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?