“The Ryleans” is an exhibition of four graduates from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC): Noelle Africh, Ellis & Parker von Sternberg, Jonathan Worcester and Ziyi Zhang. The concept behind the show rests with the philosophy of Gilbert Ryle (1900–1976) and his ideas about perception. This is a show that I would have expected more from University of Chicago graduates–SAIC is more known for socially motivated conceptual art these days, not for an intellectual foray into philosophy. A summary of Ryle’s world view:

        Ryle analogizes philosophy to cartography. Competent speakers of a language, Ryle believes, are to a philosopher what ordinary villagers are to a mapmaker: the ordinary villager has a competent grasp of his village and is familiar with its inhabitants and geography. But when asked to interpret a map of that knowledge, the villager will have difficulty until he is able to translate his practical knowledge into universal cartographic terms. The villager thinks of the village in personal and practical terms, while the mapmaker thinks of the village in neutral, public, cartographic terms. (Ryle, Gilbert. 1971. “Abstractions.” In Collected Papers 2. London: Hutchinson.)

        On entering the gallery, the west wall is the most prominent. Ziyi Zhang’s 06/25/2024 is the first piece you see on that wall. Her modestly sized work (23 x 22 inches) is deceptively layered. The background is a digital image of an oil painting; the foreground is an image of a rectangular metal mesh with missing sections and two bronze-colored medallions with embossed floral motifs. This foreground is produced by a 3-D digital printer on top of the background image. The effect is so subtle that I had to look closely several times to see the 3-D effect of the mesh. This piece closely parallels Ryle’s cartography metaphor. Zhang is the villager and knows everything about the work; the viewer is the mapmaker and sees only what is immediately visible.

        Next to Zang’s piece is Noelle Africh’s Hindsight. Another small work (only 20 x 16 inches), it is made from a not often used material in contemporary art. Distemper was a paint widely employed in the early Renaissance instead of tempera or early oils. It is difficult to work with because when wet the colors are significantly different than when dry. Its surface is also rather fragile. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distemper_(paint) for a detailed description.) Hindsight is a soft brown and rose abstract image that vaguely resembles an elephant’s trunk with figures alongside it. Or maybe the image is a portion of a spine? The contemporary eye would never know that this was done with distemper paint, and its fuzziness creates an uneasy sense of ambiguity. Is this more villager-cartographer interplay?

        The next piece poses other problems. Ellis and Parker von Sternberg are collaborating brothers. Ellis is the artist and Parker is an attorney. It is unclear what Parker’s role is in creating the artwork. Untitled 19 is a modest sized wall sculpture (24.5 x 7 x 5 inches). The enigma here is what is the piece made of. The gallery checklist details PVC heat shrink, assorted remains, enamel, and zip ties. Just what are the assorted remains? The shape of the work suggest that they may be bones, even ribs—but of what? Is this where Parker plays a role in safeguarding against an illegality? On initial viewing, the piece is a pleasant sculpture. But, on reflecting on what it might be made of, it becomes very disturbing, even creepy. Only the villager knows.

        On a narrow wall by itself is Jonathan Worcester’s Untitled (JW003). This is the largest piece in the show, measuring 54 x 21 inches, and the one with the most traditional medium: acrylic on canvas. It is an image of a fairly regular grid resembling a loose tapestry The warp is a series of thin vertical lines of thick black paint seemingly extruded from a tube, and the horizontal wefts are overlaid thicker impasto—all applied over a red background. The background is barely visible except for a spot near the lower right where it is allowed to show through. It is a satisfying abstraction that plays with the conceptual regularity of a pattern against the irregularity of its execution. In this sense, it could allude to some traditions of hand weaving.

        So, what does this art have to do with Ryle’s philosophy? It seems to be mostly about the viewer’s perception in contrast to what the artist knows or wishes to reveal. None of this is particularly new or novel, especially in the world of contemporary art. It just gives the act of viewing a philosophical framework for those who think they need one. There is one footnote to the exhibition. It is persistently gloomy. These artists don’t seem to have a very optimistic view of our time or the future.

Michel Ségard is the Editor in Chief of the New Art Examiner and a former adjunct assistant professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He has been a published art critic for more than 45 years and is also the author of numerous exhibition catalog essays.