Ten Of The Sixty Photos Placed Throughout Chicago's Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Edgewater, Lincoln

Ten of the sixty photos placed throughout Chicago's Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Edgewater, Lincoln Square, and surrounding neighborhoods in July as part of the The Other Side series.  

I'm hoping to make this idea of cultural connectedness a more central part of my life. I want to engage in it more and gain a better understanding of its qualities. I would love to begin to tie some of my art into it as well. May 17, 2010 What this all comes down to is that I think that it's on us to create new traditions, symbols, and cultural products for the purposes of representing our local, regional, or national cultures... If this idea "sticks" for me, if it proves to be something I continue to believe in, then I can see myself working to make it a focus of my career. I've always known my passion for culture was stronger than my passion for art. Perhaps I've found the cause I've been looking for. July 24, 2010 Back in the spring I felt like I finally came upon what I was searching for through these past ideas. I hadn't forgotten my passion for culture and identity building, so I began re-reading chapters on National Romanticism I first came across during my thesis research on the Arts & Crafts Movement. From there I began putting all of my thoughts about it down on paper. The part of the movement I was interested in was how architects and designers took imagery from folk crafts and textiles, translating and visually updating them to create buildings and objects that worked to build their nations' identities. A peasant-made table leg might be translated into the column of a great library, for instance. It was that abstraction and translation in particular that really struck me. Romantic Nationalism was particularly popular in Scandinavia, Poland, Hungary, and Russia (though the aims of Chicago's Prairie School of architecture tie into it too). I'd been deeply interested in National Romanticism and the notion of folk art and folk culture for a while, but always got mentally stuck when reading about them because they just don't make sense in today's world. Both concepts are very much 19th century ideas. National Romanticism relies on a peasant folk culture that we don't have anymore and that America never quite had in the same way Europe did. Still, one quote in a particular seemed so beautiful to me: National Romanticism provided a series of answers to the 19th century search for styles that would be culturally meaningful and evocative, yet not merely historicist. Reading that, I thought, that's exactly the idea I want to get at today -- tying cultural meaningfulness into aesthetics. But how? Things that worked in the 19th century just can't work the same way in the 21st. So, I started reading about all the ideas I was interested in that related to the intersection of culture/identity building and art/design: vernacular architecture, The Prairie School, the 1970's Roots Movement in the US, the 21st century "new roots movement", and folk art. With every chapter, I took notes, created questions, and tried to make sense of it all. My main question eventually became "How can folk art, which drew on a shared community culture and aesthetic be created today in an individualistic, culturally fragmented/pluralistic, much more creative society?" After all, when you get right down to it, folk art relies on a certain lack of creativity and cultural isolation. How else would numerous people make objects in the same style? Art making, for the most part, is much more individual and creative today. People create their own styles, and often times even go beyond that and create their own techniques and personal iconographies. Eventually I came upon how this could all work. If an artist can't draw on a common aesthetic anymore why not expand one's sources of inspiration and shoot for a common history, experience or lifestyle? That way an individual retains control over their aesthetic, but still draws inspiration from something a community holds in common. I thought of communities I was familiar with, what did they share? What would be relevant to create art about? I thought about the Athena Grocery Store I used to frequent in Greektown. It's the only Greek grocery store in Chicago and closed due to fire a year ago. Greek people all around the city relied on it, it was a staple of the neighborhood, and now it's gone, damaged by the smoke which burnt down Costas and severely damaged the local Greek music shop next door. I thought too of Batavia, with its shut down of Fermilab's Tevatron, the world's highest energy and, until a few years ago, largest particle accelerator, and a source of pride for most people in town. Could an art project speak to these common experiences? Out of these and other ideas, I came to think a new breed of folk art is certainly possible. If one were to create very public, accessible art pieces addressing the common history or experiences of a community wouldn't that be a kind of folk art? Wouldn't that help bolster a sense of shared identity? As I became excited about this idea, I started reading a book published by the American Folklore Society on folklore, folklife, folk art, etc. Their quotes seemed to speak to this same idea. Botkin poetically sounded the humanist call for "folkness", the use of traditional ideas that could invigorate mass culture through creative artists. Robert Bishop + Jacqueline Atkins Folk artists are the ongoing celebrants of the American experience and spirit. They are the documenters of the way life is lived. Simon Bronner [Ruth Suckow was] concerned for building social identities that revolve around one's own heritage and contribute to a national cultural awareness, she wages that this movement relate to...the social context of the folk arts. It may include looking to the traditions of family or small-town life, the ordinariness of everyday life, or the specialness of local celebrations. Simon Bronner Ruth Suckow's essay was my favorite and really summed up my ideas best. Written in 1932, her essay focused on a need for more domestically, rather than exotically, inspired art. In it she asked, "Who constitutes 'the folk' today?" I'd wondered the same thing myself, and both of us had come to the same conclusion. It's us. It was that simple idea that made me realize that I have the power to create folk art because "the folks" have expanded to include me and everyone else within a given community. This whole idea of a contemporary, relevant approach to folk art really excited me for a few reasons. First is that I've been slowly searching for and working towards a workable idea like this for the past year. Second is that I've had dual interests in art and culture since high school (always viewing culture as more important but art as more fun and thrilling), but had never found a way to tie them together. Whenever I tried to think up a culturally based art piece, I couldn't generate any ideas. With this new approach, I came up with four rough ideas without even pushing myself very hard. Third is that I've always had an interest in movements. Counter-cultural movements, youth movements, subcultural movements, whatever. I've always found the idea of people banding together, calling themselves something, and working passionately for something new or different to be really exciting.

Lastly, it also excites me because it feels so different than what’s expected of contemporary art-making. Since only a few centuries ago, the artist has been viewed as a heroic individual, pursuing his own vision and inspiration. To me this approach feels so different because it makes a community a higher priority than an individual. Inspiration doesn’t start internally so much as externally. Instead of art transcending culture (which it often does nowadays – arguably), it relies on it. I felt through all of this that I’d come up with something new. It resembles folk art and National Romanticism in the idea of identity-building through aesthetics. However, it does away with their reliance on traditional, communally shared art forms, instead making use of shared history, lifestyle and experiences, categories more associated with folklife. At the same time it adds to folk art the artistic freedom contemporary artists revel in. I’ve decided to call this idea lolk, combining the words local and folk.  It’s localist in that the art would be particular to a region, folk in that it would draw on shared aspects of that community. Last weekend I finished my first lolk project in Batavia, and it was totally exciting.  I’m excited to select other communities and then delving into their histories, values, daily life, and common experiences to find something to create art about. I like the idea of using this concept to create art in towns where the common person doesn’t get much exposure to it otherwise. How would they react to art focusing on something in their life and their community? I want to view these art projects as gifts. I want to create something people can relate to and take value from. As my own practice is moving more and more into guerilla/street art, I’m excited to confront people in public during their daily lives.

The final batch of diptychs for the time being from The Other Side series.

Does Art Make Life Better? What is the Artist's Role Today?

I wrote down these questions in a state of frustration before bed in early 2012 and have decided it's time to answer them.  •What is the societal worth/role of an artist? Are they fulfilling it? •Are artists just people with heightened senses, discerning tastes, and less satiable desires who form insular communities to satisfy themselves? •Is the contemporary idea of an artist necessary in the lives of those outside of the art world? ...probably not. To answer them I read "What Is The Artist's Role Today" which asks over 500 artists, musicians, curators, etc. that question, giving them free reign to answer however they'd like. Then I read through "The Artist as Citizen", a collection of short essays and speeches by Joseph Polisi, president of The Juilliard School (a prestigious performing arts school in NYC that my cousins attended in the nineties). Many of Polisi's essays were on the topic of what the classical musician, dancer, and actor's role in society needs to be today. I wrote down all of my favorite responses from "What is the Artist's Role Today" to answer the first question, then came up with my own response. Some I liked were: •Their important role is to portray their perceptions through the art-making process towards such important issues related to their contexts in the world. But it's not an easy job.

•The artist['s]...intrinsic role...is to feel life and to express it through his own spectacles.

•[The artist's role is] to communicate their thoughts and feelings in their own way. To me communication is the key word. I like when an artist communicates their message in a straightforward manner that does not take 8 years of art school to understand. I think that art should be made for a smart public, not for a handful of artists and curators who follow contemporary art theories. When someone views [this] artist's work, they should be immersed in that artist's way of seeing, their style, interests, and messages. Enough to leave you with an impression, inspiration, education, expanded views, more understanding, delight, joy, something to take with you. 

My comments on the last one are that I do think that the majority of work I see does not take so much education to understand, but I agree that artists and curators, especially, need to think hard about effectively communicating to their audience. I've been to enough art shows that have absolutely no artist statements and expect people to just "get it" to know that people don't. I also assume that the author doesn't expect someone to get that whole laundry list of positives out of a single art piece, but that those are many of the things one can gain from an impactful art experience. To me the role of an artist today is to recognize their great potential as a visual communicator. Artists, like designers, architects, fashion designers, etc., communicate visually, but unlike those other types, the artist today has complete freedom when they create. They generally don't have to think about commercial, structural, or functional concerns, like the more constricted producers of visual culture. So, within the role, artists have a great potential to communicate visually their thoughts and feelings on the state of humanity, society, and the world in general -- to a wide audience. That's huge. Many artists don't tap into that potential, and that's alright, but I think it's the role of the artist today to recognize that potential. Images can impact us in a way different from words and sounds, so I think the artist has a vital role to play that parallels that of writers and musicians.

To address the second question, I do think that insularity is the elephant in the room when it comes the art world. And I do think on average artists have the habit of forming self-contained, urban communities. I think this is a problem for art accessibility for many people, as the geographically conservative nature of the contemporary art world means there are less artists and art in non-urban areas to be experienced. Even more difficult, many people don't even expect there to be art in non-urban areas, even when there is. I don't think this trend is entirely the fault of artists, after all, they need support systems to exist, and many will seek out a place to live that provides that. I'm happy to see that contemporary art is finally beginning to be decentralized out to smaller cities in the US and even in some towns (like Elgin, Michigan City, and Batavia). Things obviously have a long way to go, and it's hard to know exactly how to foster artists living in a wider range of locations.

Lastly, I don't think art is necessary in people's lives, but by that same argument, I don't think music is either. It's hard to imagine now, but in 19th century America, music was not a part of everyone's daily lives. Before recorded music, the availability of music depended on what one or others in their local area could produce. I believe that art, like music, has the power to enrich our lives and reach us in ways that other media cannot. I think that anyone can find pleasure and value in art just as they can in music, and that today is a fortuitous time to experience art because there is more variety than ever -- contemporary artists around the world simply create art in more diverse ways than any previous generation. So, there's more available to suit people's diverse tastes. In addition, more and more, artists today are producing work about life, society, their world, humanity, etc., which is in contrast to much of Modern Art in the 20th century which focused on visual matters (form, dimension, color, and so on) and I feel was of less relevance and interest to non-artists. I can say it's of less interest to me.

That said, like I mentioned above, I think art has a long way to go to become a part of more people's lives. It's difficult because it hasn't benefited much from advances in technology. While music has gone from only being experienced live to coming out of your pants when you butt-dial yourself, art is still largely and best viewed in person. You can view art online now, but unless its photography or digital art, it's very different from seeing it up close.  To improve things, I think high school curricula have to offer some sort of education about the state of art (and arts) today because we would benefit greatly from even a basic understanding of how culture is currently produced. The situation now reminds me of this quote by Philip Bether, senior curator of performing art at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis:

That’s one of the biggest disappointments I have around the culture we live in, in the States. That which is, to my mind, the norm of what our culture is producing now, that which is most relevant to our times, is viewed as fringe or oddball or just out of the mainstream...Those who are trying to support the work of our times  [must present this thing perceived as] odd, hard-to-describe, hard-to-understand, ghettoized.”

Joseph Polisi, president of Juilliard has similar things to say about artists, though here he's speaking about classically trained musicians rather than contemporary visual artists:

...artists in the United States are often misunderstood, in large part because their product is alien to most Americans. Artistic values and activities are viewed as antiquated and "out of touch" with America of the 21st century. Segregated from pop-influenced America, the arts seems to have little relevance in the daily lives of most Americans. I think it's imperative that we de-alienize art to Americans through education, so people can realize its potential in our lives. I know that art can seem boring or confusing. If art remains weird objects hung on walls in a space you have to make a trip out to, that you then have to stare at and have no clue what you're doing or looking at, things are not going to improve. It's on the educators to give people some background knowledge and an understanding of how to view work. It's on curators to pick up the slack when education fails and on curators and artists to present work in a comfortable environment and in an understandable way. I cannot tell you how frustrated I was when I went to the Elmhurst Art Museum with friends and had to translate the lengthy, dense wall text for them. That kind of art writing is not helping anyone. Then it's on a whole bunch of people working together to decentralize art and bring artists to more communities. Art Space In Minneapolis is one of my favorite examples of this. They're currently working in Elgin and Michigan City to build live/work buildings for those in the arts. 

This is why I feel so committed about working in the field of visual art. There is so much potential to be gained and so much work to be done. 

With Farewell Tevatron I wanted to use art to provide a forum for Batavians to voice their feelings about the shut down of Fermilab's particle accelerator. Named the Tevatron, it was was until 2009 the largest particle accelerator in the world, and until September 30th was operated by Fermilab scientists on the east side of Batavia. Fermilab plays heavily into the town's image of their community. Its main building is featured on welcome signs alongside a windmill, the symbol of the city. Batavia's slogan was also changed in 1983 from "The Windmill City" to "City of Energy" to encompass the legacy of both the windmill industry and Fermilab. I wondered then, how would people feel about its shut down? The Chicago Tribune, Kane County Chronicle, and Chicago Reader, among other newspapers have written about the scientists' reaction to the change, but none have focused on the Batavia residents.

For the street art response, I asked artist Michael Jewell to create illustrations of images that related to Batavia and Fermilab's history. There are twelve in all, some are symbols of Batavia's history like a windmill, fox (the Fox River bifurcates the town), or ghost of Mary Todd Lincoln (she briefly stayed in Batavia's sanitarium following the death of President Lincoln). Others are particles discovered by Fermilab like the tau neutrino or top quark. Each image then responds to the accelerator's legacy and is accompanied by an image of a bulldog (the high school mascot) asking residents what their feelings are: How do  you feel about the shut down of the Tevatron? Write something! 80 images were placed around the high school and downtown area.

After two weeks, I returned to remove the installation and was excited to find responses left by residents. Overall, residents' displayed a variety of emotions, mainly sadness, anger, optimism, an acceptance. The most impressive response was a woman who took down several fliers, scanned them, printed out new ones, and made her own shrine to the Tevatron on a telephone pole, complete with chalked hearts and a white bow.

Other responses were:

• "Well the probability that we will find something before the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] is low, so we have to move on to new and better things. Muon Collider FTW"

The Muon Collider is a yet to be realized particle accelerator that speeds up muons. Fermilab is a possible future site for the collider.

•"I'm angry. We should still conduct research here no matter the ring size."

•"A part of me just died, but another part has just been born."

These are the first half of the sacred spaces I've been creating over the past six weeks. Overall the project proved more time-consuming (and sweat inducing) than I'd expected, but ultimately, I'm quite happy with its progress so far. I even went back a few weeks later to find some of the more weather-sheltered spaces still in tact.