CHRISTINA FERNANDEZ adds:
Xavier, here it is: the contradictions about using the term Chicano/a as applied to either the show or the artists are really not that important to me to be honest nor are the discrepancies regarding "collaborative" and "community" of great interest....that being said I don't think your points are superfluous and they are certainly worth talking about. What is more important to me is the limited programming surrounding the exhibition; limited in both enabling or being a conduit for discourse amongst audience and speakers and in terms of the number of events (especially considering that it may be another twenty years!). There is also the larger issue of institutional responsibility that Phantom Sightings indirectly brings to the fore. Not in regards to LACMA necessarily (I believe with Phantom Sightings they have taken a giant leap forward) but being more specific, local venues such as MOCA and the Hammer and so, so many others both locally and internationally. Why is it that with all the talent around so few Chicano, Mexican - American, Brown, whatever they want to call themselves (or not) artists get incorporated into the mainstream art world? There have been a few, very few. Usually guys, usually with a hip hop or hipster or upstart factor working for them that can take the focus off of (because we get focused on personae instead perhaps), provide a buffer for confronting issues of race and class. This is a very, very narrow path, especially since half the population of working Chicano/a, Mexican - American, Brown, artists are eliminated because of gender! No other group is held to this standard. By privileging this work institutions and the art world at large limit the range of expression and discourse that we could have; in effect institutionalizing a form of censorship.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Public: passive receivers of info or fully engaged?
Q.
An audience member during the morning session “Past, Present, Place” asked a question addressing the community-based participation (or lack thereof) of the artists (artist community)…The question was deferred until the afternoon session.
Artist Mario Ybarra, Jr. was the sole respondent. He related experiences of the collaborative process of working with other artists in his studio...
As fellow artist/educator, there are salient differences between collaboration and community. My understanding of the question, as it was posed, referred to artmaking and artist (community) as a form of civic engagement--not individual artist or crew toiling in the studio. In the interest of forms of authentic civic engagement, l strongly believe that this notion/strategy deserves to be teased out much further. From my experiences as both art educator in museums for the last 15 years and artist, I know people (the public) can be included or excluded through their participation in the discourse. Viewers gain power by having their discourse adopted and viewed as legitimate by those who have power.
An audience member during the morning session “Past, Present, Place” asked a question addressing the community-based participation (or lack thereof) of the artists (artist community)…The question was deferred until the afternoon session.
Artist Mario Ybarra, Jr. was the sole respondent. He related experiences of the collaborative process of working with other artists in his studio...
As fellow artist/educator, there are salient differences between collaboration and community. My understanding of the question, as it was posed, referred to artmaking and artist (community) as a form of civic engagement--not individual artist or crew toiling in the studio. In the interest of forms of authentic civic engagement, l strongly believe that this notion/strategy deserves to be teased out much further. From my experiences as both art educator in museums for the last 15 years and artist, I know people (the public) can be included or excluded through their participation in the discourse. Viewers gain power by having their discourse adopted and viewed as legitimate by those who have power.
Duplicity, Pluralism, antibinarism, or something else?
Kudos to LACMA! Phantom Sightings and its ancillary programming is setting the precedent for these and more needed discussions about the past, present, and future of identity politics...
While the sessions were fascinating with several of the speakers eloquently stating their viewpoints, it was apparent that time was not allowed for audience participation or any substantial/genuine Q&A. Several attendees with whom I spoke (myself included), felt several of the topics merited more discussion—those discussed and the trace of those not mentioned.
One thing is for certain, Phantom Sightings and its published texts raise more questions than it answers. At times seemingly contradicting points call out for attention…
Q.
Material LACMA has published in conjunction with PS posits seemingly contradictory viewpoints. LACMA’s March/April 2008 Member Magazine “Connect” states “[a]t the same time, there were lesser-known Chicano artists experimenting with performance, video, photography, film, and “guerilla” interventions into daily urban activity. This direction has proved to be of particular interest to many Chicano artists coming of age in the 1990s and beyond—especially the ones in Phantom Sightings…” (emphasis added) Yet, in the exhibition brochure available to the public it states “Because many of the artists resist specifically labeling their work according to their ethnic identity, we avoid the term “Chicano art.”
There have other cases of this “wanting it both ways” occurring…
Without any judgment value …The terms Chicana/o/Chicana/o art has not been avoided in referring to the exhibition and its artists. If anything, the exhibition continues to rely/reify this designation in several instances.
Having said this: artists in the show, whether they refer to themselves as Chicana/o or do not, are participating in an exhibition that uses the term Chicano interchangeably from time to time. It quite obvious the media is using it “left and right”…
Therefore, there is complicity on the part of the artists.
Question: how is this reconciled? Can they (artists / institution / history) have it both ways?
Has the term Chicana/o changed/morphed since its strict definition of a form of “self-designation” to one that can be applied interchangably, and applied to individuals who resist this designation?
While the sessions were fascinating with several of the speakers eloquently stating their viewpoints, it was apparent that time was not allowed for audience participation or any substantial/genuine Q&A. Several attendees with whom I spoke (myself included), felt several of the topics merited more discussion—those discussed and the trace of those not mentioned.
One thing is for certain, Phantom Sightings and its published texts raise more questions than it answers. At times seemingly contradicting points call out for attention…
Q.
Material LACMA has published in conjunction with PS posits seemingly contradictory viewpoints. LACMA’s March/April 2008 Member Magazine “Connect” states “[a]t the same time, there were lesser-known Chicano artists experimenting with performance, video, photography, film, and “guerilla” interventions into daily urban activity. This direction has proved to be of particular interest to many Chicano artists coming of age in the 1990s and beyond—especially the ones in Phantom Sightings…” (emphasis added) Yet, in the exhibition brochure available to the public it states “Because many of the artists resist specifically labeling their work according to their ethnic identity, we avoid the term “Chicano art.”
There have other cases of this “wanting it both ways” occurring…
Without any judgment value …The terms Chicana/o/Chicana/o art has not been avoided in referring to the exhibition and its artists. If anything, the exhibition continues to rely/reify this designation in several instances.
Having said this: artists in the show, whether they refer to themselves as Chicana/o or do not, are participating in an exhibition that uses the term Chicano interchangeably from time to time. It quite obvious the media is using it “left and right”…
Therefore, there is complicity on the part of the artists.
Question: how is this reconciled? Can they (artists / institution / history) have it both ways?
Has the term Chicana/o changed/morphed since its strict definition of a form of “self-designation” to one that can be applied interchangably, and applied to individuals who resist this designation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
