The first question I have involves your first essay, " Out of the House, he Halo, and the Whore's Mask: The Mirror of Malinchismo", do you think the issues discussed in your article, like the Chicana artists in the "feminist vision" room being ghettoized due to the placement of the room, will be a major problem, say, 10 years from now? Another issue you stated about the "feminist vision" room was the lack of male artists and the idea that only women want to further the feminist cause. If it were more widely accepted to see and accept men as feminists would we have as many issues about it as we do today? I believe that we still might have those problems even though we are more accepting as a society. It might not be as obvious as it was 10 years ago, but I still feel like the issues will never die. Since we live in a male-dominated society and if more men identified as feminists then I believe that would have a tremendous impact on the feminist consciousness.
My second question is in regards to your second essay, "There's No Place Like Aztlan: Embodied Aesthetics in Chicana Art". Do you believe that the idea of Aztlan is harmful to the identity of Chicanos/as? I believe that, although identity is more than place of origin, why go looking for something that doesn't exist? Why not just flat out accept where you were born or distinguish where your home is as part of your identity and that be the end of it? What good is looking for this utopia that doesn't exist? I have one more question about your second article. What, to you, is the closest thing to Aztlan?
No comments:
Post a Comment