What's Wrong with Being a "Local" Artist?

Joe Peragine, Breathing Tank; an example of sophisticated and contemporary work by a local artist.

Rarely do people set out to be “local artists”—not when the industry has become so highly professionalized, global, and grand. Although there are practitioners who bring true dignity to the phrase, its contemporary usage still carries an unsaid judgment that lingers in the air like an annoying, dull dagger. Embarrassing and often unfair, the assumption is that most local art is simply not as good, nor as important, as that which is manufactured in the artistic capitals of the world.

It’s true that Atlanta is a cultural suburb. One must fly to the artistic capitals—NYC, Berlin, LA, Mexico City, London, etc.—to benefit from a significant concentration of art money, art institutions, art awareness, and art intensity. For many, these capitals are proven and prestigious art havens: Art experienced or created there carries a stamp of authenticity based on a carefully built reputation. So, knowing that, why would an artist make art anywhere else?

These days, there are myriad reasons—political and otherwise—why artists choose not to go to the cultural centers to compete conventionally with the world of artists. And, not all of these reasons have to do with low self-esteem and naiveté. Some creatives are downright disenfranchised with artistic systems and prefer to practice at a distance on their own terms. Some have a particularly stubborn love of a place and a refreshing lack of interest in large-scale promotions and expansion. Some simply cannot afford to go, while some merely choose to proceed at a slower (or stranger) pace, or have a family or job that anchors them to a local-only zone.

Meg Aubrey, Sidewalks (from her series, I Just Live Here); local paintings about local issues, done in a neat "franchise" style.

And what’s the problem with producing locally, for non-centralized art places? Isn’t that a totally decent and rewarding choice? Isn’t glocalism a politically correct concept to apply to artmaking? Why then, the disrespect? Why the lack of confidence and negative baggage?

Even the art capitals can produce overrated, bloated, and indulgent work, ossified by formulaic success and over-design. Meanwhile, off in some distant but related playing field, local artists (and local curators!) must prove their worth to their specific tangible publics. The challenge can make them into stubborn underdogs who offer examples of real artistic practice from humbler, personal places. And with less pressure or expectations of conquering the world, they can act with greater artistic and spiritual freedom. Knowing that the radius of their influence is so relatively inconsequential and invisible, a local artist can concentrate on communicating intimately with their audience. With nothing to lose, they can make just exactly what they want—within their means—and have a lot of fun.

Serious local artists can take great advantage of their position on the outer frontiers by bringing their craft to deeper, more meaningful edges, where the institutionally enslaved and financially privileged are afraid to go. The cultural suburbs (like Atlanta, New Orleans, Santa Fe, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Wichita, Detroit, etc.) are still wild, largely unexplored, weird, and full of unexpected opportunity for artistic practice. So why aren’t the suburbs known to produce better, more renowned work?

Well, one of the biggest problems for the serious local artist is one of association. Because they produce in a small, artistically demeaned locale, local artists with a lot of talent and originality are lumped together with a mob of less aware, less committed others and, subsequently, some fairly lame art. Many local artists—the numbers are unbearable to imagine—produce half-hearted, steadily accumulating pools of derivative, cliché, sophomoric, technically sloppy, unchallenged, or unadventurous work that still manages to fall underneath that same giant umbrella called Art. Of course, some of this work is wonderfully irreverent, folksy, crafty, and carefree, as well as absolutely necessary for the development of a healthy art ecology.

The lobby of Art Space International, a local facility for artist studios, full of landscape and figurative treasures.

Here we find a common pitfall for mature local artists: Instead of pushing deeper into their practice, their work settles into the practical bourgeois sensibilities of their surroundings, creating a stable upper rung of merely C+ and B students. Though absolutely qualified for greater things, this class of surviving artists instead learns to be good rule followers and socialites. They provide nice, acceptable artworks for a country club of locals who want to participate in a contemporary art scene—something like the real thing, but not too intense, where everything stays in a safe, friendly middle ground.

Chris Moses Tolliver, 3 Brothers; found by Google searching "local artist + atl".

Another big problem is that existence outside the art capitals is simply not art-centered. Not even close. Local artists are the troopers and ambassadors in this realm, and it’s not always a glamorous job. They are constantly reminded: Art is an extreme minority culture. Art practiced outside the designated capitals often drowns in a cacophony of mainstream entertainment. There are Netflix rentals, baseball games, touring art exhibitions at upscale museums, art auctions to benefit pre-schools and cancer victims, canned Broadway productions, and endless lovable low-brow group shows with skateboards and cutesy illustrations. Residents of the cultural suburbs believe that the most significant artistic programming will be delivered from the outside.

Local performance artist Shana Robbins, scaling down Sandler Hudson Gallery.

Meanwhile, well-meaning art missionaries are busy working in a host of midsize American cities—including our own. Like missionaries in third world countries, these places study successful art models and emulate them as closely as possible, focusing on total conversion to established norms and holding tight to their small ponds of power. These franchises become outposts of professional contemporary art, and often import authority figures from the art capitals and raise funds from local aristocrats and corporations who have a relatively narrow frame of reference. Although these franchises can be quite educational as well as socially useful, it’s too bad they don’t better respect indigenous artistic innovation and independence—something that would be easy and inexpensive to experiment with, and would generate good relations between the have and have-nots. Of course, it’s extremely important as an artist, of any place, to keep abreast of worldly art production and events, especially since awareness of such things is easily accomplished online. For all contemporary artists, there is really no excuse for ignorance.

Local artist/enthusiast, Brett W. Thompson, with some of his spray paintings.

Then again, I don’t mean to say that once you’re labeled a local artist, you’re damned to stay there forever. It’s an imposing hurdle to leap, but there are certainly examples of artists who transcended the category. A few examples: Dan Peterman (Chicago), Duke Riley (NYC), Banksy (London), David Hammonds (NYC), Sister Corita (LA). In the 21st century, the most ambitious emerging artists are perhaps still wise to migrate to the art capitals, where there is the greatest density of practitioners, audience, and financial supporters. By positioning themselves there, their work is guaranteed to be taken a bit more seriously.

Yuppie Ghetto, a work by a popular local artist, R Land.

Have the established art capitals reached a climax of staleness, self-importance, bureaucracy, and overproduction? It’s hard to say. (Though probably not.) In the meantime, local artists can produce some truly interesting artwork because they operate so far outside the center of activity and expectations of success. This is a great time for experimentation in the cultural suburbs. Of course … if a number of great artworks are accomplished at the local level, by local artists with local ambitions, will each be fairly recognized? Or will their efforts be wasted without a proper audience? Is all such activity only for posterity—to be discovered at some later date as just another cult, internet phenomenon?

For further reading on a somewhat related topic, see also Raphael Rubinstein’s recent “Provisional Painting” (Art in America).

Tags: "local artist", Art Space International, art world anthropologies, Banksy, Brett W. Thompson, Chris Moses Tolliver, Dan Peterman, David Hammonds, Duke Riley, globalism v. regionalism v. localism, glocalism, Joe Peragine, local artist + atl, Meg Aubrey, R Land, Sandler Hudson Gallery, Shana Robbins, Sister Corita