Week 8 - “Chicano Art (Looking Backward)” by Goldman and Critical Responses

     In Shifra Goldman’s critique, “Chicano Art,” of the Chicanx art exhibitions, Caifas and Murals of Aztlan, Goldman says, “should Chicano artists, at the cost of economic security and possible artistic recognition, continue to express themselves artistically around the same matrix of social change and community service that brought their movement to existence” (p. 436)? In summary, Goldman basically argues that the artists that were presented at these exhibits sold out to mainstream Anglo-American culture at the expense of their communities. One example that Goldman provides to support her claim are the giant canvas “murals” which were to be sold at the event “violate the root meaning of the ‘mural,’ which is by definition an artwork intended for a wall” (p. 439). She contends that the traditional chicano mural was meant to be displayed in public in the barrios were Chicano artists live. 

    Judithe Hernandez takes offense to Goldman’s assessment of the Chicano art galleries mentioned in her critique in Hernandez’s letter, “Reader’s Forum Letter to the Editor in Response to Shifra Goldman’s Exhibition Review.” Hernandez says, “Why should changes in my work and social-political attitudes be construed as compromising my commitment to my Chicanismo, while in another artist the same would be perceived as personal and professional growth” (p. 440)? Hernandez claims that any other artists, presumably an Anglo-American artist, would never be questioned for their desire to expand and make more accessible their art. Goldman is in effect gatekeeping Chicano artists to what she perceives is the one true method for exhibition Chicano art. Hernandez ends her letter by saying, “as our Mexican predecessors before us, our work will mature and change. Chicano art and Chicano artists, I am sure, will always pay homage to the traditions of the Mexican/ Chicano culture” (p. 441). 

    Finally, Goldman responds to Hernandez in her letter, “Readers’ Forum Response to Judithe Hernandez’s Letter to the Editor” by continuing her appeal to what she considers Chicano traditional art. Goldman makes multiple appeals to authority citing concurring critiques from artist Malaquías Montoya and David Sisqueiros (pp. 442-443). Sisqueiros in particular created a protest piece, America Tropical, in Los Angeles’s Olvera Street (shown below). Goldman continues by arguing that the rich Europeans and Mexican visitors should simply visit the murals displayed in the gallery by “go[ing] to the Barrio” (p. 443). Goldman says “CAFAM brought the barrio to them, tamed, sanitized, and air-conditioned” because these affluent individuals were too scared to visit the barrios of Los Angeles (p. 443). 

    I appreciate Goldman’s critique of the art exhibitions mentioned in her article because it is true, Chicano art is traditionally meant to  serve the barrio. I contend however that art should be as accessible as possible for everyone. The children in our communities rarely see themselves represented in the mainstream media that is presented to them. My generation had El Chavo del Ocho and Plaza Sesamo, but we never had a Chicano television show to see ourselves in. In fact, in many cases we had to endure the constant barrage of racist stereotypes portrayed by Latino characters on TV. Therefore it is important for our communities to appropriate art and media through mainstream forums. Additionally, I agree with Hernandez’s take on Goldman’s gatekeeping of Chicano art. A white artist would never be questioned for selling their art. I find Goldman’s take ironic because Mexican artists like Diego Rivera were often commissioned to create murals for both the Mexican government and wealthy American tycoons. While I appreciate Sisqueiros protest art piece, America Tropical, the white store owners were quickly able to whitewash his art from the mainstream. Sisqueiros’s art is for the Chicanx community. Rivera’s art is for everyone. There’s no reason why we can’t have both.