a new archive

I thought I would write a bit about my new archive, the Chicago Artists Archive. I have a show in September and October of 2010 at the Harold Washington Center of the Chicago Public Library. Artists who show at the library are included in an archive of over 9000 Chicagoland artists that is held and maintained in the Visual and Performing Arts Library.

October is Chicago Artists Month, and the theme is the City as Studio. Chicago has been having a year long dialog about the artist studio in all its forms. Since I have been studio-less and have been working with archives all year, I thought I should treat the library as my studio and use it as a place to make my work. I am reviewing the entire artist archive while I make work for the show. So far I have reviewed A-C and gotten through 2 of the twelve file drawers of archival material.

Part of me wonders at myself, driving into the city to sit in the library, alone, looking through drawers and drawers of artist materials mostly from 1940-2000. I mean really: I spent my fall, alone, in a cold studio going through each page of one architect's projects and papers from 1950-1990. Why not go out and meet real live artists? I am much more inclined to the former, and I have always struggled with that. I love that I can sit and look through materials during the day while my kids are at school. I get to mull over the rich lives of hundreds of local people. I am getting an education in Chicago art history. And if I don't do it now, I will never take the time to do it. Hooray for sabbaticals!

The archive covers artists well known and not so. Faculty from all the local universities and art schools are represented, as well as every variety of sculptor, painter, printmaker, community activist, artist-run gallery, and artist working out in the suburbs. I am, of course, particularly drawn to the latter. Artists who grew up in Chicago and worked elsewhere are included (like Judy Chicago) and artists who moved to Chicago and work here now are included as well. Some artists built themselves into the archive with exhaustive letters and documentation they sent to the librarian/curators. Other artists are included unbeknownst to them, via all kinds of coverage in the local press, from reviews to obituaries.

Am I looking for anything in particular? Yes and no. I am looking at the whole archive because I don't want to miss anyone. Ideas and history are everywhere. I am writing down fragments of artist statements and the names of artists whose work touches me. I am writing down recurring galleries and art critics who I want to trace through the archive and through time. And I am writing down adjacencies: when the juxtaposition of two artists is poignant and the only reason for their relationship is that their last names are similar or the same.

I grapple with a fear of failing at my own artistic endeavor: not working hard enough, or publicly enough, or honestly enough. When I sit down at the archive, at first I feel heavy with the burden of so many artists represented by a single piece of writing or photograph of their work. But then I keep reading and see signs of each artist working with clear intention and purpose. Why do we do it? Because we can, and we are driven to, and it helps keep us fulfilled. And why do librarians, archivists, and art lovers adopt our things and our narrative and attend to them? That is one question guiding the drawings I am making.

Are there lessons in the archive? One for sure: keep making beautiful printed ephemera and send it to people who are thoughtful savers. Otherwise archivists print out ugly website versions of your show announcements on archival paper and THAT is your legacy. Shiver.