists, and analysts testifying in front of Congress.  It becomes apparent that Behm is watching the movie Australia, off screen, and she sits with hands neatly folded, giving a slow monotone play-by-play of the action.  Unfortunately, I was only able to catch a few lines of her narration, but her stamina and concentration were impressive.  She described an “aborigine child” running back and forth around a dusty ranch, in what I did hear.  The stripped down, emotionless nature of her descriptions isn’t quite the humorous actor or director commentaries we’re used to hearing on DVDs, but it does provide a curious perspective on Australia, a film that relies so heavily on grandiose sweeps across broad landscapes and emotional imagery in almost every shot.  I plan on hunkering down for a closer listen as soon as I can.

Aron Gent

This most recent show at Concertina Gallery seems built entirely on the shoulders of Behm’s latest work, while the three other pieces by Aron Gent appear only loosely connected.  His L.A.-landscape-turned wallpaper is an interesting use of the space (and a good follow-up to Madeleine Bailey’s zipper pieces) and echoes the rough hills of the Australian outback, however a closer look finds strings of power lines and expensive homes dotted amongst the scrub.  Gent supplies two other abstracted impressions of Australia, including one that interprets the epic romance of Nicole Kidman’s and Hugh Jackman’s characters as some kind of cosmic supernova.

Australia was pretty much panned by critics when it was released last year, but as Gent and, more so, Behm show, it’s ripe with opportunities for poking at the symbols and stories of collective national psyches – not an easy task but hopefully one that other artists, in countries with their own complex histories, will take on.  In the meantime, I wonder if Behm would be interested in helping us Americans out by taking on Dances With Wolves…

Philip Treacy

“High fashion”, or, in fancier terms, “Haute Couture” is most commonly associated by the likes of us regular folk in terms of extravagant, impractical garments.  Designers such as Alexander McQueen  (designing many of Lady Gaga’s wardrobe), Philip Treacy, and Comme des Garcons’ Rei Kawakubo are a few of the better known examples of this artform.  These clothes express the designer’s creativity, concept, and technical skill in a mode that allows for freedom of expression.  In fact, these couture runway shows could more easily be understood as the equivalent of an art showing, rather than in terms of commercial advertising/preview; these garments are conceptual, and sculptural—moreso visual objects(vehicle for creative display) rather than utilitized objects for the everyday person (much like gallery art—meant more for the fellow artist rather than for one outside of the art scene, no?).

The stress in these garments is strictly visual—reflections of architecture and other forms that drive their concept (shape and theory), focus and stress of the manipulation of the body’s movement which displays the work, as well as the movement of the fabric itself as it works its way across the runway.

Cat Chow

Here in Chicago, the School of the Art Institute’s fashion programs in both undergrad and graduate divisions encourage the development of conceptual fashion design.  As one of the only art schools in the U.S. that heavily encourages and nurtures idea development and experimentation over technical skill and commercialism throughout all of its departments, the garments presented in the school’s annual fashion show are almost never “wearable”—most garments are oversized, stiff, sculptural, and hard to walk in—but rather succeed in provoking thought and a fresh way of experiencing visual art.  After experiencing such intriguing and “different” designs as these, the average commercialized fashion show tends to become a bit ordinary and drab. SAIC’s fashion program is modeled after the world-renowned fashion department of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp.  Just visit their website, and you will see the sculptural quality of all of the students’ work; globular sleeves, layered and draped shapes protruding off of the body, obscured vision, stiff fabrics.  The key here is not comfort, but artistic representation.

Nick Cave Soundsuits

A few examples of these designers combining art and fashion are present in Chicago; Cat Chow’s “January” is a circle skirt that employs sculptural elements hung flat against the wall.  Presented in this way, the emphasis is not on the garment as a worn material, but as an object of art itself—to be looked at and considered.  Nick Cave stresses shape and imagination by creating garments out of curious materials while also employing performative aspects (Soundsuits) with excessive shape and embellishment.  The blocky, stifling shape of these suits would make for an impossible article of practical clothing—the wearer is unable to bend their limbs without difficulty, while all sensory qualities are obscured and confined.   The Semi-annual “Fleurotica” at the Garfield Park Conservatory is another example of this idea as a runway event employing various Chicago designers to display designs made from flowers and plants.

Issey Miyake

Within the world, contemporary Japanese designers are often regarded when spotlighting the sculptural designs.  Issey Miyake, Junya Watanabe, and Tao Kurihara display architectural angles, edges, and curves within their clothes, reflective of architecture.  Bumps and cuts in the fabric create unnatural shapes, begging for closer inspection.  Aforementioned Alexander McQueen of the UK characterizes femininity through over exaggerated elegance; swooping shapes, huge bell curves, and delicate materials that subtly move with the body.  Lastly, one of my personal favorites, Philip Treacy, the hat designer from the UK.  His hats created for friend Isabella Blow are extremely impractical: giant boat and castle structures– heavy and probably unstable, representations of Andy Warhol’s commercial imagery in incredibly non-commercial headwear pieces, spiky pieces suggesting discomfort, and dramatic shapes obscuring vision.  All of these garments emphasize form and the imaginative with little regard for usefulness.

Though it is inspiring to see designers display their artistic vision, it is only because of their already-developed success that they are able to enjoy this sort of freedom.  Within my time spent in SAIC’s fashion department, it was troubling to me that I was being encouraged to focus on a form of clothing design that would not reach, nor be understood by the general public.  Couture fashion is interesting and exciting—however, without having the name of a well-established designer to work under, these works would remain under the radar, and only be enjoyed by the small community which stays tuned into such events (even the self-proclaimed fashion officienado in regular culture would not find conceptual fashion appealing unless they had spent enough time with it to appreciate its idea).  For me, this segregation only establishes the divide between art and its lack of invitation to the average Joe.  I did not want to be an “artist”, but someone who could make things that everyone could enjoy.  Famous designers are able to do this by offering both useful, as well as artistic forms of the same thing…if only visual artists could find a satisfying way to do this as well.