This CARA exhibition was said to be truly inclusive of Chicana Artists, but Gaspar de Alba states that it was not because there were so many more Chicano male artists presented and only a few of works by Chicanas. But because some of there works were included, it was suddenly a great representation of Chicanas and their artwork. Also, the CARA exhibition did not collect the artwork of extremely important group of las Mujeres Muralistas who pushed boundaries and empowered other Chicanas. Which got Gaspar de Alba wondering what the position of this exhibition truly was.
I found it interesting how reviews of the exhibitions stated that this exhibition was inclusive, and such a great accomplishment by Chicanas when in reality it was reiterating the dominant-submissive Chicano and Chicana narrative.
What also struck out to me were the different types of feminisms that Gaspar De Alba discusses and how she asked in class who was a feminist and not many students raised their hand. Personally, when I think of feminism I do agree with their views, but I also know that intersectionality is not truly considered when thinking of feminism as a whole. This relates to the "White feminism" and "Third World Feminism" that she discusses in her chapter. For example, Chicanas are not only oppressed and constrained by their two roles, to live for their men and for their families, but also because of their skin color. Sexism and racism intertwine. This exhibition may not have truly considered the oppression of Chicanas within their own communities. It frustrates me because this exhibition is viewed to be so great, but the oppressions are continued to be reiterated.
No comments:
Post a Comment