Our classmate,
Edwin Arzeta, made a beautiful comment in his post last week and I wanted to
add to that discussion. His post was about Laura Aguilar and Carlee Fernandez,
two artists that we analyzed. While he and I share the belief that Aguilar’s
photographs are beautiful, he offered a personal insight that I find to be
valid in its own right, but also valuable to us as young scholars and critical
thinkers. He admired her “search for the credibility of identity”, which is an
amazing task.
With both artists, he discussed how he
was inspired to consider his own abilities, and to develop an aesthetic that
can affect change. Yet in his analysis of Fernandez, he discussed, in more
specific terms, how he was moved to consider his own art practice with respect
to his identity and social politics. He went on to say that while he is not
embarrassed of ashamed to identify as gay or Chicano, he recognizes the
responsibility in such terms and was not yet ready to demonstrate a praxis that
embodied the possible meanings of said identities. Edwin says, “Rather, I felt there was a responsibility of using those labels...like I
was too naive to be able to claim them, so instead I created art that was/is
devoid of the identity of any one kind of person.” This is an interesting and
important thought, yet I believe it begs for further questioning: What kind of
art does a gay artist make? What kind of art does a Chicano artist make? Even
these questions are complicit in the essentializing framework that codifies us,
so we must remember that life is complex and complicated. Our identities may
contradict or change over time, we may develop or regress, but one thing is for
sure, we’re nuanced beings.
Hi Kaelyn!
ReplyDeleteI think there's a difference (because of labeling) between an artist who happens to be gay and chican@ and one who is a gay/chican@ artist in that the latter creates work that directly addresses the issues of the communities to which he or she identifies. I think that these labels help to propagate variety among all types of artists because it helps to shift focus to different areas on the spectrum of social awareness and culture. Then I wonder do these labels need to exist? Is there somehow a way that we can communicate between communities through a more universally inclusive dialogue? But then I think that that's why labels are significant--everyone that is alive today has lived in a world where we have been grouped into smaller communities, and that level of codification is difficult to escape. I suppose what I'm getting at is that I just always took myself for an artist, not just a gay artist. I think sometimes it matters that people know that I am gay to better understand some things that I put out into the world, but often times they don't. If someone looks at me they automatically know that I'm not a Anglo American, but even if they did, my work isn't about not being Anglo (or any other denomination), but about each person individually.
Looking back I also feel like labeling can be a form of celebration and a source of agapé or brotherly love to some. I watched a panel discussion at the Hammer Museum last weekend were Vendara Shiva and two other panelists discussed "The Future of Food" and since then I have been thinking about the experiences of being a farmer in India as compared to a farmer in Mexico. I think it's interesting how the two groups can be codified and pushed apart from each other into smaller and smaller denominations despite bearing the same general label. And this made me think, labels aren't necessarily bad if the intention of their allocation is to truthfully educate about people who belong to certain groups. I think Laura's experience in searching for the credibility of identity was personal to her because labels didn't accurately represent the way that she wanted to feel or identify. For instance, society labels overweight people as ugly, but in her search she found that she could be beautiful and feel the warmth of the sun. Labels weren't doing her justice so she found a cathartic way to disregard them through self-portraiture.
Thanks Kaelyn!
ReplyDeleteHi Edwin,
as I mentioned to you before, I've been thinking about this post for a while. Here’s what I’ve got so far: For me, identity is more than a label. In fact, I see labeling as something that is done by another, it’s not something one does to one's self. As such, I see identity as a place where the person at hand gets to claim and honor their personhood. It’s a way for us to describe ourselves; we don't need to do this for others, we do it for our own development, as a way to understand ourselves. These ideas don't always work out smoothly and sometimes we want others to identify a certain way because maybe it means something to us. But this is where we have to ask ourselves who we are and why we feel a certain way about the construction of our identity or the identity of others. Lastly, I think we need to be aware of the coloniality and hegemony in action when we think of ourselves as people who just happen to be Chicana/o. I personally also want to be careful of an imposition of others’ identity, but I am critical when folks back away from naming their subjectivity because I have to ask what is at stake. Who benefits from our nameless selves?
Maybe we can continue this discussion throughout the academic year!
Krodriguez018@ucla.edu