BREAKOUT TOPICS
CHANGE AND ITS RELATION TO THE MAINSTREAM
Osvaldo Sánchez framed the discussion with the questions: How is power distributed? When we
SHAPING A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ARTOGRAPHY AND THE ANIMATING DEMOCRACY/WORKING CAPITAL FUND EXEMPLAR PROGRAM
talk about change, national identity doesn’t work anymore. Is our goal to become rich and
famous? Are we looking for new vertical powers? What is a “community initiative”? Are we
looking to create functioning spaces as social models?
Juana Guzman looks at the mainstream as being all these small organizations. “We are the
majority. But at the National Museum of Mexican Art we created something that counters the
dominant culture. We are filling a need. We have created these facilities, because our
community was not being served.”
For Olivia Gude, the subject is change and its relation to mainstream ideologies and structures.
MacArthur recently gave money to a group of non-501(c)(3)s, because of the work they were
doing, regardless of structure. She appreciates the National Museum of Mexican Art, but noted
that we need to recognize that we can do things in different ways as well.
Michael Krichman was struck by the idea of people wanting to be accepted into a mainstream
structure. The criticality of practice is what is at issue.
Critical practice for Gude is about asking questions about conscience and thinking about what it
is that we’re doing.
Said Maribel Alvarez: “We each need a theory of social change. There are multiple ones, and
they have different strategies. It has to be contextualized. What tactic works in which contexts?
We can no longer say a Latino organization is per se progressive, just because it’s Latino. Many
are not. What are the communities, what are the values, what are the strategies? The problem is
to create a language for critical practice. What is the value if you replicate mainstream values?”
Guzman rejects conforming to mainstream standards. “It’s how we do what we do that is
critical.” The mainstream is being forced to change because it can’t reach our markets. The
Americas show has nothing in it about the conquest. There is a void in the mainstream in terms
of being critical.
For Sánchez, artistic practice has the power to change point of view and to question platforms.
But should our work be about representation in the same mainstream structures?
Krichman noted that a lot of mainstream institutions still maintain a lot of critical practice—
though often not about themselves. He sees a real lack of critical analysis going on in
organizations who are preoccupied with other issues. How do organizations ask questions about
their own practice?
Guzman guessed that an organization like Krichman’s (Installation Gallery) is going to be more
thoughtful than a major institution.
Said Gude, “we are put in a position to work in a capitalist economy. You can end up needing to
hide your true political heart, when you’re being asked to fit into corporate America.”
“We often implement mainstream practices because we have internalized them. We have to talk
about which models get us to which values,” said Sánchez. “Do you buy Corona or from a local
1
micro-brewery for your event if you want to send a message? Is first voice enough? What’s next?
How do we model an opportunity as a challenge? Now is the time.”
Pilar Castillo cautioned to be careful in the transition from self-sustaining grassroots to
dependence on funding.
SHAPING A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ARTOGRAPHY AND THE ANIMATING DEMOCRACY/WORKING CAPITAL FUND EXEMPLAR PROGRAM
For Alvarez, the things that didn’t work aren’t about the resources put into it. It’s about the
values and ethics.
Norman Akers noted that IAIA’s work changed when they went from a two-year to a four-year
institution. Students are now able to be more process-oriented (not tourist production
oriented).
2