Chicago Black Renaissance

Archibald Motley

Self Portrait, 1920

Self-Portrait, 1933

Archibald J. Motley graduated from the Chicago Art Institute in 1918 with a concentration in portraiture. While at the Institute, Motley studied under Karl Buehr.[10] When reflecting on his time and studied spent with Buehr, the artist goes onto say about his mentor that  “a great influence on me not only as a painter but as a gentlemen, as a man”.[10] As Motley began his career, he realized that working in portraiture was not very profitable.[11] In one of Motley’s early works, “The Fisherman” it is extremely unexpressive and does not bear much resemblance to Archibald’s later work. The palette Motley uses in this portrait is very muted and realistic. A middle age man is sitting in a chair, looking out to the right, not making eye contact with the viewer. Not only is the subject matter different in Motley’s earlier paintings compared to his later, but as is his style. In his portrait of this fisherman, the brushstrokes are extremely visible and the man is very naturalistic unlike his later paintings where it is very animates and appears to look saturated. It can be seen in this early portrait the influence Buehr had on Motley. The artists focus on light, contours in the face, and texture can be attributed to his mentor.[10] The tools and techniques Motley learned under Buehr can be seen in this early work. Motley graduated from the Art Institute in Chicago with the highest possible grades as well as recognition  for “general excellence” in his work.[10] As Motley began to paint and advance in his career, his artwork grew as well and transformed into a style much different than his earlier one.

Motley began his artistic career with portraiture but as his career progressed, he moved into genre paintings. These later paintings depicted the lives of African Americans from areas like “the streets of Bronzeville” which is described as “the assorted African neighborhoods of Chicago’s South Side”.[11] Motley got into the world of portrait painters because it was believed that due to the commercialism moving into art, portraits would always be in demand. Motley ran into trouble when he refused to conform to using his racial identity in his artistic work, “He insisted that the cause of black art could not be served ‘if all Negro artists painted simply Negro types’; rather ‘give the artist of the Race a chance to express himself in his own, individual way, but let him abide by the principles of true art, as our [white] brethren do.”.[10] Portraiture was thought be a safe space for artists but Motley’s own artistic process forced him outside of this space. The move from portraits to genre scenes came because of Motley’s need to make money from his art.[11]  Although his portraits gave the people he painted a voice to express their own story, like “Mending Socks”, 1924, he was able to give a voice to those in the scenes of cabarets, pool halls, and the streets of African American neighborhoods with the added incentive of making money from these scenes.[11]

After spending a year in Paris, the style of modernism moved into his work. Along with his new knowledge of European modernism, he also started to incorporate elements of Impressionism, the colors of Fauvism and Expressionism, and the use of space in Cubism.[11] Motley became more expressive in his works. His use of a vibrant color palette, distorted perspective, and the condensing of space breathed new life into his style of painting.[11] These elements can be seen in Motley’s 1934 painting, “Blackbelt”.

Many people have critiqued both Motley and other artists paintings from the Harlem and Chicago Black Renaissance. One reason is that they believe Motley exaggerated features of African Americans.  In “The Liar,” the exaggeration critics comment on are perhaps the lips and how big they are, playing into the stereotypes of how certain people thought of African Americans. Additionally, it is thought that this exaggeration was meant to appeal to a certain audience.[12] This was the white audience who during this time period were the main patrons during the Chicago Black Renaissance. He implemented certain caricature and stereotypes in his paintings to extend to this wider range of artists.[12] By playing into these stereotypes, it could be seen as problematic as he was enforcing stereotypes that had been generalized by the white public. However, on the other hand it was a black artist painting these elements and in a way could be seen as reclaiming the black identity.

The Harlem Renaissance is recognized as the movement that originally popularized black art and gave black artists a name. Along with the surge of artists in Harlem, the same phenomenon happened in Chicago without the same popularity. This development of art in Chicago came from similar events similar to what happened in Harlem, “the inflow of black southerners into Chicago; the creation of the WPA’s Federal Art Project (FAP) administered by the Illinois Art Project (IAP); the founding of the South Side Community Art Center (SSCAC); and the artistic production and promotion of Chicago black arts scene by predominant artists.”[13] One of these artists being Archibald Motley. After thousands of people moved into the areas, communities were built. In these communities, young artists were using the path built by the older generation of artists.[13] Since the younger artists in the city were using artists like Motley, William Scott, and Charles Dawson as inspiration and as role models, the older generation’s work never died. Motley and other’s art became trans-generational.[13]

Chicago was a mecca. There was a period of regrowth, which came from the city wide fire in 1871. The fire gave the city a chance  to rebuild, both structurally and culturally. Old vacant buildings were being used as studios for artists and musicians. The creation of Hull House was significant to Chicago’s artistic history because it gave a space for “immigrants and other working-class Chicagoans.”[13] Although Hull House was meant to be a space used for the marginalized, African Americans were still excluded. It was not by definition segregated, but the belief that having blacks in the studio would deter future members from joining was held among many of the organization’s board members.[13] Due to this exclusion, the homes of elite black families became galleries and this gave black Chicagoans a space finally show what they had been creating.[13] Following these in-home galleries, the need for an institution where African American artists could be taught formally was met. The School of the Art Institute of Chicago was one of the few schools that allowed black attendance. This acceptance drew in even more black artists into the city and educated well known black artists, like Motley. Having the Institute in Chicago helped grow the artistic community by drawing artists in and keeping them in the city.