, rot' 710 'Sf? c rWr _.- 7

APTER

Out of the House, the Halo, and the Whore's Mask:

The Mirror of Marinchismo

Gender Politics

"IfChicano an hu been considered a long neglected entitywilhin the reaJm of 'An History.' cenainly the anemiongiven to thewomcn artists ofIa R.iu isalong time coming."wrote Sybil Venegas in the speciaJ icl mllju issue of Chismiurtt:in 1977.' Thirteen years Luer, did the CARA exhibition giveChicana artists the aUention they deserve? According to sev­eral reviewers. it did: "Chicana artists are well representedthroughout the exhibition." said Eva Sperling Cockcroft inArt in America. ~ "The real. triumph of the disenfranchised in

the exhibit:' said Michael Ennis in Texas Monthly. " ... isthe emergence from obscurity ofChicana artists." J Indeed,one of the exhibition gUidelines set forth by the CARA Na­tional Advisory Committee at its first planning meeting in1986 was that "there must be an awareness of the genderissues in all aspects of the exhibition, in both process andproduct.···

A b.Isic quantitative analysis of the show. however, re­veaJs that approximately a hundred more Chic~o artiststhan Chicanas were represented. Ifwe examine Ihe len sec.tions of the exhibit according to the number of works de.

piClcd and the number of male utists ,1nd fcm.uc utislS represented in

uch section we find a gluing ineqUol.lity. Of the fourteen pieces in the:"Cultural Icons" room, one was d.one by il womAn; of the ten in "Civil

Uberties," again onc by a woman: of the twenty-seven in "Urban Im·

ages," yOll guessed correctly, onc by a woman. Of the firty~four munl

imOlgcs projected, only seven were done exclusively by women or worn·

en's collectives. Of the three grupos selected for sped.! recognition within

the Chicano Art Movement, not one of them had women's concerns ilnd

particular oppressions primary to their agendas. In fact, the inequity re­vealed by this quantitative analysis is qualitalively reinforced when we

juxtapose, later in this chapter, what I eall the three "men's rooms" or

grupo instillations in the show with the "Feminist Visions" room or w.e.(for Women's Closet).

Although Chicana artist collectives like las Mujeres Muralistas from Siln

Francisco exist in the hislOry of the Chicano Arl Movement. the CAR."organizers chose to highlight only ASCO, the Royal dlkano Air Force.

Figure 41. Insu.lb.tion shot. Entr;lntt to "Feminist Visions" room. CARA: (mono

A.n: Resi$l~ncc: =d Affirmltion. exhibition hdd 01.1 UCLA's Wight Art Gillc:ry,

September 9-Decembcr 9. 1990. Photogr,lph provided courlC:;y of lhc: Wight

Art Gallery.

3/1

IlII

9/1

26/1

47/7

3/0

24/10

7/30/101­

8/6

M.i.le/Fem.i.le

4

14

10

27

543

3410

14

14

Number ofWorks

Table I. Quantitative Analysis of theCARA Exhibilion by Gender

La CausaCllhurallconsCivil libertiesUrban IllIagesMurilols (slide show)­GtUpo installations­

Regional ExpressionsReclaiming the Pastf'el11iniM VisionsRl,.'<Iclining American An

~"tion

ind Los Four.' Las Mnjcres Muralistas originally consisted of three Chica­

na.s, Patricia. Rodriguez. Graciela Carrillo, and Irene Perez, and a Vcnezue­

lin, Consuela Mendez. Others joined the group later, among them Ester

Hernindez. At the time that Venegas's Mliclc w-.s published in Ch..ismt4nein 1977, Mujeres had done eleven murals, neMly all of them in the Mis.sian District in San Francisco.'

According to Yolanda M. lOpez, one of tile foremothers ofChicana Mt 1

MUjeres was an extremely important group for the empowerment ofCh;­

CinilS in el Movimiento, for they challenged the sexist and stereotypical

notions within the Chicano Art Movement that women were physicallynot able and politically not "mcant"to create murals. to build and climb

Kiffolding. to be on public display and withstand the comments of pas.

sersby.· Precisely to mitigate these limiting, sexist assumptions, Judith

B.l.Ci produced Woman~MQllUllI: How 10 Asscnblc ScaffoL!ing, which, Shifn. Gold­

~liln I~ us, "was intended to help remedy women's socialiution," by

Instructmg women artists on the logistics of "working outdoors on a

large scale ... and knOWing how to handle tools and successfully COil.

mutt such large objccts as olle- or two-story scaffolds.'"

•~~I of III\" nUlnas "'b.pl~)'fti in 'I.... dMk dl(M' wu" dooM: by culkdl'"1$

wi ....... n"""u.,,~ i"d".kd both " ...." ~nd women: Ih" ~V\'" ",ur~lsdo..." udu­.iV<:ly ~y women ..... wom",,·. 0011«1;...". ~CC()Ul1l f<.>r 1\CVen oflh" tiny-fournlur~llnug<:J shown in the slid"•. SimUuly. Ih" &r~po Ill'I~lIatio".lin" doe. nOlrnNI Ihe nU"llIer of m"u ~I\d WOmCn !inc" ~lIlhr""of Ih" ,ru"", I....d al l"olSlcuc fer\l~I~ "'"mber: r~UI"r, !he number refn'll to Ulr number of 'I'\IJl'II pre­l"mtd md lho: dom~tllend"r ofnch ........

I'

eINIST

VISIONS__. ......----v.....-_-...._... _._..__._ .._-_.._...... ---­--------------_..-.__._..._.--" --_.....-_ - .....--_ --=--....,.-_.- ~"' ......-... , '...;:;...-_..-_ -_.-_ __ ----_ _------:=,::::=:,::'::'~':..":'.--

CARA~ PoIiliG of Rtpfl'SmIOIUl OuloftlxHowe

In "Quest for Idenlity: Profile of Two Chiana Muralists," Amalia

Mesa-Bains describes the revisionary narrative and imp<la oflas Mujeres

Muralistas:

The images of their murals ... expressed a p.tn·American aesthetic

where highly visible images of women and emphasis on ceremony,

celebration, caretaking, harvest and a continental terrain worked to­

ward the creation of a new mythology. The power of the murals

reUed on precisely that widely held memory of the everyday which

allowed the work of Mujercs Muralistas to provide a recollective

function for a broad community during a historic period of time. 10

The question is not so much why an important group such as las MUjeres

Muralistas was not itself recollected by the organizers of tbe first major

national exhibition ofChicano/a art or given the same special recognition

within CARA as the other grupos, but, rather, what this exclusion says about

the sexual politiCS of the Chicano Art Movement, which was then replayed

by the CARA exhibit.In a patriarchy, says Kale Millett, sexual polities denotes a relationship

between those in power (men) and their subordinates (women). II Explor­

ing and exploding this differential has been the modus operandi of Anglo/European feminist theory; however, is that the only theory, or vision, of

the "Feminist Visions" section in CARM Is gender the only PMameter for

discussing a feminist identity politiCS? Ana Nieto GOmez, Martha Coten,

Francisca Flores, Elena Flores, and all of the other early fcministas of th~

Chicano Movement as well as their Chic.ma/Latina hcrmanas in the 19 8010

and 1990S would say absolutely not: to privilege gender over class md

Idce is to perpetuate racism and ruling class values. To ignore gender,

however, in the struggle for civil and human rights is to perpetuate th~

objectification and abuse ofwomcn.Let me pause here to clarify the distinction between identity politio

and politic; of identity, since these are two popular terms in feminist dis·

course whose meaning, though similar, should not be collapsed into one

definition. A politics of identity (also known as POlilics of location) is the

individual process or motivation by which a woman constructs her 0 ....11

definition of her identity, based on identifying with and differing from

social/racial/sexual constructions ofher gender. Identity polities, on tht

other hand. is a kind of party·line, a philosophy of race/cIass/gendn

differences that constitutes a particular group's sense of community;wd

public action.

CARA~ Politics oIlttpfesenlatioa

Figure +2. US Mujeres Mur.lims (P.trici. Rodriguez, Gn.deb e.trillo, Consu~loMendez. md lren~ N:rez).laliooami:rica. 197+. mur.I. Mission District. San Frmci5co,

C1liforni. (not exumt)_ Photoguph provided OOllrtesy of the Soci.J..I md Public Art

Resource Center (SPARe). Reproduced by permission of ~ne Perez.

After thirty years of conIDa, contradiction. and hard work, feminists

have devised several fcminisms: some. like Ubenl feminism. Marxist femi­

nism, and radical feminism, grew out of the predominmtly Anglo/Euro­

pean and middle-cIass "women's liberation" movement of the late sixties.

Collectively labeled "white" feminism-in both its Uberal and radical

Wings-this school has been traditionally concerned with gender differ­

~nce, poSiting woman's subjectivity primarily in relation and opposition

to men or patriarchal institutions. What has now come to be known as

Third World feminism arose from Third World women's critiques of the

clm- ilnd color-blindness of "women's lib." Third World feminists ac­

cuse white feminists of gender-bias and inherent racism and insist that

colonialism and slavery be used as frameworks to examine gender and

power relations. Lesbian feminism and separatist feminism blossomed

from heated deb.ates between straight .and queer women about sexuality

u another determining factor in a woman's politics of identity. Chicana

frotinism is Third World-identified in its concerns over class and color as

key nodes ofsubjectivity and oppression, but it also occurs in the contextof entrenched utholicism, a colonized history, and a First World econ­

omy; and so issues oflanguage and culture, ofnOllionality alldcitizenship,of autonomy and choice, all play significant roles in Chinna identity. Inthe realm of sexuality (including the politics of reproduclive rights, en­

forced sterilization, and sexual orientation) Chicana feminists we a shareof what Norma Alarcon ca.lls "the gender standpoint epistemology."u

Chicana lesbian feminists, whose theoretical wrilings have most impacted

the field of Chicana/o Studies, exhort us to push the gender questionfurther and analyze the dissonance between ethnic and sexual identity.What began as a discourse about gender difference has evolved in three

decades into a plurality of identity politics and multiple strategies ofpe­!itical action that address the needs and interests of more lhan just whitewomen and help us to discern and counteract the essentialism, gender

oppression, monoliLhic stereotyping, and heterosexual priVilege that still

emerge as bylaws in the land of the almighty 'Apei (Father).dearly, then, we cannot rely on just one school of feminism for our

analysis of the gender politics in the CARA exhibit. WC must use the tri­

faccted mirror of Anglo/European, Third World, and Chicana feminismsto help us dcconstmct thc overt and obliquc gender messages in theWomen's Closet. Furthermore, through a strategy of appropriation andsubversion, this inlersection of the three identity politics can help us vi­

sualize a new theory of resistance lO all of the inequities named. .bove.U

Like the work-dazed charaClers lhat populated Animal Farm, Chiam.feminists learned as early as the seventies th.J.t something was wrong with

the revolution. The workers in George Orwell's bleak fable are the .mimalswho till the fic.lds and produce the meat and poultry of the farm. Thesttteis represented by the farmer and the other humans in the story. Subsist­ing on meager portions of food, working outrageous hours, and living in

crowded And filthy conditions, the animals revolt against the farmer andsuccessfully manage to wrest control of their lives away from humanhands. The human hand, in fact, like walking on tWO legs, is vilified as

the cause of the animals' misery; upon winning the battle, they immedi·ately decide that no animal will cver adopt human ways. Freed from thefanuer's domination, lhe animals establish their own government andseize the means of production. Following the ideals of a socialist order,each animal contributes its unique talents to the operating of Animi!Farm, and tlley all share equally in the fruits of lheir labor (or so thtr

think). Gradually, howevcr, the greediness of the pigs becomes appareDtThey work less than the other animals, the pigs ntionalize, because thtr

think more, and because they Lhink morc, they get to govern the farm,and because they have to govern, they need to consume more food. Even­tually, the lofty goals of the revolution are undermined., as the pigs be+

come more a..nd more human in their behavior Olnd morality. In a shockingtina.! scene the Animals realize lhat greed and capitalism are once .gili1 in

control ofAnimal Farm, and the newest rule for everyone to memorize isthat "some animals are more equal than others,"

The cryptic irony of this message is particularly useful in understandingdiscrepancies between feminist and Chicano identity politics. Althoughthe nationalist menlality upon which much of the politics of el Movi­

miento was founded continues to believe that the label "Chicana femi­nist" is a contradiction in terms, it is perfectly posSible for a woman tosubscribe to lhe identity politics of Chicanismo and at the same time

adopt a feminist politics of identity. In the Chicano Art Movement, forexample, Chicana artists like Judith F. Baca and Yolanda M. L6pez upheldthe Marxisl ideologies of el Movimiento that focused on class and worker

solidarity as central Lo liberation and defended the indigmista and mestizovalues ofChicanismo which proudly affirmed a racially inscribed identityof resistance; they were also deeply concerned with gender inequalitiesand issues ofautonomy and sexual and vocational self-fulfillment.

The fact that tllere were more pieces by male artists than by mujtrcs inthe CARA exhibition is consistent, no doubt, with the fact that, in theurly years of el Movimiento, more men were plying their artistic Voc.l­lion than women. But if art-making was considered a legitimate and pow_trful form of activism during the Movement, weren't Chicanas involved

in the dual process of resistance and affirmation through art? Or werelheir contributions being undermined, ignored, or coopted by the machoswho had appointed themselves the leaders of la Causa Chicana? Were

women and men resisting and affirming the same oppressions? Yes andno. Indeed, Chicana artists, like their male counterparts, were resistingclass and race oppression and affirming their differences as colonized sub·ietts with their own cultural, historic,d, and linguistic identity. But some

of the Chicanas were also resisting another form of oppression, internal10 lhe Movement, and for this resistance they were labeled by the patri­archs and their female allies trailors lO the Chicano Movement.

In "The Role of the Chicana within the Student Movement," SoniaLOpez lells us that, though Chicanas were active from the inception of theMovement, they were generally relegated. to traditional roles played by

.....omen in society. It was the realiution of this oppresSive situation andthtir secondary status within the Movement which led. many Chinnas to

Qui oil/It How

initiate a process by which they could begin to resolve the inconsistencies

between male/female roles.'~

What these women were seeing, to modify Orwell's warning, was that"some members of the Movement were more equal than others," and

the process they were iniliating for their liberation (even though someresisted the word) was feminism.

AdeUtas and Malinches

Thirty years after the initial struggles of eI Movimiento, md nearly at thecusp of the twenty·first century, what have Chicmos in general done toameliorate the fact that "some members of the Movement are morc equalthan others?" What stralcgies have been devised within me tenets ofChi­canismo to redress the vicious cycle of men's internalized opprcssion~

Armmdo Rendon, author ofCbiomo Manifesto, acknowledges the following:"The Chiano macho has to concede that he has usually relegated la mujer

to the kitchen or to having kids md has never allowed her to expressherself. Perhaps it is true, as some Chic:.mas say, th;l,t the Chiano passeson to bis womm the frusmuons and mierda (shit) t1u,t befall him dur­

ing the d;l,y" (emphasis added).ll Indeed, in the early chauvinist yeus of..cl" MovimienlO, Chicanas were grmted one oftwo p;l,triarchally definedidentities. They were either "Adelitas:' depicted in the popular Mexian

revolutionary song as loyal supporters and followers of their men (~

we sec in Figure 18), or "Malinches," Eve-like mitors ofla Causa, per­niciously pursuing their own individual interests. 16 Both terms derivedfrom male interpretations of history ;l,nd served male fmtasies of women.

Though historically both Malinches ~nd Adelitas are constructed as "loosewomen," women who have stepped outside the boundaries of their gen·

der 10 dictate their own sexual destiny, what we see in the Malinche/Adelita dichotomy is the difference, respectively, between the bad whore,who sells her body to outsiders, and lhe good whore, who offers her bodyfor the sake of In Causa.

Rendon tells us Ul;l,t Chicano identity was "symbolized by cries ofVin

la raza! Viva la causa! And by the concepts of Chicanismo, el Quinto Sol,and by the psychological as well as the seminal birthplace of Aztlan." '7 It

was up to "Ia mujer" to perpetuate the cause and the race by populating

Aztlan with little Emilianos and Panchos, Adclitas and Valentinas. Therewas no room in that scheme for feminists, lesbians. or queers. Anyont:who had an agenda beyond race and class could not be a "real" Chicano,for. as Rendon e.xplains, "The essence of cultural nationalism is the fuD

CARA~ Po/ilia 01 Rrprcsmt4tion

a.cceptance of this fact, that we are oppressed because of the color of ourskin and because of tIle nature of our being, and that as ;l, consequence,ineVitably, our sale means of preservation ,lDd equality before all men isin that color and in tIlat rau." ,.

Rendon encouraged Chicanos to "allow" their daughters and sisters togo to college and thereby halt the disturbing trend among those "hijos de.Cuauhtemoc" who were marrying Anglo women Ihey met at school. "Be­

C;l,USC [Chicanas] lack the opportunity of othe.r women who lake highert:ducation for granted:' Rendon's argument ran, "they are. excluded fromthe best setting for catching a promising young Chicano." I' Getting a JIlQ_

clio, then, rather than getting an education, was the primary reason 10 en­counge Chicanas to go to college.

ChicanilS, "real" Chicanas, only lived for two things: for tIieir menand families and for the struggle. The few im.ages ofwomen that we seein Luis Valdez's documentary depietion of Corky Gonulcs's I Am Joaquin,for example., show us either bullet-decked sokladeras or bereaved, rebozo­

wr.Jppcd mothers. In a San Antonio alternative newspaper called EI Rdloro,t:dited by two ChicanilS, we find the follOWing explanation for the paper'stitle: "The traditional garment of the Mexican woman symbolizes the

three roles of the Chicana ... ');1, senoritOi: feminine, yet hwnble ... 'Iarevolucionaria: ready to fight for 101 causa ... '101 madre: rOidimt withlife." 10 StiJI distributed in San Antonio, EI Rtbozo has been ;l, part ofTejma/o

populu culture nearly as long as I Am Jooquin has been considered the

quintessential Chicano poem, c1euly demonstrating that the cycle ofwomen's internalized oppression persists, for patriarchy functions in in­sidious ways; despite a quarter-century of struggle for liberation, El Rebo­l"'5 audience, many of them young Chicanas, still believe Oind espouse the

ideology of their own subjugation. Humble virgins, radiant mothers, orferociously devoted revolutionaries-these (and the ever-present "loosewoman") are the same roles that women of la Raza have been asSignedsince they heard the first Brito ofChicano Power.

Like their Mexican counterparts, Chicano men assign three attributesto the feminine gender: motherhood, Virginity, and prostitution. Dur­

ing tJle Chicano Civil Rights Movement, mujms were valued, mainly, fortheir biological contributions to the struggle: they could provide nourish­ment, comfort, and sexual release for the men and future revolutionariesl.'ld workers for la Causa. Mujcres were seen, in fact, as the carriers of theculture, and their own revolutionary role was circumscribed by their pro­outive function.

To be an "Adelita" (or a Loyalist, as was the popular term) a Chicana

Out of tilt House

could not .ldopt feminism .lS a strategy for liberation. Ana Nieto Gomez,

one of our early {aninistllS, was told by the male leadership of the Move­ment thM Chic.lnas like her were "anti-f;uuily. anti-cultural. anti-man,.lnd therefore anti-Chicano." II Faninislas, it was believed by the macho lead­

ership of the Chicano Movement .lnd their female advoc;r,tes. were whitemiddle-class "wannabes," men-haters, lesbians, and ducats to the beliefsand values of III ramilia. ChiQnas who adopted feminist ideologies. who

fought against gender oppression within el Movimiento as well as classand race oppression against the dominant culture. were considered "Ma­lindtes.,. untrustworthy ·'vendidas.,. politically ifnot sexuilly selling their

bodies .lnd souls to the white oppressors. thereby destroying the most ba­sic bonds of Chianismo: the patria.rc.hal bonds of III rQffiilili .lnd Cdmalrsmo.In f.lct, the (cminislllS were not betraying anything except the gender .lnd

sexual inequities that prevailed in the Chicano Movement; in other words.to return to Animal farm for a moment. they were denouncing the greedi­ness of the pigs. The problem. as Emma Perez succinctly puts it, is that"before the revolution, political Marxist men refuse to give up their powtr.

during the revolution. men refuse to give up their powa. after the revolu­

tion, men refuse to give up their powtr.... Social, political, economic .udyes. sexu.ll power." n

As evidenced by a recent publication that charLS the evolution of Chi­an.l/o Studies since 1968, Chianos continue to be thI'C.ltened by theactivism .nd scholarship of Chia..na feminists, p.lfticulnly Chiana les·

bi.ln feminists. Calling us "advCTSMial" to lhe true goa.ls ofChicanismoand" gender nationalists" who not only attack but also debunk the hard

work of our male colle.lgues, engaging in confront.ltion uthcr than .lc·commodation, the .luthor argues th~t we are "moving ;r,w.lY from [re.d:

belr.lying] the community" with our alienating gender politics. He ex­plains in a fooulote that Chicana feminists h.lve redefined the tuditional

notion of "community" and reduced it to signify "single females, orsingle-pueilt families led by females, who are poor a.nd abused. There isvery Itttle vibrancy in th.l! community beyond the mothcr-d.lughtcr rela­

tionship." 1J It is a testament to the insular legacy of patriarchy that, at thecusp ofthc twenty-first century, we still find Chicano .lc.ldemics who can­

not see beyond their onc*dimensional definition of what constitutes Chi·cano community and whose myopic nostalgia for the dualisms ofa soci.uscientific methodology persists in construing women's identity in stricti)'relational terms: as "single females" (Le.. unma.rried, divorced. wid­

owcd) and.ls mothers or daughters. Thosc single-female, mOlher/daugh­ter studies, especially those that condemn male abuse of power, by lhe

CAIlA\ Politics of Rtprdal[olion..

way, lack sociological resonance with the "real" Chic.lno community. The.luthor locales four institutions in California .lS "recent hotbeds of femi­

nist discourse,"H actively engaged in "diViding" the discipline of Chi­cana/o Studies. On Chicano Fum, it seems. the females ue nat supposed

to be queer or autonomous subjects; thelr jab is to lay .lnd brood and nestwhile the cocks and the pigs work Out the revolution.

A gendered analysis of the solar of Chica.no;'" populu culture showslh.lt, .lSide from resislance, afJirm.ltion, rmslimjt, self-determination, and

the myth of Aztl.in, two other decp~se.lted beliefs th.lt have buttressedChia.nismo, sexism and iLS first cousin hetef056.ism, are.llso amply por­trayed in the CARA exhibit.

Back to the W.e.

"Feminist Visions" COntains fourteen pieces, .11 done by women, ofcourse, implicitly sUting that in the Chicano Art Movement only los mujcn:swere concerned with achieVing a feminist consciousness. Moreover, its

placement as the second to the last room in the exhibit, S.lndwiched be­tween the traditional history of "Rccl.liming the Pas!" and the indiVidu_alized future of "Redefining America.n Art," h.ls the effect not only ofgheuoizing the work ofYolmda M. LOpez, Ester Herni.ndcz,lS.l.bel Ustro,Barba..... Carrasco, 1uma Alicia, Celia Munoz, .lnd Celia Rodriguez,lI but

also of perpetuating the Oueano n.ltionalist mesS.lge th;r,t women .lre theCUltural md biological links between yesterday and tomorrow, betweentradition and change. This mesS.lge is reinforced by lhe reproductive im­

agery that predominalcs in the section. There are, for cx.lmple. three .1­lusions to babies: Celia Rodriguez's shadowy L1oronll portrays a c1oa.ked

figure with Outstretched claws drifting aver a white bundle in • cradle;Juana Alicia's XodtiquelZlll depicts a pregnant wom.ln on • hospital gurney,her fetus visible through her translucent belly, about to be opented on

by death-masked doclors but protected by the AZlec goddess of love andprocreation.

Ba.rbar.l Carrasco's Pregnalll Woman in a Ball of Yarn shows. naked woman

bound and gagged by the yarn of mOlherhood; as the artist hcrself de­scribed it; "[the lithognphJ portrays .11 oppressed pregnant woman

trapped by the fear of fighting her oppressors." l6 Isabel Castro's photo­graphs depict "Chica.nas who have had to survive f.lmili.ll .llld soci.ll re­pression, including forced sterilization," 11 yct another, if negative, refer­(nce to reproduction.

The pages ofCelia Munoz's mixed-media book Which ClImc First? En/ighl-

Qui ofw HOlI:lC'

I\

Figure 43.

B.lrooj u­rnsco, 'lIf­IIIlIlI WOf\'IIl.IIiD

G Ball of YlUII,

l'n8,litho­gnph.Reproduced

by permis­sion of theartist.

"F" ,) associjte the leuning, (visible in the inst~.llation shot In 19ure 4 . .mmcn d question by conlugatmgof English with the proverbial Chick: ::itt:~lginwhat looks like a child'sherb "to lay" in five sentences, ea . .

t edv hool tablet While the sentences change, the recurring Imag~ mgra esc· d' a row above each pams·

j I Offiveeggsarrange 1Ilthe serics is a p lotograp 1 . f II of those' bl" . II and 1I1 lhe context a it

lakingly written sentcnce. Su Ihffi<jnoodity, tl c piecc which is primarily ..fancy and mot erl ,1 ,

ima,gcs 0 pregn . I s stem that crams English down our throats,critique of the educallona y fi 5t loses some

h' h f our mother tongues came r ,forcing us to forget w IC 0 bee me a visual refrain for theof its revisionary narrative and the eggs 0

reproductive message.

CARA~ Politics of IltpramtGlioa

"Feminist Visions" is supposed to display Chicma feminist reinscrip­tions of female iconography as well as feminist critiques of social issuesjfTcetillg Chicanos/as. Although indiVidually each piece questions andchallenges traditional roles, models, and behaviors ascribed to Chicanas

in Chicano patriarchy, the artwork ends up being grouped togcther andused by the curatorial agenda to serve and reproduce lhe sexist ideologyof eJ Movimiento. Thus, lhe viewer's imertextu.l! associations are limitedto a singular discourse,

It cm be argued, ofcourse, that the motifs and im.lges ofthese fourteenpieces til into the tr.ldition in feminist an md literature ofcelebrating the

body rod using the body as text md metaphor for lived experience. In-

nu' '" ,"" "_.

Figure

"bd ,lro, W(

Wllb Fil

1979, ,

Xerox.

lectiollRobert

Rcms.

Rcprodl

by pem

SiOIlOfl

<IInisl.

deed, one of the first goals of the feminist ut movement of the 1970S

was, in the words of}udy Chicago. "to tu.nsfonn our circumstances into

our subjcci matter, , . to use Ihem to reveal the whole nalure of the hu~

man conclition,"II This focus on "circumstantial idcntity" led feminist

anists to the work of dccolonizing the female body by transforming it

imo an active speolking subjcct uther than 01 passive object of display and

male gratifiation. lJ In this p.o1rticulu vein, the circumstolnces of women's

Iivcs included the life-affirming aspects of sexuality-menstruation, or­

golsm. self-love, birth-as well as the difficult issue of abortion olnd the

inhuffiolnity of rape olnd battery. Thus. images ofwomen's bodies, p.o1rticu­

larly the genitals, became prolific expressions of feminist ideology, Preg­

nant bellies, breasts, vaginas. menstrual blood, orifices, apenures, and

lush images of nature were seen as manifestations of the creative essence

ofwomens lives, If biology is dcstiny, as Freud would have it, then the

mCSQge of the first wave of feminist art wu that the way women were 10

control their destiny md thereby olchieve autonomy and independence in

the art world wu 10 proudly claim md dispby their biology and so defy

the misogynislic mores of patriarchy that label women's issues as taboo

or unwonhy of "fine art."

In "'Portraying Ourselvcs': ContemporolrY Chicana Artists," Shifra

Goldman traccs the contact points between feminist ideology and Chican­

ismo olnd finds Ihal. indeed, the themes of women and children which

pervolded much of the artWork of Chicanu were seen as both a product

of olnd a metaphor for female creativilY.

If there are unifying characteristics [among Chicana artists), theyinclude the overwhelming concern with images of womell, their

condition, and their environment. Many works arc directly or indi­

rectly olutobiogn.phica1; a certain number deal with sexuality. An­

other common denominator that has emerged is the tendency (0 use

. organic rather than geometric form: the rounded comer. the flow-ing line. the potlike shape shared by clay vessels. the pregnant body.

and the adobe firepla.ce. 10

We can argue, then, that motherhood, regeneration, and female oln­

cestry constituted what could be a.Ued a Chicana aesthetic in the early

yeolrs of the Chiano An Movement that mared ceru.in formal and ideo­

logical characteristics with what QII1e 10 be !mown as "runt art" in femi­

nist circlcs,jl Coupled with iconography from Catholic ritual and pre·

Columbian mylhology and stressing lhe political vantage point of the

CARA~ Polilics of RtpfGmIQlion

working cl.., 'h' Chi. IS cmoll olI.csrhetic could . I'v;r:o f th .. • ill I act, be the p_Jonu'..... no e Feminist Visio .. lOj nantns room .lind not nee iJ fl

scntialist discourse of thc Sci' . eSS.1.r y re CCI the es-. CCIIon Committee 0mg, however the an of 'h' . pen as I am to that read_

, IS room cannot be Ieindeed. Chicana ar(im wC'C d . ta en Out of COntcxt. If,

...., • a opung 011 pol" . I ..cifially to problcmatize ,I, I I Ulca essentialism meollnt spe_

c cu tura essential' f Chi .GaYUri Spivak would call "~, ,. . . IS~I 0 Collllsmo, H what

.. r. eglc esscnliall[ZlIl J .. JJ d.gcs of and by women in the show de 10 g , 0 the othtt im·tnce the crumbs of 011 sexi t di p y the SolI.me strategy, or cm we

s SCOUl'SC underlying the exh..ib' .To answcc this question we must $tc oucs'd . Ulon?

and cxamine OtllCt rOOms i 1 tl 'h pieofthe W,e. for a momentI Ie s ow. Let us walk fi '

ncr to look at Cesar Martinez's La Fulana/Th ' rs.t, around the cor­ofCARA and then back. to 011 I' eOther Woman In the final Section

n car ICC rOOm to anal th.to portray women in the 1. __ • • yze e Images chosen

UolfrJO.

I.o Fulana. along with]ohn Valadez's TbcWtrld' .in Chapter I) and the mother and ch'ld ms (see Figure Jo, discussedus CQmas plrll Sudios and Vir d los I ren scenes ofCarmen Lomas Gar­Chicanas that the viewer S....r gmbcc' I I.o~ <Ire among the last images of

'"'-> lore eavmg the exh'b' I V-' •womanhood is d . d I It, n .uadezspieceeplcle as a relational idem' , I .

dressed in the symbol of'em J' Hy. t le younger woman,Ii a e punty is son '

Icr and someone else's virgO _, :1" leonesoverprotccteddaugh_IlldJ wue-to_be' seat d th

bride's dress, the older w . ' , e on e tri.in of theOman IS someone s overbe .

omnipresent future mother-in_la In r._ umg mother andw. "-'U mcn Lomas G '

mothers nurture their children', ~_ I' arzas two pieces,. UTeam IVes and rdig' , ' hlively. [n La FulanQ "sh '" 1 lOllS lau . respec_

, e s Q otro, a sexual aUllSi h Jried man. on to t e over of a Illilr-

Michael Ennis says in his review ofCARA' 1i"evokes the scorching sultri th vuln In aas MomMy that La Fulana

ness, e crabilily d th 'barrio lemptrcss "j. Th· . ,0111 e wearmess ofa. IS Jrnage, u the reviewer's

dorscs one of the mOSI deep-seated and .. comrn~lltsconfirm, en­types oftatina women Though I' ~IlICIOUS m~tream Slcreo-. . ts 100ent IS 10 leave til· .Impression that Chicano/a art i "ed fi ' '.e Viewer with therOOm in the exhibition clearly d

Sr e mug ArneflColn tdentitics," the last

emOllstrates that nmd .d ..been redefined in Chican I J II er t Cntltles have nOI

ola Cll ture and we c 'II IVirgin/Whore <lrchety~, '0 . h an Stl re yon the mother/

,..- represent t e worn f I 'The "Urban 1m ", . en 0 e Movmliento.ages Section, whose prind <l.I b .

COntains twenty-seven pieces J fili P ere IS the Pachuca,P~chuco in his ZOOt suit or ' at

d~t . teen of which depict either the

. some envauon ofPath culIn Ch"ptCt I. through 10 CQIISll and the Ch' uce ture.AsweS<1wchuco has become one of th . lcallO Art Movement, the Pol-

c most Important icons of Ch' (lcano stress

Figure 4~. CCs.ir A. Mntinez. L4 Fulona (The Other womon), 1985, .1lcryliC on e,\nY.ll$.

Reproduced by permission of the ntiSI.

the 0) resistance. When women appear in the "Urban Images" room, allexcept one (which I will focus on later) are shown either as members of

a patriarchal institution like a famlly, a heterosexual couple, or l. beaut)'pageant or, as we sec in Da.niel G.ilvcz's painting Home Girl #1, as m.l!(

representations of women that signify not mujer culture in the barrio, but

the presence of Chic.mismo projected ontO the female body like a tattoo

or the stamp on aT-shirt.What we see in Galvez's portrayal of a Homegirl is not the girl herself,

but the Homeboy's sexual desire for her, the fact tha.t "Iowriders do it

[implicitly to them] low and slow." But the Homegirl is more thiln just

Figure 46.1udith Fr.1l11Cisc.lo B..1lu. LaJ r,G Morias I' 6 . _.J _.J'. " 7, InIXcu m<:<JI.1l. PhOlogr.1lphprovIded courtesy of the Wight Art G.lollery. Reproduced b "'" ., r h .y ._rmISSlon 0 t e .1lrtISt.

the receiver of the Homeboy's attention; she is, like me Chevy p4intedacross her breasts. owned. manipulated, and altered by the Homeboy toreflect his style .and his world. She is, in short . .an l5pl'jislIlo. an optic.al il­lusion of the macho umge looking at himself in a female body.H Onlytwo pieces in the "Urban Images" section can be said to commemoratewomen ptr se: Harry Gamboa's black and white photograph of Chicanaartist PaLSsi Valdez and Judy Raca's mixed-media triptych las Trts Marias,the only one of twenty-seven pieces in the section done by a woman,

which portrays.and reflects Pachuta/Chola cu\lure.

Espqismos in lAs Trcs MarillS

The "UrbAn Images" room of the CARA exhibit is described in theC<1talogas a representation of daily life in the barrio: "portray[ing] communitylandmarks and events, such as panaderias (bakeries), tortillcrias (tortillafactories). quinceafieras (girls' coming-of-age celebrations). and concur­sos de reina (beauty pageanLS):'J4 One of those community institutionsnot named in the C<1talog besides the neighborhood cantina is the rosturuiaor dressmner's shop. usually the front room of the rosturtra's house orilputment. It is me costurtra who mues your quinaGikra dress. recycles itinto your prom dress, stitches your wedding gown and the gowns ofyourlildies-in-waiting. Your mOlher or grandmother goes with you to the cos­tUTera. and maybe a sister or a cousin or your best friend. Invcsted in themost meaningful events of your social life, more than a woman's world,the costureria is a woman's ritual, a ceremony of your socialization as aheterosexual female. Indispensable lO the dressmaking trade is the three­p.aneled mirror, .and this is lhe'form lhat Judy B.aC<1 adopts for her Las TrlS

Marias. used originally as a performance piece in 1976.Each of lhe lhrce panels is 68· x [6· and 1.'/," deep. mounted on a

platform to render life-sized deplh to the images. The back of lhe triptych.is stylized as velour-upholslered seats in a lowrider. The two side panelsare Masonite over wood. On the proper left panel Baca has painted a Pa­chuca from the J 940S: tight black skirt, narrowing at the knees. widepatent-leather belt, lUcked-in white blouse with rolled-up sleeves and abutterfly imprinted on one side. a scarf tied around the neck. low-heeledbuckle shoes. and .an ankle bracelet. The Pachuca's hair is done up in theHomegirl style of lhe day, with razor blades tucked into her curls; hereyebrows are plucked into a high arch, her lips and nails glow brightred. Standing wilh her weight on her right leg, right hip thrust sideways,her head cocked slightly back. she is laking a drag ofT a cigarette and is

CARA~ PlIIilia of RcprClnlldliOll

just about to take the cigarette out of her mouth between her index .andmiddle fingers. In her other hand, held down below her hip. she holds along-tailed comb, reminiscent of the Pachuco's lilcro. Thougb she seems tobe looking sideways, ber heavily lined eyes are angled obliquely towardthe viewer. Tauoocd on lhe fingers of her left hand are letters that spellLOCA, a barrio designation for Cholas and Paclmcas.

In the proper right panel. Baca has palmed a 1970S Chola. like thePachuca thirty years earlier, tlle Chola is a city girl, street-wise, defiant,da.ngero~s. lhe feminine version of the Cholo or Homeboy. Despite herthickly lined eyes, lhough. Baca's Chola is an almost boylike figure. inbaggy black pants. black "zombie slippers," n a loose black pullover with

the sleeves pushed up to her elbows. hands deep in her pockets. Her hairparted in the center. hangs flat ilgainst her shoulders. Barely visible on th~inside of her right arm is lhe lOCA tattoo. If we compare Baca's Cholawith Daniel Galvez's Home Girl # I, we note the same masculinized stancebut in Galvez's Homegirl we also see an attention to mueu'p, COiffure:and fashion that is more consonant with B.aca·s Pachuca. In olher wordsa more intentionally "feminine" sexuality is connoted in lhe images ofthe Pachuca and the Homegirl. Baa could well be making a distinctionbetween the flashier dress styles of lhe Pachuco/Pachuca generation andme gilnglike uniformity of lhe more contemporary Cholo generation aswell as betwccn (at least) two kinds of female identity. B.aca's middle fig­u:e, however, ultimately determines the politics of identity impliCit in lhepiece.

Th~ mid~Jc panel is a mirror. More than reflecting the Viewer's image.the llllTTOr lllcorporatcs the viewer into the text of las Trts Marias. StephenGreenblatt argues that a strong work of art should evoke a mixture of"resonancc" and "wonder" in the viewer:

By fCSOOanct I mean the power of the displayed object to reach out be­yond its formal boundaries to a larger world, to evoke in the viewerthe complex, dynamic cultural forces from which it has emergedand for which it may be taken by a viewer to sland. By wondu I meanthe power of the displayed object to stop the viewer in his or hertracks, to convey an arresting sense of uniqueness, to evoke an ex­alted attention.JI

Indeed, one piece that stops you in your tracks is Las Trcs Maril1S. You are.lCrcstcd by your own image. A minute ago you were standing in a mu­loCum looking at multiple representations of Chicanismo and suddenly

QU[ of [he HOW(

you are looking .at yourself in <\ dressma.ker's mirror. Bounduies h<\ve

shifted. If you ue <\ m<\instrc<\lll viewer (remember: the CARA exhibit is,

fin<\J1y, <\ m.ainstre.arn exhibit), the optial illusion Ins for <\ moment de­

centered you by pl.acing you between twO im<\ges of la oUa, thus remov­

ing the dist<\nce between lhe observer <\nd the observed. The text <\ccom­

p<\nying lhe piece st<\tes th.at the triptych is mcmt to vlsu<\lly interrog<\tc

lhe virgin/mother/whore pa.radigm lhat palriarcha.\ cultures impose 011

women. If so, docs that mean you represent one of those stereotypes?

Which one? Where <\l'e you?Ama.li<\ Mcsa.-Bains inlerpreLS l.4s TrtS Marias ~ m inst.illuion pie<:e th.tl

plays on the multiple roles that the p<\chuca of 1940S ... <\nd the

chola or ruca of the 19705 ... have assumed ovcr time. This piece,

whose title rCC.llls the Three Muys of the crucifixion, sets up a good

wom<\n/b<\d wom<\n s.atire by positioning <\ mirror so th,ll it ap­

tures the \iewer in the center of these extremes.)'

A Pachuco or a Cholo looking into the mirror of BaC<l'S triptych would

find .tlfinity and recognition in the figures of the Pachua <\nd the Chol<l;

what hc would prob<l.bly overlook, however, is lhe bct tlut his own im~

<lge, cenmlucd bClwecn the twO fem.ue Un<\ges, is the crCAtOr of the vir­

gin/mother/whore stereotype in which he finds himself reflected. Thef<\­

mous slogan ofChicano!<l. resist<\nce-Chicano Power!-was, indeed, <lboUI

Chican-O. As Angie Chahram notes her essay "I Throw Punches for MyRace, But I Don't Want to Be <\ Mm: Writing Us-Chia-nos (Girl, Us)/

Chicanas-into the Movement Script,"

if Chicanas wished to receive the authorizing signature of predomi­

nmt movement discourses and figure within the record of Mexican

pucticcs of rcsistmcc in the U.S., then they h<ld to embody them­

selves 60S males, ildopt tr.adition.al fmlily reb.tions, md dwell only on

their r.aci.al il.nd lor ethnic oppression. Yet even this type ofdefinition,

which implies affirming oneself through the symbolic construction

of .an other, was deceptive, since Chicano nationalism was <lIsa predi­

cated on the necessity of mimesis: <\ one-to-one correspondence be­tween the subjcct <\.nd i~ reflection i.n mirror-like dupliation. iO

Through mimesis, sa.ys Ch.abr.am, Chicanos succeeded in milfgin<llizing

their Chic.ana counterparts. One of the messages of Las ires Marias, then.

could be directed ilt the m<lle "saviors" of the Movement who cbimed

the glory for themselves, while las mUjeres, <\s usu.al, did the cle<lning up,

the lying down, the nurturing, the weeping. But the more pertinent mes­

s.age of the piece is directed <ll <\ femaJe <\udience. The question is, how

does that message chmge according to the differences llw CAch femileviewer brings to that middle im.age?

In .the reproduction of the triptych that .appears in the CARA c<\talog,

the Viewer photographed in thc middle is the <lnist herself. Interestingly,

the model for the P.achua side of the triptych was also Judy Ba.a-or

r.ather, photographs of Baca tuen in 1974 by Donn<l Deitch, well-known

among feminist film critics as the director ofDesert Hearts (1985), .a lesbiancoming-out story set in 1950S Nev<ld<l. We have alreildy est.ablished that

Las Tres Marias is a subversive text bec.ause it undermines prescriptive gen­

der codes in Chicano/Mexic.ano culture. Another re<lding ofw Tres Marias

implies defi<lnce of wh<\t Adrienne Rich c.uls "compulsory heterosexu<\l­

ity." While <\ppropri.ating the dressm.aker's mirror, symbol ofheterosex­

uaJ socialiution, the artist presents the female viewer with the option

of.a g<ly (more m.asculinized) or <\ str.aight (more feminized) identity.

Of course, sexual Identities ilfe never that de<lr-cut. If the viewer is <l

white lesbian of the Monique Wittig school that believes lesbi.ans.are not

women, she may repudi.ate the heterosexual <\ppcarolllce of the P.achua,

md <It the same time feel alien<lted from the Chol.a's nd<ll.attributes. Ifthe

viewer is a. Chican<\ lesbi<ln of the butch/femme school, she will identify

with the butch Cbob and desire the femme Pachua (or vice versa). If the

viewer is a closeted lesblm she may overlook the entire issue ofsexuaJity

md focus inste.ad on loc.ating herself on the gener.ational continuwn of

Las ires Marios. And finilly, if the viewer is a st.aunch "Hispanic" mher

tholll <l Chic.ana, she may not sec or W<lnt to recognize herself in the mirrorat all.

Implicit in the Virgin/mother/whore trilogy of oppressions repre­

~ntcd by the three M.arys of the Crucifixion .arc the im.ages of La Virgen

de Guad.uupe, La Uorom, olIld LJ. MaJinche-the female trinity of

Chicilll<\ identification that artists like Judy Bd.ca, Yoland.a LOpez, .and Ester

Hernandez have reappropriated to their own ends. As .already mentioned,

one of the first and most enduring icons ofChicano popul.u culture is the

im,lge of the Mcxia.n Virgin ofGu.adaJupe, re-visioned .and re-presented

in the "Feminist Visions" room 60S a symbol of female empowennent

wher than feminine submission. In the etching La Virgm de Guadalupe Ddm­

dimdo los Derechos de los Xicanos, Ester Hernandez depicts the Virgin as a kar.ate

I d•• 1:.......7. POfliaitl){ lhe Allist lIS the VifSiD of GoodaluPf. 1918• oil putd

FlguK47.YO;lfi ~lYI."""f'-' .011 paper. RcproduCL-d by penni~iol\ of lhe ul1S!..

. .. I be that Uncle sam orbb.a-bell kicking at the mVlSIb c oppressor. I . ._

. 0" Riveras of the C Heino " ..the sclf~indulgenl. ;md o;cr)~alr::1a ~~g;;,PCz's Porllait of the Arlist as thr:Movement (see Figure 5 . 0 . h I

. h V' . ~~ a marathon runner Wit museUMV' d G adalupe depicts I e ngm ....;:5 :n~ calves, wearing white track shoes and holding the serpent in

CJ.R....~ PoliliG of RtprcsmlG1illll

her hand like a mJf of poWcf. Crushed underfoot is the ,mgd, describedby L6pcz as a middle-aged agent of patriarchy, whose wings arc red,white. and blue.

A sclf-dccl.trcd iconoclast, LOpez explained in a talk delivered al theUnivcrsily ofCaliforni.l. Irvine, that she depicted tltis Lupita 01 as "jump~

iDg offlhe crescent moon, jumping off the pedestal she's been given byChicanos." U Both Hcrllandcz's and LOpez's portrayals of the Guadalupanaalter the passive femininity of lhe traditional image to communicate femi­

nist empowerment through change and physical action.A Chicana reinscription ofLl Virgen not shown in CARA, perhaps bc­

c.luse it was crealed after 1985 (the cutoffdate of the show), and whichhas an overtly lesbian tone, is Ester Hern,indez's serigraph La Ofrenda, used

on the cover of Carla Trujillo's groundbrealdng anthology Cbkdna Wiam:Th( Gills Our Mothtrs Worntd Us About (first edition). La Ofrmda depicts thetraditional Guadalupe image as a tattoo on a Latina's back. The offeringcollnou..-d in the serigraph's titlc is the rose prescnted by a woman's handemerging from the lower left-hand corner of the piece; the rose does not

so much honor lhe Virgin as it honors the woman who bears the Guad.1.­lupe image on her body and thus, by association, represents the object ofthe unseen woman's devotion. The rose is also symbolic of the gift-giver's

sexuality.Hernandez's Libmod etching, one of the culiest images ofChiQlla femi­

nist art, however, is induded in "Feminist Visions" and is.1. reinterprel.1.­tion of the motherland symbol. with whom the legendary Uorana has

sometimes been equated by both Chicano and Chicana pocts.4J In thiswork, Hernandez again appropriates and subverLS a cultural icon, nOlfrom her Mexican heritage, but from mainstream U.s. cuhure, to extendChicano/a consciousness, emblematized by the word "Aztlan," to the East

Coast, where one of lhe most traditional symbols of U.S. nationality islocated. Here the Statue of Uberty's name has been changed to "Libcr­

tad," and the imposing figure from European mythology is lransformedby a Chicana sculptor into a pre·Cohmlbian goddess welcoming her pteto the New World of AztUn. To further compound the irony, this etch­ing was completed during the nation's bicentennial. In "A Conversationwith Ester Hernandez," the artist tells the interviewer, Theresa. Harlan,the story behind lhe piece:

I did Ubertad as all etching when I was in Fran Valesco's c1as~ [in theart department at the University of California, Berkeley] in 1976. I

already had a drawing of it fcom 19H. The Statue of Uberty was

h" R oduced by permission of theFigure 48. Ester Hem.lndez. Libutod. 1976. elC mg. cpr

uti$l..

. ." fl d Uncle Sam and allthaL I did Ubertad to showeverylillng. u,e ag an .r th Amerias Borders did not always eXIst.the indigenous roots a e . w«s m American Biceo-but migriltions have always occurred. That y

lenni'll contribution....

The political message of the piece is clear. Chicanos las are nOI immi­grams to lhe United States. nor were lheir Mexican forbears, nor their

Native American ancestors who occupied. the continent long before theStatue of Liberty-which, at the tum of the century. Ruben Dario inter­preted as a symbol of "easy conquest"U-we!comed European immi­

grants to her colonial shores. For Hernilldez. the Sutue of liberty is ameaningless symbol unless Us syncretic ethos, its indigenous core. its mes­

tiZllj~. is discovered. and recovered. like La Malinche. then, the Statue oflibertad juxtaposes European md NOltive Americm ideologies ofconquestU1d freedom. Although there Me no pieces in CARA about La Malinche. I

would like to suggest that this figure. Libmod. offers us a very powerfulsymbol of resistance not only to assimilation but also to patriarchal in­scriptions of Aztlin.~ther thm the chOlste virgin. the weeping mother, and the treacherous

whore. u. LupitOl. La L1orona. and La MOllinche arc now configured aspowerful icons of ChicanOl resistance to cwtuul hegemony and patriar­chill domination. u. tupiLl. can be a karOlte expert, a marathon runner.or 4 seamstress. and she can illso represent 4 religious rntSlimjt that in­cludes European Catholicism, New World santeria, and indigenolls Ameri­COln beliefs that go back OlS far as lhe Maya; La Uorona's weeping is now

interpreted as an oppositional screOlm againsl pa.triuchal inscriptions ofwomanhood, and among Chicana lesbians she symbolizes defiance 10compulsory heterosexuality: La Malinche, once the Mexican Eve Olccusedof the downfa.ll of the Aztec empire. is now an affirmation ofla indio, wholives. SOlyS Chicana poet Ines Hemindez. inside "every single woman,Chican,l/Mcxicana/lllesliza, who has refused unconditionally to accept,my longer any foml of oppression or violation of her self, whalever thaIsource. and who hu committed herself to .. universal struggle for jus­

lice Olnd dignilY. as lhey say in the Indian community. for 'all our relOl­tions.' "4b Hernandez (the poet) argues that Chicana writers Olnd artists.lIe all daughters of La Malinche: "those women who have accepted theirrole olS 'tongucs' and demanded lhat their voices be heard."41

Following the lead of Mexican crilic Octavia PolZ. Chicano patriarchycontinues to construct Malinche as La Chingada, the fucked one. andt\'okcs her name to censure and millign muj~rtS who fOlil to conform tothrir prescribed roles Olnd functions. But as I ugue in my review of the

lilcmUTe ofChicana lesbians,

me binary choices allotted to Malinche Me reductive. Even though

Malinche was not a lesbian (0lS far as we know). the Chicana lesbian

is a Malinchista. As Chicana, she must interpret and negotiate the

three cultures that spa\~ned her, a spawning born of struggle, domi­

nation, and anger. As lesbiana, she is always engaged in the processof sclf-creation. Out of corn, water, and hme the torlilluCI makes the

masa ofher identity."

As Adclaida del D.stillo, Norma Alarron, Cherrie Moraga, and Deena

Gonzilcz have demonstrated ..• a feminist re-vision of the m..te myth

of La Malinche as traitorlseUoutiwhore can serve as a model for de­

stereotyping the images of Chicanas and Chicma lesbians, who have be­

come the latter.day Malinches ofChicano culture.. In this postmodern age

of shifting signifiers and signifieds, and in the same way thal euly femi­

nist artists reclaimed the word"cunt" and thilt gay and lesbian discou.rses

have reapproprialed the word "queer" and invested it with the power of

self-naming, Chicana lesbians can take "Malinchista" away from the op­pressive and degrading signification ofpalrian:hy. bell hooks believes lhat

in order to resist hegemony from every frolll women ofcolor must com­

mil ourselves to "militant" resistance-a resistance rooted in the margins

and on the homefront, not afraid of sacrifice, and enemy \0 the sclf­

defealing practice ofnihilism.~a Indeed, Chicana historians, theorists, and

wrilers have begun to lransform the sLOry ofMalinche into an example of

mililmt female resistance on lhe homefront ofChicanismo.To be a Malinche is to be a traitor: to the csscntializing, stercotypiaI,

male-privileged gender codcs of me race; thus, M;llinche is a new mirror

for ChiQIla posterity lO look Upoll and in which lO be reflected. From this

mirror arises the vision of Malinchismo, a new theory of Chicma resis­

tance. The Greek word throria (the etymology oflheory) originally memt

an act of viewing, reRection, and observation, an imaginativecontempla·

tion of reality. As we contemplate our own images in this mirror, as we

slep out of the W.e., out of the halo, the house, and the whore's mask,let

us reBect upon this: Chicanas arc no longer cspqismos, optical illusions of

cl MovimielltO. There is a new aesthetics of affirmation and resistance,

and one of its names is Malinchismo."The master's tools cannot dismantle the master's house," wrote Audrt

Lorde.si CARA was the first major national art cxhibition to inlervene

in lhe master's house; nonetheless, it brought and used some of themaster's tools, in this case, gender politiCS that were typically patriar­

chal, reflections of the madrc/virgen/pula .m:helypcs ofChiallo/Mcxiallo

popular culture. More than a commenlMy on lhe sexual politics of Chi­

emo Mtists, this critique is ultimately about the selection process of the

CARA~ Politics of Rtprf:Smtotion

exhibition, for il was the flv - be .nelli ]ud Bel R . ~ e mem r Selectlon Committee-Edith To-

T' ..y ca, cne Yanez. Holly Belmct-Sanchez, and Marcos San h

ranqU111ll0~and th' . e ez-e nlile regional committees-headed b V'Sorell, Pedro Rodriguez Tom.i YbH F Y IctorAvalos Carl Sa' ' .. s ra- r.l.usto, Zulma Jimenez, David

, os nllstevm, AliCia Gonz.ilez, Bernadene Rod .and Am..tia Mesa-B.ains-who chose th . ngua-LeFebre•

. . , . e Imagery thai would best5Cnt the cxlubil s IIltc.rpretatiOIl of Ih Chi repre-e cano Art Movement 0 thas we ~w in Chapler 2, their own muhifaceted and contf;ldi r ra. er,ofthat mterpretation. Though it is possible that Ih . ctory ~ewsmow th b d h f . cse committees did not

d .e rca I 0 Chicana art, or even thai the art produced b Chinas urlng the twenty-year scope of the cxh'b' . y ca­issues of biological dcsl,'ny I d I ilion did, indeed, focus on

, ten to agree wilh Ch . M 'that a revisionary narrative abou erne oraga s viewthe exhibit: t gender and sexuality was absent from

What was missing in [CARAJ ,.J was ulC rage and revenge of WOI

t 1e recognition that the violcnce of -. d' 11en,d . racism an misogyny has dis-tone .our view of ourselves. What was missing was a portrait of

~ualIlY.for men and WOmen independent of motherhood dclllsmo' I f I - an ma+

th' 'Images 0 Ile male body as violador and vulnerable and of

elemaebod h' f 'y as l e sHe 0 woman--cemered desire Thno visible d 1 b' . ere was

.ga~ an es Ian response to our chicanidad lhachallenge mSlltulion..tized and . dl h. t wouldbreak d mill ess elerosexual coupling; no

- own and shake-up of La Familia y t. Igl " '. I . CSla, no portr.all ofour ISO allon, of machismo as monstruo of I I d'muted in the body of la Chicana $I • a n Igena erased and

ATrip to the Men's Rooms

Before leaving the Women's Closel in CARA let me ..live COntexl with the three frecstandin "n;en's r:lac~, It III a cOlllpara­btions of lhe RCAF (m Roy.1 CI . g. illS, the grupo instal-

lIcano Air Force) of s.Four and ASCO be h b . cramellto and Los

, I ased III Los Angeles. The first Ihin tl .~bout lhese installations is that both th . . g lat stands Outniscellt of domestic' . elr oUler and lImer forms are remi­1\"' ny and Spirituality, domains traditionally assigned to

olllen. the home and the home altar. With their doorw .dows, walls and roofs the th ", .. ays, stOOps, WIn­. ,ree men s rooms are cas;! h lh

:I~~::~~:~::~t:a~e:f~;;nb 0yf~~:~~oOm(e ahF'~' a domestic s;~ ~~~i:on~. sec Igures I 7 and 1-9)

In her dissertation "M' Am' ., eXlca.n- encm Women's Home Altars: The

Out 0( lilt House

Figure 49. View from inside the ReM wito. lru;t~l1oltionlholl W.l.5 pm of CARA: Chi­

CMlO Art: Res.isLlncc md Affirmoltion, ahibition hdd olt UCLA's Wight Art G~ry.

September 9-Dec:cmbcr 9. 1990. Photograph provided (ourtcsyofthe Wight Art

Golllcry.

Art of Reluionship," Kay Turner sees the conslrUction of altus as a form

of resistance to "~l.riarchal alienati<.:m," "Deep within the interior of herhome the woman's private altar has been a separate space dediCdled to thefulfillment of her own ideology, an ideology given to the fruition ofsocbl

reluionships and opposed to alienalion," U Paradoxically, ofcourse, resis·tance to alienation takes the form of a "sepante space," which, nonethe­less, is devoted to promoting "social relationships" through the inter­

cession of saints and spirits. Although it is cssentializing to asswne tNtwomen arc more ideologically predisposed to discourse with the spiritualworld than men, it is lrue lhat, for the most part, home altars arc the do·

main of mothers olnd grandmothers in Mcxicoln/Chicano/a culture. Thatthe three artists' collectives honored in CARA have all chosen or ~Dassigned the domestic form of an altar to represent themselves in the his·tory of the Chicano Art Movement is more than another example of molle

appropriation of a space and a discourse traditionally manipulated bywomen: it signifies, I would argue, the canonization of these male·

dominolnt grupns, the fact that they (and no others, and certainly not ;my

women's collectives) deserve to be memorialized as dearly departed an­cestors or heroic pioneers of the Chicano Art Movement. I do not meanhere to demean the important contributions ofthese three groups, which

I will discuss below, only to suggest, through a semiotic analysis of theStructure used to represent them in the show, that their reification epito­mizes the male privilege undcrs(;oring the entire exhibition,

The Royal Chicano Air Porce, originally named the Rebel Chicano ArtFront, was organized in 1968 by California St.tte University ut professorsJ~ Montoya and Esteban Villa, along with Ricudo Favela, who was their

student at the time. The RCAF w.tS committed to integrating artistic pro­duction and political action withill the Chicano community, Famous forpopularizing two slogans in their art, In locum In curu and «quI ataffi05 y no nos\'lUIlOS'.~· the RCAF encouraged Chicano artists to express their working­elm sensibilities atId indigenous claims to Azuin. As the cat.tlog of theexhibition informs us;

Their aim for the community was creation ofpolitical self-conscious­ness, educational advancement, cultivation of the indigenous heri­

tage, and its influence on present identity .tnd art, and the retrievalofChicano history and culture, , , [which they saw as] distinct from

Mexic.tn culture, while acknowledging the important connectionsbetween the twoY

I...trered with photogr.tphs, posters. Movimiento buttons, pre-Colombianiconography, images of Pachucos .tnd the Virgin of Guadalupe, fe.tthers,dried com, and children's.trt from one of the group's Barrio Arts pro­gr~ms-theRCAF installation documents the group's locura. a craziness ofspirit reminiscent of sha.manic transformation rituals in which a poverty­

md crime-beleaguered community is transformed through active engage­;Itenl in Chic.1no cultural production.

Los Four w.tS the first Chicano artists' coUC(:tive (indeed, the first Chi­ano artists) whose work was exhibited at the Los Angeles County Mu­~um of Art, in 1974. The group included Carlos Almaraz,~~ Frank Ro­mero, Gilbert "Magu" LUjin, and Roberto de 1a Roc.Iu. The "unofficial"Efth member of the group was Judithe Hernandez, who collabouted onlOme of the group's projcas. like the RCAF, los Four were committed to

political art, but they also believed in "institutionalizing their efforts inCfder to establish an economic base. In 1975", the four members SignedL':e charter for incorporation for the group," S7 Known for their spray-can

art which combined graffiti and icons drawn from Chicano popular cul­ture-such as the lowrider. the crucifix. the 5.1cred Heart symbol. as wellas pre-Colombian motifs-Los Four contributed a keenly politicized vi~

sion 10 the anistic producr.ion ofel Movimicnto.The altar constructed against the bright yellow wall of the Los Four

installation mimics the shape of an Aztec pyramid. each tier crammedwith objects that signify both Chicanola and California popular culture:model cars and a.irplanes, Mexican masks, Call1\'Cr4$, a toy slot machine.

plastic palm trees. and corazones. Cases mounted along the side walls con­tain .archival documenLS of the group's history: meeting notes. sketches,receipts, phOiographs, even bank statemenLS showing the dwindling ofthe group's account, a.nd ot.her papers documenting their problems with

funding and the difficulties in getting paid for their work (see Figure 17).Another anisLS' collective that sprouted in Los Angeles was a multi­

media, conceptual performance group that called itself ASCO (whichmeans nausea in Spanish). composed of H.arry Gamboa, Gronk, WillieHerron, and Patssi ValdCz.u Rather than focusing on Chicano/a folkloreand popular cult.ure, ASCO sought to critique eI Movimiento and strip itof its romantic nat.ionalist agenda that. according to Marcos Sa..nchcz­Tranquilino. f;ailed to serve "the immediate needs of the Chicano com­munity." ~~ Chicano film scholar ChOll Noriega, co-curator of Rcvdllciones/kvdlllions: Hispanic An of EI'Q.Daccnce at Cornell University in 199..... says thaI"in street performance and conceptual art. ASCO provided a postmodernvoice within the Chicano An Movement. one that questioned the esscllli;alidemit y ofcultural nationalism, but also the societal alld instiwtional rac­ism ofLos Angeles... ·,

Indeed, the ASCO installation is arguably the most poslmodcrn piecein the CARA exhibition. Combining the mainstream American icon of thetelevision with the traditional Mexic;an icon of the altar. the border icon

of the chain-link fen<.'C. and the cross-cultural icon of the wedding veil.and set against part of the Black and While Mural created by Gronk and Willi~

Herron as a memori;a\ to the Chicano Moratorium of 1970, the insta\b.­

tion is. at first sight, an avalanche of confusion thai requires knowledgeof the history of the moratorium for iLS deconstnlclion.

In 1969, about 1.000 people organized by the Brown Berets dem­onstrated in East Los Angeles to prOtest the Vietnam War and the

high percentage of dlicano military being k.illed in Southeast Asia.

Another march of 6.000 people took place in February 1970. In Au­gust 1970, the National Moratorium Committee swelled the Los

CAIlA~ Pulitio: of RqllestJItotion

~Figure SO. Willie HcrrOu ~Ild Gronk Thr bl~.... •" ' "-Ii _ WllIlt Murul Inown ~ tllc MOlUlorium Mural) L_ d ' 973- 1980 (.lIso

PI . <aIr. ,\ COUrts Housi P .lOIogro\ph provided .,:nunes, of lil ,,__. I ng rOlect, Eut los Angdes.

R c: """1'\ ,\nd Public An Rc:soIcproduced by permission ofWillie Herron. 'n.:c CClllc:r (SPARe).

Angeles demonstration to between 10

lacked by sheri ITs deputies, the marcl::C a~d 30,000 ~ople. At­;tnd, in a related inCident Los An"'" . as dispersed WillI tear gaswas killed.'l 'If'-'a Tuna reponer, Ruben Salazar.

The Upper-right section of the Block and Wh'<1ll'S screaming face was us--' h L_ Ile Mural fOCusing on the worn.

"-u as t e IJdd:rlrop in th ASCO' .Two teleVisions sit behind 'h .L" ,. e Installauon.

. e ulatn· lUX 0a.te both ICircular platform that in th bl '. eo' p aced On a black

• e ue radIatIOn of the ni hrock. The platform is tih--' d h c e. resembles a lava

. , cu, an t e televisiogl\'mg the impression of 11' llS appear to be sliding olT

a co a.pslllg altar Th ch' '" 'lic:wer from Cnterino th.. ~~ _.J • e alll- ~k fence keeps theeo '- ....cr..-u space of the t I ..

di~lance between the b e ('VISIon, underscorino theo server and the observed eo

bc:twcen two types of pop I I. . as well as the distanceu ar cu ture: Ihe "safe" kind which is broadcast

Oulllf lhe 1I0t1st

,

, ,

f (A!\{\." Chio.:~lIo An: Rcsis-ASCO ,,"ita InSl,lU,llioll th;tl W,lS pMl 0 .

Figure S I. The . .. Id UC' '....5 Wight Art G;l.l\cry. SeplClllber 9-ffi . exhibition he ,ll ..

Wlce .lnd A rffi,l1l0l1. flhe Wight Art G.lUery.Pho<oguph provi.d~ coun~y 0

December 9. 1990 .

" k"nd occurring in the streets. d the" dangerous

on an intenor screen an r' d pandemonium in the Blad:7. b I.l images 0 pam anrod mcmoriillizl.-u Y Ie d f 'Ce ob'Je<:tive cultunl vo-

"I th "bUn eye 0 UIand White Murol. Me;a.nwht e. e I .. S ..J c.lled "A Date with

k h w on one of the te eV1SIon •YeuT" watches a ul sOb ed did oottake the lime to. whom I 0 servthe Artist." Moslofthcvlcwers d' 1 d rcmarkcdon"howcon·

. . agram an ,inS ca .listen to the closed-cuCU

n,pr .. th . t.ulalion seemed to them. An aJUly·

fusing" or "how inacccss1bl,c .. c toS er reve;als an incisive critique rJ.5i!> of "A D,lle with the Arnst, howev, . a parody ofeultuuithe 'narcissism of American life and, at the same tlllle,

schizophrenia. . be' ;..terviewed ue the wmh d the uust mg ....•

The host of the. s ow an f ASCO "I've known this~k of the five memberso· ~.J __,l.

man-Gron ,one ,," as Gronk the "guest" smiles muuou}all my life," says Gronk the "I~ost . d f dips from Tht [)(vii Girl fit¥:

.l.. ". "ew is comprise 0 .............lh.The bulk of u,e UlterVI . f the early 1960s that SUPl""""-;Mars, 01 blOick-and-white sp.1ce mOVie 0

most influenced the "guest's" artistic career. A robot, a space ship, a llU­

clear explosion, an evil "alien" dressed in a polyester space suit, or, ;IS the

utist sees it, "a shower cap and shower curt;lin," .ppc.r on the screen.

Since Chicanos/as .ue seen .s pan of the .lien army invading the south­

ern borders of the coumry, the images of the space movie send absurd

messages to the viewer about alien invasion and cultural holocaust which

mock the Ill;linstrcalll phobia offorcigners and "iIleg,1I ;r,liens."

While the viewer figures out that the talk show is • mockery of televi­

sion and movies, as well as a culturally schizophrenic dialogue between

the artist and himself, or, rather, between a Chic.lna's artistic identity and

his "other" persona as an alien, tbe images of the Black and Whitt Mural in

the hackground-the panicked faces of the protesters, the gas-masked po­

lice, the thorn-pierced heart of the Sacred Heart of Jesus-confront the

viewer with his/her own ignorance of the event and immunity to vio­

lence against people of color.

What is the purpose of the white. ephemeral wedding veil draped inthe corner of the niche?~' On the one hand, it can be read as an ironic

representation of the loss of innocence th;lt comes with realizing that" de­

mocrOlcy" is as much 01 farce.s Gronk's "date with the utist," that free­

dom of speech and freedom of assembly are constitutional rights for me

ethnicity in power but criminal activities for "Others." On the other hand,

the veil, traditionally worn by women in a marriage ceremony as a sym­

bol of the commodity to be exchanged between me bride's famer and her

future husbOlnd (her chOlstity), can be a signifier of the violation of con~

slitutional rights. Given that the only ASCO members really represented

by the installation are Gronk and Willie Herron, ~~ the veil can also signify

absence; although ASCO may have questioned Chicano nationalism and

institUlionii racism, and though the group, indeed, played with the no­

tion of shifting sexual identities, a sustained questioning of gender ineq­

uities is conspicuously absent from their work. Indeed, as Shifra Goldman

points OUl, Patssi Valdez, the only full-time female member of the group,

"in the early years, was often the 'target' of the men's .ctions, whether

taped-up in a Super~8 or on a wall.""

Of oiIl the pieces in the CARA exhibit thal function as mctanarratives

behind the face, Marcos Raya's Through Frida~ Eyes best conceptualizes the

dynamics of power and gender inherent in the selection process, again,

through the metaphor of vision .nd the use of eye-conography. It is alsoan oiIlegory for the "insider't"outsider" polemics at the heart of the cul­

tunl politics of the exhibition.

Oul of the HollSt

Fl ure ~1. Marcos Raya. Thl(ltlgh Frida~ E~. '984, acryl:( on UliVU. Collection of

~ . oduttd by permissiOn of lhe .ntlSl.Dolores M. DIU. Rcpr

Tbrough FridQ~ Eyts: Morc Eye-Conography

.' he .a.nist is looking through the eyes ofAs the title of the work mdlo,tCS,l dly reveals not only the ab-

.. - .d .. view that supposeFrida Kahlo. an I1\SI cr 'fi moment but <llso the very na-iCC1S of "Frida's" vision at thalkspec~_cl. d her f~cc the "frAllle:' so LO

d eye soc cts uc un 'sal passages, gums, an. f . "Frida's" actual ficldofvision.S....MIt, of lhOit vision. Inside the filmc, l~ ed with a meticulousr-- b' nary opposites compos

we sec lWO separate scenes, I . "F.d'" left eye contains three m~. Thcscencm n;IS .

attenUon to symmeuy. . of Che Guevaril ,md DiegofL' above a picture

images-a piclUrc 0 emil f the room in his dungarees ud_1'1." lhr ugh lhe doorway 0

Rivera WoLU-tDg 0 _. I. cy of lhe images for lhe IDO'- d the hlstona. maccura -

floppy hat (dlsregar f. d the pictures indiC<lte their efu·- d size 0 Diego an

ment). The comprcssc . luge windoW looking ontO

f ,"F,·,da " Beside the doorway 1S alance ron. .

CARA\ PolitiC! 01 RfprtSClllatioll

a lush garden; OIl the windowsill sits a pre-Columbian figure of a child

with arms uplifted. Proportionately spcak.ing. the idol seems enlarged

while Diego appears reduced. lhough he is laking up all of the doorv.·ay.

symbolically blocking Frida's p.lSy.ge Oul of the confines of her emotions_

The scene ill "Frida's" righl eye cOl1lains three images of Frida that

bal<lI1ce alit the male imagery in the left eye-two sclf-porlr~ts.one with

lhe Communist hammer and sickle pail1led on her body cast and a fetus

curled inside her belly and another of Frida and her monkey. Fulang­

Chang. looking back al the viewer; Diego's physical correspondence is

Frida's naked body strelched out on the sarapc-covercd bed. while the

pre-Columbian idol corresponds to a b,ughing skeleton that hangs near

the fOOtboard_ The window and doorway on the left side are b.aJ.lIIced by

the [wo canvases on the right. thresholds to different worlds.

The yin/yang reciprocity ofthe imagery is obvious (even iflefl is mas­culine and right is feminine rather than vice vers.1). The left side repre­

S<.'lltS the male world of movemelll, growth. continuance; lhe right side

reprcseills the female world of sexuality, ill1rospccl.ion, death. Together,

the two scenes compose the clements that make up "Frida's" life: her art.

her politics, her relationship to Diego, her problems with her body. her

loneliness. her preoccupation with death. her indigmismo, her bisexuality.

There is. however, something not quite right with the vision, something

off historical kilter. The clue comes with d Che (sec Figure 11): the fa­

mou!> black. and red image of tl (he reproduced by Raya did not become a

part of Latin American popular culture ulUil the late 19sos and therefore

could not have graced the walls of Frida's bedroom while she was alive.

lenin wa!> there; so were Engels, Marx, Stalin, and Mao, lined up in the

y.me frame and hung on the wall in front of her bed. So why has Raya

placed Che in the picture? He has obviously visited or seen pictures of !II{llSO azul de Coyoaoin." seen the coloveras hanging from the bedroom w.aJl, the

pre-Columbian figures lining the shelves in Frida's studio, the Conununist

heroes gazing b.ad: at the bedridden artist. Indeed, except for Che's image,the visioll that Raya paints" through Frida's eyes" is almosl realistic in the

!>ensc that it reproduces those objects that Frida probably did see from her

\-M1tage poillt on the bcd. Clearly. tI Che is not <llxmt Frida; the image

!>erves as a linking device between the arlisl and his subject that establishes

olJt .l.ffinity.

Now let us step away from the painting and analyze the affinities that

~l.l.rcos Raya h.lS painted between himself and Frida Kahlo. In "Histories

of the Trib.al and the Modern," James Clifford, through his <llLllysis ofart

exhibits in New York City in 1984. spccific.aJly the Museum of Modern

Out of 1M HOIUI:

~ ,

. Art. Affinit of the Tribal ond the Modern, en-Art'S "PrimitIYism" m 20th Century ~ . y llinity exists between so~

. h lind of \anship. or iI 'tiques the nouon t at a d th t of Modernist painters such

. Af'can)artan earulled tri~1 (meanl.Dg n d minators whichistheprem-

h th nshuingcommOn eno, "d'as Pica~o, Rat er a Mod ;<t art says Clifford, has IS-

th MOMA show ern.., , d .isc of especially e . ~l' pcrialist discoveries, conquere Itcovered" African art and, as 10 , Il~th di«luietingqu.uityofmodcrn-

d h d(:Jllonstnung e -..,. . .for its own en s. t us . lherness for constituting

riating or redeeming0' Uism' its laste for approp iii 't'.< ,hown at MOMA are a. ..' thea nt I"",non-Western artS In Its own Imogc, ' ' . .,

, " (emphasis added). .on moderrust terms .' dR" ThlOugh Frida~ Eyts. HIS ex~

, h h' 'dea In 1010 to ",yaLet us return Wil t IS I . be d m' at least [\vo ways: (1) it em-

, 'd 'nPrt......n-we can rea hi.ggerated IOSl ers t'--l'~-- iii" between himse.lf and Ka 0d illators or a ruues

Phasizescommon enom . dM' .nart and (1) it accentuatesI be Chicano an CXIC ,

as artists and or tween . ' the bce of these affinities;" r h b" ect for the arust m

the "otherness 0 t e su I . than a face, a mils'k. r mas carll, moreit is, in other words, ,). mascara, o. b'ectivity. Indeed, whu R.i.yil

,_c R n express hIS own SU I ..through whKu aya COl I" tl,.t identify who he IS,, "e those e ernen..,sees "through Fridas eyes at that identify ROlYil's own

r "F 'd ". vision serve as props .the objectS 0 rl as. d El Che Lenin, and Diego

. artist of MCXlcan escent. ,gendcred reilhty as an as well as the nationalist, socialist, and pop­Rivera-lhe men themselves . .u (1 use the word pur-

. h ood for-were semmulist philosophies t ey st .' d Its cultural extension, the

l' f c1 Movlmlento anposely) to the evo uuon 0 . t"n not only Frida's eyes, but ahaChicano Art Movement. By appropna I g. h with his own, Mar-

"u' d t"stic views and mergmg t em " .Frida's pohuu.J an :If I . both "Other and mlfforcos ROlya em claim for himself~ idrentit

y ~;;rd says above, create Fridl., ceo he ca.n m act, ilS . al

to his own cxpenen, ,: h can usc the phySIC con-, J 'mage Moreover. e , IKahlo "in (hIS own I .' lionalist idea thilt a womms to estraints of Frida's life to relOforce the nac . the belly signifies-mort

. ate-as the letUS 10in the revolution IS to procre

sons for loliKho./d• Committee's "aW:lfene~of gen-

What does this say ilbout lhe ~~~on I both process and product?" 11

f the exlllbtuon, n ~der issues in all aspects 0 . . 'n the "Cultur.u Icons

d R' palOtmg oc<:urs IAs .urcady mentione, ilyas .---If interpretive exhibitiOP

,\h'b' because CARA ulls IU'OJ an theroom of lhe e 1 It; . A Movement it follows that

f the ChICano rt ' ._ofthe first twenty years 0 r h ' os that symbolized thestrUgglO

. . displayo t elCO . hcultural icons secUon IS a Th are fourteen pieces III t eof el MoviIniento from 1965 to 19

85. F<'d

eK hlo' the other culturll

. h .uludeto na a •section, five of Which s ow or f, . es) the mestiw head (tw,)icons depicted are Emiliano Zapau. ( our plec ,

CARA~ Polilics of Rrpleo;cnldlioo

pieces), the Virgin ofGuad.lupe, the word "Azl.1in," and Ricardo FloresMagan (one piece each). Why are there five "Frida" imilges and no CheGuevaras or Diego Riveras or corozom:s or calaYeIllS, arguably mo~ represen­tative of the cultunl politics of el Movimiento unn Kahlo?

The first Chicmo artist to use Fridil's image in his work is Rupert Gar·cia, whose 197S silkscreen !.hilt ilppears in the CARA icons room wascreated "for the GOl.1eriil de Ia Rna's 1975 collective calendar." II Frid,).'similge, like that of d Che, Erniliano Zap.tla, and Ricardo Flores Mag6n,represented the connection that Chicano artists saw between lhe politicsof eI Movimiento and the Iibcntion struggles of Latin America; but Frida

also became an icon for the marginalized members ofla Causa (Le" Chi­cana artists). Interestingly, however, only one of the Frida pieces in the"Cultural Icons" section is done by a woman, Yrcina Cerv;intez's Hommaje

a Frida Kchla (see Figure 21, described ilnd mOl.1yzed in the Open Housechapter). In fact, Cervantez is the only Chicana utist represented in thesection. Why such a conspiCUOUS lack of gender representation in this

very significant room of the exhibit? Could it be that. as Alvina Quintanabelieves, "Chicano cultural productions moved closer to legitimacy by

developing ideological systems which represented predominilnl.1y mas­culine interpretations of history and culmref'1l Were the five images of

Kilhlo used to represcnt the femille gender, thus masking the Olbsence ofCrucana subjectivity for representuional presence? How was Frida Kahlo"used" hy the ctlrillorial agenda of the exhibit (for it is cUrOlting, finally,

thilt informs the work of lhe selection process)? What did Kahlo's imageolTer to the overall vision of the exhibit thilt it had once olTered to Chicanaartists?

Cleuly the Sc.Ieetion Committee saw in Frida Kallio dle very embodi­ment of resistance and affirmation, the two underlying motifs of the ex­

hibil. Through prolific artistic representations ofher body, Ka.hlo resistedgiving in to the physical and emotional pain thu constantly threatened toengulf her and transfonned this pain into disturbing portraits of m op~

pressed and yet creative spirit. In the process, she affirmed her identityu an artist and a survivor of physical pain, emotional strife, and politicalstruggle, as well as her claim to a fulfilling life. As Claudia Scb;aefer says,"the painted 'Frida' sulTers, lherefore she is; and Nch time [Kallio] con­jures up another portrOlit of this pOlin she reaffirms that identity_" H

In Kahlo, ChiCilna artists such as Yreim Cervantez, Gradela Carrillo,!Whara Carrasco, Carmen Lomas Garu, and Amalia Mesa-Bains found a

model of their own struggles within Anglo racism md Chicano patriar­chy, for as Sybil Venegas said in '977, and as Goldman ilnd Ybarra-Frausto

Oul of the HlII8(

echoed in 1990, eI Mevimicnto WoIS deeply sexist. "TIIC ChiCoine Movc­ment souglllto end oppression-discrimination, racism, and povcrty­and Chicanas supported that goal unequivocaUy; lbe IlKWCmcnl did 001, how­~r, propose basic changes in molt-female rdalians or the slotus of women" (emphasisadded)/' That the National Selection Committee privileged Frida IU.hloas a "Cultural Icon" ofel Movimiento is commendable (if not altogetheraccurate) and consistent with CARA's practice of honoring its Mexican

predecessors in the political art world; but the commiuee also privilegedthe male rendilions of Kahlo rather than giVing the space to those Chicanaartists who saw Frida. as an icon of their own struggles and liberation

through art. Kahlo's appropriation as a cultural icon by the privilegedmembers of the Chicano Art Movement speaks to the perpetuation ofsex­ist male-female relations that give men the right to take whal they wanlaway from women and, as Marcos Ray<l.'s painting demonstrates, to use

that which women have claimed to serve their own gendered vision.Perhaps, though, we can effect a subversive or at least a more refresh­

ing reading of the piece that mayor may nOl exculpate the Selection Com­mittee. What if we find another affinity projected in Ibe image of a mileartist in a wom<l.n's mask, assuming that womm's vision and, by extension,subjectiVity? What if, by shrinking Rivera, Lenin, and Che and magnify­

ing the presence of Frida Kahlo, the piece invites a radical interpretationof sexual politics? One reviewer who found RolYol'S piece "stwming ...skilled, imaginative, and as sophisticated as any representative of the con­lempoury European arl movements" patently assumed the sex-changesuggested in the imolge; "What she sees ranges from oln ape to heroes ofthe Mexican revolution," 7. The,she in question is, first, the artist who has

donned the mask of Frida's vision. but also the viewer who is positionedby the piece not as an observer but <l.S a surrogate for the artist. She canollso represent the Selection Committee. Thus, artist, viewer, and curator

become Frida Kahlo, olSSume a subjectivity that is not their own and thatis, moreover, located in ol female body, in;l. woman's politics oflcealion,

The piece is, indeed, open to ol trmsgendered interpretation,Was Marcos Raya in fact establishing this olber affinity between himself

and Kahlo or, as I said above, simply projecting his own vision and iden­tity onto the canvas by appropriating Kahlo's iconogn.phy? Perhaps the

answer to this question is less important than the fact that the ambiguil),offers the nonheterosexual viewer the opportunity to make her/hiS ownsubversive interpretation of lhe piece based on her/his own politics ofidentity and inclinations. As John Fiske believes, "a reading. like ol text,cannot of itself be essentially resistdlll or conformist; it is its use by a so-

dally .~ituoll('(1 reul' I I' cr I lilt c Clef/nines its polilk-s "" R ' .words, delermincs llle;lIling' 'nd . .. ('(;{'pllon, III olher. ' reception as we shall .

Simple malter. The interpretation of a Ch' ' /' soon see, IS notishizes Frida Kahlo the I leano Lallno g<l.y man who fe-

way tlat some white g'y , 'I'Monroe would I L _ men letls llZC Marilyn, warrant ut: substant"a.!l d'ffi

canol lesbian who C'Ulnot 6'"d I If I Y I erent from thaI of a Chi-lerse anywhere' th xl 'b'lhe mirrOr of Judy Baca's r__ T' In e e 11 It except in

LU1 res Monas and who kone of lhe expliCit obJ'ectives ofth h'b' , ,moreover, nows that

. . e ex I ltJon Wol.~ to en .senSitivity 10 lhe politics ofg d d sure a conSCiOUS

en er iUl yet finds that Ch'what their sexual identity_ " Icanas-no matter

B '. were ma..rgmahzed once <l.gain.y J~~laposlOg fe~inisl and nationalist agendas, gay male and I b'

perspectIVes, the men s rooms and the w.' es Ianvided CARA', ". 'd '1" Omens Closet, I have further dl-

mSI er outsider" Ie' ,POSilion Operates dS <l.n oU'~'d I:" dnll~. The Malmche or feminist

....1 er to ule OmlniUlt cod. f Ch'the COntext of the exhibil. In "Encodin '" es 0 Icanismo,dominant codes arc those meanings tlta~'a~~ln~ Stuart Hall says lhatby the producers of Ihal event 71 Alth assl,gn to a text or an eventand the WolY tholt m.....r'g.. ' od ough Hall IS talking olbout television

.............. are enc ed thrall h d dvised program by i'~ g olll ecoded from a tcle-

.... creators and consumers h' tit .Slruelion of mearung" h II . ,IS eones about the can·

,a.>wes a seemtheflU . IOther forms ofcullural production. 0 oWlllg c lolpter, apply to

. Thus, lhe dominant codes of the CARA exhibi .Its.organizcrs, which, deolrly, have not been fram~ar~ those ol~~gn~ bypolnl. Placing myself on th. yol femmlst VICW_

e margins ofdlicanismo I h fioppositional reading oflhe exhibit by "detotaliZ[in '] ~ve ~r or~ed anpreferred [or dominant] cod' d g e message III the

em or er 10 relotalize the m '.L.SOme alternative fr<l.mework of rere "/!t eSSdge Wh.ulD

coded lhe exhibit? How CAR rencc~ How have others read or de-WdS A receIVed n t" 'd b '

ofover 300,000 viewers?IO a lonWI e y Its audience