Tennessee: The History of its Art

Long before Tennessee appeared on any map, the land was rich with ceremonial architecture, visual codes, and material forms that revealed a deeply developed aesthetic world. The civilizations that occupied this region between roughly AD 800 and 1600—most notably the Mississippian culture—left behind not only monumental earthworks but also a visual tradition encoded in clay, stone, and copper. This was an art built not for gallery walls but for sacred space, political order, and spiritual navigation. Its remnants are among the most enduring, yet least publicly understood, components of Tennessee’s artistic history.

Ceramics from the Earth

The most immediately accessible examples of Mississippian artistic production are their ceramics: effigy vessels, water bottles, bowls, jars, and intricately incised or modeled figurines. These were not simple utilitarian objects. Many had clear ceremonial functions, often buried in elite graves or used in rituals tied to fertility, warfare, or astronomical events. What stands out, beyond their technical sophistication, is the sculptural intelligence they carry—human heads with carefully modeled features, dancers with raised limbs, owls and raptors with flared wings.

These ceramic forms were hand-built using the coil technique and then fired in open pits, sometimes polished with river stones to create a sheen. The artists, whose names are lost to history, imbued their work with a symbolic lexicon that continues to intrigue scholars. A water bottle shaped like a kneeling man with a conch-shell necklace is not merely decorative—it is thought to evoke status, spiritual power, or lineage. Designs scratched or engraved into the clay often depicted serpents, hand-and-eye motifs, and abstracted solar forms, part of what archaeologists have classified as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC).

In sites such as the Toqua village near modern-day Loudon County and the Link Farm site in Middle Tennessee, archaeologists have recovered pieces that rival the best-known Mississippian sites in Cahokia or Moundville. And yet, outside specialist circles, the sophistication of this ceramic work remains relatively obscure—a legacy left largely in the hands of academic researchers, regional museums, and a few dedicated collectors.

The Mound Builders’ Visual Logic

The term “Mound Builders,” once used broadly (and sometimes inaccurately), refers to a variety of prehistoric cultures that constructed large earthworks across the Southeastern United States. In Tennessee, these were primarily the Mississippian peoples, whose mounds were not random heaps of soil but deliberately engineered structures with political, religious, and visual significance.

The visual layout of these mound centers—platform mounds arranged around plazas, sometimes aligned with solstices or cardinal directions—constituted a form of landscape art that combined cosmology with civic order. The largest of these in Tennessee was likely the Shiloh Mounds complex near the modern battlefield park. Though not as monumental as Cahokia’s Monk’s Mound, the site shows clear evidence of tiered urban planning, ritual pathways, and elevated buildings likely reserved for religious or leadership functions.

Their art was not limited to objects—it was spatial, experiential. A visitor (or supplicant) ascending a temple mound would have been passing not just upward through space but into a higher plane of cosmological significance. This architectural symbolism is reinforced by portable objects: shell gorgets incised with images of warriors and birds; copper plates shaped like raptors with human faces; carved stone statues with flattened foreheads and elaborate headdresses.

These visual forms were not mere expressions of beauty. They communicated rank, myth, obligation, and cosmic balance. Much of this meaning is only partially recoverable today. But the surviving artifacts show clear evidence of a visual grammar—a shared understanding of form and reference across vast distances of the Mississippian world.

Three particularly striking examples from Tennessee collections illustrate this:

• A sandstone statue of a kneeling female figure, excavated from the Sellars Mound site, displays both anatomical detail and symbolic abstraction.
• A marine-shell gorget from the Castalian Springs site bears a complex cross-in-circle motif linked to solar ideology and the four directions.
• A greenstone axhead, likely a ceremonial item, is engraved with looping patterns that scholars associate with both river currents and serpent iconography.

Each object suggests a viewer who was not passive but interpretive—someone trained to read the work’s symbolic content in ritual or social contexts.

Archaeology and Interpretation

Modern engagement with Mississippian art in Tennessee has followed a zigzagging path—first through curiosity, then exploitation, and finally toward preservation and research. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, many mound sites were looted by amateur collectors and antiquarians. Some artifacts ended up in European museums; others vanished into private hands, stripped of provenance.

It was only with the rise of systematic archaeology in the mid-20th century—led by institutions such as the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Division of Archaeology—that these works began to be understood within their proper cultural frameworks. Excavations at sites like Obion, Pack, and Chucalissa yielded layered insights into the complexity of Mississippian civic and artistic life.

Yet interpretation has always been shaped by the biases of the interpreter. For decades, terms like “primitive,” “pre-art,” or “non-aesthetic” dogged public presentations of Native American material culture. Displays often stripped the works of their ceremonial contexts, reducing them to exotic curiosities or ethnographic specimens. Only in more recent decades have museums and researchers begun presenting this material as serious, intentional, and aesthetically ambitious visual production.

This shift is visible in exhibitions like Ancestors: Ancient Native American Sculptures of Tennessee, mounted by the Tennessee State Museum in partnership with contemporary Cherokee and Chickasaw consultants. While still relatively rare, such efforts signal a growing seriousness in acknowledging Mississippian creators as artists—not merely as anonymous artisans or cultural relics.

Still, many of the state’s most important artifacts remain under glass with minimal interpretation. Outside academic archaeology or specialist interest, the visual world of prehistoric Tennessee is treated as a preamble rather than an integral part of art history. This oversight flattens the record and disconnects present-day Tennesseans from the earliest and most ambitious visual systems ever constructed on their land.

The Mississippian legacy is not just buried—it’s waiting to be seen in its full scale: as both artifact and artwork, design and doctrine, abstraction and belief. The next section will explore how this complex legacy was overwritten, repurposed, or ignored by early European settlers—and how visual culture adapted to the upheaval of conquest and colonization.

Drawing the Borderlands: Art in a Contested Landscape

When European settlers pushed into what is now Tennessee in the 18th and early 19th centuries, they entered a land already marked by deep histories—some visible, some erased, and many still fiercely defended. The region was not a blank page but a layered territory claimed, mapped, and narrated by a range of voices: Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, colonial powers, and an expanding American republic. As such, the earliest artistic representations of Tennessee were not born from tranquil observation or cultural admiration. They were forged in tension, shaped by commercial motives, military campaigns, missionary zeal, and settler ideology. Visual culture—drawings, engravings, early paintings, and even maps—served not just to document the land but to claim it, morally and politically, through image.

Surveyors, Traders, and Settlers

The first visual accounts of Tennessee from European perspectives came not from trained artists but from surveyors, traders, and missionaries. These were utilitarian images: sketched quickly in notebooks, embedded in travel journals, or repurposed in printed form for an audience back in London, Paris, or Boston. Yet even these images carried symbolic weight. Drawings of “Indian towns” nestled among wooded hills, often complete with labeled structures such as “council house” or “stockade,” simultaneously acknowledged Native presence and implied its transience.

Surveyors like Henry Timberlake, whose 1765 map and accompanying memoir documented his visit to Overhill Cherokee towns, combined cartographic accuracy with aesthetic sensibility. His work includes panoramic drawings of Tellico and Chota, complete with labeled longhouses and paths. While ostensibly factual, these drawings were shaped by a colonial gaze—they flattened cultural complexity into digestible form and often exaggerated the openness of the landscape, suggesting space ready for European resettlement.

Engravers who never stepped foot in the region often reworked these field sketches into printed illustrations. Some appeared in natural history books or promotional tracts for land companies. A drawing of a Cherokee ball game or council meeting, for instance, might be recast with more Greco-Roman proportions, draping “noble savages” in classical postures to fit Enlightenment tastes. These images were both documentary and propagandistic—tools that subtly encouraged colonial expansion while purporting to observe native customs with detached curiosity.

Yet amid these distortions, there are flashes of insight. The inclusion of specific building types, ceremonial regalia, or body ornamentation in these images provides invaluable evidence for historians and anthropologists. The drawings are often more revealing than they intended to be—not for what they say about the artist, but for what they preserve about a disappearing world.

Painting the Frontier

By the early 19th century, Tennessee had become a symbol in the national imagination: part Eden, part battleground, and increasingly, a frontier in need of “civilization.” Artists who followed the military, or who arrived with land survey parties or missionary missions, helped craft this image through romanticized landscape painting, engraved scenes of settler life, and visual narratives of cultural encounter.

The prevailing artistic mode was shaped by the aesthetics of the Hudson River School and European Romanticism: swelling hills, dramatic cloudscapes, noble animals, and light breaking through forest canopies. Painters such as George Caleb Bingham—though more associated with Missouri—set the tone for the genre: the American frontier as both sublime and subject to control.

In Tennessee, much of this imagery focused on the western and central portions of the state, where the Cumberland Plateau, Mississippi River, and fertile valleys offered dramatic scenery and rapid population growth. Artists rarely painted the violence that accompanied settlement—the forced displacement of Native communities, the skirmishes and raids, the environmental devastation. Instead, they depicted homesteads tucked into forest clearings, steamboats along quiet rivers, and hunters pausing to admire the land they were steadily enclosing.

One painting attributed to an anonymous itinerant artist around 1820 depicts a log cabin near what is now Knoxville, framed by cornfields and distant mountains. A man with a rifle leans against the porch rail, gazing outward—an image of control and permanence. But beneath the surface lies an unspoken truth: this land had been Cherokee territory less than a generation earlier.

Romanticized images of Cherokee life also became a minor subgenre, especially in the lead-up to and aftermath of forced removal. Scenes of Cherokee women weaving, men hunting with bows, or families around a campfire circulated in both sympathetic and patronizing registers. They often suggested a noble but vanishing race, reinforcing the moral logic of removal by casting it as tragic inevitability. These paintings, however sentimental, contributed to the erasure of Cherokee agency even as they preserved glimpses of their world.

Maps, Myths, and Missionaries

Visual culture on the Tennessee frontier was not limited to painting and drawing. Maps functioned as acts of interpretation—how land was divided, who controlled it, and what lay within it. The earliest maps of the region, including those produced by British colonial authorities and American surveyors, often imposed arbitrary borders on complex native territories. Rivers were renamed. Villages were marked or omitted. Sacred sites became coordinates.

Yet these maps also betray a certain anxiety. Blank spaces, dotted lines, and notations like “unexplored” or “inhabited by hostile Indians” reveal the limitations of knowledge and the contested nature of control. Cartography was as much aspiration as observation.

Missionary publications added another layer. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, for example, printed pamphlets and illustrations aimed at supporters in the Northeast. These works portrayed Cherokee children in classrooms, reading from primers or reciting scripture, often accompanied by brief testimonials. The drawings, usually woodcuts or lithographs, were highly stylized and moralizing. The message was clear: progress was underway, but only under the guidance of Christian instruction.

An especially revealing series of prints from the 1830s shows mission stations such as Brainerd and Candy’s Creek, near present-day Chattanooga. The schools are rendered as orderly, modest structures surrounded by trees, with smoke rising gently from chimneys. Students are often pictured in disciplined lines or engaged in agricultural labor. These are not neutral scenes—they are visual arguments for the superiority of European-American culture, designed to justify assimilation efforts.

But even within this ideological framework, small details complicate the story. A child gazes toward the hills. A woman holds a traditional basket. These fragments suggest continuity and resistance—visual footnotes to an official narrative that claimed total transformation.

—

The visual history of early Tennessee is not one of grand masterpieces or famous names. It is a story of images made in motion, under pressure, amid uncertainty. They were tools as much as art: instruments of persuasion, evidence of ambition, and markers of possession. In their distortions, they reveal the ideological currents of the time. In their details, they preserve moments otherwise lost.

In the next section, we’ll shift the focus to those who were displaced from this borderland: the Cherokee people, whose art and memory adapted to forced removal but never disappeared. Their aesthetics, shaped before and after exile, form one of the most resilient and complex visual traditions in Tennessee’s history.

Cherokee Art Before and After Removal

To speak of Cherokee art in Tennessee is to speak of survival—not only of a people but of a visual language that has persisted through exile, adaptation, and return. The forced removal of the Cherokee in the 1830s, culminating in the Trail of Tears, did not extinguish their culture. It fractured it. What followed was not an erasure of art but a dispersal. Across generations, the Cherokee retained and reformed their aesthetic practices, often quietly, sometimes defiantly. In Tennessee—particularly in the mountainous east, where the Eastern Band resisted removal or later returned—those traditions endured in baskets, beads, carvings, and, in more recent years, powerful contemporary works that speak directly to memory, grief, and endurance.

Woven Traditions

Among the oldest and most persistent forms of Cherokee art is basketry. In pre-removal Tennessee, Cherokee weavers used river cane, white oak, and honeysuckle to produce baskets of remarkable complexity—both in construction and in design. Double-weave baskets, which are as structurally sophisticated as anything in global textile traditions, feature two distinct surfaces: an outer pattern and an inner, often contrasting one. These were not decorative novelties. They were tools for gathering, storing, and sorting—functional objects embedded with social meaning.

Patterns varied by region and family, passed down orally and through observation. Designs often referenced the natural world: mountain ranges, snake skins, river currents. Some were abstract, others figurative, but nearly all carried embedded knowledge. A certain tightness of weave, or a particular dyeing technique using black walnut or bloodroot, signaled the weaver’s lineage and expertise.

Despite removal and assimilation efforts, basketmaking never entirely disappeared. In fact, among the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in the Qualla Boundary—just over the Tennessee line in western North Carolina—basketry became a symbol of cultural continuity. In the early 20th century, Cherokee women such as Lottie Stamper and Eva Wolfe not only preserved these traditions but brought them to new audiences through demonstrations, exhibitions, and teaching. Many learned their craft in childhood from mothers and grandmothers who had survived removal or who grew up in its aftermath.

The Tennessee side of this story centers in places like Monroe and Polk counties, where remnants of Overhill Cherokee villages once stood. Even after removal, families who had evaded or returned from exile continued weaving quietly in mountain communities. Their work was rarely sold or displayed in galleries. It was made for use—durable, rhythmic, and culturally dense.

Portraits of Absence

By the late 20th century, Cherokee artists began confronting the trauma of removal more directly—not just through craft but through painting, sculpture, and mixed media. These newer forms engage with the historical rupture, asking how memory can be visualized when the land itself holds both origin and loss.

One striking example is the work of Shan Goshorn (1957–2018), an artist of Eastern Band descent whose contemporary basketry used photographic prints woven into traditional forms. In one piece, titled Sealed Fate, Goshorn wove together facsimiles of the 1835 Treaty of New Echota—the fraudulent document that led to Cherokee removal—with images of Cherokee faces and hands. The basket is both object and archive, holding the painful memory of political betrayal inside a vessel that would once have held grain or medicine.

Other artists have worked in more figurative modes. America Meredith, a painter and curator of Cherokee and Swedish descent, often juxtaposes historical references with pop imagery, reframing traditional Cherokee subjects through a contemporary lens. Her paintings layer ancestral symbols with modern signage or commercial color schemes, challenging static conceptions of “Native art” as frozen in time.

Still others return to the landscape itself. Jeffrey Gibson, whose heritage includes Mississippi Choctaw and Cherokee roots, has explored themes of displacement and survival using found materials, beadwork, and neon typography. His works often evoke absence—not just personal or familial loss, but the broader disappearance of native presence from public space.

In Tennessee, these artistic responses carry particular poignancy. The land still holds the memory of Cherokee villages, ball fields, sacred sites. But their visibility depends on effort—on re-inscribing the landscape with the stories that were nearly buried.

A small number of public markers and museum exhibits have begun to acknowledge this legacy, but the artistic engagement runs deeper. It is personal, mobile, and often outside institutional walls. The absence in the historical record is answered by presence in the work.

Revival and Return

While the main body of the Cherokee Nation relocated to what is now Oklahoma, a group of families who remained in the mountains—by evasion, legal resistance, or post-removal return—formed the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Their continued presence in and near Tennessee has shaped the region’s art in ways both subtle and overt.

Today, artists from the Eastern Band engage in a range of practices—from traditional carving and weaving to digital media and installation. What unites much of their work is a rootedness in place, a connection not just to cultural symbols but to specific rivers, ridgelines, and towns. For many, creating art in or about Tennessee is an act of reclamation—not rhetorical, but literal. It reasserts a presence long denied in official narratives.

Amanda Crowe (1928–2004), a sculptor and teacher born in North Carolina but whose impact extended into Tennessee, revived woodcarving traditions among younger Cherokee artists. Her animal forms, precise and stylized, reflected a modernist sensibility grounded in ancient design. She taught generations of students who would go on to shape a distinct regional style—one that honored older motifs while opening space for new experimentation.

In recent years, Cherokee art has gained broader recognition, both regionally and nationally. Exhibitions such as Return from Exile, a traveling show featuring contemporary Southeastern native artists, have brought Cherokee perspectives back into public view—often in states, like Tennessee, that had once treated them as vanished.

This revival is not nostalgic. It is ongoing and often forward-looking. Artists are not simply reconstructing what was lost; they are continuing what was never entirely broken. In Tennessee, where the visual history of removal remains faintly marked, this quiet resurgence of Cherokee art speaks volumes. It insists on presence—not as a claim to victimhood, but as a fact of cultural continuity.

—

In the next section, we will turn to another rupture in Tennessee’s visual history: the American Civil War. A time of violent upheaval and deep division, it produced its own kind of image-making—from battlefield sketches and national allegories to monuments and counter-memories that still shape the state’s visual landscape today.

Civil War and the Southern Image Machine

No period in Tennessee’s visual history is more densely layered with conflict, contradiction, and selective memory than the Civil War. As a battleground state split between Union and Confederate loyalties, Tennessee was both a physical and symbolic frontier. Artists, soldiers, and politicians used images to fight on multiple fronts: documenting chaos, glorifying ideology, mourning loss, and shaping the postwar mythologies that continue to cloud public understanding. What remains today is not a coherent visual narrative but a field of contested representations—some raw and immediate, others highly constructed. At their center stands the problem of memory: who it serves, how it’s maintained, and what art reveals when the rhetoric fades.

War Artists and Battlefield Sketches

Before photographs could be taken in combat, drawing was the primary means of capturing the violence and confusion of war. Artists embedded with regiments—often working for illustrated newspapers like Harper’s Weekly or Frank Leslie’s Illustrated—traveled with Union and Confederate forces across Tennessee’s rolling fields and river crossings. Their sketches, made in haste under fire or in the lull between campaigns, offer some of the most visceral visual records of the war.

The Battle of Shiloh, fought in April 1862 near Pittsburg Landing, generated a flurry of such images. Alfred Waud, one of the best-known war correspondents in the field, produced multiple drawings of advancing columns, massed artillery, and hastily constructed field hospitals. His scenes, later turned into engravings for northern readers, conveyed the horror and scale of battle without sentimentalizing it. Figures collapse, horses rear, smoke fills the horizon—there is urgency, not grandeur.

Other sketches from battles like Stones River and Chattanooga strike a different tone. Here, composition becomes more deliberate, with silhouetted soldiers and sweeping horizons. These drawings move toward allegory, even as they begin with observed detail. A sketch of Confederate pickets along Missionary Ridge, for example, evokes loneliness more than strategy. The men are isolated, heads bowed, framed by bare trees and distant hills.

Because these works were often reinterpreted in the engraving process—modified for legibility or audience taste—they reflect a double authorship: the field artist’s firsthand observation and the editorial shaping of the urban engraver. The result is a strange duality: documents that are both intimate and theatrical, factual and framed.

One might expect more examples from Southern artists working in Tennessee. But the Confederacy had fewer resources to support visual documentation, and much of what exists survives in the form of amateur drawings, letters with marginalia, or postwar reconstructions. The Union perspective, therefore, dominates the surviving wartime imagery—even in areas that leaned Confederate.

The Lost Cause in Oil and Stone

In the decades following the war, visual culture in Tennessee began to shift. The urgency of sketching gave way to the slowness of mythmaking. A new visual order emerged, shaped by a need to explain, mourn, or justify the war’s legacy. At the center of this process was the Lost Cause—a loosely constructed ideology that sought to frame the Confederacy as noble, its defeat tragic, and its leaders virtuous.

Monuments played a key role in this re-narration. Across Tennessee, particularly in county seats and former battle sites, sculpted memorials sprang up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These were not spontaneous expressions of grief; they were organized campaigns, often funded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy or similar groups, designed to fix a version of the past in stone.

One of the most prominent examples is the Confederate monument in Franklin, erected in 1899. The figure—a bearded soldier standing at rest—was part of a popular mold used across the South. These monuments standardized heroism, suggesting quiet nobility and unwavering loyalty. Rarely did they reference the causes of the war, the reality of slavery, or the devastation it brought. They functioned as civic symbols, not historical inquiry.

Painting followed similar currents. In oil portraits and battle scenes commissioned for statehouses or private collections, Confederate generals were rendered with dignity and gravitas: Braxton Bragg, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and others. These works often imitated European military portraiture, with gilded frames and martial poses. Missing were the scenes of death, the starving prisoners, the refugees.

There was also art made in mourning. Women painted flowers on the graves of the fallen. Needlework commemorated sons and husbands. Some artists created allegorical works depicting Columbia weeping over the ruins of a Southern city. But these grief-stricken images often coexisted with, and were eventually displaced by, more triumphant renderings of Southern sacrifice.

This process was not unique to Tennessee, but it had a distinctive flavor here because of the state’s divided loyalties. In East Tennessee, where Union sentiment had been stronger, the Lost Cause never took full root. Public memory in this region remained more ambivalent, and its visual culture less monumental.

Black Artists and Emancipation

The war also marked the first appearance of Black artistic agency in Tennessee’s visual record—not yet in galleries or academies, but in murals, church decoration, and symbolic craft. These works emerged slowly, shaped by faith, resilience, and a new public identity.

One of the most striking yet underdocumented examples is the tradition of painted church walls in post-emancipation Black congregations. In rural Middle and West Tennessee, formerly enslaved people built and decorated their own sanctuaries, often with limited materials. Murals depicted Moses leading the Israelites, Jesus walking with children, or abstract representations of divine light. The imagery was both scriptural and autobiographical. These were places where art was not separate from worship or community but inseparable from it.

In rare cases, African American veterans painted their own wartime experiences. A Union soldier named David Bustill Bowser, though based in Philadelphia, was commissioned to create regimental flags for Black units, including ones that passed through Tennessee. While not a Tennessean himself, his influence shaped how Black military service was visualized—and remembered—in the South.

Print culture also began to circulate in freed communities. Lithographs of Frederick Douglass or spiritual scenes appeared in homes and churches. These images, often modest in production, functioned as cultural anchors. They offered a visual counter-narrative to the rising tide of Confederate nostalgia.

But barriers remained. Black artists in Tennessee, even those with talent and ambition, faced exclusion from art schools, galleries, and state institutions. Their work, when it survived, often did so anonymously or through oral history. The formal acknowledgment of Black artistic contributions to Civil War memory would take more than a century to emerge.

—

By the end of the 19th century, Tennessee’s visual memory of the Civil War had hardened into public forms: statues in town squares, paintings in courthouses, textbooks with engravings. These images often told only one story—ordered, sanitized, heroic. But beneath them, other visual histories persisted: sketched in the margins, painted on church walls, or passed hand to hand.

The next section will explore how, in the early 20th century, Tennessee’s visual culture began to pivot again—not in museums, but in storefronts, music halls, and print shops. It was in Memphis, especially, that art entered commercial life and mass media, creating an entirely new kind of aesthetic visibility.

Making It in Memphis: Music, Advertising, and Commercial Aesthetics

In the early and mid-20th century, Memphis became one of the most influential cultural production centers in the American South—not through traditional fine art institutions, but through music, advertising, signage, and commercial design. Art here was made for movement: for record sleeves, neon marquees, juke joints, and magazine spreads. Unlike the slower academic or commemorative traditions rooted in Nashville or Knoxville, Memphis visual culture thrived on rhythm, improvisation, and mass appeal. It was a city where the visual and the sonic collided, and where artists—many of them anonymous—shaped how the South saw and sold itself.

From Beale Street to Billboard

The visual language of Memphis begins, in many ways, on Beale Street. By the 1920s, this downtown corridor had become a dense strip of bars, clubs, music shops, and theaters—a scene thick with hand-painted signs, printed fliers, and painted windows that reflected the evolving aesthetics of blues and early jazz culture. Many of the signs were produced by African American painters working in small studios or independently, using enamel and glass, repurposed wood, or salvaged metal. Few of their names are recorded, but their style shaped the city’s public face.

These signs did more than advertise—they encoded a sensibility. Bold color choices, exaggerated letterforms, stylized figures playing saxophones or pianos: the visual counterpart to the sound coming from the clubs. The art was direct and meant to catch the eye, but it was also a form of assertion. In a segregated city, a Black-owned club with a custom sign was both a business and a statement.

The emergence of radio, and later, regional magazines and music publications, created new venues for commercial art. Illustrators and photographers were hired to promote Memphis musicians—often blending regional identity with modern urban appeal. A cover story on B.B. King in a Memphis trade magazine might include both a portrait and an atmospheric drawing of the venue he played. These images circulated far beyond the city, shaping how Memphis musicians were perceived in Chicago, New York, and overseas.

As blues gave way to rhythm and blues, and then to early rock and roll, this visual vocabulary followed. Letterpress posters for touring acts became common, printed with wood type and hand-tinted for effect. They were stapled to telephone poles, propped up in shop windows, or pasted to club walls—temporary art made to move bodies and sell tickets.

This was not peripheral decoration. It was a key part of the business. Artists in Memphis learned early that visual impact was inseparable from musical success.

Sun Studio and Iconic Imagery

Perhaps no visual brand in Tennessee rivals the reach of Sun Studio. Founded in 1950 by Sam Phillips, Sun was more than a recording studio—it was a crucible of Southern identity, marketed through carefully constructed images of its stars and its sound. When Elvis Presley walked into Sun, he not only launched a musical revolution but became a visual commodity: hair, stance, clothing, and setting all calibrated for myth.

The early promotional photos of Elvis—posed with his guitar against a plain background, or candid shots from performances in small halls—were disseminated with a strategic consistency that shaped the emerging look of rock and roll. These images were often created by local photographers and printed en masse by regional marketing firms. The visual style was raw but confident: slicked hair, high contrast, angular gestures. They conveyed youth, defiance, and immediacy.

Beyond Elvis, Sun Records’ visual identity extended to Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, and Roy Orbison. The record sleeves and concert posters associated with these acts relied heavily on photographic portraiture mixed with graphic typography. There was little abstraction, no experimental layout—just stark clarity, designed for recognition and reproduction.

The “Sun” logo itself—rays bursting from behind a microphone—became one of the most recognizable marks in American music. Created by Memphis designer Jim Phillips (no relation to Sam), it appeared on vinyl labels, promotional materials, and stage banners. It functioned as a seal of origin, linking the music to a physical place and a cultural moment.

What’s often overlooked is how much of this design work came from small, local shops with limited resources. Designers and printers working with cheap ink and uneven paper stock found ways to make things pop. They developed a style of necessity—bold lines, clear hierarchy, fast production—that would later be studied and imitated by graphic designers worldwide.

Album Covers and Poster Art

As Memphis grew into a recording capital, its visual language expanded. Record labels like Stax, Hi Records, and later Ardent brought new faces, new sounds, and new demands for visual innovation. The album cover became a key site of creative expression—and competition.

At Stax, which specialized in soul and gospel, art direction was often shaped by the need to appeal across racial and regional lines. Designers had to strike a balance: honoring the roots of the music while positioning it for national markets. Early Stax covers leaned heavily on photography, often featuring full-body portraits of artists like Otis Redding, Isaac Hayes, or Booker T. & the MG’s. These images were sometimes shot in Memphis, using local studios or even outdoor locations that would resonate with Southern viewers.

One of the most famous visual artifacts from this era is the cover of Isaac Hayes’ Black Moses (1971), designed as a fold-out triptych in the shape of a cross. The image—Hayes in flowing robes, arms outstretched—was conceived in Memphis and produced locally, but it carried the visual ambition of a major label. It marked a shift in how Southern Black artists could be visually presented: not as entertainers, but as icons.

Memphis poster art also evolved in this period. Designers began incorporating psychedelic color schemes, photographic collage, and abstract patterning. While this was partly influenced by trends on the West Coast, Memphis artists gave it their own flavor—rooted in soul, gospel, and regional pride. Posters for shows at the Mid-South Coliseum or Overton Park Shell often mixed Day-Glo colors with Memphis-specific references: riverboats, cotton bales, neon signs.

By the 1980s and 1990s, Memphis had become a touchstone in design history. Graphic artists, both inside and outside the city, looked back to its mid-century forms for inspiration. Reissues of blues albums preserved the look of original pressings. Vintage concert posters were collected, studied, and framed as art objects in their own right.

—

In Memphis, the distinction between high and low art never made much sense. The city’s most influential visual work came from printers, photographers, and sign painters—people trained not in academies but on the job, in fast-moving, competitive environments. Their work shaped how Tennessee was seen nationally, and how the South saw itself. It was vibrant, unapologetic, and designed for impact.

The next section turns to a different kind of aesthetic community: the craft-based utopias and modernist enclaves that emerged in East Tennessee’s mountains. Far from Memphis’s commercial noise, these places cultivated a quieter, more deliberate visual world—one that blended regional craft with modernist ideals.

Mountain Modernism: The Arts and Crafts Ideals of East Tennessee

While Memphis thrived on sound, spectacle, and speed, the mountains of East Tennessee gave rise to an entirely different artistic vision—one rooted in slowness, craft, and the disciplined pursuit of beauty through labor. From the early 20th century onward, a network of schools, workshops, and artist colonies developed in this region, combining the principles of the Arts and Crafts movement with Appalachian materials and sensibilities. The result was a distinct strain of Southern modernism—pragmatic, tactile, and quietly radical. It didn’t seek fame or recognition in distant cities. It aimed to refine the relationship between hand and material, artist and place.

Arrowmont and the Legacy of Craft Education

At the heart of this movement stands Arrowmont School of Arts and Crafts in Gatlinburg. Its origins are modest and specific: in 1912, the Pi Beta Phi women’s fraternity established a settlement school in the Smoky Mountains with the goal of improving rural education. But what began as a philanthropic experiment quickly evolved into one of the most important craft institutions in the United States.

Early on, the school recognized that many of the local residents already possessed extraordinary manual skills. Women in the surrounding communities wove textiles, made quilts, and carved utensils with an aesthetic precision born from necessity. Rather than replace these traditions, the school began to formalize and promote them, offering instruction in design, introducing new tools, and eventually inviting visiting artists from around the country.

By the mid-20th century, Arrowmont had grown into a serious center for studio craft. Its summer workshops attracted nationally recognized figures in ceramics, woodturning, fiber art, and metalwork. Unlike the industrial education models of other vocational programs, Arrowmont emphasized artistic development and creative risk. It became a meeting point between regional tradition and international experimentation.

The setting mattered. Artists working in Gatlinburg were surrounded by dense forests, fast rivers, and isolated ridgelines. This proximity to raw material—clay, hardwood, dye plants—shaped the sensibility of the work. There was a focus on form and texture, an attention to natural variation, a resistance to mechanization. It was modernism without abstraction: grounded, earthy, and unhurried.

Arrowmont’s influence spread far beyond Tennessee. Alumni went on to found programs at universities and art centers across the country. Yet the school remained resolutely tied to its Appalachian setting, insisting that regional craft was not a curiosity but a legitimate site of artistic inquiry.

Berea to Gatlinburg

The ideals that shaped Arrowmont did not arise in isolation. They were part of a larger network of progressive, often utopian communities stretching across the Southern Appalachians. One of the most significant was Berea College in nearby Kentucky, which had embraced a similar integration of liberal arts education and craft instruction since the late 19th century.

Berea’s model—combining academic study with labor, and placing equal value on manual and intellectual work—influenced many of the educators who later passed through or partnered with East Tennessee programs. These educators brought with them ideas drawn from John Ruskin, William Morris, and the broader Arts and Crafts movement: that good design was a moral act, that beauty should be accessible, and that art and work were inseparable.

In East Tennessee, these ideals found fertile ground. Remote yet connected by train and road to Knoxville and Asheville, the mountain towns became havens for artists seeking simplicity and focus. The Craftsman ethos was reinforced by the landscape itself: steep hills that required adaptive building, self-sufficiency that demanded skill, and weather that rewarded preparation over excess.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the New Deal further energized the region’s craft movement. Programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps brought attention, infrastructure, and federal resources. Craft cooperatives were formed. Mountain workshops received commissions for furniture, textiles, and architectural elements in public buildings.

At the same time, tourists arriving in growing numbers to visit Great Smoky Mountains National Park began purchasing handmade goods, fueling a small but steady craft economy. This demand encouraged local artisans to refine their output, blending traditional motifs with contemporary techniques. The result was a style that managed to be both regionally distinct and commercially viable.

What united these movements was not nostalgia but a belief in continuity—that old forms could generate new meaning, and that manual skill could survive modernity.

Modernism in Wood and Clay

By the mid-20th century, East Tennessee had become a magnet for a particular kind of artist: someone committed to material, uninterested in trends, and willing to live and work outside major cities. These artists helped shape a regional modernism that rejected both academic formalism and romantic folklore. Their work was modern not because it imitated Bauhaus geometry or New York abstraction, but because it redefined the relationship between material, maker, and form.

Ceramics became one of the dominant media. Artists like Charles Counts—who trained at the University of Tennessee and later studied in California—returned to the South to set up studios in mountain towns. His work, combining thrown forms with sgraffito decoration, reflected both Appalachian design and mid-century innovation. Other potters, influenced by Japanese techniques or Scandinavian simplicity, developed new glazes and firing methods adapted to local kilns.

Woodworking also flourished. In studios around Sevier and Blount counties, artisans turned native hardwoods into bowls, spoons, furniture, and sculpture. Unlike the ornate furniture of the urban South, this work emphasized grain, joinery, and proportion. It was closer to Shaker than Chippendale: austere, tactile, and deeply satisfying to handle.

One of the defining characteristics of East Tennessee modernism was its refusal to separate utility from art. A woven chair seat, a carved spoon, a fired teapot—these were not sketches for larger ideas. They were the ideas. The form itself was the message, shaped not to impress a critic but to hold a body, pour a drink, warm a hand.

In many ways, this made the work resistant to standard art-world narratives. It was not easily commodified, not aimed at gallery display. For decades, these artists operated outside mainstream visibility. Yet their influence grew—not through hype, but through use. Their work entered homes, schools, churches, and public buildings. It shaped the texture of daily life.

—

East Tennessee’s contribution to the state’s visual history is not loud, but it is foundational. In studios tucked between coves and ridgelines, artists forged a way of working that remains among the most enduring in American craft. Their legacy continues not only in the institutions they founded, but in the hands of artists still shaping wood, clay, and fiber in quiet dialogue with the land.

Next, we turn to a different legacy shaped under far more constrained conditions: the story of Black artists working in a segregated Tennessee, building communities and making work despite deep institutional exclusion.

Black Artists and Limited Access

Throughout the 20th century, Tennessee’s Black artists worked under conditions of systemic exclusion. Barred from many galleries, denied access to most formal art institutions, and often ignored by the state’s dominant cultural narrative, they nonetheless cultivated vital, durable artistic communities. Their work emerged in church halls, schools, barbershops, community centers, and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)—spaces where expression was both protected and encouraged. Rather than wait for formal validation, these artists taught, built, improvised, and made art that spoke to the daily experiences of Black Tennesseans. Their contribution to the state’s visual culture is inseparable from the structures that tried to constrain it—and from the networks they created to transcend those limits.

Finding Space

In the Jim Crow South, formal venues for exhibiting and studying art were largely closed to Black Tennesseans. White-controlled art schools, museums, and galleries often admitted Black artists only as janitors or subjects, not as students or peers. In response, Black artists built parallel institutions or repurposed existing community structures into creative space. Churches became studios. Living rooms became galleries. Print shops and barbershops hung work on the walls, sparking conversation and recognition on a hyperlocal level.

West Tennessee, and Memphis in particular, saw the emergence of several artist collectives and informal circles in the early to mid-20th century. These included teachers, illustrators, self-taught painters, and craftswomen whose primary audiences were their neighborhoods. Some taught weekend drawing classes at community centers or used WPA art programs—when available—as entry points into materials and training. In many cases, artistic production was not a declared profession but folded into other kinds of labor. A sign painter by day might create portraits at night; a seamstress might develop elaborate appliqué patterns that were both textile art and family record.

Tennessee’s segregated public schools, despite limited resources, played an unexpected role in nurturing young Black artists. Art teachers, often trained at HBCUs, introduced students to color theory, form, and art history using repurposed materials or personal collections. Bulletin boards became exhibition sites. Student contests were organized independently of statewide competitions, which usually excluded Black entries.

Yet, for all its constraints, this world was not marginal in spirit. It fostered a sense of creative legitimacy that was rooted in everyday life rather than elite sanction. These artists were not waiting to be discovered. They were already working, already visible—just not to the institutions that wrote official histories.

Fisk and the Harlem Connection

The most significant hub of Black artistic life in Tennessee during the 20th century was Fisk University in Nashville. Founded in 1866, Fisk was one of the few institutions in the South where Black artists could study, teach, and exhibit within a serious academic setting. Its art department, especially under the leadership of figures like Aaron Douglas and James A. Porter, became a national focal point for the development of Black visual culture.

Aaron Douglas—often called the “father of African American art”—joined the Fisk faculty in 1939. A key figure in the Harlem Renaissance, Douglas brought with him a modernist visual language shaped by Cubism, Egyptian design, and African motif. His murals for Fisk’s Cravath Hall, painted in 1930 and restored in recent years, stand as one of the great public works of 20th-century American art. Abstract yet legible, rhythmic and architectural, the panels trace the journey of African-descended peoples from bondage through emancipation and into the future. They do so not with blunt didacticism but with a refined formal intelligence that still resonates today.

Douglas didn’t simply create art at Fisk—he trained students, curated exhibitions, and cultivated a campus culture that took art seriously as a tool of education, liberation, and self-definition. Under his tenure, the university also built its permanent collection, acquiring work by artists such as Romare Bearden, Elizabeth Catlett, and Hale Woodruff. These were not decorative gestures; they were strategic acts of cultural preservation.

James A. Porter, who taught briefly at Fisk and later at Howard University, was equally instrumental in defining Black art history as a legitimate scholarly field. His writings and lectures framed African American art not as a derivative tradition but as a complex, evolving discourse in its own right.

Fisk’s impact extended beyond Tennessee. Graduates went on to teach, exhibit, and organize in cities across the country. But its influence on the local scene was profound: it gave generations of Black Tennesseans a visible model of what art could look like when made, taught, and presented on their own terms.

Murals and Memory

While formal training and gallery exhibitions remained rare, public art became an important outlet for Black artists in Tennessee—particularly through government-sponsored programs during the New Deal and later through church and community projects.

During the 1930s, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) occasionally commissioned Black artists for murals, although such opportunities were inconsistent and heavily mediated. In Tennessee, most WPA murals appeared in post offices and civic buildings that served white audiences. Still, a few projects, such as community center murals in Memphis or murals inside Black schools, allowed artists to create visual narratives that reflected their communities’ histories and aspirations.

These works were rarely grandiose. They depicted farmers, schoolchildren, families at worship, laborers at rest. Their subjects were ordinary, but their presence on public walls was extraordinary. They claimed visibility in a state that often denied it. In segregated neighborhoods, a mural could function as a civic monument in the absence of official ones.

Churches remained vital spaces for mural work well into the 20th century. In Black Baptist and AME congregations across the state, artists painted biblical scenes infused with local detail: hills that resembled Tennessee’s own, saints who wore contemporary dress. These images were not just devotional—they were expressions of belonging, defiant acts of cultural rooting in the face of displacement.

One painter, Rev. E. K. Bailey of Nashville, combined preaching and painting in his ministry, adorning church walls with imagery that blended scripture and social commentary. Though little known outside his immediate circles, Bailey’s work represents a kind of folk modernism—personal, theologically rich, and grounded in local experience.

—

The history of Black art in Tennessee is not one of exclusion alone. It is a history of persistence, invention, and community. It grew up alongside, rather than beneath, the state’s official institutions. Even when denied formal space, Black artists carved out their own. Their contributions shaped not only Black Tennessee culture but the broader visual landscape of the state—often invisibly, but indelibly.

Next, we’ll turn to a city where this tension between official culture and public creativity is especially sharp: Nashville, with its deep investment in musical fame and its slower embrace of visual art.

Nashville’s Art Institutions and Entertainment Legacy

Few American cities have such a carefully cultivated cultural identity as Nashville. Known globally as “Music City,” it has long celebrated its musical legacy—country, gospel, rock, and beyond—with tireless devotion. But for much of the 20th century, this attention came at the cost of its visual arts. While musicians were exalted, visual artists struggled for recognition, and art institutions developed slowly, often in the shadow of the entertainment industry. Nashville’s artistic history is marked by tension: between spectacle and scholarship, commercial appeal and curatorial ambition, regional pride and institutional exclusion. Its transformation into a serious arts city has been recent, partial, and still deeply shaped by its musical fame.

Art in a Music Town

From the 1920s onward, Nashville’s self-image centered on performance. With the rise of the Grand Ole Opry, WSM radio, and the recording industry, the city became synonymous with sound. Visual culture was recruited in service of this identity—album covers, stage sets, costume design, promotional photography—but rarely allowed to exist as an independent discipline. Art was expected to decorate music, not challenge it.

This dynamic shaped the city’s development. Tourists came for honky-tonks, not galleries. Local newspapers covered Opry lineups more reliably than gallery openings. Artists, if they wanted visibility, often had to work as illustrators or graphic designers within the music industry. There were exceptions—individuals who pursued serious painting or sculpture—but they often found themselves isolated or relegated to educational settings.

What Nashville lacked was infrastructure. Until the late 20th century, it had no major contemporary art museum, no robust public art program, and few collectors interested in regional or experimental work. The Parthenon, rebuilt in concrete in the early 20th century and housing a modest municipal art gallery, remained the most visible art institution for decades. While its neoclassical grandeur held local charm, its programming reflected a cautious, civic-minded approach—safe, traditional, and largely disconnected from contemporary debates.

Yet within the city, smaller pockets of activity persisted. University art departments, independent galleries, and artist-run spaces nurtured local talent under the radar. These communities laid the groundwork for the city’s eventual cultural expansion, even as they operated without institutional support or public fanfare.

The Frist Art Museum

Nashville’s most significant investment in visual art arrived relatively late: the opening of the Frist Center for the Visual Arts (now the Frist Art Museum) in 2001. Housed in a striking Art Deco former post office downtown, the museum represented a turning point. It gave the city a serious exhibition space, capable of hosting major traveling shows and mounting ambitious local programming.

The building itself signaled intent. Its marble floors, geometric flourishes, and vaulted ceilings—preserved from its 1930s origin—provided a sense of grandeur and permanence. This was not a storefront gallery or a repurposed warehouse. It was a civic monument to visual culture.

Yet the Frist arrived with constraints. Unlike most major museums, it operates without a permanent collection. This limits its curatorial reach but frees it to focus on exhibitions—both national and local. In its early years, the museum staged high-profile shows ranging from Italian Renaissance paintings to photography retrospectives and modern design. At the same time, it began showcasing Tennessee artists, giving long-overdue visibility to painters, sculptors, and photographers working in the region.

For many Nashville artists, the Frist offered the first chance to show work in a museum setting within their own city. Its annual or biennial exhibitions of local artists became cultural milestones. They also exposed deeper questions: What counted as “Tennessee art”? Who got invited? Whose stories were missing?

The museum’s approach to these issues has evolved. Early exhibitions sometimes struggled to reconcile local enthusiasm with curatorial rigor. But over time, the Frist has grown more ambitious in framing Southern visual culture as both regional and globally relevant. Shows on Southern abstraction, Black Southern photography, and Latin American modernism have expanded its scope and sharpened its perspective.

Even so, the Frist remains something of an anomaly: a major museum in a city still dominated by music. It exists in delicate balance, praised for its quality but often peripheral to the city’s public identity.

Who Gets Hung

Within Nashville’s expanding art scene, questions of representation remain central. Which artists receive public exposure? Whose work is collected, curated, and celebrated? The answers, as in many American cities, often reflect deeper cultural patterns—race, class, education, and institutional access.

For much of its history, Nashville’s official art spaces were dominated by white artists from academic or professional backgrounds. Black artists, despite the city’s rich African American history, were largely excluded from museum exhibitions, major galleries, and city-funded commissions. Their work circulated instead through churches, schools, community centers, and occasional pop-up exhibitions organized by artist groups or university programs.

This exclusion was not passive; it was structural. Curatorial committees, funding decisions, and gallery networks often functioned through closed systems of referral and reputation. Even as the city grew wealthier and more cosmopolitan, many of these systems remained in place.

In recent years, however, younger curators, artist collectives, and independent galleries have begun to reshape the scene. Projects like Gallery 100 at Tennessee State University, Unrequited Leisure, and Elephant Gallery in North Nashville have foregrounded artists working outside traditional pathways. Exhibitions have increasingly addressed questions of regional identity, historical memory, and the politics of representation—not in a didactic way, but through the specific language of materials, form, and context.

Nashville’s public art program, too, has become more active, commissioning murals, sculptures, and installations across the city. Some of these works—especially murals—have sparked debate. A series of large-scale portraits of Black historical figures in North Nashville, for example, generated both praise and critique: praise for visibility, critique for the tendency to aestheticize struggle without materially supporting the communities represented.

These tensions are productive. They reflect a city wrestling with its cultural self-image. The shift from country music hub to multifaceted arts destination is not smooth or complete. But it is underway, and visual artists are playing an increasing role in shaping how Nashville sees itself.

—

Nashville’s visual culture has always existed—sometimes in the background, sometimes just beneath the surface. What has changed is its visibility. As artists, curators, and institutions assert a broader, deeper vision of what art in the city can be, Nashville is learning to value what it once sidelined. It is still, in many ways, a music town. But the image of that town—who shapes it, who sees it, and whose work is shown—has begun to shift.

Next, we move from city centers to the domestic sphere, where women across Tennessee—working in textiles, photography, and paint—developed their own forms of creative innovation, often far from institutional recognition.

Women’s Work and Creative Invention

Across Tennessee, women have shaped the state’s visual history through labor that often went unrecognized by formal art institutions. In homes, schools, farmsteads, and small studios, they produced quilts, photographs, paintings, sculptures, and textiles—objects of striking formal power and narrative depth, frequently dismissed as “craft” or “domestic work.” Their creativity was tied not to the gallery system, but to the rhythms of family, community, and survival. Whether in East Tennessee hollows or Memphis neighborhoods, these women developed visual languages grounded in precision, repetition, resourcefulness, and subtle rebellion. Their art was often unsigned, rarely exhibited, and almost never taught in art history classrooms. And yet it remains among the most enduring and original produced in the state.

Quilts and Codes

Nowhere is the fusion of utility and aesthetic discipline more evident than in Tennessee’s quilt traditions. Across the state—especially in rural counties—women turned scraps of cloth into vivid geometric compositions, encoding memory, family lineage, and local style into textile form. These quilts were not merely warm coverings; they were systems of order and invention, where pattern served as both structure and improvisation.

Tennessee quilts vary by region. In East Tennessee, log cabin and courthouse steps patterns dominate—forms that reflect the Appalachian sensibility for nested shapes and central balance. Middle Tennessee produced more appliqué work, with stylized flowers and complex medallions. In West Tennessee, especially in Black farming communities, bold contrast and asymmetry defined the visual style, with improvisational techniques that recall jazz phrasing or early blues.

Most quilts were collaborative. Women gathered at quilting bees, church basements, or kitchen tables to piece, stitch, and share stories. Some quiltmakers kept journals of their designs; others worked entirely from memory. Many quilts were made from salvaged clothing—shirts, dresses, uniforms—turning personal history into formal design. Each fabric fragment carried meaning. A patch from a child’s school dress. A strip from a soldier’s jacket. A wedding handkerchief folded into a border.

Despite their formal beauty, these works remained largely outside the art market. They were heirlooms, not commodities. Only in the latter half of the 20th century—spurred by interest in folk art and feminist art history—did collectors and scholars begin to recognize their value. Exhibitions such as African-American Quiltmaking in Tennessee (1990) and the efforts of institutions like the Tennessee State Museum helped bring some of these works to public attention. But many remain anonymous, folded in cedar chests or passed between generations.

The artistry of Tennessee’s quiltmakers lies not only in their hands but in their minds: their ability to transform limited resources into highly structured, emotionally resonant designs. Their work collapses the gap between function and expression—and reminds us that artistic intelligence has never been the sole province of oil paint or bronze.

Doris Ulmann and Her Subjects

In the 1920s and 1930s, a different kind of visual record of Tennessee women emerged—not from within the community, but through the lens of a Northern photographer: Doris Ulmann. Trained in the Pictorialist tradition and associated with the progressive education movement, Ulmann spent years documenting the people of Appalachia, especially craftspeople, musicians, and weavers.

Her photographs, many taken in East Tennessee and western North Carolina, are often striking: soft light, unadorned settings, faces that confront the camera with quiet gravity. She portrayed women at looms, children with fiddle cases, elderly spinners beside hearths. These images, published in books like Roll, Jordan, Roll (1933), reached wide audiences and shaped national perceptions of Appalachian culture.

But Ulmann’s legacy is complex. While she approached her subjects with dignity, her work also framed them within a particular narrative: timeless, isolated, stoic. This framing echoed broader national tendencies to romanticize rural poverty and “authentic” folk life. The women she photographed had names, voices, and agency—but these rarely entered the captions or accompanying texts. The viewer was invited to admire the texture of their lives without necessarily engaging their realities.

Still, Ulmann’s work preserves vital visual evidence. It shows tools in use, gestures at work, interiors arranged not for display but for use. And despite its limitations, her photography provides one of the most comprehensive records of Tennessee women artisans during a period when few others paid attention.

In recent years, scholars and artists have revisited Ulmann’s archive with new questions: Who were these women? What did they think of being photographed? Did they see their labor as art? Some descendants have identified relatives in her images, reclaiming family history from the margins of American photography. In this sense, Ulmann’s work becomes a site of dialogue—a visual archive open to reinterpretation and correction.

Southern Eclecticism

Beyond the quilt frame and the darkroom, a handful of Tennessee women painters in the mid-20th century began producing work that defied easy classification. Their art was personal, figurative, and often rooted in memory—but it resisted the tidy categories of regionalism or modernism. These artists developed what might be called a Southern eclecticism: a style that blended realism and distortion, history and invention, without allegiance to school or trend.

Carroll Cloar, while male, offers an instructive parallel. His dreamlike images of rural life—swimming holes, parades, childhood rituals—exist somewhere between nostalgia and nightmare. Several women artists working in Tennessee during this period took up similar themes, but with a sharper psychological edge.

Among them was Mildred Haun, a writer and occasional painter from Hamblen County, whose visual works—mostly drawings and small paintings—explored the emotional intensity of Appalachian women’s lives. Her figures are often surrounded by animals, household tools, or spectral figures, blurring the boundary between domestic space and inner life.

In Memphis, women like Dorothy Sturm and Veda Reed emerged from university programs and began experimenting with abstract and semi-abstract forms. Sturm, known for her work in both watercolor and enamel, created biomorphic compositions that recall microscopic imagery. Reed painted vibrant Tennessee landscapes that flirted with pure color field painting, yet always returned to the structure of land and light.

These artists were not part of any single movement. They didn’t gather under manifestos or slogans. But their work shares a refusal to limit itself to either personal narrative or formal abstraction. They drew from folk memory, academic training, daily observation, and private vision. In doing so, they created a body of work that remains distinctively Tennessean—rooted but not provincial, emotional but never sentimental.

—

The visual history of Tennessee’s women is not a footnote. It is central to the story. From hand-stitched quilts to visionary paintings, from loom-woven wool to enamel on copper, their contributions reveal a constant negotiation between constraint and freedom, necessity and beauty. Often working outside the spotlight, these women made art that was rigorous, inventive, and quietly radical in its refusal to separate life from form.

Next, we turn to Tennessee’s universities—not just as schools, but as engines of artistic production. Through faculty studios, student workshops, and experimental programs, they created spaces where Tennessee’s visual culture could expand beyond regionalism and into new modes of contemporary practice.

Universities as Engines of the Arts

In Tennessee, where commercial culture and self-taught traditions have long dominated public attention, the role of universities in shaping the state’s visual art scene is both underrecognized and essential. From Knoxville to Nashville, Chattanooga to Johnson City, academic institutions have provided not only technical training and critical frameworks but also the physical infrastructure—studios, presses, galleries, archives—that made serious artistic work possible. Faculty artists taught and produced side by side with their students, often introducing global movements into local soil, or reinterpreting regional materials through modernist vocabularies. These were not cloistered settings; they were laboratories of experimentation, where art could develop at a distance from market pressures and where overlooked traditions were reexamined with scholarly depth.

The UTK School of Art

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) has long been the flagship institution for art education in the state. Its School of Art, formally established in the mid-20th century but with roots going back earlier, has played a crucial role in shaping the visual language of East Tennessee and beyond. From its earliest decades, the program emphasized both technical rigor and conceptual inquiry, encouraging students to move fluidly between disciplines—printmaking, painting, photography, sculpture, and design.

UTK’s printmaking program, in particular, developed a national reputation. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing into the 21st century, the university attracted faculty who approached print as both a traditional craft and a contemporary form. Techniques such as etching, lithography, and screenprinting were taught not just as reproduction methods, but as opportunities for formal exploration and political engagement. Artists like Koichi Yamamoto and Beauvais Lyons brought global influences to the program—Yamamoto with his large-scale intaglio work rooted in Japanese aesthetics, Lyons with his elaborate hoaxes and fictional taxonomies that blended printmaking with satire.

Photography also became a defining strength. The department’s embrace of both analog and digital techniques allowed students to experiment across documentary and conceptual modes. Exhibitions in the university’s Ewing Gallery frequently showcased student and faculty work alongside national and international artists, giving Knoxville a rare window onto broader currents in contemporary art.

What distinguished UTK was not just the strength of its departments, but the seriousness with which it treated art as an intellectual pursuit. Faculty collaborated across disciplines; students engaged in critiques that ranged from material process to political context. The campus became a microcosm of wider debates in art and culture—filtered through the specific textures of Appalachian landscape, post-industrial Knoxville, and Tennessee’s layered histories.

Vanderbilt and the Fugitive Poets

While Vanderbilt University is better known for its literary legacy—especially the Fugitive poets and the Southern Agrarians—its role in the visual arts deserves closer attention. In the mid-20th century, the university developed a modest but intellectually ambitious art department that complemented its broader humanities focus. Art at Vanderbilt was treated not as a decorative appendage, but as a mode of inquiry parallel to philosophy, literature, and history.

Faculty artists often operated in close dialogue with the university’s English department. The influence of figures like Robert Penn Warren and Allen Tate, with their preoccupation with myth, region, and form, extended beyond literature. Students and artists engaged similar questions visually: how to represent the South without caricature? How to reconcile modernist aesthetics with historical consciousness?

In the 1970s and 1980s, Vanderbilt’s Fine Arts Gallery began mounting more adventurous exhibitions. Though constrained by limited space and budget, the gallery brought in works by European modernists, Asian ceramicists, and American conceptual artists—offering students exposure to a global visual vocabulary. It also began collecting regional work, building a modest but serious permanent collection that reflected both academic and local interests.

More recently, the university has expanded its public art initiatives, commissioning sculpture and installations for the campus grounds. These works often bridge disciplines, involving collaborations between artists, architects, and scientists. While Vanderbilt does not define the Nashville art scene, it has long provided a space for sustained, thoughtful engagement with visual culture—especially for students who arrived more interested in philosophy or literature than painting, but who discovered in art a new form of thinking.

Tennessee State and the Teaching Tradition

Tennessee State University (TSU), a historically Black institution founded in 1912, has played a quietly powerful role in the development of Black visual culture in Middle Tennessee. While less publicized than Fisk, TSU has maintained a strong tradition of visual art instruction, with faculty who combined technical excellence with a commitment to community engagement.

The department has historically emphasized painting, drawing, and design, grounded in fundamentals but open to innovation. Faculty members such as Greg Ridley, a renowned metalworker and muralist, brought public art into the curriculum, encouraging students to think beyond the canvas. Ridley’s work—seen in churches, schools, and civic buildings across Nashville—fused African symbolism, Biblical themes, and modernist abstraction. His presence at TSU gave students a model for how art could function outside traditional venues and how to draw from cultural history without being trapped by it.

TSU’s role as an educator’s school also had long-term impact. Many of its graduates went on to teach in public schools across Tennessee, especially in Black communities. Through this generational teaching tradition, the university’s influence rippled far beyond its campus. In classrooms from Memphis to Chattanooga, TSU-trained teachers kept visual art alive for students who might never set foot in a museum.

More recently, the university’s Gallery 100 has become a key venue for exhibiting contemporary work by Black artists. Though small in scale, it serves as one of the few consistent platforms for local and regional Black visual expression. Its exhibitions, often organized by faculty and students, create dialogue across generations and disciplines—linking academic training with lived experience.

—

Tennessee’s universities have never functioned as isolated ivory towers. They have been engines of the arts in the most literal sense—generating ideas, producing work, and sending artists and teachers into every corner of the state. While their influence has often gone underrecognized in broader art historical narratives, their impact on Tennessee’s visual culture is vast. They provided the scaffolding for careers, movements, and regional identities that continue to evolve today.

Next, we move into a realm where institutions have often struggled to categorize: the self-taught, the untrained, the so-called “outsiders”—artists whose work has shaped Tennessee’s place in the national art conversation, yet whose identities often sit uncomfortably within its boundaries.

Outside or Overlooked?: Reconsidering Self-Taught Artists

Tennessee has long occupied a prominent position in the American conversation about “outsider” or self-taught art. The state’s rural landscapes, evangelical culture, and modest material traditions have made it fertile ground for artists working outside formal training—many of whom developed highly individual visual languages that defy easy classification. Their work has been celebrated, collected, and marketed—sometimes with genuine appreciation, often through the simplifying lens of myth. But the very category of “outsider art” carries its own problems: it romanticizes isolation, downplays complexity, and too often reinforces the idea that legitimacy comes only from elsewhere. In Tennessee, the line between “outsider” and “overlooked” has always been blurry.

Thornton Dial and the Southern Canon

Although often associated with Alabama, Thornton Dial‘s work and reception highlight the wider regional dynamics that include Tennessee—especially given the networks of collectors, curators, and institutions that helped shape the outsider art canon from a Southern base. Dial, who worked in scrap metal, house paint, clothing remnants, and industrial detritus, became internationally recognized in the 1990s through the efforts of art historian William Arnett. His large-scale, emotionally charged assemblages dealt with themes of racial violence, American history, labor, and identity.

Tennessee collectors and institutions—most notably the Tennessee State Museum and individual Nashville-based patrons—played a role in the institutionalization of artists like Dial. Exhibitions of his work in Tennessee often served dual purposes: introducing audiences to Southern vernacular forms, and framing these artists within larger art-historical movements, including Abstract Expressionism and Dada.

But even as Dial’s work was elevated, many of his contemporaries remained unknown, their work confined to flea markets, roadside shops, or community fairs. The success of one self-taught artist rarely opened doors for others. Instead, it often reinforced a curatorial appetite for spectacle: the “authentic” visionary, the reclusive genius, the illiterate prophet. These expectations shaped how Southern self-taught artists were photographed, described, and displayed.

Tennessee’s role in this process was complex. It helped amplify certain voices while ignoring others. It built markets and reputations, but often on narratives that served external collectors more than the artists themselves.

Self-Taught or Self-Made?

The language surrounding self-taught art has shifted over the past two decades. Terms like “folk,” “visionary,” and “outsider” have increasingly come under scrutiny—not only for their imprecision, but for the power dynamics they embed. In Tennessee, these tensions are especially sharp, given the number of artists who fall into this ill-defined space: working-class makers who never attended art school, rural artists who developed private mythologies, church painters and graveyard carvers whose work reflects deep spiritual and communal intent.

One such figure is Helen LaFrance, born in Graves County, Kentucky, but with deep ties to Tennessee’s cultural landscape. LaFrance painted vivid scenes of Black rural life in the mid-20th century—church gatherings, river baptisms, cotton picking, family suppers. Her style is narrative, richly colored, and memory-driven. For years, she was labeled a “folk” artist, despite her sophisticated control of composition and form. Only recently has her work begun to be reassessed on its own terms.

The problem is not the work—it is the framework. To call an artist “self-taught” is to define them by what they lack. It privileges academic instruction over apprenticeship, improvisation, or lived experience. It also risks severing artists from the larger cultural forces that shaped them: family, faith, labor, migration.

In Tennessee, this erasure is compounded by geography. Rural artists—particularly in the western and eastern parts of the state—often lack access to curators, critics, or institutions. Their work may circulate locally for years, only to be “discovered” later and recontextualized through someone else’s narrative. This is not a failure of the artist. It is a failure of the system that assigns value.

More useful than the term “outsider” is the question of what kinds of knowledge count as legitimate. Many of Tennessee’s most compelling self-taught artists are, in fact, deeply trained—in traditions passed through families, congregations, or trades. Their work shows visual intelligence, emotional range, and formal consistency. It is not eccentricity; it is practice.

The Problem of Place

Much of the art labeled “outsider” in Tennessee is also framed through place. The isolated homestead, the weathered barn studio, the rural shrine—these settings have become aesthetic tropes, especially in photography and exhibition design. Documentarians often linger on the artist’s environment, emphasizing roughness, poverty, or eccentric decor. In doing so, they convert biography into atmosphere, often at the expense of the work itself.

Consider the case of Rev. Howard Finster, born just across the border in Georgia but widely exhibited in Tennessee. His sprawling compound of painted signs, recycled materials, and apocalyptic prophecies was as much a sculptural environment as a spiritual manifesto. Visitors photographed his house, his garden, his mailbox. Finster became both artist and attraction—his life turned into a living installation.

While Finster embraced this attention, many other artists did not. They wanted their work to be seen, not their poverty aestheticized. Yet curators and collectors continued to favor the “outsider” look: the raw edge, the dirt floor, the painted shack. This preference helped reinforce the idea that Southern rural artists were valuable only when they remained apart from contemporary discourse.

Place, in this schema, becomes less about geography and more about market positioning. A Memphis painter trained in community college might be deemed “emerging,” while a rural carver from Lawrence County is labeled “folk.” The difference lies not in the quality of work, but in the story built around it.

Tennessee’s artists deserve better. They deserve frameworks that recognize the full range of their influences—spiritual, visual, musical, historical—and place them within a broader conversation that includes but is not limited to regional identity. The real question is not whether they are inside or outside. It is whether the walls we’ve built around artistic legitimacy are still worth maintaining.

—

Tennessee’s so-called outsider artists have long carried the burden of myth: the lone visionary, the primitive genius, the untrained prophet. But their work tells a different story—of skill, commitment, and deep engagement with the world. Rather than romanticizing their marginality, we can begin to see them for what they are: central figures in the state’s artistic life, overlooked not by history, but by the systems that write it.

Next, we turn to the present: a Tennessee where cultural memory is increasingly contested, where public art becomes a site of struggle, and where the state’s artistic identity is constantly renegotiated in light of civic ambition and political unease.

Art and Influence in Modern Tennessee

In contemporary Tennessee, the visual arts operate on a shifting terrain—expanding in reach, increasingly plural in form, and deeply entangled with broader social debates over identity, memory, and public space. As the state’s cities grow and its demographics change, artists face both new opportunities and new constraints. Public art projects have become lightning rods for civic discussion. Cultural branding efforts promise visibility but risk flattening difference. Foundations and collectors wield increasing power over which narratives are amplified. In this final chapter of Tennessee’s visual history, the questions are less about style than about influence: who is shaping the story now, and for what purpose?

Public Art and Civic Debate

In recent decades, Tennessee’s cities have embraced public art on an unprecedented scale. Murals, sculptures, and installations now appear on courthouse lawns, under highway overpasses, inside airports, and along riverbanks. These works are often the product of civic commissions, nonprofit initiatives, or private donations, and they reflect a growing belief in the cultural and economic value of art in public life.

But with visibility comes friction. As public artworks address more complex subjects—race, history, labor, identity—their meaning becomes a matter not just of form but of consensus. And consensus, in a politically divided state, is elusive.

In Nashville, the “Witness Walls” installation by artist Walter Hood, located near the site of key civil rights events, uses archival images and sculptural elements to commemorate the local movement. Commissioned as part of a city initiative, the work offers layered historical memory without grandiosity. But even this well-researched, carefully designed project faced questions during planning: Would it alienate visitors? Was it “too political”? These are not artistic questions—they are managerial ones, and they shape which voices get materialized in stone and steel.

Memphis has seen similar tensions. Murals honoring Black musicians, activists, and community leaders have been celebrated, but also defaced or quietly removed when adjacent development pressures mount. Graffiti—once dismissed, now occasionally sanctioned—hovers in a strange zone between vandalism and design, its legitimacy determined more by funding than by form.

In Chattanooga, the Sculpture Fields at Montague Park presents a different model: an open-air museum that mixes monumental works with a rolling landscape. Here, abstract and formalist sculpture dominates—large-scale steel and stone forms that speak less to local history than to international modernism. It is a space of ambition and scale, but one that risks disconnect from its urban setting.

Across the state, public art has become a symbolic battleground. It is no longer simply a matter of aesthetics. Each commission, proposal, and unveiling carries implicit messages about whose stories matter—and whose do not.

Art Fairs and Foundations

While public space has become more visually active, the private mechanisms that shape Tennessee’s art economy have also evolved. Over the last two decades, art fairs, residency programs, and philanthropic foundations have increasingly defined what gets supported, shown, and sold. This shift has expanded access for some artists, but has also concentrated influence in fewer hands.

The Tennessee Arts Commission, established in 1967, continues to fund a wide range of projects across the state, from community murals to experimental installations. Its grants have been crucial in supporting rural and underfunded artists. But beyond state funding, the rise of private foundations—especially in Nashville and Memphis—has changed the landscape.

Organizations like the Elizabeth Firestone Graham Foundation, the UrbanArt Commission, and the Mellon Foundation’s regional initiatives have brought new resources into Tennessee. They fund residencies, purchase work for public spaces, and sponsor exhibitions. Yet the logic of these foundations often mirrors the broader nonprofit world: results must be measurable, programming must align with mission statements, and art is frequently framed in terms of “impact.”

Art fairs and biennials have emerged in parallel. Events like Artclectic in Nashville or Indigo in Memphis draw regional attention, offering sales opportunities and visibility. These fairs, while energetic and well-attended, often cater to specific audiences—collectors, educators, civic boosters—who bring their own tastes and expectations.

In many cases, artists must tailor their work to these platforms. Proposals are shaped not just by vision but by application criteria. Work is selected not only for its quality, but for its “fit.” The result is a tension between autonomy and access—between making what matters and making what can be funded.

Yet for many Tennessee artists, these structures also offer connection. They link isolated makers to networks, expose their work to new audiences, and provide the financial support necessary to continue. The challenge is not to reject these platforms, but to remain conscious of their constraints—and to find ways of working within them without being wholly shaped by them.

Identity or Image?

Perhaps the most pressing question for contemporary Tennessee art is whether its increasing visibility is leading to deeper understanding—or merely more refined packaging. Cities like Nashville and Memphis have embraced creative placemaking and cultural tourism, promoting murals, arts districts, and maker culture as part of their economic appeal. The language of marketing often echoes that of art criticism: “authentic,” “bold,” “innovative,” “diverse.” But the image presented is curated, selective, and frequently optimistic in a way that art itself rarely is.

The risk is that cultural identity becomes a product—flattened into a brand. In this scenario, complexity is a liability. Tension is unwelcome. Artists are expected to represent communities, but only in digestible ways.

Tennessee artists are not blind to this. Many have responded with work that complicates rather than clarifies. They use irony, fragmentation, and resistance to critique the very frameworks that promote them. A sculptor may depict a Confederate monument—not to affirm it, but to disassemble it. A photographer may document gentrification—not as a neutral process, but as a form of erasure. A textile artist may weave protest slogans into traditional forms, subverting comfort with confrontation.

At the same time, the state’s artistic pluralism is real. There is no single Tennessee aesthetic, no unified movement or school. Artists in Bristol do not look like those in Memphis. The sculpture in Clarksville bears little resemblance to the photography in Chattanooga. This fragmentation is a strength—not a failure of cohesion, but a reflection of lived diversity.

What emerges from this pluralism is not a brand, but a landscape: uneven, overlapping, in motion. It is a state where artists work in trailer studios and renovated factories, on mountaintops and riverbanks, within universities and far outside them. Their influences range from folk traditions to digital media, their audiences from local congregations to international collectors.

—

Modern Tennessee art resists summary. It thrives not on resolution, but on contradiction: rooted yet experimental, funded yet defiant, regional yet outward-looking. If there is a defining trait in this contemporary moment, it is not a style but a stance—a willingness to make, to question, and to remain alert to the forces that shape what gets seen and why.

With that, the arc of Tennessee’s visual history comes into sharper focus: from sacred Mississippian pottery to modern murals, from settler myth to protest image, from the isolation of the outsider to the networks of the contemporary artist. It is a history marked by tension and innovation, silence and expression, exclusion and breakthrough. And it is still being written.