Jennifer A. González, C. Ondine Chavoya, Chon Noriega, Chicano & Terezita Romo, editors and Chicana Art

A CRITICAL ANTHOLOGY Chicano and Chicana Art A CRITICAL ANTHOLOGY

jennifer a. gonzález, c. ondine chavoya, chon noriega, and terezita romo, editors

Duke University Press · Durham and London · 2019 © 2019 DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States isbn 9781478003403 (ebook) of Amer­i­ca on acid-­free paper ∞. Designed by isbn 9781478001874 (hardcover : alk. paper) Courtney Leigh Baker. Typeset in Minion Pro and isbn 9781478003007 (pbk. : alk. paper) Myriad Pro by Westchester Publishing Ser­vices Subjects: lcsh: Mexican American art. | Mexican American artists. | Art—­Political aspects—­United States. | Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Art and society. Names: González, Jennifer A., editor. | Classification: lcc n6538.m4 (ebook) | Chavoya, C. Ondine, editor. | lcc n6538.m4 c44 2019 (print) | Noriega, Chon A., [date] editor. | Romo, Terecita, editor. ddc 704.03/6872073—­dc23 Title: Chicano and Chicana art : a critical anthology / lc rec­ord available at https://­lccn​.­loc​.­gov​/­2018026167 Jennifer A. González, C. Ondine Chavoya, Chon Noriega, Terezita Romo, editors. Description: Durham : Duke University Press, 2019. | Frontispiece: Ester Hernández, Libertad, 1976. Includes bibliographical references and index. Etching. Image courtesy of the artist. Identifiers: lccn 2018026167 (print) Cover art: Richard A. Lou, Border Door, 1988. lccn 2018029607 (ebook) Photo by James Elliot. Courtesy of the artist. PART I. DEFINITIONS AND DEBATES

Introduction · 13 chon noriega

1. Looking for Alternatives: Notes on Chicano Art, 1960–1990 · 19 philip brookman

2. Con Safo (C/S) Artists: A Contingency ­Factor · 30 mel casas

Contents 3. El Arte del Chicano: “The Spirit of the Experience” · 32 gilbert sanchez luján

List of Illustrations · ix 4. Notes on an Aesthetic Alternative · 35 Preface · xiii carlos almaraz Acknowledgments­ · xv 5. A Critical Perspective Introduction · 1 on the State of Chicano Art · 37 jennifer a. gonzález malaquías montoya and lezlie salkowitz-montoya­

6. Response: Another Opinion on the State of Chicano Art · 45 shifra m. goldman

7. Post-­Chicano · 54 rita gonzalez

8. The New Chicano Movement · 58 josh kun

9. Post-­movimiento: The Con­temporary (Re)Generation of Chicana/o Art · 66 tomás ybarra-frausto­

Further Reading · 72 PART II. CULTURAL RECLAMATION PART III. BODILY AESTHETICS AND VERNACULAR TRADITIONS AND ICONOLOGIES

Introduction · 75 Introduction · 177 terezita romo jennifer a. gonzález

10. The Politics of Popu­lar Art · 81 20. Mel Casas: Redefining Amer­i­ca · 183 rupert garcía nancy kelker

11. Rasquachismo: A Chicano Sensibility · 85 21. Drawing Offensive/Offensive Drawing: tomás ybarra-frausto­ ­Toward a Theory of Mariconógraphy · 194 robb hernández 12. Domesticana: The Sensibility of Chicana Rasquachismo · 91 22. The Pachuco’s Flayed Hide: Mobility, amalia mesa-bains­ Identity, and Buenas Garras · 208 marcos sánchez-tranquilino­ 13. Chicano Humor in Art: and john tagg For Whom the Taco Bell Tolls · 100 rubén trejo 23. Writing on the Social Body: Dresses and Body Ornamentation in Con­temporary 14. Points of Convergence: The Iconography Chicana Art · 219 of the Chicano Poster · 104 laura e. pérez terezita romo 24. Ojo de la Diosa: Becoming Divine 15. Graffiti Is Art: Any Drawn Line That in Delilah Montoya’s Photography · 237 Speaks about Identity, Dignity, and Unity . . . ​ asta kuusinen That Line Is Art · 117 charles “chaz” bojórquez 25. Art Comes for the Archbishop: The Semiotics of Con­temporary Chicana 16. Inventing Tradition, Negotiating Feminism and the Work of Alma López · 250 Modernism: Chicano/a Art and luz calvo the Pre-­Columbian Past · 123 victor zamudio-taylor­ Further Reading · 263

17. Negotiated Frontiers: Con­temporary Chicano Photography · 135 jennifer a. gonzález

18. Deus ex Machina: Tradition, Technology, and the Chicanafuturist Art of Marion C. Martinez · 146 catherine s. ramírez

19. Celia Alvarez Muñoz: “Civic Studies” · 165 roberto tejada

Further Reading · 174 PART IV. PUBLIC PRACTICES PART V. BORDER VISIONS AND ENACTED LANDSCAPES AND IMMIGRATION POLITICS

Introduction · 267 Introduction · 335 c. ondine chavoya jennifer a. gonzález

26. The Enacted Environment 33. Border Arte: Nepantla, el Lugar of East Los Angeles · 271 de la Frontera · 341 james t. rojas gloria anzaldúa

27. Space, Power, and Youth Culture: 34. The Spaces of Home in Chicano and Mexican American Graffiti and Chicano Latino Repre­sen­ta­tions of the San Diego– ­ Murals in East Los Angeles, 1972–1978 · 278 Tijuana Borderlands (1968–2002) · 351 marcos sánchez-tranquilino­ jo-anne­ berelowitz

28. Pseudographic Cinema: 35. Straddling la otra frontera: Asco’s No-Movies­ · 292 Inserting MiChicana/o Visual Culture c. ondine chavoya into Chicana/o Art History · 374 dylan miner 29. Whose Monument Where? Public Art in a Many-­Cultured Society · 304 36. Borders, Border Crossing, and judith f. baca Po­liti­cal Art in North Carolina · 394 gabriela valdivia, joseph palis, 30. La Memoria de Nuestra Tierra: and matthew reilly Colorado · 310 judith f. baca 37. Excerpts from Codex Espangliensis: From Columbus to the Border Patrol · 402 31. The Donkey Cart Caper: Some Thoughts enrique chagoya, guillermo on Socially Conscious Art in Antisocial gómez-peña,­ and felicia rice Public Space · 314 david avalos 38. 187 Reasons Why Mexicanos Can’t­ Cross the Border (Remix) · 406 32. Public Audit: An Interview with Elizabeth juan felipe herrera Sisco, Louis Hock, and David Avalos · 319 cylena simonds Further Reading · 410

Further Reading · 331 PART VI. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS 49. From cara to caca: The Multiple AND CRITICAL RECEPTION Anatomies of Chicano/a Art at the Turn of the New ­Century · 455 Introduction · 413 alicia gaspar de alba c. ondine chavoya 50. On Museum Row: Aesthetics and 39. Los Four · 417 the Politics of Exhibition · 470 peter plagens chon noriega

40. MARCH to an Aesthetic of Revolution · 420 51. Strangeways Here­ We Come · 484 raye bemis rita gonzalez

41. Resisting Modernism: Chicano Art: Further Reading · 495 Retro Progressive or Progressive Retro? · 423 ralph rugoff

42. Our Ameri­ ca­ at the Smithsonian · 427 philip kennicott Glossary · 497 43. Alex Rivera, Philip Kennicott Debate Contributors · 501 Washington Post Review of Our Ameri­ ca­ · 430 Index · 509 philip kennicott Acknowl­edgment of Copyrights · 531 44. What Do We Mean When We Talk about “Latino Art”? · 434 elizabeth blair

45. Chicano Art: Looking Backward · 436 shifra m. goldman

46. Readers’ Forum Letter to the Editor in Response to Shifra Goldman’s Exhibition Review · 440 judithe elena hernández de neikrug

47. Readers’ Forum Response to Judithe Hernández’s Letter to the Editor · 442 shifra m. goldman

48. “All Roads Lead to East L.A.,” Goez Art Studios and Gallery · 444 karen mary davalos Illustrations

Fig. Intro.1 Yreina Cervántez, Big Baby Fig. 8.1 Mario Ybarra Jr., Go Tell Balam, 1991–2017 · 2 It #1, 2001 · 59

Fig. Intro.2 Malaquías Montoya, Fig. II.1 Carmen Lomas Garza, Undocumented, 1981 · 2 Nopalitos para ti, 1989 · 74

Fig. Intro.3 Patssi Valdez, LA/TJ, 1987 · 2 Fig. 10.1 José Montoya, Untitled, from the Pachuco series, 1977 · 83 Fig. I.1 Gilbert “Magu” Sanchez Luján, Aztlán Rifa, 1977 · 12 Fig. 11.1 Luis Jiménez, Vaquero, modeled 1980, cast 1990 · 87 Fig. 1.1 Elizabeth Sisco, Louis Hock, and David Avalos, Welcome to Ameri­ ca’s­ Fig. 12.1 Amalia Mesa-­Bains, An Ofrenda Finest Tourist Plantation, 1988 · 28 for Dolores del Rio, 1984 · 97

Fig. 3.1 Gilbert Sanchez Luján, “El Arte Fig. 13.1 Rubén Trejo, Birth of the del Chicano: ‘The Spirit of the Experience,’ ” Jalapeño, 1981 · 101 Con/Safos 7 (1971) · 33 Fig. 14.1 Judithe Hernández, Reina Fig. 4.1 Carlos Almaraz, Mechicano Art Center de la Primavera, 1974 · 110 exhibition invitation with manifesto “Notes on an Aesthetic Alternative,” Los Angeles, Fig. 15.1 Chaz Bojórquez, Por Dios Mechicano Art Center, 1973 · 36 y Oro, 1992 · 119

Fig. 5.1 Malaquías Montoya, Hombre Fig. 16.1 Yolanda López, Nuestra Sin País, 1988 · 38 Madre, 1981–88 · 131

Fig. 6.1 Rupert García, Assassination of Fig. 17.1 Kathy Vargas, My Alamo Striking Mexican Worker, 1979 · 49 (Order of the Alamo), 1995 · 142

Fig. 7.1 Salomón Huerta, Untitled Fig. 17.2 Kathy Vargas, My Alamo (Back of Head), 1998 · 56 (Order of the Alamo), 1995 · 143 Fig. 17.3 Robert Buitrón, Identity Surfing, Fig. 24.1 Delilah Montoya, El Guadalupano, 1995 · 144 1998 · 239

Fig. 18.1 Marion C. Martinez, Oratorio Fig. 24.2 Delilah Montoya, La Guadalupana, a la Virgencita, 2000 · 148 1998 · 240

Fig. 19.1 Celia Alvarez Muñoz, El Limite Fig. 25.1 Alma López, Our Lady, 1999 · 252 (detail), 1991 · 167 Fig. IV.1 William F. Herrón III, The Wall Fig. 19.2 Celia Alvarez Muñoz, That Cracked Open, 1972 · 266 El Limite (detail), 1991 · 169 Fig. 26.1 Lady of Guadalupe Shrine painted Fig. III.1 Rupert García, El Grito on a freeway wall at the end of a dead-­end street de Rebelde, 1975 · 176 in Boyle Heights · 273

Fig. 20.1 Mel Casas, Humanscape 62: Fig. 26.2 Personalized front yard lawn Brownies of the Southwest, 1970 · 184 decorations reflect the creators’ talents and create pedestrian-friendly streets · 275 Fig. 20.2 Mel Casas, Humanscape 63: Show of Hands, 1970 · 189 Fig. 27.1 vne placas, Olympic Boulevard, Estrada Courts Housing Proj­ect, East Los Fig. 20.3 Mel Casas, Humanscape 70: Angeles, 1973 · 280 Comic Whitewash, 1973 · 191 Fig. 27.2 Willie Herrón and Gronk, The Black Fig. 21.1 Teddy Sandoval with Joey Terrill, and White/Moratorium Mural, 1974–78. Estrada Portrait from the Maricón series Courts Housing Proj­ect, East Los Angeles · 282 (photo­graph of Joey Terrill), 1975 · 201 Fig. 27.3 Los Niños del Mundo and Charles W. Fig. 21.2 Teddy Sandoval with Joey Terrill, Felix, Give Me Life, 1973. Estrada Courts Housing Portrait from the Maricón series Proj­ect · 285 (photo­graph of Joey Terrill), 1975 · 202 Fig. 27.4 Schematic drawing by author of left Fig. 21.3 Joey Terrill, Maricón/Malflora Group side of walkway mural · 285 Portrait, 1976 · 204 Fig. 28.1 Harry Gamboa Jr., No Movie: Fig. 22.1 Ignacio Gomez, Zoot Suit, 1980 · 213 Chicano Cinema, 1976 · 295

Fig. 22.2 Juan Fuentes, Cholo Live, Fig. 28.2 Asco, Decoy Gang War Victim 1980 · 215 (detail), 1974 · 295

Fig. 23.1 Yolanda López, The Nanny, from Fig. 28.3 Asco, Ascozilla/Asshole ­Women’s Work Is Never Done series, 1994 · 221 Mural, 1975 · 297

Fig. 23.2 Ester Hernández, Immigrant ­ Fig. 29.1 Judith F. Baca, ­Great Wall of Los Angeles: Woman’s Dress, 1997 · 224 Zoot Suit Riots (detail), begun in 1976 · 306

Fig. 23.3 Amalia Mesa-­Bains, “Vestiture . . . ​ Fig. 29.2 Judith F. Baca, ­Great Wall of Emplumada” in Venus Envy III: Cihuatlampa, Los Angeles: Division of the Barrios and the Place of the ­Giant ­Women, 1997 · 227 Chavez Ravine (detail), begun in 1976 · 307

x · List of Illustrations Fig. 30.1 Judith F. Baca, La Memoria de Fig. VI.1 Asco, Spray Paint lacma, 1972 · 412 Nuestra Tierra: Colorado, 2001 · 312 Fig. 39.1 Gilbert Luján, installation view, Fig. 31.1 David Avalos, Donkey Cart 1974 · 418 Altar, 1985 · 315 Fig. 41.1 Celia Alvarez Muñoz, “Which Came Fig. 31.2 Coverage of Donkey Cart Altar First?” Enlightenment #4, 1982 · 424 in La Prensa (San Diego), a bilingual newspaper, published January 10, 1986 · 317 Fig. 41.2 Ester Hernández, Sun Mad, 1982 · 425

Fig. 32.1 Elizabeth Sisco, Louis Hock, Fig. 45.1 Murals by (left to right) Judithe and David Avalos, Art Rebate, 1993 · 320 Hernández, East Los Streetscapers, and Carlos Almaraz, 1981. Murals of Aztlán Fig. 32.2 Deborah Small, Scott Kessler, in pro­gress at the Craft and Folk Art Museum, Elizabeth Sisco, and Louis Hock, Ameri­ ca’s­ Los Angeles · 438 Finest?, 1990 · 321 Fig. 48.1 Map from the Goez Art Studios Fig. V.1 Yolanda López, Who’s the Illegal and Gallery brochure, ca. 1975 · 445 Alien, Pilgrim?, 1978 · 334 Fig. 48.2 José Luis González, Fig. 33.1 Santa Barraza, Nepantla, 1995 · 343 David Botello, Robert Arenivar, and Don Juan/ Johnny D. González at Goez, ca. 1975 · 446 Fig. 33.2 Carmen Lomas Garza, Camas Para Sueños (Beds for Dreaming), 1985 · 345 Fig. 48.3 The Birth of Our Art mural (detail), designed in 1970 by Don Juan a.k.a. Johnny D. Fig. 34.1 Richard A. Lou, Border Door, 1988 · González and completed in 1971 · 447 361 Fig. 51.1 Pocho Research Society of Erased and Fig. 35.1 George Vargas and Martín Moreno, Invisible History, Operation Invisible Monument, CitySpirit, 1979 · 375 2002 · 488

Fig. 35.2 Nora Chapa Mendoza, Fig. 51.2 Pocho Research Society of Erased and Employment Agency, 1990 · 378 Invisible History, Operation Invisible Monument, 2002 · 489 Fig. 35.3 Nora Chapa Mendoza, Los Repatriados, 2001 · 380 Fig. 51.3 Slanguage (Juan Capistran and Mario Ybarra Jr.), Sublime, 1998 · 491 Fig. 36.1 Cornelio Campos, Libre Comercio, 2004 · 397

Fig. 37.1 Enrique Chagoya, Guillermo Gómez-­Peña, and Felicia Rice, Codex Espangliensis (detail from artists’ book), 2001 · 403

Fig. 37.2 Enrique Chagoya, Guillermo Gómez-­Peña, and Felicia Rice, Codex Espangliensis (detail from artists’ book), 2001 · 404

List of Illustrations · xi Preface

My father,­ Crispin González Jr. (1936–2017), the museums and impor­tant private collections. He oldest of fourteen children,­ was born in Clare- never took an active part in the protests of the mont, California. His mother’s­ ­family was from Chicano civil rights movement, though I have a Juárez, Mexico, and his father’s­ ­family from distinct memory of our ­family boycotting grapes Lagos de Moreno, Mexico. His early life was dif- in the 1970s. He once remarked, “When ­people ficult. His ­family was poor; he was punished in asked me what I was ­doing for the movement, elementary school for speaking Spanish; he was I would say: ‘I am the movement.’ ” As a young punished at home for not milking the goats on girl, I never quite understood what he was talk- time. He and his relatives worked in the orange ing about, but I later­ realized how radical his groves that used to blanket the rolling hills of transition—­his movement—from­ field laborer to Southern California that are now called the college art professor had been, and how daunt- ­“Inland Empire.” Like many of his generation, ing. He always had a sense of humor, and he he served in the U.S. military in his twenties but never complained. His life ultimately inspired was lucky to get out before the Vietnam War. He me to be curious about art history, ­labor, politics, went to college, planning to study po­liti­cal sci- racism, and the Mexican American experience in ence, but ended up becoming a ceramic artist. the United States. I wish to thank my father­ and He received his master of fine arts degree from his generation for their courage and their com- the Claremont Gradu­ate School and was a pro- mitment to the creative life and to social justice, fessor of fine arts at Chaffey Community College against all odds. I dedicate this volume to him. for thirty-five­ years. His works are now in several —Jennifer A.­ González Acknowl­edgments

First and foremost, I wish to express my gratitude Although the editorial team is responsible for to all of the authors and the artists who agreed to the content of the book, it is also the hard work have their works and images reprinted here.­ Their and dedication of numerous student research as- scholarship, artistic practice, insight, and creativity sistants that have brought this proj­ect to fruition. inspired this anthology, and I wish to acknowledge In the early days, when we were­ still gathering their contributions with my deepest admiration articles and trying to develop comprehensive lit­ and re­spect. er­a­ture reviews, Silvia J. Mantilla Ortiz, as part of Many years ago I proposed this proj­ect to the Williams College Class of 1957 Summer Re- my three coeditors, C. Ondine Chavoya, Chon search Program, worked with C. Ondine Chavoya Noriega, and Terezita Romo. They all agreed to at Williams College to help compile digital files join me in this endeavor, though none of us was of many lesser-known­ articles and manifestos. entirely sure what would result. I have served Chon Noriega kindly offered his home for several as the anthology’s chief editor, but all decisions of our meetings, and we also received helpful as- about the content, organization,­ and recommended sistance from Darling Sianez and Connie Heskett reading lists have been shared. I cannot thank my at the Chicano Studies Research Center at ucla. colleagues enough for their critical acumen, their Nearly all of the early articles and essays required balanced approach, their po­liti­cal commitment, transcription into a new digital format. Some and their intellectual labor­ as the anthology has essays were­ transcribed for the first time since taken shape. I also want to thank them for their their initial publication in the 1970s. This pains- inspiration and their example; it is really­ they taking ­labor required keyboard speed, accuracy, who have devoted their lives, energy, insight, and and familiarity with Spanish, and was beautifully scholarship to the Chicano and Chicana art that accomplished by two undergraduate assistants at appears in this anthology. Time unfolds in un- uc Santa Cruz, Marco Suarez and Maya Deleon. predictable ways, interruptions and life events al- I was also lucky to work with Cinthya Mendoza ways intervene, and we have all been patient with Gomez and M. Toro Castaño, both undergraduate each other at dif­fer­ent moments in the editorial research assistants who helped to summarize, or­ pro­cess. For this, and for the camaraderie that ga­nize, and compile articles and digital copies of comes from thinking through pedagogical and images for the anthology. conceptual issues together, I am deeply grateful Requesting and securing permissions for both to each of them. images and articles for an anthology of this size is an arduous job, requiring excellent record­ keep- has my profound appreciation—this­ book would ing and responsive communication. My gradu­ have been impossible to complete without her. ate student assistant, Raissa DeSemet, initiated I would also like to express my thanks to the this pro­cess with diplomacy, rigor, and grace. Her Chicano/Latino Research Center at the Univer- work was then inherited and enhanced by my sec- sity of California, Santa Cruz for their funding of ond gradu­ate research assistant, Lucian ­Gomoll, one of my undergraduate research assistantships. who assisted with permissions for several ad- The Arts Research Institute in the Division of ditional sections of the book. He also helped to the Arts and the Gradu­ate Division at the Uni- proofread numerous articles, and developed a versity of California, Santa Cruz also supported system for organizing­ digital images and image the proj­ ­ect through individual grants and gradu­ permissions. His enthusiasm for the proj­ect was ate research assistance. My colleagues in the such that even ­after graduating with his Ph.D., Latino Literary Cultures Proj­ect at ucsc kindly he was happy to continue to consult with me as gave their feedback on early drafts of ourtable ­ I began to bring the proj­ect to a close. ­These two of contents. gradu­ate students made the initial pro­cess of per- Numerous arts and cultural institutions kindly missions and organ­ization not only pos­si­ble but granted permission to reprint images, frequently also wonderfully pleasant and effective. for ­little or no cost. I would especially like to men- My greatest thanks must go, however, to Mary tion the ucla Chicano Studies Research Center; Thomas, my current research assistant, who has the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the Mu- not only wrapped up the article and image per- seum of Fine Arts, Houston; and the Smithsonian missions requests but has also skillfully assisted in American Art Museum. the final production of the anthology. She has rec- Fi­nally, I would like to thank the numerous tified and unified citations and endnotes, tracked friends, colleagues, and family­ members who down remaining copyright requests, produced offered encouragement, sustenance, enlighten- image captions, helped to create the art inven- ment, and love throughout the long preparation tory, and offered critical feedback and intelligent of this manuscript, especially Kirsten A. Con- suggestions—­all with determination, focus, and suelo González, Warren Sack, and Kinán Leif Felix good humor. For her truly outstanding work, she González-­Sack.

xvi · Acknowledgments­ jennifer a. gonzález

Introduction

As an aesthetic credo, Chicano art sought to link lived dispossessed by the U.S.-Mexican­ War of 1848. real­ity to the imagination; to reflect and document By rejecting the more assimilationist term “Mex- the multiple realities of being Chicano in the urban ican American” or the Eurocentric term “His- barrios and the rural colonias throughout the United panic,” Chicanos and Chicanas allied themselves States. —­TOMÁS YBARRA-FRAUSTO­ with a specifically activist proj­ect that included a cele­bration of Mexican Indigenous cultural tra- Chicano art comes from the creation of community. . . . ​ ditions, a nationalist return to territorial claims, Chicano art represents a par­tic­u­lar stance, which al- a general critique of racism, and a rejection of ways engages with the issues of its time. —­JUDITH unfair ­labor conditions for the working poor. For BACA Chicanas, there­ was also a strong commitment to ­Until we live in a society where all people­ are more ­women’s rights and a feminist effort to resist the or less equal and no labels are necessary, we need unequal power relations of both Mexican and them to resist the pressure to assimilate. —­GLORIA U.S. patriarchy. ANZALDÚA This complex intersection of interests, to which individuals allied themselves to greater or lesser degrees, offered both the condition and The “Chicano” was famously defined by Los An- the desire for a parallel creative artistic practice. geles newspaper reporter Ruben Salazar as “a Early Chicano movement documents, such as Mexican-­American with a non-­Anglo image of “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán,” called on writers, himself.”1 The term has a distinct po­liti­cal inflec- poets, musicians, and artists to “produce lit­er­a­ tion that is inseparable from the Chicano civil ture and art that is appealing to our people­ and rights movement—­el movimiento—of the late relates to our revolutionary cause.”2 From about 1960s and early 1970s. Once used in a deroga- 1965 to the late 1970s an efflorescence of activist tory way to imply a working-class,­ uneducated posters, murals, theatrical productions, and lit­er­ Mexican, the words “Chicano” and “Chicana” be- a­ture rejected mainstream distinctions between came a self-defining­ moniker of pride for ­those folk and fine arts, and emphasized instead a set who worked to improve farm ­labor laws, public of familiar and popularly accessible themes de- schooling, and access to housing for an other­wise signed to inspire cultural pride and recruit mem- subaltern population ranging from recent Mexi- bers to la causa. Grassroots exhibition and event can immigrants to long-­standing landowners centers across the country, such as Movimiento FIG. INTRO.1. Yreina Cervántez, Big Baby Balam, 1991–2017. Watercolor, 24 × 18 in. © Yreina Cervántez. Image courtesy of the artist.

FIG. INTRO.2. Malaquías Montoya, Undocumented, 1981. Silkscreen. Image courtesy of the artist.

FIG. INTRO.3. Patssi Valdez, LA/TJ, 1987. Screen print. Framed: 29 1/2 × 23 × 1 1/2 in. Sheet: 26 1/4 × 19 15/16 in. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Art Museum Council Fund (M.2005.67.8) © Patssi Valdez. Photo­graph © Museum Associates/LACMA. Artístico del Río Salado in Phoenix, Galería de la tion, and allegory.5 Along with other art move- Raza in San Francisco, Self Help Graphics & Art ments of the earlier twentieth century­ (dadaism, in Los Angeles, El Centro de la Cruzada para la surrealism, futurism, arte povera, ­etc.), each with Justica in Denver, El Centro Cultural de Aztlán in its own manifesto, ideological and material pro- San Antonio, Casa Aztlán in Chicago, and scores clivities, and national and linguistic inflections, of other venues offered a platform for the voices Chicana/o artists purposefully integrated their and visions of the movement’s emerging genera- works with discourses and practices of every- tion of artistic talent. Few mainstream museums, day life. At the same time, it would be a signifi- galleries, or theatrical venues showed the work of cant mistake­ to see Chicana/o art as simply an Chicano artists, or, for that ­matter, their ­Mexican “ethnic” or “identity-­based” art movement from ­American forebears, due to long-standing­ rac- the barrio; rather, it is an experimental, socially ism, po­litical­ hostility, and general ignorance. oriented art practice, produced from specific re- Thus, as scholar Philip Brookman observes, “the gional and historical standpoints (including the artists created their own institutions rather than barrio) but in direct conversation with other art accept exclusion.”3 movements of its era. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Unfortunately, ­because Chicana and Chicano a concerted effort was made to articulate how artists remained institutionally marginalized in Chicana/o art deviated from the U.S. main- the early years, due to differences of class and eth- stream, while nevertheless remaining an impor­ nicity, the iconographic nuances and transcul- tant “American” art form with its own aesthetic tural references in their works ­were often ignored criteria and regional specificities. Cata­logs for ex- or misunderstood by mainstream art critics when, hibitions, manifestos, and artists’ writings started and if, their work was reviewed.6 In response to to appear in print, setting out critical frameworks this enforced outsider condition, Chicanos and and relevant vocabulary for understanding and Chicanas curated their own exhibits, wrote their analyzing this quickly expanding visual arts dis- own cata­log essays, and began to attract a de- course.4 Many if not most Chicano and Chicana voted following. Eventually, sympathetic scholars artists ­were formally trained, with degrees from and critics outside the community also started to respected art schools, yet they purposefully de- take an interest in the work, and began to enthu- voted their efforts to a broader activist engage- siastically develop an analy­sis of its multivalent ment with the Chicano po­liti­cal movement rather forms.7 than trying to assimilate to a Euro-­American art Initially, the stakes ­were high for defining the world. Nevertheless, some of the artists playfully contours and parameters­ of Chicana/o art dis- employed the tropes of pop art, conceptual art, course, precisely because­ ­there is an inherent dif- minimalism, or installation art, while si­mul­ta­ ficulty in writing about art that adheres to a social neously working to invent alternative vocabularies movement or that has activist goals. Formal qual- and cultural references. ities of the artworks, their relation to historical For this reason, it is impor­tant to see the pre­ce­dents, and aesthetic questions of style ­were emergence of Chicana/o visual art not only as an not the only considerations for critics and schol- example of public activism, but also as an inno- ars; a certain po­liti­cal vision and social engage- vative response to aesthetic traditions and con­ ment were also assessed and articulated. Some temporary art practices of its time. As with other conservative critics and scholars read activist artists in the 1970s and 1980s, many Chicana/o art as inevitably inferior to other visual art pro- artists rejected the modernist princi­ples of ab- duced without an overt po­liti­cal message. Their straction that had dominated the fine art of the argument that it may be less beautiful, less for- mid-­twentieth century,­ joining a general move- mally developed, or “contaminated” by a message ment ­toward narrative forms, decoration, figura- entirely misses the point. This perspective relies

Introduction · 3 on a misguided idea that art can be “neutral” or ciency, this eclectic, multilingual mix of refer- that it can exist in the world ­free of the economic, ences would at first appear purposefully alien and social, and po­liti­cal conditions of its making, potentially arcane. In some ways, this was the exhibition, and circulation. All art is po­liti­cal to intended effect, insofar as it constituted a self-­ the degree that it joins in social systems of repre­ conscious effort, to create a counterdiscourse or sen­ta­tion that are tied to power; all art delivers a intellectual resis­ ­tance to the English-dominant­ message, even if its message is not about “poli- mainstream or, particularly with reference to tics” per se. Moreover, this perspective risks over- Indigenous terms, a Euro­ ­pean history of colo- looking the incredible visual richness, layered nization. At the same time, this borrowed and complexity, ironic sophistication, and remark- in­ven­ted vocabulary held the excitement and able skill evident in numerous activist artworks. promise of new ways of thinking about the world, In effectively understanding the contribution of and about art. Chicana/o artists, both aesthetics and po­liti­cal Although ­there were­ a number of group and tactics became impor­tant criteria for analy­sis. solo exhibitions of Chicana/o art throughout the Writing about Chicana/o art, scholars and crit- 1980s,12 the watershed exhibition Chicano Art:­ ics started to develop a vocabulary linking for- Re­ sis­ tance­ and Affirmation, 1965–1985 (cara) mal and aesthetic criteria to broader conceptual (1990) brought many previously marginalized and activist goals of the movement. Concepts artists into the U.S. spotlight. The exhibit traveled such as “cultural reclamation” identified a turn from Los Angeles to San Francisco, Fresno, Den- to Spanish-language­ references, Mexican art his- ver, Albuquerque, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, tory, folk life, and popu­lar imagery; the recycling and Washington, D.C., thus covering a broad and investment in traditional religious icons, such territory in the Southwest and the nation’s capital. as the Virgin of Guadalupe; as well as references A commitment to the original Chicano po­liti­cal to Aztec or Mayan sources. The cultural blend- movement was evident in the works selected, and ing but also duality of Mexican and U.S. symbols, the collaborative ­labor of the organizers revealed the coupling of two ele­ments to create a third an inclusive approach. In her book Chicano Art: meaning, ­were celebrated in concepts such as Inside/Outside the Master’s House (1998), Alicia mestizaje or difrasismo.8 Similarly, a transborder Gaspar de Alba addressed the degree to which consciousness, a neither-­here-­nor-­there feeling the cara exhibition posed an institutional and of the hyphen in “Mexican-American,”­ a gender psychological challenge to mainstream museum ambiguity in queer communities, were likened to discourses and si­mul­ta­neously produced polar- the Indigenous Nahuatl concept of nepantla.9 The ized responses from the press, from high praise to turn to vernacular traditions of fabrication, to outright condemnation.13 Chicana/o and Latino/a graffiti art, or to working-class­ strategies of mak- audience responses were­ generally positive, but ing do with what is at hand were­ valorized and not without some ambivalence about terminol- celebrated as a rasquachimo, or underdog aes- ogy and inclusivity. Both the cara exhibition thetic.10 Objects and artifacts of everyday life, and Gaspar de Alba’s book revealed that the idea domestic spaces, home altars and yard shrines, of “Chicana/o art” would continue to be debated and the fences and porches of the barrio were­ and contested, its meaning inevitably changing employed as the medium of a larger “social sculp- across geo­graph­i­cal regions and generations, ture” in which community participants ­were also each with their own po­liti­cal allegiances and sto- active components of the final artwork, directed ries to tell. ­toward social change.11 In short, for Chicana/o art In the mid-1990s, artists’ writings, exhibi- to be properly understood, a new linguistic and tion cata­logs, and scholarly publications con- conceptual discourse was necessary. For outsid- tinued to develop an increasingly intertextual ers, without Spanish or Nahuatl language profi- reading of Chicana/o art, while also changing

4 · jennifer a. gonzález the terms of debate. For example, The Chicano with Chicana/o Visual Culture (2015) by Scott L. ­Codices: Encountering Art of the Amer­i­cas (1992), Baugh and Victor A. Sorell takes a more inti- From the West: Chicano Narrative Photography mate, focused approach by selecting nine key art- (1996), and Urban Exile: Collected Writings of works around which groups of short essays are Harry Gamboa Jr. (1998) articulated formal and clustered. historical relationships between Chicano art Our anthology is designed to complement and broader con­temporary art practices by em- ­these previous publications by compiling critical phasizing intersections with, as well as devia- and historical writings about Chicana/o art span- tions from, dominant cultural forms. A second ning several de­cades. generation of scholars and writers started citing We have not tried to produce a comprehensive first-­generation texts, and began incorporating history of Chicana/o art, nor a global repre­sen­ interpretations that moved beyond the frame ta­tion of all the impor­tant movements, themes, of movement politics, much to the dismay of groups, or works—­ours is not an encyclopedic some prac­ti­tion­ers and activists whose anti-­ proj­ect, nor a comprehensive bibliography. Its institutional stance chaffed at what seemed like goal is rather to offer a provocative sampling of commercial co-optation.­ This productive tension essays and ideas that will­ hopefully spark discus- continues to influence the now burgeoning field sion and debate. Anthologies are always imper- of Chicana/o art studies. fect and incomplete; like any compendia they are Since 2000 ­there has been rapid growth in marked by their omissions and defined by their both traveling exhibitions and cata­logs in the limits. When I approached my coeditors about field, including, for example, The Road to Aztlán: the need for a teachable collection of texts that Art from a Mythic Homeland (2001); Just Another could offer a general introduction to the non- Poster? Chicano Graphic Arts in California (2001); specialist, we deci­ded to focus on key themes Chicano Visions: American Paint­ers on the Verge and historical benchmarks that have shaped­ the (2002); Con­temporary Chicano and Chicana Art: emergence and current status of Chicana/o art. Artists, Works, Culture, and Education (2002); Many of the artists, critics, and scholars who Chicano Art for Our Millennium : Collected Works played a significant role in the initial discourse from the Arizona State University Community about Chicana/o art are now respected elders, (2004); Phantom Sightings: Art after­ the Chicano and some have passed on. It is partially out of a Movement (2008); and Asco: Elite of the Obscure, desire to map this legacy of thought, but also to A Retrospective, 1972–1987 (2011). Solo exhibi- tie it to an active and growing body of scholar- tions of Chicana/o artists have steadily increased, ship, that this proj­ect came about. as has scholarly attention in the form of targeted All of the editors participated in the research proj­ects such as the impor­tant feminist studies and se­lection of articles and images for each sec- Chicana Art: The Politics of Spiritual and Aes­ tion of the book, and we are collectively respon- thetic Altarities by Laura E. Pérez (2007) and Our sible for the final result. We worked in teams of Lady of Controversy: Alma Lopez’s Irreverent Ap­ two on each section, but approval of the overall parition (2011) by Alicia Gaspar de Alba. Carlos document and final form was a collective effort Francisco Jackson’s excellent Chicana and Chi­ of all the editors. Individual editors wrote short cano Art: Protest Arte (2009) was the first single-­ introductions for sections they helped to prepare authored book to offer a general overview of the in order to offer readers a conceptual map and artistic movement with a significant emphasis intellectual rationale for the se­lection and ­ordering on public art forms such as posters and murals, of the essays. Although ­there are a few minor ex- as well as a close attention to art collectives, com- ceptions, the emphasis throughout the anthology munity art centers, and workshops. The more is on the visual arts, rather than the performing recent Born of Re­sis­tance: Cara a Cara ­Encounters arts. This was a question of editorial areas of

Introduction · 5 ­expertise, as well as the sense that we could not do included. It is impor­tant to mention that in the justice to the broad domain of theater, film, and research pro­cess for this volume we encountered per­for­mance art while also providing an in-depth­ an in­ter­est­ing editorial hurdle: a significant ma- analysis­ of the visual arts. We hope that other jority of critical and scholarly publications on scholars will­ pursue similar efforts inthese ­ fields. Chicana/o art focus on works produced in Cali- One goal of the anthology is to demonstrate fornia. From a historical standpoint this is prob­ how vocabularies and conceptual frameworks for ably predictable, since many Mexican ­Americans understanding Chicana/o art develop and change in the Southwest, including ­those sympathetic to over time; it also tries to bring par­tic­u­lar the- the Chicano movement, lived in communities matic concerns to the fore for closer scrutiny. Ar- where the word “Chicano” was not commonly ticles were­ selected ­because of their resonance, or used; in New Mexico and Arizona, for example, sometimes their conflict, with ­others in the same the term “Hispanic,” “Hispano,” or even “Span- thematic section. Each section can therefore be ish” is still in frequent use to describe people­ of read as an integrated set of arguments and obser- Mexican and Spanish descent. Even in California, vations from diverse perspectives that coalesce not all art made by Mexican Americans can be around a given issue or topic. Occasionally, rep- called “Chicana/o” art—­only that which is made etitions within sections or echoes across sections by self-­identified Chicana/os and in support of occur, though we have worked to reduce redun- the larger Chicana/o po­liti­cal proj­ect. Deter- dancy wherever pos­si­ble. For this reason, several mined not to limit the scope of the book to the of the articles in the anthology are presented in California region, however, we made a special ef- excerpted form. As editors, we recognize the im- fort to broaden the geograph­ ­i­cal frame. Several portance of the conceptual integrity of authors’ scholars, including Holly Barnet-­Sánchez, An- written texts, and therefore requested excerpts drew Connors, and Victor Sorell, were­ solicited only when clear overlaps appeared, or when a for their expertise and suggestions on authors given section began to exceed projected page and artists working in other regions across the limits. We are extremely grateful to the authors United States. Each section represents, there- for allowing us to publish these­ shorter versions, fore, at least two or more geograph­ ­i­cal regions. and encourage our readers to explore the full-­ We ­were also committed to gender diversity, length essays when they can. We are also grate- queer and feminist voices, and intergenerational ful to the artists and their generous willingness juxtaposition between older and younger writers to have their works reproduced in the volume. so that the harmony and dissonance of dif­fer­ent To make the book affordable for classroom use, positions could be heard. images are printed in black-and-­ ­white. However, Given this commitment, why use the terms we strongly encourage students and teachers to “Chicana” and “Chicano” to describe the work in look for the artworks online, and explore online this book, rather than the recently coined and im- databases to enrich their visual experience of portantly gender-­neutral term “Chicanx”? After­ a this art.14 thorough discussion, the editors concluded that Inevitably, we ­were unable to publish as many we fully support the term “Chicanx,” along with its articles as we would have liked. Faced with this social and semiotic goals, but find it more consis- dilemma, we developed a “further reading” list tent and historically accurate to use ­“Chicano” and at the end of each section that we hope will­ in- “Chicana” in the title of this book and throughout spire future­ scholars and students to delve more the anthology out of re­spect for the authors and deeply. Again, this is by no means comprehen- artists who deploy ­these terms. Moreover, the defi- sive, but ­these ­were articles we felt ­were particu- nitions, legacy, and usage of “Chicana” and “Chi- larly pertinent to the themes of each section, or cano” remain impor­tant to the period in which could be productively paired with ­those we have they ­were created. As ­historians we agreed this

6 · jennifer a. gonzález was the most appropriate choice for this par­tic­u­lar Chicana/o art emphasizes the condition of cul- publication. However, we enthusiastically support tural mixing and celebrates a mestizo hybridity the use of “Chicanx” going forward. wherein all forms of ethnic and national purity A question that frequently arises concerning are suspect. This delicate categorical dance re- Chicana/o art is ­whether or how it is dif­fer­ent veals what it means to emerge from the cultural from “Latino” art. One approach to this question margins in search of self-definition:­ one must is to address differences between “Chicanos” and have an honest sense of the past, yet be open “Latinos”: the former are U.S. citizens of Mexican to transformation and change. Our goal is to descent identified with the Chicano movement, show the complexity and intersectionality of this and the latter are U.S. citizens of Latin American practice. descent. “Latino” is an exceptionally broad term For this reason, part I of the book, “Definitions that encompasses a widely diverse population and Debates,” introduces the idea of Chicana/o of ­people who live and are born in the U.S. but art practice and its shifting conceptual frame- whose families come from countries as far apart works. Early manifestos use persuasive language as Chile and Guatemala, or Brazil and the Domin- to situate Chicana/o art squarely in the tradition ican Republic. As Mexico is part of Latin Amer­ of radical art groups across the twentieth ­century i­ca, Mexican Americans and Chicanos are also and up to our pres­ent moment. They call for an technically “Latinos.” The comparison becomes art that is “off-the-­ ­wall,” an art that is a provo- more complex in the arts, where the two terms cation, a “visual abrasion,” an “iconic friction”; are frequently used together. As early as 2005, they demand an art with a barrio aesthetic, with Chon Noriega called for a need to “safeguard a “psychic harmony” and a “new world-view”;­ the history of Chicano and Latino participation they want art to exist in the field, in the factory, in the arts.” He argues, “This history is fragile, and in the home. It is an art that cries out from ephemeral and—in terms of the archive—­largely the “stomach of the monster,” that is a free­ art, neglected, making the Latino arts something on without restrictions or limitations. What then the order of what [Harry] Gamboa calls the ‘or- becomes of this art if it is collected, reproduced, phans of modernism.’ ”15 For Noriega, the term or shown in a museum? Is it dead? Has it already “Latino” is used to encompass both Chicano and lost the fight? What becomes of radical acts when Latino art practices, and to signal the importance they are anthologized and historicized? ­These of their mutual relation but nonequivalence. Put critical questions emerge through an impor­tant simply, Chicana/o art can be understood as one exchange between artists and scholars, and serve culturally and ideologically specific kind of La- as a fulcrum for exploring the way the defini- tino art. Over the past de­cade the broader term tion of Chicana/o art has shifted and changed “Latino art” has become more commonly used by over time. What might a “new” Chicano move- scholars and museums, resulting in cata­logs and ment look like? What might it mean to be “post-­ exhibitions that include works by Chicana/o art- Chicano” or “post-­movimiento”? Is it pos­si­ble to ists, such as Resisting Categories: Latin American ask ­these questions without losing the impor­tant and/or Latino Art? (2012), and Our Ameri­ ca:­ The po­liti­cal commitments of the past? Latino Presence in American Art (2013). Part II, “Cultural Reclamation and Vernacu- Chicana/o artists and scholars are thus faced lar Traditions,” examines the efforts of Chicana/o with a subtle paradox. On the one hand, we want artists, particularly the first generation, to recu- to articulate the characteristic and distinctive perate Mexican and Indigenous aesthetic forms qualities that define Chicana/o aesthetic and po­ and conceptual vocabularies that were­ effectively liti­cal paradigms, to demonstrate their unique- repressed or non­ex­is­tent in a Eurocentric, Amer- ness and difference from other Latino arts; on ican art context and pedagogical curriculum. the other hand, we want to acknowledge that Aztec and Mayan iconic forms, particularly

Introduction · 7 ­ancient deities that had been carved in stone, or are deified and demonized, categorized and images found in fifteenth-century­ codices, are also codified. Figuration is the central concern, espe- reproduced in murals and paintings, on posters cially in relation to a long history of iconic forms and clothing. Reaching into the ancient past to that speak to the pres­ent. Surface and texture be- light one’s way out of a pres­ent impasse might ap- come epidermal layers to excavate: the tattooed pear to outsiders as superficial anachronism, but skin of a prisoner trou­bles the semiotics of in- for many Indigenous-identified­ peoples, ­ tempo- nocence; garments and textiles enable or hinder rality is not linear—the­ past and the pres­ent exist the women­ who wear them; queer subjects are together. The maintenance of a connection to named and unnamed through contested visual the symbols of the past is a sign of continuity in lexicons. Through centuries of colonization, the the face of what has been a brutal and long-­term mestizo body that has hovered at the margins of colonial rupture (see Yreina Cervántez, Big Baby power ­will not dis­appear, and ­will no longer sub- Balam; fig. Intro. 1). By recuperating what was al- mit to domination, to abjection. How will­ it shed ready presented by a dominant culture as “myth,” this snakeskin that it has outgrown, while keep- Chicana/o artists seek to change the terms of ing an ancient and precious vitality? The essays analy­sis and the terms of critique as much as the in this section pursue ­these questions through aesthetic frameworks of con­temporary main- studies of ste­reo­types, sacred icons, and sexual stream art. Folk art, skilled craftsmanship, re- subversions. gional traditions, and local neighborhood rituals Part IV, “Public Practices and Enacted Land- are also valued for the role they play in shaping scapes,” explores key works that engage the logic the aesthetics of everyday life. Common prac- and materiality of urban spaces, social landscapes, tices such as graffiti become celebrated forms; and spatial experimentation through public art, photog­raphers document working-­class and In- street per­for­mance, and transitory monuments. digenous communities and histories; familiar Who explores the transcultural spaces of Los An- icons are reworked with new materials. Feminist geles and Tijuana? (See Patssi Valdez, LA/TJ; fig. interventions result in novel revisions, and popu­ Intro. 3.) Who gets to walk ­there freely? How does lar culture becomes a source for witty rebuttals. a neighborhood transform into a kind of “social Throughout this section, articles investigate how sculpture”? Recognizing their condition as not Chicana/o artists valorize personal narrative, only culturally but also geo­graphi­cally­ marginal- economic reality,­ colonial history, and cultural ized, many Chicana/o artists have intervened in heritage through a set of vernacular strategies public space as a way of unraveling the per­sis­tent and tactics. territoriality of hegemonic systems and architec- Part III, “Bodily Aesthetics and Iconologies,” tural normalcy. In places like Southern Califor- tracks the Chicano and Chicana body as a recur- nia, where redlining to restrict ethnic groups to ring trope in the exploration of gender, religion, specific neighborhoods was a common practice sexuality, and the prison industrial complex. well into the 1960s, the involuntary ghettoization How do corporality and embodiment articulate of Mexican ­Americans is part of a “dark,” largely par­tic­u­lar conditions of Chicano masculinity? unknown history in that sunshiny place. Making In what ways have Chicanas engaged a feminist home in a hostile environment is an act of brav- remapping of the ­woman as sacred and secular ery, not merely an act of survival; it is a creative figure? How does racism ­factor into the posi- act requiring invention, collaboration, and main- tioning and repression of ­those with “brown” tenance. Sanctioned and unsanctioned street skin? What are the ways queer politics enter the murals interrupt the rectilinear status quo of picture to complicate and transform it? Authors buildings and win­dows, concrete and steel; they in this section write about how bodies are kept “occupy” a meaningful visual domain by insist- invisible or are forced to signify, the ways they ing on a more colorful, complex, and po­litically­

8 · jennifer a. gonzález inflected environment. Temporary “instant” mu- Part VI, “Institutional Frameworks and Criti- rals, costumed promenades, billboards, and coun- cal Reception,” surveys the public response to termonuments erupt into the spatial imaginary Chicano art, its accep­ ­tance and rejection by to render it unfamiliar, uncanny. A double deter- mainstream museum institutions, and the lan- ritorialization and reterritorialization on the part guage of criticism that circulates and continues of the artists operates in parallel to a generalized to define its contours. Although most Chicana/o condition of dispossession. art was not originally intended for museums, as Part V, “Border Visions and Immigration with many other radical art movements it seems Politics,” is devoted to artworks that unearth the inevitable that the work eventually arrives ­there. meta­phors and realities of U.S.-Mexico­ border In our current moment, art institutions become life. Articles in this section address the double platforms for public or radical speech, in part consciousness of cross-border­ identifications and ­because ­there are so few places to speak po­liti­ provide an unflinching view of the daily trag- cally ­today. One complication that arises when edies that accompany the unequal distribution artwork changes context—from­ the barrio to of wealth between the two nations, so poignantly the Smithsonian—is that it can become illegible portrayed in Malaquías Montoya’s Undocumented to its audience. It subtleties and insider jokes, its (fig. Intro. 2). ­Because migration defines the ­family ­par­tic­u­lar aesthetic proclivities, its intertextual histories of so many Chicana/o artists working references, remain opaque to mainstream art au- in the United States ­today, the border as site of diences. This can produce alienation in art critics, memory, fear, pain, and nostalgia sets up a con- but it can also produce a productive discourse or dition of ambivalence toward­ the idea of national debate about questions of quality, taste, and cul- belonging. What are the “borderlands”? How tural hierarchy. How can one judge a work of art have visual artists worked through the bifurcation by criteria to which it never aspired? How soon of forms that bleed across the frontier? Where is ­will the inherent racisms of U.S. arts institutions “home”? Two of the authors in this section cite make way for a broader picture of American art? Gloria Anzaldúa’s famous line “This is my home / What role can museums play, and when must this this thin edge / of barbwire.” In order to decenter effort take place elsewhere? Essays in this section a familiar terrain, the articles in this section also closely examine museum practices, critical de- reach beyond the Southwest to include Michigan bates, and controversies associated with exhibi- and North Carolina, where the “border” extends tions featuring Chicana/o art. to other latitudes, including those­ not registered We hope this anthology ­will draw the inter- on a map. Lines demarcating borders are artificial est of students of Chicana/o history and culture, but not arbitrary; they divide the land and its re- as well as art theorists and visual studies scholars sources, they define a nation and itspeople, ­ they who practice in a field that has, ­until relatively are in­ven­ted by politicians, but then made mani- recently, generally ignored the contribution of fest by police. La migra, el norte, la frontera—these­ Chicana/o art to American and con­temporary are the hard edges where “xenophobias converge.” art history. Fortunately, this is starting to change. Living in the balance of two paradigms, two na- Small mentions of the movement and its artists tions, two languages, requires nimble resource- have appeared, for example, in Francis Pohl’s fulness and the deployment of multiple sign Framing Amer­i­ca: A Social History of Ameri­ systems. Humor laced with dynamite infects a can Art (2008), and one Chicana/o art collec- “border consciousness,” or inflects a turn of phrase. tive is mentioned in Nato Thompson’s Living as The essays and poetry in this section move across Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991–2011 (2012), linguistic, geograph­ i­cal,­ and psychological terri- but ­these are rare exceptions. As the immigrant tory to map creative negotiations of this simul­ ­ta­ populations from Mexico and Latin Amer­i­ca neously fertile and oppressive liminal zone. grow throughout the U.S., and as artists bring

Introduction · 9 their regional and synthetic artistic practices to 1972), 349–53; and Sybil Venegas, “Conditions for Produc- the public arena, there­ will­ be a higher demand ing Chicana Art,” Chismearte 1, no. 4 (1977–78): 2–4. for knowledgeable scholarship on Latina/o and 5. See Alicia Gaspar de Alba, Chicano Art: Inside/Out- Chicana/o art practice and traditions. side the Master’s House (Austin: University of Texas Press, What does the future­ hold for globally mobile 1998), 9. 6. See a discussion of this ongoing issue in part VI citizens, refugees, Indigenous populations, and of this volume, “Institutional Frameworks and Critical noncitizens? Are the terms “Chicano” and “Chi- Reception.” cana” irretrievably historical and dated, or will­ 7. See, for example, the work of Shifra Goldman, Philip they be taken up again, in a new way? How will­ Brookman, and Eva Cockroft and James Cockroft. marginalized populations respond creatively to 8. See analy­sis of difrasismo in Alfred Arteaga, Chicano ongoing, systematic economic and racial injus- Poetics: Heterotexts and Hybridities (Cambridge: Cam- tice? These­ are impor­tant concerns of our pres­ bridge University Press, 1997), 6; and in Laura E. Pérez, ent time; they have changed little­ in the past fifty Chicana Art: The Politics of Spiritual and Aesthetic Alterities years since the Chicano movement was launched. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 14. Developing a response to ­these questions never- 9. See Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera: theless remains one of the goals toward­ which The New Mestiza (San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute, Chicana/o art is directed, and to which this col- 1987). 10. Tomás Ybarra-­Frausto, “Rasquachismo: A Chicano lection hopes to contribute. Sensibility,” in Chicano Aesthetics: Rasquachismo (Phoe- nix, AZ: MARS Artspace, 1989), 5–8. Notes 11. In the 1970s, the German artist Joseph Beuys de- fined “social sculpture” as an art practice that takes place 1. Ruben Salazar, “Who Is a Chicano? And What Is It the in the social realm, requires social engagement, and Chicanos Want?,” Los Angeles Times (1886–­Current File), leads to a transformation of society through the release February 6, 1970, ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los of popu­lar creativity. See Alan W. Moore, “A Brief Geneal- Angeles Times (1881–1986), B7. ogy of Social Sculpture,” Journal of Aesthetics and Protest, 2. Rodolfo Gonzales and Alberto Urista [Alaurista], Web Only Articles, accessed July 17, 2018, http://­www​ “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán,” El Grito del Norte (Alburquer- .­joaap​.­org​/­webonly​/­moore​.­htm. que, New Mexico) 2, no. 9 (July 6, 1969): 5. 12. See, for example, The Latin American Spirit: Art and 3. Philip Brookman, “Looking for Alternatives: Notes Artists in the United States, 1920–1970 (1988); Chicano on Chicano Art, 1960–1990,” Chicano Art: Re­sis­tance and Expressions (1986); Lo del corazón: Heartbeat of a Culture Affirmation, ed. R. Griswold del Castillo, T. McKenna, and (1986); and Sin Fronteras, Crossing Borders: Mexican Ameri- Y. Yarbro-­Bejarano (Los Angeles: Wight Art Gallery, UCLA, can Artists in the Southwest (1989). 1991), 182. 13. Alicia Gaspar de Alba, “ ‘Between the Ghetto and 4. See, for example, Raymond Barrio, Mexico’s Art and the Melting Pot’: Popu­lar Hegemony,” in Chicano Art: Chicano Artists (Guerneville, CA: Ventura Press, 1978); Max Inside/Outside the Master’s House (Austin: University of Benavidez and Kate Vozoff, “The Wall: Image and Bound- Texas Press, 1998). ary, Chicano Art in the 1970s,” in Mexican Art of the 1970s: 14. See, for example, “Documents of Twentieth Images of Displacement (Nashville: Vanderbilt University ­Century Latin American and Latino Art at the Museum of Press, 1984), 45–54; Chicano and Latino Artists in the Pacific Fine Arts Houston,” ICAA Digital Archive, accessed July 17, Northwest, exhibition cata­log (Olympia, WA: Evergreen 2018, http://­icaadocs​.­mfah​.­org​/­icaadocs​/; and ImagineArte State College, 1984); Dalé Gas/Give It Gas, exhibition Chicano/Latino database, University of California, Santa cata­log (Houston, TX: Con­temporary Art Museum, 1977); Barbara, accessed July 17, 2018, http://­cemaweb​.­library​ Manuel Martinez, “The Art of the Chicano Movement and .­ucsb​.­edu​/­calisphere​.­html. the Movement of Chicano Art,” in Aztlán: An Anthology 15. Chon Noriega, “Preservation ­Matters,” Aztlán: of Mexican American Lit­er­a­ture (New York: Vintage Books, A Journal of Chicano Studies 30, no. 1 (April 1, 2005): 9.

10 · jennifer a. gonzález