I'm not pissing in Chicago Party Aunt's Cheerios

I'm just saying it doesn't represent our city. [READER]( Every week I'm faced with the same dilemma: Of all the wonderful albums, mixtapes, EPs, 12-inch singles, and tossed-off YouTube drops that come out of the city at this very moment, which handful should I focus on? For every article I write, there are at least five I would've liked to have published if I didn't have to worry about little things like eating, exercising, and sleeping at least a few hours every night. So why, then, did I spend what limited time I have reviewing Netflix's awful [Chicago Party Aunt]( Every so often I witness a cultural phenomenon tied to this city that's so aggressively stupid I'm driven to probe my feelings in writing. This is one of the parts I relish about writing the rare negative review; I get the space to figure out why I'm bothered by a new piece of art, and yes, an animated show qualifies as "art" no matter how dreadful it may be. The role of criticism isn't simply about saying whether or not a song, a TV show, or a painting is good or bad. It's about grappling with what that creative project says about the way we live now, how the product functions as an extension of the machinery that produced it, and how we as a community receive it. Art isn't made in a vacuum. Chicago Party Aunt is a great example of that: The show grew out of a Twitter account incubated by every Chicagoan who interacted with its vulgar tweets about local clichés. Hell, the people who voted in the latest Reader "Best of Chicago" poll named "ChiPartyAunt" the ["Best Chicagoan to follow on Twitter,"]( despite the fact that its creator lives in Los Angeles. The moment the Netflix show got announced, I knew it would be inescapable here . . . at least till the newest batch of Netflix programs dropped a week later. And I wanted to know if the show is good enough to carry this city's name. (Reader: It is not.) I knew other people would not share my feelings—I encounter pushback when I praise musicians. (I receive the occasional racist message whenever I write about a rapper.) And I should've realized that I'd encounter people who don't understand the purpose of criticism, but I was still taken aback by people who questioned the purpose of writing about something I didn't like. [One tweet in particular stuck out]( "What ever happened to congratulating someone on well earned success? Is it really that much more satisfying for you to piss in their Cheerios?" That is not the point of criticism. I'm not here to give participation trophies to white men who get Netflix shows. I write for the people of Chicago. If a popular phenomenon that gleans from this city and its citizens is not up to snuff, I will do my best to explain to residents and readers why. If I was a food critic, and my job was to review a trendy, high-end restaurant that gave me food poisoning, I wouldn't praise the establishment for opening its doors on time, I would tell readers there's a high probability they can get sick. I'm not pissing in the creator's Cheerios, I'm warning the public the cereal they're being served is made of dog excrement. One of my favorite professors at Brandeis, Mark Feeney, taught me that arts criticism is similar to consumer reporting; we're telling the public, implicitly or explicitly, what is worthy of their money and time. (The semester I took Feeney's arts journalism class, he won the Pulitzer for criticism. I missed the class immediately following his win—I got his blessing to play hooky since I was organizing a talk by Ian MacKaye and the only available date coincided with Feeney's class. But that's a story for another time!) The money factor has changed since $8.99 a month can get you access to an easy-to-access digital library of movies and TV shows. The time issue is more critical in an era where streaming has transformed our understanding of what music and entertainment is available to us. The options are allegedly limitless, but, again, we all need to sleep. It's my job to sift through the morass of digital "content" to find the art that communicates something irreplaceable, enigmatic, and moving—and tell readers why it matters. And it's just as important to unpack the failures of an undeniably popular TV show or music festival when it wields power in our community. And, yes, even a low-grade Netflix cartoon fits that bill. Sincerely, ["Don Zientara sounds ready for life after Inner Ear,"]( by Chris Richards (Washington Post) ["All of It Matters,"]( by Sam Sanders (Columbia Journalism Review) ["R. Kelly is Found Guilty on All Counts, Twenty-Five Years Too Late,"]( by Jim DeRogatis (New Yorker) I'm letting unseen forces take the wheel, [Funny Realm]( J Arthur, [1.5]( RXM Reality, [WEWEREFRIENDS]( Josi Green, [30 for 30]( [Spooky season begins with another Bandcamp Friday]( Every month is a good month to buy music instead of streaming it. by [Leor Galil]( [Marcus Atom drops the first album of his catchy, soulful R&B]( Plus: Aurora goregrind group Melting Rot release a terrifyingly bleak new LP, and Allá’s new No Sé Discos label debuts on vinyl with a compilation of essential workers. by [J.R. Nelson]( and [Leor Galil]( [Cimafunk brings his uplifting Afro-Cuban funk fusions to Chicago in advance of El Alimento]( by [Jamie Ludwig]( [M.A.D.D. Rhythms honors the pioneers in Hoofin’ It]( Director Bril Barrett talks about the Chicago artists who inspired the performance by [Irene Hsiao]( [Issue of Sept 16 - Sept 29, 2021 Vol. 50, No. 26]( [Download Issue]( (PDF) 1971 Chicagoans have relied on the Reader for trusted alternative coverage of our city. The Chicago Reader is now a 501c3 nonprofit organization which means our survival is in your hands. In order to continue to be your trusted alternative voice of Chicago, we need your help. If you can donate just $5 today, we can show the world that community funded, independent journalism is the future. [DONATE TODAY!]( [View this e-mail as a web page]( [@chicago_reader]( [/chicagoreader]( [@chicago_reader]( [Chicago Reader on LinkedIn]( [/chicagoreader]( [chicagoreader.com]( [Forward this e-mail to a friend](. Want to change how you receive these e-mails? You can [update your preferences]( or [unsubscribe from this list](. Copyright © 2021 Chicago Reader, All rights reserved. You are receiving this e-mail after having opted in to one or more of our newsletters, memberships, or e-mail lists via our website, Facebook, or at an event. Our mailing address is: Chicago Reader 2930 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 102Chicago, IL 60616 [Add us to your address book](