Art and Memory in Elgin

Art and Memory in Elgin May 23, 2016

What happens when the meaning of an artwork is forgotten, then half-rediscovered?

In Elgin, in 2003, artist David Powers, in collaboration with students from Judson University, created a set of murals on certain themes of justice, including one on racial justice, based off a photograph of bystanders at a lynching.  (I haven’t reproduced the photograph here because I’m not sure of the copyright status.)  It was meant to cause the viewer to reflect on that ugly part of the past, and not to do so by reflecting from the point of view of the victims, but the perpetrators, and to understand that people like you and me (that is, presuming a white audience) could have been in that crowd.

But there was no accompanying description.  Perhaps this was intentional, not to be heavy-handed, or perhaps there originally was an explanation, and it’s since been removed, or perhaps this was an oversight, or perhaps even at the time those who commissioned the artwork didn’t “get” the intention of the artist and shrugged it off as just another painting that, if it seemed not to make sense, was no different than any other.   But in any event, Elginites didn’t know this, and thought it was meant to be just another pretty picture (though an oddly-composed one, since the artist excluded the image of the lynching victims themselves, in the desire to focus on the bystanders).  Only after more than a decade, just recently, did someone realize what the image was about, and misunderstood the artist’s intention as that of secretly glorifying the lynching while “tricking” residents, and demand its removal, which, after various protests, has now occured.

The Daily Herald tells the story here, and the local ABC station here (with an image), and there’s follow-up here at WGN.  (More reporting, behind a paywall, at the Chicago Tribune, here.)  Honestly, I’d like to quote the Herald story, but I’ve exceeded my views for the month.  The link should work for readers, though.

Now, Chicago is proud of its public art:  the Picasso at the Daley Center and the Bean at Millenium Park, in particular.  Neither communicates a message, despite the fact that, when asked to explain the strangeness of modern art, Experts tell us that it’s meant to challenge us, to make us uncomfortable, to send difficult messages.  I’ve never been much of a fan of this approach, in general — I prefer art that is pleasant to look at, thank-you-very-much, but if others prefer otherwise (and I don’t have to pay for it), then fine.

Except that, in this case, the passage of time, and the lack of explanation, meant that the message was lost.  Can art, in general, stand the test of time if it needs an explanation to be appreciated?


Browse Our Archives