Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In spring 2009 I did a talk entitled “Chicago 101″ at the “City From Below” conference in Baltimore. In this talk I tried to weave in and out my experiences working on AREA Chicago with more general reflections on the place in which so much of my work has been situated: the city of Chicago. This was a bit of a rough talk due to some technical difficulties and nerves due to the newness of this particular lecture for me. But it gives a good overview.

In the spring of 2009 I traveled to Granada Spain to give a lecture at a conference called Transductores on the theme of educational experiments in urban space. I spoke about AREA Chicago as an experiment in group learning about the city. This gives a pretty good overview of AREA and is really clearly spoken since I was being live translated into spanish.

Link to the City From Below lecture (March 2009)

Link to the Transductores lecture (December 2009)

Looking for Relevance and Reverence

Reflections on “Creative Time Summit: Revolutions In Public Practice” at the New York City Public Library

by Daniel Tucker, Written for H-Art International

Creative Time 2009 Summit - Presenting Artists

Creative Time 2009 Summit - Presenting Artists

In late October 300 people gathered at the New York Public Library to hear nearly forty artists present rapid-fire seven minute long presentations about their socially and politically engaged art practices. The event was the first annual Summit organized by the public art organization Creative Time, and their curator Nato Thompson. While the audience and presenters hailed largely from New York City or the northeastern United States, there was fair representation from people working throughout the rest of the U.S., as well as Latin America and Europe.

The event opened on a Friday night with a special recognition of the intensely active impersonators and agitators, the Yes Men. “I went from being an artist who makes things to an artist who makes things happen,” recalled Anne Pasternak, Artistic Director of Creative Time, of a statement once made by British artist Jeremy Deller. She said the Yes Men are also artists who make things happen, who are committed to “radical acts of goodness” which earned them an award and $25,000 cash prize at this year’s summit. Pasternak continued “There isn’t a door that artists shouldn’t kick wide open” and that is what the Yes Men embody as well as the other presenters throughout the weekend.

The format allowed for a symbolic leveling of the hierarchy of voices which results from presenting famous people as the featured speakers with lesser known individuals as filler. At this gathering everyone spoke for the same amount of time and a rotating cast of musicians were on hand to begin playing and slowly raise their volume to indicate that the given time for speaking was over (a more enjoyable approach than a moderator waving their hands at presenters). Veteran socially engaged practitioners like Mel Chin and Suzanne Lacy were playfully drowned out by flutes and acoustic guitars in the same manner as younger artists like Baltimore Development Cooperative and Dara Greenwald.

Relevance

Greenwald, a video maker and co-curator of the recent exhibition “Signs of Change”, spoke critically of the “socially engaged art complex” the gathering embodied as mirroring similar dynamics of the competitive academia and funding streams which provide much of its economic base (see video here). Other artists like Marc Fischer from the Chicago-based Temporary Services and the Yes Men themselves also took stabs at the New York City commercial art world for its lack of relevance.

Sharon Hayes’ keynote lecture did a good job of grounding the conference with local history of New York City queer performance art communities of the early 1990s with much credit given to AIDS activism’s blend of culture and action to respond to urgency. This correlation between social movements and art was appropriate for some of the presenters who identified their personal connections to leftist and social justice efforts, but not all of them.

In an effort to encourage new directions in the language of artistic practice, artist and organizer Laurie Jo Reynolds encouraged the audience to “do legislative art.” By that she meant that artists who do work about political subject matter eventually are faced with the challenge to address the social challenges they critique or observe in a more direct way than the traditions of conceptual art typically encourage. After years of making conceptual performance art and videos about the subject of prisons and life in prison, she eventually felt compelled to combine her artistic practice with more explicit political demands – to reform prisons in her home state of Illinois which have been proven to encourage abuse and torture.

Reverance

The collective What, How and for Whom (WHW) presented their recent work as curators of the 11th International Istanbul Biennial (see video here). The slide-show of their Brecht-inspired exhibit “What Keeps Mankind Alive?” posed a challenge to the audience to consider the role of political subject matter in art in non-revolutionary times. Their performative lecture channeled a kind of socialist cultural bureaucracy including precise breakdowns of the expenses of the exhibit, the national origins, genders, age of the artists. But the curators did not miss the opportunity to say explicitly at the end what they thought was needed: “The culturalization of politics promoted by neoliberal diversity which allows for the euphoric celebration of a range of marketable differences, usually touted as pluralism, must be replaced by the politicization of culture. Today, when the dilemma ‘barbarity or socialism?’ is more real than ever and the future of the world appears divided between war zones and the stable fascist systems of the rich zones – this is our task.”

This experiment in Summit making brought together a combination of people that was unique in its ability to introduce tons of ideas in one place. What a great place for a undergraduate student to find themselves listening, seeing potential methods and approaches which they might adopt or learn from. There were many good ideas and tools to learn from in the room, but the task of future Creative Time Summits will be to push artists who “make stuff happen” to aspire to more.

The reverent provocation of WHW’s presentation brought to light the crucial tension of the summit: can this summit in all its diversity articulate tasks for the present moment that everyone present will be willing to engage with? With presenters as diverse as squatted community gardens and artists doing economic development projects, to academically oriented conceptual art, prison reform and opportunistic collaborations with disempowered people and contexts – the expectations coming from the presenters and the audience span an amazing spectrum. Satisfying that diversity is impossible, yet the challenge of finding common enough language to talk (much less act) together can be near impossible as well. The presenters diversity revealed the lack of coherent thought, historical references and language available to contemporary political artists. Before we are able to take on the tasks of such urgency as legislative art or such long-term importance as overcoming neoliberal capitalism, we must get to know each other, know what we do and do not share, how that will work against us or in our favor.

[Note: Videos of all of the lectures have been uploaded to http://www.youtube.com/user/creativetimesummit and audio interviews with several artists are available at http://frankprattle.wordpress.com/]

Daniel Tucker works with the publication and event series AREA Chicago and recently co-authored the book “Farm Together Now” to be released in 2010 by Chronicle Books. miscprojects.co

Rethinking Regionalism
by Daniel Tucker

Note: This review was written for H-Art Magazine

Project Review of “Heartland”
Curated by Charles Esche, Kerstin Niemann, and Stephanie Smith
at Van Abbemuseum (Eindhoven, Netherlands) and Smart Museum of Art (Chicago, Illinois U.S.A.)

Faux Pas in professionalized and academic art discourses are not the result of some logical series of decisions or conclusions that “the field” as a whole has arrived at. The ebbs and flows of fashion, of individuals and institutions with substantial power, and economic factors all inform the “dos and don’ts” list of acceptable subject matter in contemporary art. But in reading the excellent catalog and viewing the exhibition Heartland at Van Abbemuseum (Eindhoven, Netherlands) and Smart Museum of Art (Chicago, Illinois USA), one can’t help but feel that regionalism is a faux pas people are conflicted about. In reflecting on this ambitious project, I hope to better understand this anxiety about place and its relationship to art.

Heartland came about through a unique series of road trips across the center of the United States by the curatorial trio of Charles Esche, Kerstin Niemann, and Stephanie Smith. Conceptually the project is broad, but is guided by and playfully structured around a heart shape imposed on a map of the United States that follows the great Mississippi River through the center, with New Orleans on the southern point of the heart and the northern industrial cities of Minneapolis and Detroit rounding out the two upper mounds of the traditional iconic heart symbol. In the middle of the territory are cities such as Memphis, Tennessee; St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; and Chicago, Illinois – with artists from each place represented in the exhibition (as well as several artists living in Europe and other parts of the U.S.). While the works on view mainly hailed from artists in cities, much of the work dealt with the vast rural landscapes and cultures found along the Mississippi River and smaller tributaries that connect to it.

The geographic framing of the exhibit does not correlate to any official or governmental territory, neither does the popular concept of the “Heartland of America”, which is referenced greatly in popular culture and politics as the core or compass of American values and culture. The Heartland is not a real place, yet its influence is huge – this is the dynamic the curators sought to explore through the lens of contemporary art and music being produced throughout what they understood to be a potentially real Heartland of America.

There are several reasons that artists, academics and their institutional supporters might be weary of the regional framework. For starters, most moderately professionalized cultural workers and academics are used to traveling in order to support themselves and present their work. This has created a unique cosmopolitan class of people who have their own specific kind of mobility – thereby for many cultural workers, generally speaking, de-emphasizing the traditional connection between place, knowledge and culture that have accumulated over generations.

Greely Myatt

Greely Myatt

In his installation at the Smart Museum, Greely Myatt of Memphis Tennessee explored de-rootedness in place in a quite literal way, through installing the roots of cotton plants directly into the wall. In his statement he explains “I cannot say that I try to represent the mid-south concretely, but it is absolutely in my work. This place is invasive…life hear is sweet and should be cherished. The materials I use are indigenous, with local color.”

The “local color” Myatt celebrates encounters critiques not adequate for our present moment, but strangely prevalent in many academic art discourses. In his book Critical Regionalism, Douglas Reichert Powell explains “Since the high period of modernism in1950s, ‘regional’ has been a pejorative term…the word ‘regionalism’ may denote ‘local color’ but it also connotes ‘provincialism’…in these kinds of critical judgments, assumptions are made or affirmed and perpetuates about which kinds of people from what kinds of places should be allowed to participate in the production of knowledge, the production of beauty, of cultural value; of public discourse, opinion and sentiment.” (1)

Each entry in the catalog for an artist featured in the show presents documentation of their work alongside one text written by the curators about their work and another written by the artist or artist group discussing their relationship to place and the concept of “the heartland.” Numerous artists discuss their reasoning for feeling rooted or committed to a place, while many more respond in a nearly reactionary manner about their decision to stay-put in the place where they were from or where they have adopted as a home-base. Even the curators verge on de-emphasizing the place they have decided to focus on (which has been “too often been overlooked”) in exchange for justifying why they didn’t want to do an exhibit about the cultural capitals on the U.S. coasts.

The second reason for fearing the regional is that the economy in general and the art world specifically is organized around nodes and hubs in global networks of industry and capital. Just as the production of any raw material has its geography of extraction, processing, export and import (as well as all the supporting administrative, legal and financial support roles that help its movement from stage to stage) – so does culture. For a variety of reasons, primarily economic, the commercial side of the art/entertainment industrial complex and many of its associated support entities (dealers, curators, magazines, unpaid interns, etc) have created strong poles in New York City and Los Angeles (speaking only in terms of the U.S.) This creates a significant barrier to having intelligent conversations about the role of art in other places, and significant ignorance about the cultural production taking place outside of major art industry hubs.

But just as certain industries have a geography because of their connection to natural resources from minerals to waterways, so too does culture have a tendency to move on water. For the Van Abbemuseum showing of Heartland, a collaboration with the Muziekcentrum Frits Philips brought musicians connected to the culture of the Mississippi river over to Eindhoven to perform. In the exhibition, artists like Miss Rockaway Armada, Dan Peterman, the New Kinematographic Union,  and Alec Soth all make work that literally moves down the rivers of the region. Part documentaries about places, they are also active projects that engage people living and working along the water. The Miss Rockaway Armada, made up of artists mostly living in San Francisco and New York converged on the Mississippi River over the course of two summers to produce a hand-made biodiesel powered raft and traveling road show that visited towns along the river. In their inaugural statement they said “Why are we doing this?…For the adventure. For the impossibility…We grew up in small towns. We remember the bookmobile and the punk rock band that seeded little pieces of something else. And now, even though we moved to big cities and found people like us, we still live in a country that fights wars so it can consume more. We are taking the urge to flee and heading for the center. We want to meet people who aren’t like us. We want to meet ourselves at age 16. We want to be a living, kicking model of an entirely different world…”(2) For the exhibition, the group created a new installation at the Van Abbemuseum that conveyed some of that spirit they had used and collected in their travels.

A third reason for fear of the regional framework is that it is an unknown to many. Fear of the unknown is not a general concept that needs to be explained here. But as it relates to culture and politics, there are potentially some insights I can offer (especially to the international audience reading this magazine). It is not unknown that electoral voting rates in the U.S. are low, what is less understood is the disparity between National elections versus State and local elections. In 2008’s presidential election 36.4 of the eligible voting population did not vote, compared to an amazing 52.2 percent who did not vote in the 2006 congressional elections (3). As an example of local political participation, I cite the 2003 elections in Chicago. There are 1,436,286 people registered to vote here, with only 483,993 casting ballots in that important election – a whopping 63 percent of people who could vote, deciding not to (4).

Julika Rudelius

Julika Rudelius

These numbers do not tell the whole story, as it is a complex one. But the point being that even on the most basic (some would argue even trivial, many would say corrupted beyond repair) level of engagement in the inner-workings of your city, state, or country – such remarkably low numbers of people even engage. The numbers decrease very dramatically the smaller the scale of politics – yet it is at the small scale in our federalist government, that people might actually have the power to change things that could tangibly impact their lives and the lives of their neighbors. This has an immeasurable impact on cultural work, but needless to elaborate on further – people are disconnected from caring about the places they live and how to make them better. If they do so at all, then they are more likely to care about the largest scale possible – the nation – and not regard the local scale with equal value. This disconnection from politics trickles into other aspects of life and culture at all scales, leaving politics to be an almost autonomous sphere with its own language and culture most people cannot relate to.

The German artist Julika Rudelius takes on the bizarre culture of politics in this country in her video “Rites of Passage”, depicting the barrage of intimidating and patronizing behavior that aspiring young political leaders must undergo in their grooming years. The theater of politics which clearly so many people have lost confidence in (despite increased voting in the 2008 presidential elections which occurred simultaneous to the Van Abbemuseum version of the show, and which coincidently had such a direct connection to Chicago, home of the Smart Museum and Barak Obama) could not be revealed more clearly than in Rudelius’ work.

So in terms of art, there is a challenge, a faux pas to face. While the institutions that support art may privilege the cosmopolitan over the regional, the industry of art may have a particular geography that privileges the coastal areas, and the rate of political participation in the U.S. significantly decreases the more local it becomes – there is something to say about the 48 percent of the U.S. population living away from the coasts and the culture and politics they are most definitely producing in their own geography (4).

Heartland attempts to stake a claim in the regional in a way that most exhibitions do not. It avoids limiting the artists to regionally-defined aesthetics or subject matter at the same time as acknowledging the influence that place can have on all people. Maybe it is an attempt to reclaim something they lost in terms of a connection to a cultural heritage or a politics you can touch, maybe it is some reality check that just because the high-end commercial art market exists elsewhere that plenty of other places produce compelling culture, or maybe its for fear of peak-oil that may limit our mobility in coming years…but the people in the center of the U.S. – lets call it the “heartland” – regionalism is an approach which is being reclaimed.

Notes:
1) Douglas Reichert Powell “Critical Regionalism” Connecting politics and culture in the American landscape” p.19 (University of North Carolina Press, 2007)
2) http://www.missrockaway.org/wordpress/project-info/ Accessed on 10-21-09

3) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/index.html Accessed on 10-21-09
4) http://chicagoelections.com/ Accessed on 10-21-09
5) The Changing Ocean and Coastal Economy of the United States: A Briefing Paper for Governors by Charles S. Colgan (Chief Economist, National Ocean Economics Project. Prepared for National Governors Association, March 25, 2004) www.seagrant.umaine.edu/files/pdf-global/…/06MWR08.pdf

Disclosure: The publication that I work with, AREA Chicago, collaborated with the Smart Museum to produce a bus tour and publication supplement, but I was not involved in either collaboration directly. Also, I only saw the exhibition itself in Chicago, though attended a workshop led by Charles Esche and Kerstin Niemann where they detailed the differences in the Eindhoven and Chicago versions of the exhibit.

Bio: Daniel Tucker is an organizer and documentarian living in Chicago. Since 2005 he has been the editor of AREA Chicago and has recently completed a book with Amy Franceschini and Anne Hamersky featuring interviews and photo essays of activist farmers across the USA (to be released on Chronicle Books in 2010).

Older Posts »