The Constant Struggle to Fight the Museum

For my last review I wanted to explore artwork that was not necessarily found in a museum or gallery. We spent a major part of our class examining artist’s struggle to fight against institutions of the museum and against the commodification of art. This sole goal or battle was one of the main driving forces behind many art movements. However, I was disappointed to see that artists, at least the ones we studied, chose to do this within the museum. As time went on their work ended perpetuating the same problems. Their art work could be sold and bought just as any of the work they were fighting against. There were some exceptions such as Krysztof Wodiczko and Richard Serra, but the majority of artists we covered chose the gallery to work within the system in order to change it. I wanted to focus on art that chose the public domain rather than art institutions to portray their message. This, to me, is much more interesting.
By exploring the walls of East Los Angeles, a great deal of history and political consciousness can be seen. The mural above utilizes different symbols from the past and the present to create a hint of the Chicano presence in East L.A. Beginning on the left side, indigenous symbols are used alongside the Whittier boulevard sign, which has become a famous symbol representing East L.A. It continues this dichotomy of old and new portraying a woman who kneels in front of ancient ruins and the Los Angeles skyline. This imagery represents the hybrid identities that Latinos have come to embody due to a history of immigration. Continuing to the right, the flag of the United Farm Worker’s Union is included with protesters next to it.
I use this mural as an example of many due to its aesthetic and political aspects. The fact that these works are located in the public and not in a museum brings much more life to the artwork. Due to its content portraying bits and pieces of Chicano identity the mural works as a reminder, to any by-passer, of what Chicanos have accomplished. Its location is important in the creation of culture in this marginalized and unincorporated section of Los Angeles. Murals, such as this, work in harmony with other murals, to create a presence of the community through paint. The mural is given a life that would be lost if placed in a museum.
Graffiti was barely mentioned when speaking of artists attempt to rebel against the museum. How can this be when graffiti is based on solely this fact and essence? Graffiti writers forget the museum and paint in public spaces, regardless of the laws against it. Graffiti, however, has fallen in the same trap as many other radical art movements in that it has infiltrated the world of the museum and has widely been turned into a commodity. Anything from video games, purses, markers and toys have been sold under the umbrella of graffiti products. While some artists may have entered the mainstream art and business markets graffiti still exists as a staple of urban life.
This type of art represents what many artists were attempting to do since the 70’s and before. Graffiti allows anyone not be an artist. It allows members of any community to pick up a spray paint can and express themselves in the midst of claiming their presence. Artists dealt with the museum’s exclusion of any artists that wasn’t a white straight male. While some worked to change this from the inside graffiti writers took it upon themselves to invent a new form of expression with rules defying those of the museum.
Muralists and graffiti writers deserve a place in art history books. These forms of art are essential to the construction of culture. In confronting institutions of art and its market, these artworks are successful in giving marginalized voices a place to express themselves freely.