***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:32:52 -0600
   [From]: "Chris Drew" <cdrew#@orion.it.luc.edu>
     [To]: "Cultural Exchange via Internet" <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Fw: Censorship



Mr.. Helguera,
Thank you for explaining your view point. You offer opportunities for
discussion. Chicago is a microcosm for the cultural politics of the
United States of America. We seem to agree that "...cultural
administrators, curators, critics, artists and educators, have not
adequately fought to structure a system in which minority artists can
"integrate" into the dialogue of the mainstream without necessarily
loosing their individual identities for cultural discourse." But I am
not sure whether my definition of "integrate" is the same as yours.

Also, what is this "contemporary vocabulary" you speak of? Will it be
contemporary in the next century? Does that mean the "good" art today is
"bad" art tomorrow? Is it an "aesthetic" those who expect support must
adhere to? Is it a latest aesthetic trend to emerge from the schools of
major arts institutes? Is it the aesthetic determined collectively by
art critics employed by major western institutions for the purpose of
valuing art as a commodity that they can trade after the artist's death
to make money while promoting their tastes among their wealth friends
and associates? Is it the aesthetics curators in power at the Museum of
Contemporary Art in Chicago used except in the case of political
considerations that forced them to honor the efforts of artists
struggling with little support in some of Chicago's poorest communities.
Is exclusion based on aesthetical reasoning not racist even if it
eliminates artists along racial lines? What about the other artists
eliminated whose creative choices and methods are different? Are they
not artists?

I suspect the forces attempting to forge a unified aesthetic for this
nation are the same forces that have proscribed the history texts for
the public schools and a standard content format for commercial TV. The
struggle is the same. The reasons are the same. The results are the
same!

Regarding Raya and Romero - their audiences were the community people
where they live not the art circle at the Contemporary Museum of Art.
They worked in these communities long before "multiculturalism" became a
buzz word for funders. The quality of their effect on art activity in
their community due to the fact that they live and paint in full view of
their community has been great. It is much greater than any effect the
Museum of Contemporary Art has ever had on that same community. Should
not their positive community effect count for anything. They are
creating their art in a chronically underserved community. 

Your statement that Raya and Romero "...created art by the idea that
ethnicity is an aesthetic" is incorrect. It may be true that curators
may seek to fit an artist into an ethnic stereotype but your speculation
that they subconsciously censored themselves to paint in the tradition
of their cultural surroundings from birth because dominant culture
grantmakers offered them cash perks to do so is laughable to anyone
aware of the hardships artists face in Chicago's communities. They were
raised Mexican and were fiercely proud of it and willing to weather the
slings and arrows of an entire Chicago arts establishment to do their
art because it had a cultural meaning for them. The attitudes you share
with us from the Museum of Contemporary Art is evidence of the disregard
artists in our communities face daily. For a very short period in
history - these two received a small bit of attention for "political
reasons." Then what? Is this "new vocabulary" an excuse to justify
locking out grass-roots artists and communities from sharing in the
artistic process. We are those building an arts infrastructure from the
community up. Using the lens of "contemporary vocabulary" can we all be
ignored. How convenient. We are not fooled. Yes - this is racism and
worse - it is tyranny. Luckily that world order does not govern the
majority of people in our communities.

You suggest the only legitimized aesthetic influences are from the top
down - from those who are "informed' and leave out the "uninformed"
majority. Artists working in communities in our nations urban areas were
here before "multiculturalism" became a word. Artists are still working
in very individual ways in all urban communities, even after it is "in"
to support independent community art activities. Our organization has
learned not to depend on the slanted arts funding system for anything
but the smallest of crumbs. We seek to find a way to survive in touch
with our audience. Our solution is to present artists original work on
t-shirts and to learn how to market these on the Internet. We are
building our own support system. We must for all the reasons you bring
out. The artists we represent do not all speak your "contemporary
vocabulary." They speak many languages. We simply create a forum on
t-shirts for them to speakout without attempting to dictate aesthetics
to them.

Is it news that minority artists who "really know how 'to make' it in
the art world usually want to make sure that their nationality or ethnic
heritage is mentioned at the end of the list or not mentioned at all."
No - it is not news. It was not news fifty years ago. It is not news
today.

An old acquaintance of yours, well known to exhibit in Germany and
Chicago, who has resided in the Latino community for decades - Carlos
Cortez - says hello. There have been and presently are many more artists
of quality than Raya and Romero over the last fifty years in Chicago
Latino communities. With very little respect offered to these artists,
you say that these two artists are supposed to be the best artists to
come out of a Mexican community of 500,000 in 50 years. Asking why - you
claim to blame "... the late eighties and the vigorous defense - and
temporary triumph - of multiculturalist theories.  By establishing the
right to the "minority" artist to have its own aesthetic, we created
fictitious categories and alienated realities which really aware artists
despise."

This is a re-writing of history from a sharply slanted view that
challenges ones grasp of reality. What are the "alienated realities" you
speak of? If I understand your meaning behind "fictitious categories" to
be ethnic art categories - Black Art - Latino Art - etc. Those were
created not by artists but by the curators for the establishment to
marginalize these groupings of artists. These artists were those who
grew their art by creating in communities on the outside of the arts
establishment for the most part and were heavily influenced by the
political turbulence of the sixties and seventies. They identified with
their communities struggles and sought out an aesthetic based on
experience and their communities traditions. They spoke their
communities' language. You speak of "establish the right to the
"minority" artist to have its aesthetic" as if there were ever such an
agreed upon thing. There were/are traditions. There are individuals who
built their own aesthetics. They came to many conclusions about their
goals,  methods and aesthetic values. No artist needs their right to set
their own goals, methods and aesthetic values to be established by
anyone else.

The "Art World" is not the world. The "Art World" is an elite group that
performs for itself. They value art so it can be traded between
themselves. There is no unified aesthetic that explains and measures
quality across cultures and all time. Community art always was, is, and
always will be alive. It values the artistic process, the living artist
and the communication between the artist and his/her audience. It can be
suppressed, but like the indigenous plant life - will always find a
crack to root in. Community art is simply the creative artistic process
at work in those vast overlooked portions of our society who for the
most part do not speak the "contemporary vocabulary" - nor do they claim
to cast judgement on the world. They only care to possess their own
identity and cultural choices. The artists who work to give them this
are my heroes. Who do you look up to? Why do you create?

Chris Drew       <mailto:umcac@art-teez.org>
Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center
http://www.art-teez.org   We dress Chicago and the
Internet in t-shirt art.  Come get some! 773/561-7676




Is this a problem of "cultural racism" or is this a problem of the way
we have conceived the division between the mainstream and the minority.

How should major institutions define the criteria for selection of art
when faced with the task of adequately representing, in our case,
Chicago's diversity of artists and cultures.