Beyond "The Fantastic": Framing Identity in U. S.

Exhibitions of Latin American Art

Author(s): Mari Carmen Ramrez
Source: Art Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, Latin American Art (Winter, 1992), pp. 60-68
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/777286 .
Accessed: 26/09/2011 09:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Beyond "the

Fantastic"

of LatinAmericanArt
FramingIdentityin U.S.Exhibitions

Mari Carmen Ramirez

Regarding this Latin Americawhich is split off betweenWest

and Not West,in a certainsensehalfwaybetweentheFirstand
ThirdWorld(First Worldand a Half, PierreRestanycalls it),
S.. it is said that withouthavingreachedmodernism
entirely,
it has becomepostmoderntoo early.'
60

The questionof thefantastic is the questionof identityand of

Otherness.It is also the questionof the origins.2
rt exhibitionsare privileged vehicles for the representation of individual and collective identities,
whetherthey consciouslyset out to be so or not. By
bringingtogetherworksproducedby artistsas individualsor
as membersof a specific community,they allowinsights into
the ways those groups visually construct their self-image.
This identity-projectingrole of exhibitionshas been at the
heart of controversiessurroundingthe unprecedentednumber of shows of Latin American/Latinoart organized and
funded by U.S. institutions(museums, galleries, alternative
spaces) over the last ten years. The exhibition boom has
taken place at a time when the heightenedvisibility of the
morethan thirty million Latinosin the UnitedStates(as well
as that of otherThirdWorldpeoples and ethnic minorities)is
forcinga series of unresolvedproblemson museumsthroughout the country. The denunciationby artists, critics, and
supportersof the Latin American/Latinocommunityof the
cultural stereotypes presented by these exhibitions has
broughtthe issue of the representationof this marginalculture directly into the heartof the U.S. mainstream.3At stake
is not only the question of whetherthe image of the Latin
American or Latino "other"that emergesfrom these shows
trulyengages the culturalconstituenciesit aims to represent,
but also how museums and the art establishmentat large
respondto the cultural demandsof an increasinglyinfluential community.
The reasons why exhibitionsare such contested vehicles forthe definitionand validationof LatinAmericanart in
the United States are deeply embedded in the neocolonial
legacy that has articulated U.S./Latin American relations
since the nineteenth century. Despite the NorthAmerican
fascinationwith the exoticismof peoples south of the border,
U.S. policies towardthem have been characterizedby atWINTER 1992

temptsto underminetheir sovereigntythroughoutrightintervention, exploitationof resources, financial manipulation,

andracial discrimination.As ShifraGoldmanhas effectively
argued, the Latino exhibition boom of the eighties was no
exception to this play of neocolonial politics. Behind the
exhibitionglitterlay a web of politicaland diplomaticfactors,
ranging from U.S. attemptsto dominateCentralAmerican
governmentsand alienate their Latin Americansupporters,
to the strategiesof marketingfirms attemptingto cornerthe
U.S. Latinoconsumerpopulation,a factorthat significantly
influenced the emergence of a highly successful Latin
American/Latinoart market.4
The perceptionand representationof Latin American
art in the UnitedStateshavenotonly gonehand in handwith
U.S. foreignpolicies but havealso replicatedthe unevenaxis
of exchange between both continents.5 Latin American/
Latinoart, for instance, is notformallystudied in art history
programsexceptas "exotica"or as a manifestationof cultural
ethnicity. The contributionsof importantartists from this
culture, presentin the U.S. scene since the 1920s, haveuntil
now been largely ignored by the academic and art-world
establishment. With some notable exceptions, these artists
are represented in only a handful of museum collections.
This unequal axis of exchange can also be faulted for the
application of different standards of professionalism and
scholarship to the organization of exhibitions of Latin
American/Latinoart in mainstreammuseums. The majority
of such exhibitionshave been organizedby curatorsof modern Europeanartwhoare notversedin the language, history,
or traditions of the many countries that constitute Latin
America.This factor,togetherwiththe relativelysmall quantity of art historical material available in English and the
comparativelypoor networkof visual-arts informationoriginatingin the countriesthemselves,has helpedto entrenchan
easily stereotypedand marketableimage of LatinAmerican/
Latino art in the United States.
The elaborationof an effective agendaforthe nineties,
however,requiresthatwe step beyondthe denunciationof the
neocolonial politics at work in the Latin American/Latino
exhibitionboom and focus moreprecisely on the ideological
and conceptual premises that guided the organizationof

these art shows.At the heartof this phenomenonlies the issue

of who articulatesthe identityof these groups.As the debates
surroundingthese exhibitionsdemonstrated,the mostpowerful agents in this process were neitherthe producers,northe
culturalgroupsrepresented,northe audiences,but the North
American exhibition curatorswho set out to constructspecific narrativesto define Latin Americanart.6 We can ask
how curatorssteeped in the values and symbols of a hegemonic culture can attempt to speak for, or represent, the
voices of the very different,heterogeneoustraditionsembodied in the Latin"other."The answeris inevitablytied up with
the conceptual crisis confrontingthe North American art
museum as a result of the challenges that ethnic groupsand
new social movementsare bringingagainst its self-centered
exclusionarypractices.
At the core of this problemlies the inadequacyof the
conceptual frameworkthat informs North American curatorialpracticesto deal with the complexlogic thatgaverise
to modem art in a continentrecently described by Argentinean cultural theorist N6storGarcia Canclini as the continent of the "semi," i.e., semi-modern, semi-developed,
semi-European, semi-indigenous. Fromthis point of view,
any attempt to address the issues posed by modernart in
Latin America has to start by questioningthe validityof the
term "Latin American art" itself, as there exists no one
identityfor the countries south of the border.Ratherthan a
homogeneousregion, Latin Americastands for a conglomerate of more than twenty countries of diverse economic and
social makeup, which in turn encompassa broadmixtureof
races and severalhundredethnic groups. Behindthe shared
legacy of Europeancolonialism, language, and religion lie
highly mixed societies whose dynamic of transculturation
has producednot a single hybrid culture but what can be
more adequatelycharacterizedas a "heterogeneousensemble."7 Unlike Eastern or native indigenous cultures, Latin
American culture, by reason of its colonial legacy, is inscribed in the Westerntraditionand has always functioned
within its parameters.The specificity of its "alternateway of
being Western'"resides in its appropriation,recycling, or
"repossessing"of Euro-Americanculture to respondto the
needs of the LatinAmericanrealities. The same logic applies

to the Latinopopulationof the UnitedStates. Latinosdo not

comprise one sole race, or etnia, but ratheran amalgamof
races, classes, and nationalheritagesthat elude any attempt
at easy classification. This admixtureincludes "conquered"
citizens, such as MexicanAmericansand PuertoRicans, as
well as immigrantsfromSouthand CentralAmericaand the
Caribbean.9In this sense, thereis no Latinoartper se, but a
broadgamutof expressivemodesand styles, each of whichis
socially and politically specific.
Despite the variety of themes and exhibitionformats,it
is possible to identifyat least one pervasiveexhibitionmodel
exemplified by the historic or contemporarysurveys organized by large mainstreammuseums in the mid-1980s in
response to demographicand art markettrends. This model
reflects the ideological frameworkof Euro-American(i.e.,
First World)modernismthat constitutesthe conceptualbasis
of the NorthAmericanart-museumnetwork.Predicatedon
the tenets of a rationalsociety, progress,universality,andthe
autonomyof the aesthetic, this ideology, however,is inherently flawedwhen it engages the concept of culturalor racial
differenceembodiedin peripheralsocieties. Heremodernity
has been at best delayedor incomplete,and artistic developmentsfrequentlyhave developedin tensionwith the prevailing mode of Western modernism. The ensuing curatorial
practicestendto maskthis intrinsiclimitationby proceeding
on the assumptionthat artistic productioncan be separated
fromthe socio-politicalcontextwhereit takes place (i.e., the
notion that an "aesthetic will" exists over and above the
parametersof culture), and that the role of museum exhibitions is to providecontextsfor the presentationand contemplationof the "morepurelyartistic and poetic impulses of the
individual."'oSuchpracticesrely on a teleologicalview of art
based on sequences of formal change that privileges the
concept of aesthetic innovation developed by the early
twentieth-centuryavant-garde.They also subscribe to an
absolutenotionof "aestheticquality"thattranscendscultural
boundaries. In this way, they select, exclude, and elevate
worksto their own preordainedand preconceivedstandards.
The historic or contemporarysurvey is the preferred
vehicle for this approach,as it allows for the organizationof
extensive bodies of artistic productioninto neat categoriesof
ART JOURNAL

61

FantaStic
of the
Art

?ri"

62

FIG. 1 Artof the Fantastic:LatinAmerica,1920-1987, 1987, cataloguecover

(Tarsilado Amaril,Aba Poru,1928)

aesthetic evolution into which the seemingly chaotic and

disparate developmentsof the peripherycan be made to fit.
Not surprisingly, the vast majorityof exhibitions of Latin
American/Latinoart organized in the eighties followedthe
survey formatto present and define in one fell swoop the
differencethat sets apartLatinAmerican/Latinoartistsfrom
their First World counterparts. In order to achieve their
purposes, they either applied the categoriesof the evolution
of modernart in Europe or constructedtheir own.
On the other hand, at the heart of Euro-American
modernism there has always been a unilinear concept of
enlightenedprogressthatwas destined tojustify colonialism.
The absorptionor dominationof less materiallydeveloped
cultures, i.e., "others,"led in turn to the compilationof a
vast reservoirof "primitive,""exotic"sources that since the
early part of the twentiethcentury has resulted in an alternate projectof modernity,based on the irrational,the primitive, and the unconscious.Curatorialpractices based on this
perspective, therefore,are not only incapableof viewing the
arts of non-First Worldsocieties without the ethnological
lens that resulted from colonialism, but also tend to divest
these manifestationsof the complexityof their origins and
development.These practices invariably replicate the us/
them perspectivewherebythe achievementsof the colonized
subject are broughtup for objective scrutiny to determine
WINTER1992

their degree of rationalityor authenticity,therebyreducing

them to derivative manifestationsor variationsof already
existing tendencies. In the specific case of Latin American/
Latino art, we must point towardthe legacy of Surrealism,
that subversive child of the Westernimagination,as having
played a paramountrole in shaping Euro-Americanconceptions of this art. Fromthe point of viewof a NorthAmericanor
Europeanmuseum curator,only Surrealismcan providethe
repertoireof irrational, exotic sources to accommodatethe
developmentof the types of societies representedby Latin
America. This attitudeis, in turn, historicallygroundedin
the enthusiasm of Andre Breton and the Surrealistsfor the
realities of the New Worldembodied in Latin America, as
well as the visibility among their ranks of such recognized
artists as Wifredo Lam, RobertoMatta,and FridaKahlo.
Because of their impact, the way in which they tapped
themes
of the LatinAmerican/Latinoexperience,andthe
key
of
degree controversythat they elicited, three exhibitions"Art of the Fantastic: Latin America, 1920-1987," organized by the IndianapolisMuseumof Art, "Imagesof Mexico: The Contributionof Mexicoto Twentieth-Century
Art,"
organizedby the FrankfurtKunsthalleand presentedat the
Dallas Museum of Art in 1988, and "Hispanic Art in the
United States:ThirtyContemporary
Paintersand Sculptors,"
the
Museum
of
Fine
Arts, Houston,in 1988organizedby
useful
case
studies
for
provide
analyzingthe shortcomingsof
the Euro-AmericanapproachtowardLatin American/Latino
art. "Artof the Fantastic"focused on the historicaldevelopmentof the LatinAmericanversionof modernism.It brought
together more than thirty of the most distinguished Latin
American artists of the twentieth century in an attemptto
characterizethe specific nature of their contributionto the
modernart tradition."Imagesof Mexico,"the largest exhibition to date on this subject, dealt with the developmentof
modernart in Mexicofrom1910 until approximately
the early
sixties. The Houstonshow,on the otherhand, presentedthe
contemporaryproductionof a group of thirty Latino artists
fromacross the UnitedStates. It was the first such exhibition
ever undertakenby a NorthAmericanmuseum and the first
attempt to legitimate Latino art in the context of the
mainstream.
"Artof the Fantastic"and "Images of Mexico,"like a
host of othersurvey exhibitions, began their investigationin
the 1920s, the crucial decade when Latin Americanartists
first engaged modernart. The artists in question were key
figures who had traveled and studied in Europe and who
returnedhomeimbued with the language and formalexperiments of the avant-garde,which they introducedin their
respective countries.Takingplace amidattemptsby national
elites to modernizecountrieslong subsumedundercolonialism, their efforts are generallyrecognized by Latin Americans as leading to the birth of a self-consciousness (or
identity) for Latin American art. Indeed, the selection of
worksin the exhibitionallowedthe viewerto appreciatethe

ways in which Latin American artists approachedthe languages and styles of Europeanmovementsand adaptedthem
to the necessities of their own time and place. This process
implied, more often than not, revising and tearing apart
artistic codes in order to reconstructthem from their own
critical perspective. Suchwas the case of the Mexicanmuralists, who combined the formal experimentsof post-World
WarI Cubism and Futurismwith indigenousand historical
subject matterin their wall paintings; or of JoaquinTorresGarcia, who sought a synthesis (howeverutopian) of the
principlesof Constructivism,Neoplasticism,and Surrealism
with those of pre-Columbianart.
"Art of the Fantastic"best exemplifies the tendency
towardreductionismand homogenizationthat underlies the
representationsof Latin American identity in these exhibitions. In defining the criteria for the show, its curators,
Holliday Day and Hollister Sturges, left aside the multiple
viewpointsprovidedby the worksthemselvesin orderto zero
in on theirownconceptof the "fantastic,"whichtheyclaimed
was a "vehicle for 20th century artists of Latin America to
define the special cultural identity that developed over a
periodof 400 years."Identityhere, as well as in the othertwo
exhibitions, was conceived of in termsof a primal, ahistorical, and instinctual essence thatwas presumedto conveythe
peculiarities of the Latin American characterby allowing
itself to be expressed throughart. Thus, morethan a formal
resource originating in historically specific tendencies or
artistic movements,the conceptionof the fantastic set forth
by Dayand Sturgesdenoteda systemof collective representation based on the "juxtaposition,distortion,or amalgamation
of images and/ormaterialsthat extendexperienceby contradicting our expectationsformallyor iconographically.. . .
The fantastic may be an ingredient of almost any style,
including geometric art.""11As a result, the conception of
Latin American identity conveyed through the "fantastic"
came to signify something outside the real, predicated in
opposition to the real, and articulated around the Latin/
European, irrational/rationaldichotomy.In each case the
attempts by Latin American artists to solve aesthetic and
formalproblemssimilar to those confrontedby their European counterparts--whetherPiet Mondrian,PabloPicasso,
or Sandro Chia-were erased in favor of the instinctual
impulse that gave rise to their artistic expression. The authorityof the Euro-Americandiscourse also led the curators
to classify as "fantastic"otherareas of rationalendeavor,such
as LatinAmericanarthistoryand criticism, whichfromtheir
point of view were practiced as "poetic, intuitive and nonscientific"activities. Thus, the contributionsby LatinAmerican scholarsto Art of theFantasticwereprintedat the end of
the catalogueunderthe revealingheadingof "AnotherView."
The constructionof the "fantastic"elaboratedby Day
and Sturges can be seen as an attemptto approximatethe
concept of lo real maravilloso(marvelousrealism),which has
been present in Latin American art and culture since the

1940s and which could have served to illustrate the transcultural relationshipbetween Latin American art and the
Europeantradition. Yet Day and Sturges'sdefinitionof the
"fantastic"is at odds with the rolethat marvelousrealism has
played within the Latin American tradition.12As Charles
Merewetherhas argued,followingAlejo Carpentier'soriginal
formulation,in Latin America the marvelousis not outside
the real, but an integralpartof it; it exists withinthe real as a
faith that carries the potentialfora transformation
of perception and therebyconsciousness.13 LiterarycriticJean Franco
also ascribes a performativefunctionto the Latin American
concept of the fantastic as it allowsfor"ancientbeliefs to coexist with modernones as part of living memories,"in a way
that offsets "Westernnotions of normalitythat mask terror,
injustice and censorship."'4Thus, insofar as it asserts the
possibility of a differentreality, the Latin Americanversion
of the fantastic, whetherexpressed in the literatureof Jorge
Luis Borges or Alejo Carpentier,stands not for an irrational
but ratherfor a rationalprojectchargedwith connotationsof
emancipationand liberation.
The Surrealist and ethnographic bias of EuroAmericanmodernismwas nowherebetterarticulatedthan in
the "Imagesof Mexico"exhibition. Here Mexicoemergedas
the unspoilt reservoir, i.e., the land of " 'unprogrammed'
surrealism"(a description coined by the FrenchSurrealist
poet Antonin Artaud),where in the wordsof Erika Billeter,
the exhibition'scurator,"poets, writers, and photographers
foundvalues which the highly civilized Westernworldcould
no longerprovide."15
These values translatedinto the quality
of "authenticity"
thatprovidedthe underlyingrationaleforthe
exhibition."Authenticity"
forBilleterimplied the searchfora
primalIndian essence not too muddledby the "programmatic" (i.e., political) objectives of Mexicanmuralism.
For Billeter, it is the manifestationof this authentic
spirit thatconstitutesthe contributionof Mexicoto twentiethcenturyart. Anythingthat departsfromthe representationof
of this tradition.
indigenousthemesrepresentsa "corruption"
Her choice of works, therefore, deliberately left aside the
public discourse and achievementsof Mexicanmuralism,as
well as the abstract and geometricmovementsof the 1960s
and 1970s. It concentratedinstead on the artistic production
of Mexicanartists as revealedin the moreintimatevehicle of
easel painting, which focused on depictionsof everydaylife,
festivities, love, and death, areas where presumably the
primal spirit of the Mexican people manifested itself. The
searchforauthenticityalso led Billeterto exalt the inaccurate
fact that "in no other country have artists with little or no
training achieved fame and honoras in Mexico,"and she
proceeded to put forwardthe art of two women, Maria Izquierdoand FridaKahlo, and an introvert,AbrahamAngel,
as examples of the modernist myth of the marginalized,
untrained artist. Billeter's selection concluded with Francisco Toledo,in whose workthe "Indianspirit continues to
survive."
ART JOURNAL

63

-iasaa~apsl?l~sllrwr

II-~qSSS~HBYI

Is~B~"giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iliiiiiiiiii

~iliiiiil_:ii
i_:-_
_:-:-I
~?iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiii
...:i.i:i-i-i-i:ii
:--:"''-'--:-:::ii;i:~iiii"i:iiiiii,-i;i'
-:i-i:i-ii-i:i:
-i-i:i
':'::-::
-i:.4ii'iiii-_.i:iiiii
-ii:i-i-e-i---_-::::.:::-:-::
-------:-iiii::::-_-:--iii--:::??:-:--:----:iiiiiiii::::;
"::-,-Ii_
:..::::
:::'
'''::II:
:::I:;-::::-:
iiiiiil
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiL~iiiiiii
?*l-~~:~'i'i'i'-':':'
'i'ii'i'i'i'i'iii'iii'iiiii
:.:.
:-::::::
-::iiil,:':_:i-iii':
'
i-iii:i-i-i:i~
,::i:i-i:ii~i,
.:. ~iiii
:i--:li:_i;:i:i:~il
ii~i-iii-"iiili:i
`i-i:ii-ii'iiii
-i:iii-ii-i::-i-i-i-i:
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
:::::::::i-_--li-i:?''_~''''
:i-i:i:ili-i

:-iiiiii~iiiiii~i~iiiiii?.iiii.-,-_:::-ii?F:i~ii
~iii;i:
liii~iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii:
-.iii:_i-i".,ii ~ iiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iisiii:i-:iiiiiiii..''.iiii;
:-::
iiiiiiiiii-i:iiiivi
iiii:i-ii-::::::
-:.:::::_
iiiiiiiiiiii-i:iriiii-i
::::::::
::::::::
:-:-,:
::::::::::::i:i:I:
_:::::i:
-::::::'
:::-:'-:::':':':'

"Americanart of a somewhatdistinct sort,"whose strategies

of resistance and cultural affirmationonly confirmedthe
"classic pattern"of a pluralistic society such as that of the
:::::-i:i-:~i-i;
'-':'i
-:'-'-'-'-'-'liziiiiiiiii:
iiiiiii'i'i'iiiiiiiiiiiii-i-i~iiiii
-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
---:-'::-:-:':::i:ii:i-i...::
ii.i.i:ii:i:-:?--:--:--:ijii:-:..
i:ilii--i:::::United States, where different cultures have traditionally
:- i:i:-i:i:i:-l:iil':?iiii_,
iiii?iiiiiiiii-i:i:ii:ii:I
:_ iiiiiii.~ -iii:i:i
::....
. :i..-.....::iiii ii':iiit'::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
.:_
iii;
::. -:_:--:--i---_-:-:i:ii
i::::::::::::::::
:::
iiiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
..:::
---:l::--:---:::-iii~
--::::
-i:i::::i:-:-:::-:::.:.:
iiiiii~iiii
vied
for recognition from the mainstream.19Such a view
--::iii:_ii:iiii_
-:::
-i-.i-i-:i-i:ii-iii:i-__;:---;iiiiiiii~iiiiiiaii:~iiiiai~i~,:iiiiii~
'i'i~'i'i'iiiiiiii::iE::-:-::--::::
----::
::::
-::::::
; ::::
-.
:iiiiiiiiii
,iiiii~iii::ii:--i-iii::iiili-_
-:-::?
::::.::i?:i:iiiiii
iiiiiiii:i
iiiiii:
i:::i::-:i::
ii:~iiiii~iii-iiiiiiiii7ii:ili:8ii:iiic
obscures
the status of Latinosas conqueredpeoples orimmi-i:iii-i:i:iii-iiiii:::i:iiiiiiiiiii:-iii~iiii~iiiiiiii
i:ili-iii:i-i-:i:iii
i
iiiiiiiiiiiii?-iiiiiiiii
~~iii
iiiiii
iiiiiiiiii
i-:::-':i:i:ii.:::
:li::::::':H::___,?:iiiil
::::::::'::::::
:::::::'-:-:-:::
-iii-~ii:iii::ilili..::
:::_
:i::::
:-:?:-:--:::-:-:
:ia?iii-i-:-:-:
:~.?~':"'''l:iiiiiii
iiiiiiii
:::i:i-i'i:i:iii.:i:iii:i
i.iiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~.iiilii-ii'j.iiiii
i:i:i-i-i:i-i:i:i-i:::..
-::i
ziiir
i-ii
:::..::
i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiii~iiiiiii-i
grants that resulted from U.S. foreignpolicies towardLatin
liiiiii:iiiiiiii
::c
:::.
::...
--..
::..::
iiiiiiii
- i'-ii:i-iiiiliii~iiiii::...:
i '::'-'-'':':'-'
'-i:i-i-i"i~iiiii'iiiiiiii r:
-::::-_--:::::
------~
:-::::
:::::i:::-:si-ii-i:i:iiiiiiiiii:i
-i: "'~iliii:-i:iiiii~iiiiii
-'-':-::-----:-:'-:-:-ii:i*:-::?---:i:_-_-li:-:-_
i---: :__: ___
i :::::::i:i:~:i:
i-iiiiiliii-iiiiiip
::::::-::"
as well as the long-standing Latino traditionof
::::
:::::::':':"
-::::--:.::::-:---America,
I:ii:i-ii'ii
iiiiiisi-i-i:iii:iiiI:ciiiiiilti~~iii:
:.-_:.:.:.::
''iii-i:iiiiii~i:
--ii:i:'--::i:i,,iii:
::::
i_:_-:-:-:-:-:::--:::i:;_-ii_::~i-i-i~iiiii-i
:::::iiii::i:
iiiiiiii~iiiii~iiiiiiiii-i
"'''''''''".~''?.:~~
:::::::::::::::_:::::::
"-"
a
'-l:-:::-'i'iiii:iii:i-i:l'i
.__..: ii:i:iiiiiiil'_-::::::::::::::::
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii;:iiiiii
ili-iii~iiiii~iiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii?iiil
: : -iii~ii:iiii~:li:;ii:'ii..:iii
---:i::::::,:i:i::?:i::::::j:-:::_:::
and
cultural activism. In its place it upholds the
.:::.
:::--:-:-:::i:i:~iii
:iiiii.iii'i:iiiiii
iiiii"iiiili~ii:iiiii
i:iiii:i-iiiii-r:i:iiil
:::-:::--i:i:i
-::::::-i-i-i'i'-:::::::::::::::::;-:-::
-:::-::::i:i
political
:::_:::_-li:::
:ii:ii:i:i:iiii:iii_~?~;-:i-i:i
:..:_,iiii-iiii:i-:_
ii-i-iii-i?iiiiiiii:--i---~i~s::~';~i"'i'--:-i--'-:
~iI:riiiiiii.iii~
_:::::-?:i::::
:.:.:::
::::_
:::::::j_:-:_:_:::i?:i;r:
:-i:iiiiiiii-iiiiii:':
iiiiiiiiiiiiii:i:liii'i:..:-i:i
-i-iiiiiiiiiii~i:i:iii:i:iiiiiiii:ii:--i'i'i-ii-i:i:i-i
:i-:iiiii
:.:::::
:iiiiiiiiiiiii
::-:-:i::iiiii:~i:iiii-iii:?:iiiii-ii
iii-:_--i-ii::i:..::..
-ii:i:i
i-i:iii:::-::_:::i~~:-i:i:iiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiii-iiii
iiii:iiiiiiiiiiiii
:::::
-:-::-i
:'
....
''':"'''':':':?lr'~l"~i'i'i'i"i'
::::::/-i-'ii'::li~,':::::'iil::C/~'D:'
'-'-':":'iiii:ii-i:i:i-ii-iii~iiiii:iii
-:i:--:::::-:-:-..:iii:i--:--:-of
an
_:-::::::___--:,::
::::::.:::;:::::,:::::::::::,:
::::::
image
all-embracing and benevolent U.S. society.
::::i:i:,:i:i::_:::_:i:i-i::-::iiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiii:iii
::i::s-i:i:i:i::::::::.:-._
,-'i':i___
it -iii:i----:iii:
-iiiili:~iiiii'iii,
i-:i-'i-ii_
iiiii-ii:i-i-:::i-::::::,-x,-;::::
:-i:~iiiiiiiiii?iiiiiiiiiiiiiii?~,iiiiiii:iiiiiiiij?iiiiii:iii-i-i-::i:i:~~::::isii:i-i:~i:?:::::'::
-':':'::: :;''::': ?i:iii:-?i:---ii:-:iii
ii-iiiii
'i'i'i'i'''i'i::_:ii?:l':iiii'iiiii
1
:i?i?i:iii:;i:iii:i--i:i:iiiiii
.:II
i-iii
-'-'ii
ii-iiiii-i:i:ii
iliiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiii
here
was
reduced to ethnicity, as the glue that holds
Identity
:iiii:i:i:iii-~iiiii: iiiiii:liiiiiii::iiii:iw::-i:s?-----:
ii :
::::::::
:::::::-::::::.-::::::i::::_
::-:--I-_:::::-.:
:':'i'ic'-:i:iiiiiiiiii-:-:i:::~iiiii~iiiii~-iiii
togetherartists of widelydiversepopulationsand marksthem
i?i.i:i--:
_
out fromthe dominantsociety. Thus, the exhibitionset outto
-?i:i:i.i
i ?i-i
:i-i"?i~-'??i:i
iii:i--ii:i
:-:::~::::-:::I-:-:-'il-:
---::.:
:----:~--:---;?:i:::_
:-::ii
:::
~:::i-:::`:??:::::------::?::-:::-_:,i-i-__-.
i:--ii?:
identify those areas where artists maintainedtheir distinc-:i:i:i:::ii::
-:::i?:-i-i:i:i-~iiiiiii
:::
:i:i-_
-iii:i...::
~;i''ii:~:iiiri:iiiii-i-i:iii?,i'iiiiii
i-i-iiii?iii::---ii?~-i-:;::iiiii:i
iiiiii~.;iiiii-,;:__
:iiiiiiiiii-iii:
i .::.'.-:' -ii:iiiiii
-i:iiii~-i:ili-li:i/iii
iiiiii~riii
tiveness, while seeking to be part of mainstreamAmerica.
:
?iiiii?-i?-i:,ie-~-iiiiiii~iiiiii.i~'-t:::::::::i::::::
i:i~:i:i:i-i-i:iii~iiiii~-i:i:i:liii:i:
Morethan any of the otherexhibitionsmountedduring
FIG. 2 Imagesof Mexico:TheContribution
of Mexicoto Twentieth-Century the
the Houstonshowbroughtto the forethe mechaeighties,
Art,1988, cataloguespine and cover(FridaKahlo,Diego on My Mind,19431
nisms at workin the aestheticizingbias of Europeanmodernism. The curators' insistence on underscoringthe strong
The notionof "authenticity,"however,belies a fallacious "aestheticwill" thatmanifesteditself throughLatinoart, over
Romanticconstruct,withno basis in the culture in which it is and above the particularitiesof social and cultural developsupposed to reside. The veryprocess of transculturationfrom ment (termedthe "sociological"aspects), maskedunwillingwhich Mexicansociety emergedcancels the validityof such a ness to deal with the harsh realities of discriminationthat
concept. Moreover,the image of the Indianwhich Billeterso have shaped the experience of Latino groups within North
zealouslyupholdswas a constructof the political andcultural American society, finding strong expression in their art.
elites of the Mexican Revolutionto facilitate national unity Such a positionalso implied the task of justifying and elevatand development.It hid the defeat of the popularmovements ing the expressionof these groupsfromtheirmarginal,grassof the MexicanRevolution(representedby the forces of Villa roots position to the realm of high art. In the wordsof John
and Zapata) at the hands of a middle class that was far Beardsley,co-curatorof the exhibition,the selectionof works
removedfromthe realityof the exploitedIndianpopulation.'16 "provide[d]the basis forinvestigatingthe degree to whichan
Therefore,to continueto upholdsuch notionsof "authenticity" enduringsense of ethnic distinctivenesscan enterthe legitias the basis for the selection of works to be included in mate territoryof high art."20The externalus/them relation
exhibitionsof Mexicanor LatinAmericanart is to reducethe was then exemplified by the liberal-populist curatorsatartistic expression of these regions to a one-dimensionalor temptingto vindicatethe artistic expressionof the underdog.
false mode of expression. This errorultimatelyfunctionsto The aestheticizing bias was also responsibleforthe rangeof
limit the potentialof artists fromthese regionsto engage the media chosen by the curatorsto representthe workof Latino
manifestationsof Europeanart on equal terms.17
artists. Leavingaside the importantrolethat posters,prints,
If "Artof the Fa astic"and "Imagesof Mexico"set the photography,and video have playedin Latinoart, the curaframeworkforthe discourse of the fantasticandSurrealismin torial choice was limited to painting and sculpture, the
the context of Latin American and Mexican art, the "His- traditionalmedia of high modernism. Undertakenin a depanic Art"show achieved somethingsimilar forthe produc- cade that saw the return to painting of a neoexpressionist,
tion of artists of LatinAmericandescent. The homogenizing primitivistic bent, the selection focused almost exclusively
bias of modernismwas at workfromthe startin the use of the on worksthat revealed, or rathermirrored,these tendencies,
controversialterm"Hispanic"to lump togetherartistsof such complementedwith naive and folk styles.
diverse origins as MexicanAmericans, PuertoRicans, ChiIn line with the aesthetic emphasis of the exhibition,
leans, Uruguayans,and manyothersof Latin descent.s8 Not curatorJaneLivingstonattempteda "stylistic"analysisof the
surprisingly, the curators approached "Hispanic art" as workof Latinos. Movingfromthe "self-taught"to the folkand
::'-':----:-':::::-:
iiiiiiiiiiiii;:~:i:i::-::''--_-i;-_
::::::
:::::::
::_:::::
:-:::iii_:i-iiiii-:i:---:
...:
-:--::_:::-iii---_i..:..
i:i-i:i;-i:i:i:

64

-':'il:-:::::':'
-:-:::---::::::--------:
iiiiiiiiii~/iiiiiiii~
:i:iiis-iiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiii:ilii
'isi-iiiiiii~iiiiii:i
iiiii:i:iii-iii:i
-r::.:
iiiiiiiii
-iiiiii
r::::::-:i::::
::::::::::::::~

WINTER1992

;iii:i,:iiii
iiii:iBi.ii:iiiiiiiliii:iDiiiiiii
~iiiiiiii~iiii-i-iiiiiii:
:i:::c-.i-_::----::-iiiiii.i-i:i-i
iniiliiiiii
:::..
-:iiiiiii-i?i:i:i-i
,iiiiii:i:i:
i-i-i-i:i-i:i:iii-i:iii-R
::i:i:I:i:::::i::;:

iiii:i

naive artists, and ending with a subgenre of "Latino/

Hispanic Modernism,"which she designated "Picassesque
she
Surrealism"(i.e., "Picassovia Lam, Mattaand Mir6"),21
common
aesevolved
a
to
show
how
these
artists
attempted
thetic out of their shared cultural legacy, combinedwith the
influences of modernart. Ratherthan addressingthe specificity of Latinovisual expression,however,Livingston'sanalysis revealed a displacement of European modernism's
concernwithprimalformsof organicidentity,unspoilt means
of expression, and nostalgic reversionto craftsmanshipvist-vis the aesthetic productionof Latino artists. The first of
these paradigmsrefersto the notionof the Latinosubject as a
primitive outcast or outsider inhabiting a space closer to
natureand the preindustrial,premodernworldthanhis orher
European or North American colleagues. This outsider/
outcast paradigmwas poignantlyunderscoredby the selection of Martin Ramirez, a self-taught, institutionalized
schizophrenicof Mexicanorigin, as emblemfor the exhibition. In turn, landscape images, such as those by Patricia
and CarlosAlmaraz, came to define the primitive,
Gonz~alez
magical space inhabited by the Latino"other."The primal,
close-to-nature condition exalted by the exhibition framework was further echoed in the metaphorsand images of
animalismand animal-relatedphenomenaused by art critics
in their reviews of the show. For instance, Paul Richard,
writingin the WashingtonPost, marveledat the half-human,
half-animalcharacteristicsof Hispanic art and the ability of
artists to "shifttheir shapes,"becomingdogs, birds, sharks,
or tigers. While, accordingto Richard, this dual naturehas
inevitablyplungedthe Latinoartistinto isolation,it is his/her
ability to walk the edge between both worlds, to "lookback
towardone worldwhile seeking out another,"that explains
the strengthand impact of his/her art.22
Complementingthe outsider/outcastparadigm is the
emphasis on ritual and communal values that presumably
characterize the life experience of Latino artists. As the
"fantastic other," deprived of a real place in the social
structureof the dominantculture, Latino artists can find a
signifying system only in the nostalgic remnants of the
collective identity that ties them to their past and their
origins. As a result, the selection of worksfocused on the
contextualelements of tradition,popularrites, and communal lifestyles that define the marginallocus of the fantastic.
Thus, in the "Hispanic Art" show, works by consciously
naive artists, such as CarmenLomasGarza,orthose working
in folk traditions, such as Flix L6pez or Felipe Archuleta,
came to define the particularstyle groundedin the ethnicity

::::::i::::::::::
li:Gi::::::::::::: N46_::..,:
::::?2::::::::.:R
: ::-:~?:_::~-il~
::::::
jo:j-i:_:::::::::::::::::::
::::~~6ii~:::~:::
i-l-i-~~-aii
fflR ~

f
T1411ITY

COMTEMPO

t_::: I

"

ERS

&

: :i : : : :

SCULPTORS:::::~:ii

FIG. 3 HispanicArtin the UnitedStates:ThirtyContemporary

Paintersand
Sculptors,1987, cataloguecover(CarlosAlfonzo,WhereTearsCan'tStop,
1946,
detail.

of Latino artists. This type of characterizationreveals that

what the discourse of the fantastic upholds as "different"
about these formsof art, and thereforewhat constitutesthe
"identity"of the "other,"remainstied to a traditionalpast or
to a primitive,mythical, or atavisticworldview. Absent from
the visual representationof the fantastic are examples of
those worksthat stress the urbanand cosmopolitancharacter
informingmuch of the contemporaryartistic productionof
Latinoartists. By insisting on the ritualcharacterof this art,
the discourse of the fantastic obliteratesthe fact that while
such forms may be linked to the Latino artist's cultural
experience, that experience remains tied to his/her life in
thriving urban spaces ratherthan to anythingthat is purely
ethnic or exclusively a questionof cultural identity.In addition, this discourse sidetracks the fact that the artists
involved often approachthese traditionswith a critical perspective that questions the very conventionsthey set out
to recover.
The thirdparadigmrelatesto the formalsignifiersof the
"fantastic"summarizedby bold, tropicalcolorrange, "chromatic and compositionallushness,"23 and an "impatience
with the material"in favorof gut, savage expressionand/ora
ritualistic approachto formalconventions.While the formal
qualities of NorthAmericanart are seen as resting on rational analysis and the descriptionof visual or emotionalphenomena,the formalnoveltyof the Latinoartistis seen to lie in
his/her manipulationof the materials of painting, mainly
throughsuch stylistic and expressive conventionsas distortion, fractured lines, and abusive color harmonies,whose
ARTJOURNAL

65

effect is that of lifting the viewer past conventional reality

into a realm of phantoms or a "material dream."24 This view

66

presupposes modernism's fascination with the materiality of

the painting medium itself as expressive objectification and
assertion of the subject.
In the minds of the curators of these exhibitions what
justifies the construction of the "fantastic other" in the terms
we have described thus far is the legitimizing category of
Western "aesthetic quality." By claiming that this quality can
be recognized over and beyond any cultural or ethnic consideration, they are ultimately asserting the privileged position
of the First World curator while simultaneously separating
the form from its Latin American meaning. As a result, the
selection of artists and works in these exhibitions invariably
functioned not as representative of what is "different"in Latin
American art and culture but as a reflection of the modernist
values and ideology of the First World museum curators.
Rather than arriving at a paradigmatic difference, the works
selected for these shows ended up mirroring the fascination
and concern with the elements of the exotic and the primitive
implicit in modernism's self-gratifying discourse. This condition explains the absence in the "Art of the Fantastic" and
"Hispanic Art" shows of artists or artistic movements whose
driving force either was not predicated directly on the tenets
of European modernism or was based on a conscious rejection of all or certain aspects of modernism. Such was the case
of the radical Chicano art movement, as well as that of Puerto
Rican artists whose instrument against colonialism was the
refusal to play the role of modernism's "other."
The construction of identity in the terms laid out by
these exhibitions exposes the predicament of Latin
American/Latino artists and intellectuals: it forces them to
stage "authenticity," and to insist on the configuration of a
particular cultural image, as a means of opposing external,
often dominating alternatives. Yet this is in every way a nowin situation, for modernism's claim to the representation of
authenticity exclusively in terms of formal innovation over
and above the particularities of content has led to restricting
the Latin American/Latino artist's contribution to the expressive content of his/her images. Confronted by the more developed institutions and cultural structures of the West, the
"difference" that marks the art of Latin American/Latino
groups is cited as having no potential or capacity for formal or
aesthetic innovation, remaining tied to an inherited system of
artistic conventions. The authority of this discourse allows
the British art historian Edward Lucie-Smith, writing for the
"Artof the Fantastic" catalogue, to sum up their contribution
to Western art in the following terms:
The real strength ofLatin American art now seems to lie in the
ability to conjure up memorable images with great poetic
power while only rather cautiously extending the limits of
LatinAmerican artists.., have an
conventionalformats....
ability to come close to the actual nerve of life, often while
WINTER 1992

making a standfrom a purelysubjectiveviewpoint,which is

missingfrom the workof most of their Europeanand North
Americancontemporaries.25
In this way the "fantastic"constructexposes the social and
political structuresthat underliethe Euro-American/Latirro
axis, i.e., it reassertsthe dominanceof the Westernsubject's
artoverthatof the ThirdWorld"other."Deprivedof anypower
of logic, reasoning, or artistic innovation,the "fantastic"can
only revel in its primaland exotic Third Worldof colorsand
emotionswhile being upheld as a picture or an image for
aesthetic gratification.The phenomenonsuggests that even
the artists' cultural identity, and thereforethe natureof art
productionitself, can be manipulatedthroughthe representationsof these particularvisual discourses. This process, as
Goldmanhas pointed out, becomes superexploitationwhen
applied by a developedto a dependentcountry.26
Given the far-reachingimplicationsof the representation of the fantastic, it is importantto questionthe functionof
this discourse at the end of a decade when postmodernism
has thoroughlyattackedand dismantledmanyof the mythsof
modernism. On one hand, it could be argued that such a
representationof Latin Americanart, which continuesto be
upheldby manyU.S. museums, maybe useful at the present
momentof exhaustionof the modernisttraditionand the art
market'stransformationof the art object into the ultimate
financial instrument.Like the primitiveand naive artists of
high modernism, Latin American/Latino artists have
emergedas substitutesforthe role of pure artistic agentwho
reclaims value fora debased Westernart. On the otherhand,
however,it is useful to recall postmodernism'srecognition
or illusion of the West's
that the "other"is a mirror-construct
ownmaking, a productof the hegemonicstance of modernism
which has never produced anything but the fatal misappropriationand misrepresentationof otherpeoples'cultures.
Thus, if the "fantasticother"can still be a relevantcategory
with which to approachLatinAmericanart, it is because the
neocolonialmind-set still governsmuseumpractice in both
continents.
It is precisely the process of homogenizationat workin
the modernistmodel that must be called into questionif we
want to arrive at an understandingof the fundamentallogic
implicit in the artistic productionof the many societies that
makeup LatinAmericaand their counterpartsin the United
States. Toattemptto reduce the complexityof these cultural
groupsto modelsofrepresentationpredicatedon categoriesof
Euro-Americanaesthetic developmentis to continueto perpetrate the legacy of exclusion, incorporation,and domination. Fromthis point of view, the principalissue at stake for
the post-1992 agenda is not so much that of denouncingthe
self-centeredauthorityof EuropeorNorthAmericaas thatof
engaging the specificity of the Latin American/Latinorealities. In orderto understandthe overall implicationsof this
project, we must approachit from the perspective of the

artists themselves and their traditions. From this vantage

point, it is the United States and Europethat constitutethe
"other."This conditionsuggests a dual role formodernart in
LatinAmerica, one thatis neverrecognizedon accountof the
hegemonic nature of Westerndiscourse, but that is clearly
manifest in the attitudeof Latin Americanartists and intellectuals towardthe cultural legacy of the West.
Nestor Garcia Canclini has arguedrecently that Latin
American society is the product of a complex process of
blending in which differentlogics of developmenthave intersected to create a culture that straddles various levels of
traditionand modernity.27The two key questionsthat follow
are: what did it mean to produce modern art in societies
where the old and the new coexist at conflictive levels,
indifferentto each other; and what was the nature of the
modernismthat developedthere?The answerto these questions, in turn, calls for a recognitionof the historical and
ideological forces that have shaped the relationshipof Latin
Americanartists to Westernmodernismas well as a critical
revision of such fundamentalnotions as cultural identity,
authenticity, and appropriation.As James Cliffordhas argued, these concepts do not stand for static, fixed essences
but for a relationalsystem based on a tactical, political, or
cultural invention.28The pervasivenotionof culturalidentity
in the Latin Americandiscourse, for instance, constitutesa
specific ideologyinvokedby nationalelites at differenthistorical junctures in response to a confrontationwith FirstWorld
powers. From this point of view, the consistent claims by
LatinAmerican/Latinoartistson behalf of "culturalidentity"
constitute both a form of resistance to what can be termed
"theappropriatinggaze of the West,"29and a wayto secure a
legitimate space for their artistic and cultural production.
This partly explains why, despite its pluralism of identities
and modes of expression, a commontrait of art producedin
Latin America is its constant reference to the social or
geographiccontext in which it was produced.
At the core of these issues lies the notionof appropriation and the particular role it has played in the Latin
American/Latinoversion of modernism to counteract the
ethnocentricdiscourse of the West. Whetherself-consciously
assuming their colonial condition, exalting their mixedblood "race,"or reclaiming afterBorgestheir "citizenshipof
the West,"30LatinAmerican/Latinoartists have approached
the artistic legacy of the West as an endless reservoir of
conventions,images, and motifs. The results have yielded a
symbolic system based on hybridizationand synthesis that
traditionallyhas been condemned by Westernauthorities.
And yet in this context appropriationassumes a positive
function. Ratherthan leading to a pool of formalsignifiers
aimed at revitalizing a symbolic system or re-creating its
mirrorimage, it may be considered, as Luis Camnitzerhas
observed, "aprocess of enrichmentthatcan generatesyncretic work, helping to absorb and digest the impact of the
imposed [or dominant]culture."31

Within this framework,a more accurate approachtowardthe representationof LatinAmerican/Latinoartimplies

a thoroughquestioning of the centralityof prevailingcuratorial practices and the developmentof exhibition criteria
fromwithin the traditionsand conventionsof the manycountries that make up LatinAmericaor the differentgroupsthat
make up the Latino populationof the United States. This
implies, as GerardoMosquerahas suggested, shifting the
vertical axis of neocolonialismto a horizontalone based on
interculturaldialogueand exchange.It also calls fordeveloping newexhibitionformats.32This task, however,requiresan
interdisciplinaryframeworkof analysis that current curatorial practices are unable to provide. The new framework
would allow for the adequate analysis of the works of art
within the structuralweb of meanings into which they are
inscribed in the communityfor which they were generated.
Such an approach, in turn, involves expanding the
expertise of museumswith the incorporationof professionals
versed in the LatinAmerican/Latinoheritage,experimenting
with innovativeexhibitionformatsand installationsthat will
allow forthe presentationof the points of view of those being
represented,and ultimatelyrevising the role and functionof
curatorsas mediatorsof cultural exchange. As demographic
trends continue, pressuring U.S. museums to respond to
specific constituencies, the role of curatorsand exhibition
organizerswill have to change fromone of exclusive arbiters
of taste and qualityto one closer to thatof "culturalbrokers,"
whose functionwill be to mediate between the groupsthey
exhibit and audiencesunfamiliarwith the culturaltraditions
represented.
It is evidentthat the surveyformatis notonly biased but
outdatedforthese purposes. Findingan alternative,however,
is a complicatedissue. The conceptualquagmirein which
many mainstreammuseums find themselves as a result of
budgetary constraints and changes in constituency has
shifted this responsibility to institutionsoutside the mainstream'ssphereof influence. In the last twoyears, a number
of such institutions have sought to correct the distortions
imposed by whatwas clearly an untenablestrategyof representation, with exhibitionsthat address the issues of Latin
Americanand Latinoidentityfroma revisionistperspective.
For instance, "The Decade Show,"organized in 1990 by
three New Yorkinstitutions,the StudioMuseumin Harlem,
the New Museumof Contemporary
Art, and the Museumof
ContemporaryHispanic Art, provideda starting point by
questioningprevalentmuseumpractices. Insteadof upholding the univocal perspectives of one or two curators, they
introduceda comparative,thematicformatgroundedin the
team effortsof curatorsfromeach of the communitiesthatthe
exhibition purported to represent. Such valuable efforts,
however,havesufferedfromtheirreliance on the mainstream
for approvaland legitimationof their points of view, and
therefore have not yet produced an adequate working
model.33 What are needed in turn are more specifically
ARTJOURNAL

67

68

focused exhibitionsthat allowforin-depthanalysis of particular movementsor groupsof artists, as well as the establishment of comparativeframes of analysis.
Wecan concludethat if NorthAmericancuratorsare to
arriveat a different,moreequal approach,thatis, if they are
to substituteforLatinAmerica'srole as passive objectthatof
being the subject of its own narrative, they will need to
rethink the categories and parametersof their analysis beyondthe limitationsimposed by the Euro-Americanframework. In turn, those of us workingfrom within the Latin
American/Latinoperspectiveswill haveto resist pressuresto
produceexhibitionsthat conformto the conceptualparameters of the mainstream. A rethinking and revamping of
curatorial practices along these lines should open up the
possibilities of apprehendingthe complex issues posed by
LatinAmerican/Latinoart thatthe exhibitionphenomenonof
the eighties buried under such artificial constructsas the
"fantastic."
Notes
1. GerardoMosquera,"The New Art of the Revolution,"in The NearestEdge of the
World:Art and Cuba Now, exh. cat. (Brookline, Mass.: Polarities, 1990), 9.
2. CarlosFuentes, "JacoboBorges,"in HollidayT. Day and HollisterSturges,Art of
the Fantastic: Latin America, 1920-1987, exh. cat. (Indianapolis: Indianapolis
Museum of Art, 1987), 242.
3. Forin-depth reviews of these shows as well as critiques of the myths and cultural
stereotypes that they projected, see Shifra M. Goldman, "LatinVisions and Revisions," Art in America 76, no. 5 (May 1988): 138-47, 198-99; Edward Sullivan,
"Mitoy realidad: Arte latinomericanoen los Estados Unidos,"Arte en Colombia41
(September1989): 60-66; Charles Merewether,"ThePhantasmof Origins:NewYork
and the Art of Latin America," Art and Text30 (1989): 55-56; and Coco Fusco,
" 'Hispanic Artist' and Other Slurs," Village Voice,August 9, 1988, 6-7.
4. Shifra M. Goldman,"LatinAmericanArts' U.S. Explosion:Lookinga Gift Horse
in the Mouth,"New Art Examiner 17, no. 4 (December 1989): 25-29.
5. Foran analysis of previousexhibitionbooms and their relationshipto U.S. foreign
policies, see Eva Cockcroft, "The United States and Socially Concerned Latin
AmericanArt: 1920-1970," in Luis R. Cancel et al., TheLatinAmericanSpirit:Art
and Artists in the UnitedStates, 1920-1970, exh. cat. (NewYork:BronxMuseumof
the Arts, 1988), 184-221.
6. Formore on these issues, see Ivan Karpand Steven D. Lavine, eds., Exhibiting
Cultures:ThePoetics andPolitics ofMuseumDisplay (Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian
InstitutionPress, 1991), esp. 11-24, 151-58.
7. The concept of transculturationwas originally introduced by Cuban Fernando
Ortiz. It refers to a dynamic whereby differentcultural matrices have a reciprocal
impact, though not frompositions of equality, to producea heterogeneousensemble.
See George Yfidice, "WeAre Not the World,"Social Text10, nos. 2-3 (1992): 209.
8. Ibid.
9. Formoreon the compositionand ethos of the Latinocommunity,see Juan Flores
and George Y6dice, "Living Borders/BuscandoAmerica: Languages of Latino SelfFormation,"Social Text24 (1990): 57-84.
10. Jane Livingstonand JohnBeardsley,"ThePoetics and Politicsof Hispanic Art:A
New Perspective," in Karp and Lavine, eds., Exhibiting Cultures,108-9.
11. Day and Sturges, Art of the Fantastic, 38.
WINTER 1992

12. Foran analysis of the impact that EuropeanSurrealismhad on importantLatin

American cultural developmentssuch as mundonovismo,Carpentier's"marvelous
realism," and Borges'sfantastic literature, see RobertoGonzalez Echevarria,Alejo
Carpentier:The Pilgrim at Home(Austin: Universityof TexasPress, 1990), 108-29.
13. Merewether,"The Phantasm of Origins," 54-56.
14. As paraphrasedin Goldman, "LatinVisions and Revisions," 142-43.
15. Erika Billeter, ed., Images of Mexico:The Contributionof Mexicoto TwentiethCenturyArt, exh. cat. (Dallas: Dallas Museumof Art, 1988), 21.
16. I have dealt extensively with this aspect of the representationof the Indian in
Mexican art in "The Ideology and Politics of the Mexican MuralMovement,"Ph.D.
diss. (Universityof Chicago, 1989).
17. It should be noted that the "authenticity"bias also determinedthe selection and
frameworkof the MetropolitanMuseum of Art's blockbuster"Mexico:Splendorsof
ThirtyCenturies,"in which FridaKahlohad the honorof being the last "authentically
Mexican"artist to have been included in the show.
18. The term "Hispanic," introduced in the 1970s by governmentand marketing
technocratsto package a heterogeneouspopulation, not only links these groups with
the legacy of the Spanish conquest, but also homogenizesthe cultural, geographic,
and racial differences that constitute the Latinopopulation.The term"Latino"(from
Latin America) is more inclusive, designating those who come or descend from a
racially and culturally diverse geographical region where the Spanish legacy is
dominantbut not exclusive. See Goldman, "HomogenizingHispanic Art," New Art
Examiner 15, no. 1 (September1987): 31; and Lucy Lippard,Mixed Blessings: New
Art in a MulticulturalAmerica(New York:PantheonBooks, 1990), 32-33.
19. Livingston and Beardsley, "The Poetics and Politics of Hispanic Art," 110-11.
20. John Beardsley, "And/Or:Hispanic Art, AmericanCulture,"in John Beardsley
and Jane Livingston, HispanicArt in the UnitedStates: ThirtyContemporary
Painters
and Sculptors, exh. cat. (New York:Abbeville Press, 1987), 46.
21. Jane Livingston, "Recent Hispanic Art: Style and Influence," in ibid., 106.
22. Paul Richard, "The Brilliant Assault," WashingtonPost, October10, 1987.
23. Livingston, "Recent Hispanic Art," in Beardsleyand Livingston, HispanicArt
in the United States, 106.
24. MarkStevens, "Devoteesof the Fantastic,"Newsweek,September7, 1987, 66.
25. EdwardLucie-Smith, in Day and Sturges, Art of the Fantastic, 35.
26. Shifra M. Goldman, "Rewritingthe History of Mexican Art: The Politics and
Economicsof ContemporaryCulture,"in JerryR. Ladman, ed., Mexico:A Countryin
Crisis (El Paso: Texas WesternPress, 1986), 113.
27. Nestor Garcia Canclini, Culturashibridas:Estrategiaspara entrary salir de la
modernidad(Mexico City: Grijalbo, 1990).
28. James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century
Ethnography,
Literature,and Art (Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress, 1988), 12.
29. Jean Fisher, "Magiciensde la Terre + Bildung,"Artforum28, no. 1 (September
1989): 158.
30. Jorge Luis Borges, "El escritor argentino y la tradici6n"(1928), in Obras
completas(Buenos Aires: Emec6, 1972), 162-89.
31. Luis Camnitzer,"The Politics of Marginalization,"paper presented at the New
Museum of ContemporaryArt, New York,April 1988.
32. GerardoMosquera, paper presented at the internationalsymposium "Artand
Identityin LatinAmerica,"Memorialde AmericaLatina, Sio Paulo,September1991.
33. I have analyzed the limitations of the multicultural model that guided these
exhibitions in "Between TwoWaters:Image and Identityin Latino-AmericanArt,"
paper presented at the internationalsymposium"Artand Identityin LatinAmerica,"
Memorialde America Latina, Sao Paulo, 1991.

MARI CARMEN RAMIREZ, curator of Latin American art at

the Huntington Art Gallery, Universityof Texasat Austin, was

previouslydirector of the Universityof Puerto Rico Museum,
Riopiedras.