Aesthetes of Chicago

Diane Rath


I spent last Saturday working on my new blog (as if I needed another opportunity to waste time) -- this one co-authored by Stuart Fullerton (who got me into blogging in the first place) and dedicated to our art club, the Palette and Chisel .

Romel De La Torre

For the past month, we'd been researching the club's golden years -- 1900-1940 -- back when many of the area's most prominent artists were members.

But last Saturday was spent in the 21st Century -- going to each member's web site and pulling off examples that I found most attractive. (like the two shown above)

It was a very enjoyable experience -- because -- like the Oak Park potters shown last month -- these people are not artists in the modern sense of that word. They are not trying to push the boundaries of what can be called 'art' -- they are not trying to be "of their own time" -- they're just trying to show how their world (of people-land-flowers-urban spaces) is beautiful -- which requires art -- but not with the capital "A".


Scott (Tallman) Powers

Does any of it belong in art museums ?

Maybe -- though it's really hard -- maybe impossible for me to dissociate a painting from the person who made it (and I know all these people). Every painting -- like every person -- seems like a unique, irreplaceable component of the world.

I don't think anything here like, for example Thomas Lawrence's portrait of Mrs. Wolff needs to be on permanent display at the Art Institute.

But most of what hangs on the walls of any America museum could just as well be exchanged with what's in their basement -- just as the Art Institute has always rotated its collection of Asian prints and paintings.

Many things are here that should rotate in and out of museum galleries -- and those galleries would be richer for it.


Mary Qian