Get ready for a huge shift in our readings. This entire book is a series of responses to one work of art from a show in Santa Fe in 2001, twelve years ago. The conflict will bring up issues on gender, faith, sexual orientation, ownership of images, museum management, public opinion and the role of artist as activist. Each essay takes a slightly different view. There is repetition and restating of the "facts". but keep reading.
I choose this book because each of the primary players was educated by someone, somewhere. Each person speaking their mind believed they knew art and had a right to make decisions on/about art.
Read these first chapters and give a response. How do you feel about the work in question? What would have done if you had lived in Santa Fe at the time? How would you have handled the issue in your art class or if you were a student and it was talked about in your class?
It’s curious what outrages a community in popular culture. It’s curious what we remember. Are we all old enough to remember the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit? Most people remember large dollar amount awarded to the victim but forget that award was merely the proceeds of one or two day’s worth of coffee sales at McDonalds. Mrs. Liebeck, the burned coffee drinker, was from Albuquerque.
ReplyDeleteI really mention all this because context and intent is important.
Taken out of context-almost anything could be presented as outrageous, offensive even amoral. We often are misinformed or hear only the sensational side of the story.
The exhibition was themed with the intent to highlight modernity and the interplay of that modernity with traditionally taught latina women.
It was a blending, of bringing in something new. Instead of seeing the exhibit as something refreshing—a making relevant of old symbols-,to some it felt like an attack from outsiders.
The work in question is an interpretation of an iconic image. Its intention was to add relevance and modern power to a traditional female image. Beyond, that lifting of the traditional virgin’s image, the underlying assumption of the maker of the art was that women are implicitly beautiful, powerful, and strong-(the woman in the photo was actually a rape survivor). . There is no gesture in the image, which is sexualized except for a direct gaze at the viewer. So why do these men see her as a tart? Because she looks at the viewer directly—not with down cast eyes? The underlying assumption of the protestors, is that a woman’s body is something to be ashamed of, to cover up.
I find it most interesting that a policeman went to get a priest. The protestors wanted to burn the women who created and then presented the art. It’s very difficult not to pass judgment on a community, which would support that language and hate. It needed to be a conversation conducted civilly. Where was that voice of moderation?
I also find it amusing that they pulled out the “we need Fatima” league.
In Fatima, Portugal, The town’s folk, there, imprisoned the 3 children who said they saw the vision of the virgin.
At the time, She wasn’t the correct virgin either. She was a new version virgin. Why would the queen of heaven appear to poverty-stricken children. They must be punished.
Why would this "outsider" woman be more in sympathy with images of the Mother of Jesus than the "insider" men of authority?
Sadly, Had I been in New Mexico at the time, I am certain I would have sent and email or called in support. That would have been wildly inadequate. They needed breathing calming physical presence of supporters.
I would have discussed it as power and gender wars and would have wondered as I do now—why the powerful often forget to defend the weak in their charge.
Your ability to see the whole picture is why I know you are an outstanding museum director/curator. I do not think there is ever one reason for the firestorm of protests. It evolves into a strange middle school like popularity contest.
DeleteLynn, I too feel that these women needed more supporters physically there for them. The racial, and cultural issues seemed to have been percolating for some time in New Mexico.
DeleteAs soon as I started to read this book, I begin to critically analyze the situation. I am a devout, practicing catholic, homosexual man, and artist. I personally did not find this piece, or any of the works of art to be controversial, or offensive. I too imagined that the Our Lady, was not only representing the Chicana/Chicano culture as strong, and independent, but also showing the beauty of women, the catholic faith, and etc. I do not believe that the artist created this in a negative view towards Catholicism, nor did I think she did anything wrong. The artwork is beautiful, inspirational and powerful. It addresses more than just religion, for example the Chicana culture, Chicana women, ancestry, the female body, admiration of the female body, and so much more. I feel sorry for Lopez, and having to go through this very difficult situation. She is an artist, and she expressed her views and opinions, not in a negative way towards the Catholic faith, but for women, Chicana’s, Catholics, lesbians, and other artists. If I had been in Santa Fe at the time of all of this, I would have stood up for her. She has the right to express her opinion and create art about what ever she desires, and if you personally don’t like it that’s ok. You don’t have to hang it above your fireplace. But we as Catholics are supposed to be accepting, forgiving, patient, and not judge. We are to accept and love everyone, and I feel a lot of Catholics forgot this mindset during this situation. The people meant well for trying to stand up for their faith, because they felt attacked, but they didn’t understand the artwork, and got defensive, and assumed they were being attacked and fought back. When your cheek is struck, turn the other cheek. This was not an anti-Catholic, anti-Guadalupe, or anti-Christianity piece of art. The art was just a modern representation of the three. I applaud Lopez for embracing her faith and showing how she perceives her faith. This is something many artists, or non-artists do at all. If I had students in my class discussing this, I would want to try and explain to them the situation and what all of this means, and to think critically and try to understand something before you get upset; because in this case, there was nothing to become upset with.
ReplyDeleteJayson, I agree that the work is not just about Catholicism. That flattens Alma's creative work into simply a depiction of an icon, rather than a reflective piece about Alma's personal journey. But...when offended people are "battling" offensive artworks/statements/writings, the argument rarely contains nuance. Nuance is too hard for a group mentality to follow. Keep things simple to keep people mad--and I say this on all sides of controversy, not just battles between right/left, pagan/religious, gay/straight. This also speaks to the media (as the chapters talked about a very one-sided depiction in the media): the media normally come bumbling in, blasting out headlines before checking thoroughly through a situation--as if their very purpose is to stir up anger and resentment, rather than report facts. The media can do a lot to keep the fires of controversy burning--and keep news relevant. I think of the Boston bombings: when I read internet news articles listing hundreds as dead, rather than injured. They think, "we can just correct/retract this later, no harm." Although the information is still burned into the psyche.
DeleteJason,
DeleteI agree that Catholics should be accepting, forgiving, patient and non-judgemental. That is significant. Lopez certainly has a right to her position and I think the old traditional Roman Catholic ideology shaped the critical individuals and clouded their rationale by exhibiting in Santa Fe as opposed to if it had been in Los Angeles or liberal environments elsewhere. Iconic images will probably always be highly controversial due to their nature of origin. If artists are censored from freedom of expression, then freedom doesn't exist in that context.
Each of us has different understanding of God and as Ghandi stated: “As many people are in the world that is how many religions there are.” Since the Catholic religion plays a part in this, I wondered what their leader Jesus would say. My understanding of what Christ would say when seeing the artwork is: “Isn’t my mother beautiful!” For me, it is all about interpretation and not sacred cows. The Jesus of my understanding is compassionate, full of love and a good listener. I am sure if I was to be present during the Santa Fe art display I would love to hear what Alma Lopez had to say about her interpretation of “Our Lady.” How quick we judge before looking at the whole issue at least I know I am guilty of this behavior. If I was to speak about these issues to students I would want them to at least try “walking in someone else shoes” before condemning a piece of art. I would spend some time discussing who Alma Lopez is as a person and look at why she might create such a controversial piece of art.
DeleteYou are so right Emily about how the media can bring fuel to the fire on an issue. Their motive I would think is to sell more newspapers or get more viewers and the hotter the topic the better. Honestly, I always view the media with skepticism and with a critical eye. I had an elderly friend who would read several different newspapers a day because he found that one or the other had a slanted view on the subject. He shared that after reading them he felt he could make a better judgment of the true sense of the story.
DeleteThank you for sharing your faith and your calmness.
DeleteOur Lady Chap 1-3
ReplyDeleteChiastic structure: I was intrigued by the authors' interest in chiastic structure. This isn't my first foray into this form of writing--background: my dad has a minor in Greek and encouraged my siblings and I to read Greek literature (of course in English). A good translation keeps as much structure/diction as possible. Dad also helped us dig apart many New Testament texts written in Greek originally, such as Paul's writings in 1 and 2 Timothy and John's writing--John (both of which model chiastic structure). Language is very interesting to me, probably I got my dad's penchant for word play. I intend--with time--to dig deeper into these author's writings to see if they actually used the structure throughout their writings, or if just the titles are chiastic in nature.
Layering of context: Original iconography and traditional images no longer carry their original meanings. It used to bother me very much! As an artist, we create out of a need to express something personal--a belief, a thought, a value system, a protest. To see that original creation rewritten by someone who is NOT the creator, it is a frustrating thing. But…that's what art is, that's the nature of visual culture. It becomes personal to the viewer: internalized and then recreated as the viewer moves forward with the work, either through their writing/speaking/own creation. Take for instance the St. Sebastien. Today the Saint speaks to gay culture; piercing arrows no longer point back to holy war and martyrdom, but rather to phallus piercing flesh.
So, who then has the right to create artwork about/of/for a specific religion? Someone who practices that belief system? No one? In the case of Alma Lopez, she was born in Mexico, she did grow up surrounded by the visual culture of Mexico--saturated in imagery of The Virgin and other Mexican hero/heroines. Alma is Catholic. And yet, she did not have the right to utilize her own culture's, own religion's imagery in her artwork.
Overarching theme: how do we avoid offending? SHOULD we work so hard to avoid offending? Is the problem NOT the offending, but rather we no longer know how to react/respond/speak when we are offended? "I wish those who want to paint controversial art would find their own symbols to trash and leave Catholic ones alone." Michael Sheehan, archbishop of Santa Fe. The fact that the artwork is controversial stems from the fact that the artwork contains that very imagery. Remove the selected imagery and the work is no longer controversial.
I watch in my day to day how educators balance precariously between students and parents. Most of the fires we put out deal with some form of perceived offense. Parents no longer teach their children, through modeling language and behavior, how to react rational, respectfully, and logically to some perceived offense. I'd say my own generation (who are now parents) were not taught how to deal gracefully with offense--I'm a product of a culture of political correctness that tries(d) oh so hard to not offend anyone. But I say it's impossible to live life without someone perceiving offensive words/actions/behaviors…so rather than trying to prevent offense…let's teach respectful dialogue. This is missing everywhere in our culture: in politics, religion, day-to-day neighborly interactions.
I agree we don't have great models. Late in life--I have been given two very good pieces of advice; 1) assume good will and 2) religion should be used to correct yourself not someone else. Both can be difficult to follow.
DeleteEmily,
DeleteI completely agree that iconography and traditional images no longer carry their original meanings. I find that very depressing. There is so much lost information in that statement. I find that much more effort to explain validity is required today than ever before. To me, it is bombast that original artist creations are rewritten by societal norms. It seems we've over censured ourselves in this information age so as to hinder self-expression. Perhaps we've been forced by society to engage with the public on "their" rationale and logic. As you say, who has the right? Offending happens either directly or indirectly. Art incorporates message, but some won't accept the "just" message.
I was unaware of the new role St Sebastien has taken on...I always assumed the arrows continue to represent the pain of criticism and/or banishment. I find it hard to control a group over two separate voices, so I feel a large part of what becomes a huge issue is due to no one paying attention at the beginning.
DeleteWhat doesn't help matters is that our culture seems to have a 10 second attention span: pay attention long enough to get mad about something...and then forget that issue to get offended by something else! Ha!
DeleteSt. Sebastian is also patron saint for druggies. Emily, you may not find chiastic structure in the writings. The chiasmus, I believe exists in the reversal of the statements, which changes the context. "Its not about the santa in my fe, but the Satna Fe in my santa." (Lopez) I love that they presented a roundtable at the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies in 2008, titled "Irreverent Apparitions: Chiasmatic of Alma Lopez' Our Lady." Last year I went to the NACCS to support a local Chican@ organization. I really wish I had been at the NACCS in 2008. What I love the most about their use of chiasmus is that they took that literary device known to be in widely used in religious texts such as the bible (not the only use) and used it in a new way. So befitting, considering the religiously charged controversy of Our Lady.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe 1st 3 chapters of "Our Lady of Controversy" depict the "malcriada" that Our Lady of Controversy asserts with the controversy of legitimacy of the Virgin of Aztlan culture. A malcriada as depicted in the prologue is stated as "a woman who will not behave and is determined to do what she wants, regardless of what society rules or even good sense dictates" (Lopez, Our Lady of Controversy 2011 p.8). A line is crossed of disrespectful imagination that causes a maelstrom of ideals that scream of it's legitimacy. At the altar is the Virgin of Guadalupe and the rationale of what bounds oppression. Because the exhibit "Cyber Arte: Tradition meets Technology" redefines what "folk" means to Chicana/Latina/Hispana artists, the ideal of reverence to the Roman Catholic Church and the Virgin of Guadalupe is interpreted as trivial and insignificant. Freedom of expression is highly censured when divine nature is recreated. Indeed, when this exhibit originated in 2001, conservative minds of the curators, the religious hispanic community, and community activists ruled with censorship under the guise of funding concerns.
I am simply amazed how society creates such disdain over a paradigm of self-expression of cultures. Perhaps the title of chapter 2 summarized it best with the title "It's not about the art in the folk, it's about the folks in the art" (Lopez, p.17). I certainly see both sides to the arguments, but what about the freedoms of the Chicana/Latino and Hispanic roots? Is there really no common ground? Must the exhibit be demorilized with the titles "Bikini Virgin" or "Devil in a Rose Bikini", and labeled as blasphemous and sacrilegious? Absurd, simply preposterous. Part of the problem/challenge is that the exhibit is in Santa Fe New Mexico rather than Los Angeles California. Perhaps the real question is who owns the history of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Lopez stated "New Mexico's citizen community has one-third of it's members calling themselves Roman Catholic" (Lopez, p.45) and the demographic has revered ideals of virgins. Iconic imagery will always be controversial, subject to high criticism. Controversy is, to me, a good thing when dignity, respect and freedom of expression are accepted and nurtured means of artistic expression.
Great reply and you must have read my mind...see the question for this week's reading.
DeleteThe book’s cover depicting “Our Lady” with boxing gloves truly represents a cultural battle going on after reading these chapters. This very controversial piece of art on the cover of the book brings into question many things. Not originally being from this area or Roman Catholic, I remember asking who “Our Lady of Guadalupe” was due to seeing her image so often. In doing this, I came across many who are very devoted to her so reading about the art work by Alma Lopez I definitely could understand the negative reaction. For me, I feel the art work is about Alma Lopez’s interpretation of her own personal battle. We all have opinions and I feel that it is important for us to be able voice these opinions especially in art. For me, after looking at the art work along with the readings, I am honestly more interested in learning about the issues that Latino women face.
ReplyDeleteNice insight about her personal battle. I know for me , art making always reflects my inner thoughts/feelings/confusions/fears/joys/memories.
DeleteWhen I read the very first paragraph, I thought it was a performance art piece recreating appearance of the apparition of La Virgen De Guadalupe de Tepeyac to Juan Diego, but occurring in a contemporary form: magically appearing in a digital print. I thought that would have been cool, even though it would have been a very daring religious and political stunt. That was my initial thought, but of course the actual occurrence couldn’t be farther from a planned performance. The sensationalism that erupted from the Cyber Arte exhibit was not intentional at the least.
ReplyDeleteOur Lady reminded me of the image on the tilma of Juan Diego, whom I think should be called by his real name, Cuauhtlatoatzin. I was expecting Alma Lopez to make reference to Tonantzin, Aztec mother goddess, whose temple was destroyed in the very place where the apparition of La Virgen de Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego. Alma used images of Coyolxauhqui, a Mexica moon goddess on the cloak of Our Lady instead. I think that if perhaps Alma would have argued that Our Lady was a rendition of the mother goddess Tonantzin, then the religious protesters would have had less ground on their unfounded censorship over the artwork because it would be an interpretation of what Cuauhtlatoatzin (Juan Diego) saw on the Tepeyac Hill. However, the issues that erupted from Our Lady extended far beyond than the obliviousness to religious colonization the religious protesters fail to recognize. From a religious perspective, I am able to look at Alma’s work objectively because I do not follow Christianity. I apologize if it appears that I lack religious sensitivity. I tried to think of some kind of imagery that I, myself would find as deeply disturbing in an artwork, as the protestors found in Our Lady, that I would feel compelled to demand that it be taken down from a public institution, and what that something would be. I would have to say it would be something condoning or promoting hate, and pretty much anything that the Westboro Baptist Church engages in.
I think the controversy of Our Lady needed to happen, and more so in Santa Fe, and as hard as those strong women have battled and are seemingly still battling, who better than them because they have endured. What I would have done if I was in Santa Fe was wear a T-shirt of the artwork in support, with the artist's permission of course. I do not think the church belongs anywhere except in a church. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state.
I am so glad for Tey Mariana Nunn and Alma Lopez that the artwork was never taken down. The harassment that those women endured is unbelievable. What is even more disturbing is that their voices were never heard, except in academia like this book, conferences, etc. The press does not care about the aftermath of headlines.
If Our Lady became the subject of a class discussion, I think I would direct the conversation toward the boundary of what would be considered unacceptable or acceptable in an artwork such as Our Lady for it’s removal to be prompted? I would make my students think critically about what makes it unacceptable and take each point and discuss whether or not it is grounds for censorship.
In the first three chapters of “Our Lady of Controversy”, I get the feeling of “haters gonna hate”. I use this phrase because I feel like art isn’t going to be liked by every single person in a community and the only ones that will say anything are those that STRONGLY oppose. My heritage is the same as the women of this book where the Virgin of Guadalupe is a very important and publicized figure. I myself was going to get a tattoo of the Virgin and growing up she meant a lot to me and my family.
ReplyDeleteAs an artist I have no problem how the Virgin is portrayed in the artwork. It is the artist view of the Virgin. But on the other hand I do have a problem with the artwork from a religious standpoint. As a Catholic I do not want to see the Virgin any other way than the biblical way but that was the way I was brought up. As I get older though, the line between the two sides gets greyer.
If this type of controversy happened in my classroom I would accept it. I do not want my students to grow up as I do and feel like they have to conform to a certain way of thinking or drawing. I would tell the student to feel proud of what they have accomplished and tell them that the whole world will not like the way you draw or paint, ect. I will tell them “haters gonna hate”.