Andres Hernandez, BR’RR PTCH Studies 002; BR’RR PTCH Studies 003.(2022)
Chicago
Critic’s
Table
The Chicago Critic’s Table is an eight-month paid incubator for emerging Chicago cultural critics hosted by Arts + Public Life and funded by the Mellon Foundation.
APL seeks to support new and inclusive communities of critics working both within and beyond the academy. By connecting our cohort to each other and to the broader network of Chicago’s arts and culture scene, we hope to seed new collaborations with artists, critics, and audiences, and create new convenings and communities.
The sustainability of the arts in our communities requires that we attend to the physical and social life of art beyond its immediate production by also tending to its reception and circulation. By supporting a new generation of critics, we also seek to shape the work and careers of local artists, expand what we consider criticism and who we consider critics, and help connect audiences to new work.
photo by Jovan Landry
Chicago Critic’s Table offers emerging critics the opportunity to build an enduring network of colleagues working in a range of media, methods, and platforms in order to support and experiment with each other as they continue to develop their voice, practice, and audience with an emphasis on local critical scenes, history, and the work of Black and Brown artists.
Participants will:
Learn from other local critics.
Consider the art and ethics of criticism itself as a practice.
Consider the many voices and modalities criticism can take.
Experience local work together.
Engage with artists, audiences, and artistic work at Arts + Public Life.
Propose public talk-backs and critical conversations.
Incubate collaborative critical projects with participants, faculty, and artists.
photo of the 2023 Cohort visiting APL | CSRPC Artists-in Residents Shani Crowe and Gloe Talamantes by Kate schlachter
Goals
Support and incubate new and emerging critical talent in Chicago.
Broaden who gets called a critic and what gets labeled as criticism, and create more dynamic modes of critical engagement.
Create new kinds of critical communities that break down silos of identity, genre, and medium.
Use criticism to broaden the audience for South Side artists and cultural scenes, and to create new types of critical audiences.
2025
CRITICS
TABLE
COHORT
APPLICATIONS ClOSE ON OCTOBER 25
The Chicago Critic’s Table at Arts + Public Life is a biennial program, with the pilot launched in 2023 by Prof. Adrienne Brown.
The second cohort will launch in 2025 and continue the vision of the original program, with this iteration led by Tempestt Hazel.
photo of the 2023 Cohort in session with Kristiana Rae Colón and Ciera McKissick by Rhya Brooke
What’s the selection process?
Application Deadline: October 25, 2024.
Review: Applications will be reviewed and assigned to jury members in November.
Interviews: Invitations for virtual interviews will be extended in early January.
Announcement: The 2025 cohort will be announced in February.
*International critics are welcome to apply but must be eligible to work in the U.S. and attend the program in person
The 2025 Cohort will consist of 6 fellows with experience and interest in multiple forms of cultural criticism, storytelling, and reflection.
The 8-month program runs from April to November, kicking off with a 10-week intensive, followed by an 11-week curriculum that is collaboratively created by the cohort and session facilitator.
Intensive (10-weeks, weekly): April 10 - June 12
The cohort will meet weekly on Thursdays for evening sessions, starting with a cohort orientation during the first week and ending with one-on-one meetings in the final weeks. (One-on-ones can happen during summer break, if needed.)
The cohort will meet in person at the Arts Block in Washington Park, with occasional field trips and workshops elsewhere within Chicago.
Collaborative Curriculum (11-weeks, bi-weekly): August 7 - October 16
After a summer break in June and July, the cohort will resume bi-weekly meetings on Thursday evenings at the Arts Block in Washington Park, with occasional field trips and sessions held at other locations.
The program will conclude with a public event co-organized with the cohort and facilitator in late October or early November.
Participants will receive a $5000 stipend as well as a $700 arts budget for tickets and supplies/travel.
Participants will have dedicated space on the Arts Block managed by Arts + Public Life to convene, join trips to cultural venues and events, connect to and collaborate with other Chicago critics, and receive resources to bring in speakers for intimate discussions.
Meet Tempestt Hazel
Q&A between Adrienne Brown and Tempestt Hazel
AB: How do you understand the work and purpose of criticism? Who is criticism for?
TH: I believe that at its core, the purpose of criticism is to witness, contextualize, and ask questions of the culture that has been and is being created, and also the artists who are doing the creating. I think these acts are open to many different approaches and intentions, necessarily, and depending on the arena that the critic chooses to place themselves in. Some writers want to be in conversation with art history and cultural theory, while others might want to look at art and culture through a more explicitly personal, social, or political lens. I think all of these approaches are valid and necessary in order for a thriving and inclusive cultural ecosystem to exist. And, frankly, it’s imperative in order to keep things compelling and evocative.
To me, criticism is at its best when it’s challenging the original terms I was told when it comes to what criticism is, and when the way we define criticism and its negative connotations are challenged. In my art history education, so much of the writing that was celebrated focused on things like “objectivity” or a kind of criticality that made me wonder if the writer was interested in art or the artist at all. I was fortunate enough to be introduced to mentors and writers who showed me that it’s possible to offer critique without sacrificing things like care, generosity, curiosity, subjectivity, and personal connection to an artwork, exhibition, or artistic practice. Looking at art in this expanded way offers something for everyone, making it possible for criticism to be for everyone who feels any kind of connection to art or what is being written about.
AB: What are the specific needs, questions, and stakes around criticism when it comes to Black and Brown makers, artists, writers?
TH: As someone whose work is deeply rooted in archival practice, I have to say that what’s at stake is our legacy. Historically, Black and Brown makers, artists, and writers have had to maneuver around systems that dim our light and attempt to shrink our contributions and creativity. Criticism is another area where these attempts are made through choices and restrictions that, by design, have been hostile towards our perspectives, methodologies, points of reference, vernacular, or intellectual/creative lineages. We need more spaces and opportunities that allow us to ask questions, create, and think on our own terms and not under the weight of being asked to prioritize audiences that have throughout history shown a lack of interest in understanding our multitudes.
AB: Who are some of your favorite critics and what about their work or style do you find compelling?
TH: This is a tough question because the list is endless. To give a sense of what keeps me inspired with my writing, I’ll narrow it down to three: Dr. Margaret Burroughs, Hanif Abdurraqib, and Jack Whitten. After spending some time in her archives and with her letters, Burroughs taught me that any page can be a space for criticism–even professional and personal correspondence. Her writings often asked the reader to question more, express more, think more, and do more, especially her letters. These prompts transcended the direct conversation she was having with a singular reader. She helped me unlock my own epistolary criticism style, which continues to be one of my favorite ways to write about art, culture, and artists.
The way Abdurraqib weaves in autobiography and his unapologetically subjective perspective is incredible to me. Reading his writings taught me that when you’re committed to your own voice and when you let the artists you adore and the inquiries that drive you be the lens you lead with, profound things are unlocked.
Then there’s Jack Whitten who is more known as a conceptual and abstract painter and sculptor. He is perhaps the wild card in the mix because no one would define him as a critic, but after reading Notes from the Woodshed, a compilation of his writings, journal logs, studio notes and so much more, I would argue otherwise. Even though his writings were perhaps never meant for a wider audience, I’m grateful that it made its way there because it reminded me that solitude and the interiority of a journal have so much to teach us about criticism and how criticism changes when the audience is one, and only ourselves.
Tempestt Hazel is a curator, writer, and co-founder of Sixty Inches From Center, a collective of editors, writers, artists, curators, librarians, and archivists who have published and produced collaborative projects about artists, archival practice, and culture in the Midwest since 2010. Across her practices and through Sixty, Tempestt has worked alongside artists, organizers, grantmakers, and cultural workers to explore solidarity economies, cooperative models, archival practice, future canon creation, and systems change in and through the arts.
An especially cherished moment for Tempestt was when she received the 2019 J. Franklin Jameson Archival Advocacy Award from the Society of American Archivists, which was the result of a nomination by archivists and members of The Blackivists.
Tempestt was born and raised in Peoria, Illinois, spent several years in the California Bay Area, and has called Chicago her second home for over 13 years.
AB: What makes Chicago’s arts and culture scene distinctive in your eyes?
TH: I could write for days about what makes Chicago’s arts and culture scene distinctive–there’s so much that can be said. Chicago’s artists know the beauty of collaboration and many understand co-creation to be an essential and defining part of their practice. Those collaborations aren’t only with other artists, but also with people working in other sectors. Artists are directing their artistry and thinking skills toward political organizing, economic justice, care for the land, and serving the people they are in community with in their everyday lives. Some would be quick to define Chicago as an art capital–which it is, no doubt–but I believe it’s more accurate to say that it’s a cultural capital because it’s never just about art. In my experience, it’s always been about an abundance of ideas and expressions that define a distinct, complex, and collective local intellect and imagination. I have yet to find something like it anywhere else in the world.
I would also say that while Chicago isn’t immune to the gatekeeping and power dynamics that sometimes make the arts difficult to navigate, it is full of people who work to dismantle those barriers and make the arts accessible in all the ways we can define access. Chicago is a city where artists can build and unlock big things that create seismic shifts locally, nationally, and globally. The list of artists across creative fields who have changed the game is endless–visual artists, writers, musicians, dancers, performers, designers, the list goes on. I would argue that their artistry wouldn’t be the same if they weren’t from or didn’t spend time in Chicago.
AB: What are some of the most pressing questions or topics around criticism that you’re excited to think more about with the cohort next year?
TH: I’ve been spending time with two questions as I develop this iteration of the Chicago Critics Table. First, I would like to ask each cohort member, “who are you writing for?” The question of audience and intention opens up a complicated conversation and leads to so many more questions that I believe reveal why criticism is such a rich source of knowledge creation, contradictions, and inquiry.
My second is, “what is the role of criticism in future canon-building and world-building?” I would add to that, “what qualities of criticism and its many definitions do we need to evolve, deconstruct, and perhaps maintain in order for it to operate as it needs to within those futures?”
AB: What place, scene, artist, or movement in Chicago do you wish critics would pay more attention to?
TH: I will always root for the things that aren’t often given attention, whether now or in the past. But beyond that, I don’t have a specific place, scene, artist, or movement to name. Overall, I definitely think there could be many more platforms, and the ones that exist could be supported enough to hold and nurture more writers and styles of writing–especially experimental and longform. I believe we would be able to write about and pay attention to so much more if cultural criticism and journalism were valued more by both audiences and publishers, and given more resources in general.
AB: What most excites you about leading the Chicago Critic’s Table next year?
TH: I’m looking forward to having a dedicated space to speak honestly and wax poetic around the practice of arts writing, and for an extended period of time. And I’m truly looking forward to learning from and collaborating with the members of the cohort.
Rikki Byrd (she/her), Meralis Alvarez-Morales (she/her), Regina Victor (pharaoh/they), Camille Bacon (she/they), Zaria El-Fil (she/they), Britt Julious (she/her)
“The Chicago Critic’s Table gave me the confidence that I needed to begin my writing career. The space provided the opportunity to discuss criticism, meet artists who desired for their work to be written about, examine the role of criticism in the art world and society writ large. In addition, the Chicago Critic’s Table helped me develop a relationship with a journal that eventually yielded my first published work of criticism. Now, the realm of criticism is demystified and I have a firm sense of my writerly voice within Chicago criticism. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with the Chicago Critic’s Table and am excited to see the table provide more writers with the tools to confidently pursue their passion for criticism”
“I am so grateful to have been a part of the inaugural cohort for Chicago Critic’s Table. Being in community with people with diverse interests across arts and culture and discussing the joys and difficulties around the craft of criticism is incredibly needed today as we move across an ever-changing mediascape. Chicago is such a rich cultural site and programs like this illustrate how necessary it is to document the present as much as the past and ensure that resources are available to a current generation of artists, scholars, thinkers, and writers who take on this critical work. ”
Saying the Hard Part Loud
Nov. 9, 7:00-9:00
Green Line Performing Arts Center
Stay tuned for a thought-provoking conversation on criticism, aesthetics, and culture, led by Rikki Byrd, a member of the first cohort of Chicago Critic's Table.