The title of this book is so perfect it’s almost cliché. One
look at Alma Lopez’ icon-themed artwork, and the word “controversy” rolls right
off your tongue. She’s not the first to have create artwork influenced by,
evoking, or even making a parody of religion. Didn’t Yo Mama’s last Supper
bring out the ire of New York’s mayor in 1999? Didn’t the play Corpus Christi
(about a gay Jesus) generate angry responses? Let’s see what this book has to say.
A chapter is devoted to The Virgin of Guadalupe, an
apparition that appears frequently in Chicano art, décor, jewelry, and a strong
influence on the artist. I guess she is to Mexican Americans in California and
Texas what the Hamza is to Arabs and the silhouette of Jerusalem is to Jewish
people (we call it dugmah.) Therefore, we can say that the image of this saint
has already been commercialized. But is it honored? Does the appearance of the
iconic image on store shelved and tattoos amount to desecration? Do you honor a
saint by painting her image on your car, then shouting curses in anger when you
get cut off? If so, maybe Lopez’ bare-wasted painting of the Virgin of Guadalupe
shows more dignity than other uses.
This book has many great and laudable qualities. First, it
doesn’t “wax poetic” or try to sound overly intellectual, just strict reporting
of events. Secondly, the plain tone of the writing allows for balanced and
unbiased reporting; it gives equal weight to both the artist and her critics,
without passing judgment on either. The author respects the fact that the icons
are important to some people, and Lopez’ artwork isn’t something they’re
accustomed to.
The cover artwork, Lopez’ Our Lady of Controversy II (2008) made me think about sexism in
art. If you go into the Louvre, the Royal Academy, or the Metropolitan Museum,
so many of the paintings are of nude women. Yet few of the artists are woman.
Aside from Barbara Kruger, Kiki Smith, Frida Kahlo perhaps, women artists don’t
get much attention in major museums. The women who do get there work shown were
mostly born after 1930, and the earlier ones (with the exception of Mary Cassat
and Grandma Moses) don’t get much attention.
When you look at Our Lady
of Controversy II, is it possible that there’s some truth to it? The woman
is muscular, dark skinned, and wears boxing gloves, her pose is defensive, as
is her facial expression. Her body is exposed, except for her breasts and
genitalia, covered by flowers. She wears a boxer’s robe with an Aztec motif. Is
there anything truly wrong with this image? Think hard, when you see the images
of the VOG (I’m using an abbreviation from now on) she’s always slim and light
skinned, but is that how all women look? Lopez’ use of an Aztec themed garment
on the figure could be seen as pagan,
but at the same time, couldn’t the fascination with icons have pagan origins?
As for the Virgin’s bare legs and belly button, isn’t there already a certain
degree of sexism in Christian imagery? For some reason, a whole lot of
Christian martyrs are women, so does that teach us that women are expected to
die for religion? If so, a few bare attributes probably wouldn’t hurt.
On a positive note, the museums that were founded after 1990
are more open to displaying women artists, or even controversial themes. With
all the new museums springing up on the Bowery (NYC) and other newly gentrified
neighborhoods, I bet there will be more. I remember back in the 1990’s, when
Lisa Yuskavage’s candy-colored paintings and sculptures of her cartoonishly
well-endowed women were selling for thousands. A sizeable chunk of her audience
were women connoisseurs, so perhaps the museums will be aiming for a different
audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment