Harold Washington Library One of World’s Ugliest Buildings?

Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin points out that Chicago’s central library the Harold Washington Library (seen below) received the dubious honor of being one of the 15 ugliest buildings in the world, according to Travel & Leisure Magazine the publishers of the list.  However as both Kamin and the list-makers concede: “The really ugly buildings, as the story accompanying the list says, are the anonymous ones where architects aren’t even trying to make a statement.”  Read Kamin’s whole article here.

Image: The Harold Washington Library in downtown Chicago. Taken by Douglas Kaye, 2005

Chicago’s Mainstream Art Coverage Reduced to Zero

On April 22nd the Chicago Tribune announced it was cutting 53 positions in its newsroom.  And according to the Chicago Reader blog “News Bites” one of those let go is the Tribune’s only art critic, Alan Artner.  That’s leaves absolutely no one reporting on Chicago’s vibrant and massive art scene in our daily newspapers or other mainstream media.

I haven’t always agreed with Artner’s commentaries or criticisms, but it’s important for the Tribune to cover the art scene here in Chicago. Chicago has a massive visual arts community that is dynamic and active on all levels, from local apartment spaces to international exhibitions.  The city of Chicago is also increasingly marketing itself as a center of culture, particularly linked to the international scene.  This has been crucial in our Olympic bid.  An indication of our internationalism is we have both the Cultural Center and Millennium Park currently featuring contemporary Chinese artists (it’s even notable that the dual timing was coincidental).  And yet despite the city government’s growing emphasis on the arts and Chicago’s massive culture scene, Chicago’s newspapers have pulled away from culture coverage.

Ironically, the elimination of Artner was accompanied by this staff memo from Editor Gerould Kern: “Our thinking was driven by the Tribune’s goal to be the Chicago region’s top destination for news and information and grow especially in the digital space. . . [we must] cover the Chicago area better than anyone else across all of our media.”  Despite the popularity and importance of visual art in Chicago, and in the minds of Chicago’s citizens, the Trib has effectively and completely withdrawn from visual arts reporting.

In an era when newspapers are struggling and folding all over the country and looking for ways to reinvent themselves, committing to more arts coverage rather than less seems an obvious and easy way to go.  An increase in cultural reporting would be an easy way for a newspaper to gain a particular identity and voice.  In addition to regular gallery reviews, there could be comprehensive looks at the city’s cultural programming finding crossover interests between institutions or disciplines.  It would be an easy way to appeal to younger readers also, assuming there was a particular focus on emerging art and artists.  An increased focus on the visual arts would facilitate a logical move into cyberspace also, as both easily accommodate images.  The move to the web is something newspapers have voiced a desire for (even in the above memo from Kern) but seem confused on how to do it.  Oddly Christopher Knight’s “Culture Monster” blog on the Los Angeles Times site is well done and seems popular, but was not followed here in Chicago, despite the fact that both papers are owned by the same parent corporation.

Chicago is really the latest casualty of arts coverage, though one may hope it could lead the way revitalizing cultural reporting.  As Chicago reinvents itself as a culture capital it would only make sense that its media follow the play, but they haven’t and it’s disappointing to see Chicago’s mainstream arts coverage decline to nothing.

Man Buys Fake Painting in Chicago, Doesn’t Get Refund

Living in any big city, anywhere in the world, there are a lot of things that can go wrong. Merchants take advantage of customers, the technology that we rely on runs amok making average citizens its victims, and bureaucracy, whether it’s city government, utilities, or a faceless multi-national corporation, catches ordinary citizens in its gears forcing them into extraordinary situations.  Chicago is no exception.  Enter Chicago Tribune’s column “What’s Your Problem” where staff writer Jon Yates twice a week takes on the Goliaths that readers need help with.

Yates’s current headline caught my eye: “Buyer getting the brushoff on fake painting.” Apparently a certain Chicago auction house sold a Florida dealer a fake 19th century painting. It reminded me of the fraud and fakery exactly a year ago,a debacle the outcome of which has been unclear.

In a city that is ruled by a rusty bureaucracy, it’s fun to read Yates each week as he helps the little guys take on the giants.

More Confusion in Chicago’s Newspapers

And not to be left out, the Chicago Tribune is also confused about the Art Institute and its Free Days.

Spurred on by public outcry over the Art Institute raising its fees, two Chicago Alderpeople, Ald. Ed Burke (14th) and Ald. Virginia Rugai (19th) are proposing cutting off some free city services as an act of revenge on the museum. Undoubtedly incurring these new costs will allow the museum to drop ticket prices, which is exactly the kind of backwards, nonsensical logic we expect from our Chicago politicians.

And of course in the midst of this nonsense, the facts are wrong. Tribune staffer Hal Dardick reports that according to park district spokeswoman Jessica Maxey-Faulkner, the Art Insitute has free admission:

“has year-round free admission on Thursday evenings and on Tuesdays and Thursdays from Memorial Day to Labor Day”

This is INCORRECT. There is no free admission on Tuesdays, it’s Friday and Thursday evening. Some simple fact checking would be nice to see from Chicago’s largest newspaper. From the Art Institute’s website:

Over 300,000 people visit the museum for free. There are many such opportunities:

• One late evening per week (Thursdays after 5:00 p.m.) throughout the year
• Two late evenings per week (Thursdays and Fridays after 5:00 p.m.) during the summer (Memorial Day to Labor Day)
• The entire month of February
• The week of the opening of the Modern Wing, from May 16 to May 22, 2009

Absent in this fray is both the museum’s PR team and Trib art catchall, Alan Artner. It might be a good idea for especially the museum to start returning phone calls and being proactive, rather than just sitting there taking punches.

My opinion you ask? Well here:

Ironic isn’t it that a Chicago politician is soapboxing about a museum trying to stay afloat when the average Chicago citizen is far more affected by HIGH TAXES in their many chicago forms and are the HIGHEST IN THE NATION. The Tribune even has a countdown about that tax hike. And what about the CTA! How many of us use that every single day? And didn’t they just hike fares from 1.75 to 2.25? That’s almost a 30% increase!! What about Quinn’s income tax increase? And people listen to this guy when he’s upset about the museum?

People complain about the “millions they have in reserves” that’s called an endowment, and the money that that money makes, pays for the bulk of everything else. And with the economy in the toilet that money is less, so the museum has less money. If you spend that down it’s the final step to closing the doors for good. Is that simple enough for everyone?

If we want to talk about where the real fiscal hit is coming to Chicagoans, it’s taxes and it’s the CTA. It’s laughable that a politician blames a museum

Sun-Times Gets it Wrong Too

Looks like Reuters is not alone in its editing woes.

Dave Newbart of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the Art Institute of Chicago is raising its rates to $18 and introduces the topic like this, referring to the museum’s current exhibition “Becoming Edvard Munch”:

Like Edvard Munch’s famous painting on display at the Art Institute of Chicago right now, the museum’s proposed admission fees might make you want to scream.

The only problem is that Munch’s painting The Scream is in fact not on display.  The famous image is represented by a woodblock print, but the painting itself remains in Europe.

It’s interesting also to note that the comment section on Newbart’s article has disappeared, when I was in the process of registering to post on it.   Did Daley put his foot down on all those bashing our venerable Chicago institution?

Uh Oh: Calatrava’s Chicago Spire Future Uncertain

Over the last weekend the Chicago Tribune broadcast the news  (first broken by Crain’s Chicago Business) that Santiago Calatrava, along with a Chicago architectural design firm, have filed liens against the Shelbourne Development Group totaling over $16 million dollars. And yet it was mere weeks ago that the Tribune was trumpeting the sale of the $40 million penthouse to beanie baby creator Ty Warner. Clearly, things aren’t going as planned.

While the PR coming from the developers is the usual boilerplate of “this is the normal course,” “these guys have been paid,” everyone knows something is amiss. The Tribune sums it up simply: “The liens suggest the project’s financing, as well as its feasibility, is shaky.” The most interesting bit of information was that Shelbourne has stopped having meetings with a neighborhood housing association because, according to the Tribune “the Spire’s construction has been halted.” And that’s not good. It seems to me that buildings are a lot like sharks, they have to keep moving or they will die.

For those of us still trying to stifle our yawns at the Trump Tower, the news about the Chicago Spire is something of a blow. The spire is interesting, creative, thought-provoking and a little provocative.  More than that, it is  not the usual post-modern glass box that is too prevalent here in Chicago and America in general.

Hopefully this project will get back under way, though in a jittery economy and a housing downturn, it might take some time to sell all of the $750,000 studio apartments.

Interviews with MCA Director, AIC Curator

Past interviews for anyone interested in our cultural institutions:

Alan Artner for the Chicago Tribune interviewed the new director of the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA), Madeleine Grynsztejn about her plans for the future of the MCA. She keeps her cards pretty close in the interview but the good news is that her Olafur Eliasson exhibit will be coming here next Spring.

Tyler Green for his Modern Art Notes interviewed Art Institute of Chicago curator Lisa Dorin about the “Focus” shows that spotlight a contemporary artist and particular concerns of such a show, especially as they relate to the Art Institute as a whole. It’s in two parts: Part One, and Part Two.

The Critic in the 21st Century (Newspaper)

Earlier today I wrote about Alan Artner’s article on minimalism from last month and quickly received a response from Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes, the author who prompted my post in the first place. Green brings up a good point: that the role of the critic is to render opinion, not to educate. I agree that the critic’s primary role is to give professional judgment of the merits of artwork, however, I think that the role of the critic, particularly a major newspaper’s art critic, cannot be limited to handing down verdicts on art. In the 21st century we are witnessing the further evolution of the critic, the emergence of a multivalent critic.

With newspaper subscriptions dwindling and art usually (and unfortunately) cast as a subcategory of Entertainment, the newspaper critic must find new ways to remain relevant to the audience. This is imperative, else art criticism in newspaper ceases altogether, which would be a true tragedy. Relevancy doesn’t mean pandering to the public, it means addressing the perceived wants and needs of the audience. Why do people want read about art? I believe that people want to learn something about art primarily, whether that is through an essay piece or an opinion piece, and far secondarily they want a judgment.

For instance, people aren’t really reading the review of the Edward Hopper show to find out if the art is good or not, that’s a foregone conclusion, this is a nationally traveling show of a world famous artist containing iconic works like “Nighthawks” and “Chop Suey.” The verdict of “good art” is in before the review is written, what then is the critic to do? Give people the background knowledge that they should have for the show, in a word, educate. My speculation is that people pick up the paper thinking, “Hmmm well the Art Institute is having a show on Edward Hopper that I should see, I love “Nighthawks,” and I know he’s an important artist. I’ll read this review to learn more before I go to the show.”

I believe these changes to the critic’s role apply chiefly (probably only) to the art critics of major newspapers in major cities. The critical role is narrowed by these blockbuster shows and the refusal of the newspapers to cover anything but. Criticism for the emerging art, the gallery shows has migrated from the major newspapers to smaller newspapers (i.e. New City, F-News, The Chicago Reader, etc.) and blogs. It seems newspapers don’t want to take risks on anything and so safely stick to established taste. Ironically, taking risks on arts coverage seems like it could revitalize newspapers, turning them into cultural necessities, but they don’t see it that way I am sure, hence art has less space and sports as much as ever. As I see it, Artner is creatively expanding his role as critic. It is especially interesting that the article on Minimalism was written after conferring with the Museum of Contemporary Art about which art people have the most trouble understanding. Clearly, Artner is using the power of the pen to serve the public interest, giving them a little more information on minimalism, kind of like an art editorial. Newspapers try to educate their readers on a variety of issues: politics, history, sports, etc., why not art also? It also bears mentioning that the week of April 18th was a slow art week and the article appeared under the criticism-eschewing heading: “School of Thought: Art.”

Art criticism is still alive and well and someday it will migrate back into newspapers, but I believe that this new kind of multivalent critic is also here to stay. People in the U.S. know so little of art and it’s being aggressively pruned out of the K-12 education to make way for math and science education. That said, it seems people want to learn more about art than ever before and increasingly the newspaper art critic will be looked to to fill that role, both by the public and the newspaper’s editor.

Minimalism, Conceptualism and Critics

In the weekend roundup on Modern Art Notes today (5/5) this article by Alan Artner from the Chicago Tribune caused the blog author Tyler Green to complain: “I hate it when art critics get preachy-educational, learn-this-because-it’s-good-for-you. Guess what? It’s OK if not everyone gets or likes minimalism or abex or whatever.”

In this case I think that Green missed the point of the article, that is Artner wasn’t telling people they had to like it, he was using his position as critic in a major newspaper to spread information to people who don’t understand minimalism. And I have to agree with him, minimalism and conceptualism are incredibly misunderstood by not only wider public but even by critics, which was one of my issues with the Amy Sillman review. At the Art Institute they have a piece by Donald Judd that is a perfect example of why Artner wrote this article. It is a triangular, plywood box the bottom of which slopes up midway on one of the angles. Every time I am looking at the piece, usually about 5-10 people come up, look in the box, see it is empty and move on. They have totally missed the point and now dismissed the artist and art. This is exactly what Artner is addressing when he says:

Our limitation—not the works’: Casual viewers balk at art that expresses nothing but itself. But all honest art is first about itself. What it may tell us about the world comes after considerations of shape, color, proportion and so on. And such considerations make the art. If we’re focused only on an artwork’s effect on us, we may find what makes a piece boring. But that is our limitation, not the works’, which may be extraordinary in thought and how they’re put together, apart from their immediate effect on viewers. So it is within the compass of Minimal art.

He’s not chiding people for disliking minimalism, he’s urging them to slow down, examine the work in detail, think about it. Which are all necessary to really enjoying minimalist work. When the average museum -goer spends something like 10 seconds or less in front of a painting on average, it is no surprise people are confused about minimalism, a form that requires more than a quick glance.

I guess I shouldn’t even raise the question about whether this is an article, a whole conversation, on conceptualism rather than minimalism, as Sol LeWitt wrote: “there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered anyone who admits to doing this kind of thing.”