These Patterns Are Featured On The Walls Of The Restored Dutch Structures Of Dejima In Nagasaki.Dejima

These patterns are featured on the walls of the restored Dutch structures of Dejima in Nagasaki. Dejima was a tiny, artificial island inhabited by Dutch traders from 1640 to the early 19th century. During that isolationist period no foreigners were allowed into Japan. The Dutch were given the island to use as a port for the one ship allowed in a year. Besides introducing countless European products to Japan (billiards, beer, chocolate, tomatoes, clovers, cabbage, coffee, paint, and the piano being the major ones), Dejima was home to an interesting mix of Dutch and Japanese architectural styles. These wallpaper patterns, for example, were based off of Dutch designs but hand printed onto Japanese paper using a Japanese printing method. The effect is gorgeous, especially against the exposed timber of the Japanese-style walls. 

My goal for 2012 is to make more art than 2011. I felt really proud of my projects from last year, but in the end, I only completed two. With a shorter commute this year and a slightly shorter work week, I think I can do better this time around. 

My  first art project of 2012 is about highlighting something hiding in plain sight. I've had a growing interest in the visual symbols of cultures and places lately, so I'm really excited about the Chicago Municipal Device, a 120-year-old symbol which most Chicagoans have never heard of.

So, my plan is find as many symbols as I can and highlight them with chalk. With each chalked Y I leave a laminated card which explains: "This Y shape is known as the Chicago Municipal Device. It was introduced during the 1893 World's Fair after the Chicago Tribune held a contest seeking a new symbol to represent our city. It derives its shape from Wolf Point, the place where the Chicago river forks. You'll find it on the marquee of the Chicago Theater as well as your library card -- but it's all over Chicago. If you keep your eyes open, you'll start to see it everywhere." Make room Chicago flag, we have another civic symbol.

Often I am asked to identify trends in art today. And I resist commenting because folks want to jump on board and by the time they do the trend is flat-out gone. But there's something bigger going on. More than a trend. Likely we should call it a movement. Brought on by the internet, the playing field is getting less skewed. Artists used to have greater dependency on art galleries, who were the intermediary between artists and collectors. Today, the internet is a given. It allows direct communication between artist and collector, and also artist and artist, artist and curator and so on. This is a significant democratizing influence. It makes communication affordable...This is different and it is important. It makes art, artists and us more accessible, and better enables artists to pursue and find success on their own terms.

Paul Klein. April 22, 2011.

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.  

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. 

In case you missed it! Four interviews with four different comics artists from four different cities (Detroit, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago) at the first ever CAKE!