“Has Anyone Answered ‘Kimler’s Complaint’ Yet?” by William Dolan
Eleven years ago, I read the Chicago Reader article “Kimler’s Complaint.” At the time, I only had a vague notion of how the Chicago art scene worked. I knew there was a lot of conceptual work out there. I frequently read New Art Examiner, with all of its pseudo-sociology. I was also aware of the trend toward mimicking outsider art, which seemed to grow in popularity in the ’90s. However, I still thought that the Imagists and abstract artists that ruled the day in the ’80s still held sway and that the reason why the art scene in Chicago was lame, was that it never fully recovered from the art market crash.
I had no idea what really happened, behind the scene. I was busy puttering around in the minor art league in this city, showing in storefront galleries, Around the Coyote and in bars, hoping that someday I would be called up to the Majors. I had become ignorant of what really made the Chicago art world run. Not ever having any real connection to it, it’s no suprise that I didn’t fully grasp what Wesley Kimler was saying.
In recent years, I’ve become more in tune with what is going on in Chicago. I’ve also noticed that “Kimler’s Complaint” is referenced every now and then, so I decided to re-read this article. Now that I have a better understanding of the Chicago art world, I can more fully appreciate what Wesley Kimler was saying. He blasts the takeover of the Chicago art world by academia. He names names and calls people out. After reading it, I realize that nothing really has changed in Chicago since then and doesn’t look like it will. The institutions will still crank out artists that will dabble in conceptual nonsense for a few years, then go on to teach or sell real estate. There will always be more of them.
It’s now obvious that “Kimler’s Complaint” was never answered. Maybe it’s time to escalate this matter.
Read the Chicago Reader article:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/kimlers-complaint/Content?oid=896646
Category: Articles, Essays 5 comments »
September 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I remember that article too and feel the same way you did then and now, Bill.
The issue has been talked and discussed amongst Chicago artists and related folks plenty within the last 5 years…and as you mention Bill, still nothing has really changed.
Overall, the Chicago scene caters to shitty conceptual art whether it consists of installations, painting, sculpture, whatever…
Kudos to Wesley Kimler for speaking his mind – -
Oh, one more thing: after re-reading the Kimler article I found myself thinking that though written eleven years ago, that article could have been written yesterday…
September 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I’m afraid that there are many that don’t see a problem here. It’s all status quo. The academic artists will put in their 5 or 10 years, then go on to something else, while the schools will crank out new artists to fill their spots. No one ever expects to make a career out of it — just get their 15 minutes. Also, there will always be a bar or cafe to hang one’s work and isn’t that really what it’s all about? There are many that are proud to have a Solo Exhibition at Pauline’s. For me though, I’d go there for the waffles and not the art.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:36 am
I’m too removed out here to get really intrigued by Chicago artworld politics. Makes me happy that, even though our art institute dominates the goings on around town, overall art folks in Kansas City are pretty cooperative. So really, I just want to thank you guys for turning me on to Kimler, an artist unknown to me until I read this post. The works on his site are amazing and really truly something I wish more people were getting to see.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Chris…yes, Kimler’s work is very good. I think he is one of the better painters working today. Too bad people are turned off by his tenacity.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I agree that Kimler is one of the better painters today.
A problem with the Chicago art world is that it sees itself as “international,” and for that reason does not take its local talent seriously. The Chicago music scene has the same problem. Smaller cities don’t have this identity crisis, so they champion their own. This is how it should be. It makes for more interesting art as each center can have its own uniqueness. The other leads to knock-offs of some broader global styles.
Interestingly, Jerry Saltz just posted a Facebook status update, stating that New York is very provincial, because it only looks at its own talent.
In his Bad at Sports interview, Mark Staff Brandl said that constantly looking elsewhere makes one provincial. I agree. Chicago is very provincial in this respect.