TL;DR
Get art and craft supplies delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Hyperallergic feature observes erotic or sexually charged elements in several recent Chicago exhibitions, while asking whether the trend reflects the art scene or the writer’s own perspective. The examples span paintings, photographs, sculpture and performance; the report does not establish a broader shift across Chicago art.
A Hyperallergic feature has identified a thread of erotic imagery and encounters in several recent Chicago exhibitions, including work at the DePaul Art Museum, an independent curatorial project and the Art Institute of Chicago. The writer frames the question — whether “sexy art” is back — as a personal impression, not evidence of a broad change in the city’s art scene.
The account begins with Alice Tippit’s paintings, shown at the DePaul Art Museum the previous spring. The writer describes them as sly and meticulous, saying the exhibition prompted thoughts that were not addressed in the show’s catalogue. The feature does not identify specific works or cite a curatorial statement connecting the paintings to sexuality.
In the summer, the group exhibition SHADOW at tête-à-tête-à-tête brought together sensuous photographs by Holly Murkerson and two leather-and-wood stools by David Sprecher and Neiva Mulhearn. The writer characterizes the photographed stone passageway as inviting entry and describes the stools as objects that required straddling and peering into. Those descriptions convey the writer’s response rather than a confirmed interpretation shared by the artists or organizers.
The feature also considers Willem de Kooning Drawing at the Art Institute of Chicago. Although the exhibition received positive reviews, the writer says its museum text and reviews did not foreground the effect of seeing repeated images of nude women. The writer found the figures increasingly disturbing, particularly in a room with large charcoal drawings of rowboats from the mid-1960s. The feature additionally mentions performances by two dancers in Melanie McLain’s installation Peripersonal (2020), presented at the MCA Chicago’s Slow Dance from September 13 to October 18.
Eroticism Across Chicago Shows
The feature brings attention to a possible shared theme across exhibitions that differ in medium and venue: sexuality can be present without being named in exhibition texts or reviews. That gap matters to readers interested in how museums and critics describe bodies, desire and discomfort, and in whether viewers’ personal responses diverge from official framing.
But the report offers an individual reading, not a survey of Chicago institutions, artists or audiences. Its value is as a prompt for discussion about what gets emphasized in criticism and interpretation; it does not establish that erotic art is returning as a citywide trend.
Popular right now
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
Ninja DualZone Air Fryer 10 Qt Smart 6-in-1 Grey
Samsung 43-Inch M70H Series 4K Mini LED Smart TV (2026)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Exhibitions Behind the Question
The writer situates the observation in a period of seeing many Chicago exhibitions and says erotic work had not recently stood out in either the shows they visited or the school where they teach. They also acknowledge that their perspective may be shaped by turning 50 and by popular culture’s recent interest in midlife women’s desire, mentioning Sharon Horgan’s Youth and Olivia Colman’s Wicker.
The feature’s examples range from painting and photography to sculptural objects and live performance. It does not argue that the works share a single artistic program. Rather, the connecting thread is the writer’s interpretation of how they stage or suggest desire, bodily exposure and unease.
“Is sex back? Or it could just be me.”
— Hyperallergic feature writer
A Trend or One Viewer’s Reading?
The feature does not establish whether erotic themes have become more common in Chicago exhibitions. It supplies no count of shows over time, comparison with earlier seasons, interviews with the artists or curators, or audience research. The writer repeatedly signals that the pattern may reflect personal perception.
It is also unclear whether the artists and organizers would describe the cited works as erotic, or whether the absence of that language in some exhibition materials was deliberate. The supplied account gives no responses from them, and its opening refers to exhibitions and a performance without establishing that the works were planned as part of a common theme.
Further Shows Could Test the Pattern
The feature does not announce a follow-up report, new exhibition or research project. Its next step for readers is to compare the writer’s impression with their own visits to Chicago shows and with how artists, curators and critics discuss the work.
Whether the observation signals a broader change would require more evidence, such as additional exhibitions across venues, statements from participating artists and curators, and comparison with programming from earlier years. Until then, the claim remains a question raised by one feature, rather than a confirmed art-world trend.
Key Questions
Does the feature confirm that erotic art is back in Chicago?
No. It identifies a perceived thread across selected exhibitions, while explicitly leaving open whether the pattern reflects the writer’s own perspective.
Which exhibitions does the report discuss?
It mentions Alice Tippit’s paintings at the DePaul Art Museum, SHADOW at tête-à-tête-à-tête, Willem de Kooning Drawing at the Art Institute of Chicago, and Melanie McLain’s Peripersonal at the MCA Chicago’s Slow Dance.
What does the writer find erotic about the works?
The writer points to sensuous photographs, stools that invite physical engagement, nude figures in de Kooning’s drawings and dancers performing within McLain’s installation. These are the writer’s descriptions and interpretations.
Is there evidence that the artists intended a shared theme?
The feature provides no evidence of a shared plan or program among the artists and exhibition organizers. It draws the connection from the writer’s response to the selected works.
Source: hyperallergic.com
