The history of Chicana/o art is a relatively new field. The emergence of scholarly treatments of Chicana/o art—art produced by American artists of Mexican descent who self-identify as Chicanas/os—coincided with the Chicano movement (el movimiento) of the 1960s and 1970s. As is the case for many Latinas/os (Americans of Latin American descent), for Chicanas/os, this period marked a watershed in political activities and in the growing desire for self-determination and solidarity. Thus, many early scholars of Chicana/o art focused primarily on the political implications of the artwork vis-à-vis national dialogues regarding race, education, and labor equity. Over the last five decades, scholarly examinations of art works and artists have become more heterogeneous in format as well as methodological approach. This is, in part, a result of the backgrounds of the writers themselves, most of whom are not from art-historical backgrounds. Anthropologists, historians, artists, film critics, psychologists, and collectors have all contributed to the shape of the current discourse on Chicana/o art. However, while educational training may vary, many of these scholars come from activist backgrounds, and all of them are invested in the unique visions of the American experience put forward by the artists. Further, it can be argued that these educational dissimilarities themselves actually enhance the dynamic of the scholarship, and that they reflect an intracultural diversity found in the art forms and their practitioners. Another factor impacting the Chicana/o scholarship is the geographic location of the artists themselves, who come from communities throughout the United States. Most Chicanas/os live in the Southwest (Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, California), but there is also a significant, more recently arrived, population in Chicago. The development and the choices of visual vocabulary utilized by artists is influenced by contemporary and, sometimes, colonial histories and experiences, all of which vary from region to region and, sometimes, from city to city. Further, since most Chicanas/os make their homes in large urban areas, the scholarship seems to be focused on art production in large cities, such as Los Angeles or San Antonio. Ultimately, this weight given to urban centers has had the effect of precluding the production of more in-depth explorations of artwork produced by artists located in smaller towns and rural areas. Scholarly diversity and the intracultural diversity of Chicanas/os clearly impact the methodological and historical trajectory of the field. The historic venues for scholarship differ markedly from more established art-historical fields. While surveys of artists and art (in Italian Renaissance studies, for instance) begin almost with the inception of the period, surveys of Chicana/o art and artists are much more recent. With the exception of a single publication in (Quirarte 1973, cited under General Overviews), all date from the late 1980s. This situation, in part, is connected to patronage and the art market. The recent growth in survey texts is also clearly reflective of the growth in Chicano studies programs as well as of the changing demographics of Latinas/os in the United States. The principal vehicle for scholarly literature has been exhibition catalogues, a constant presence since the inception of the Chicano movement. Initially, catalogues and exhibitions were produced and hosted by small community-based galleries and centers. Since the 1990s, exhibitions and catalogue production are now part of the programming of major museums. As collecting and exposure increased, so too did the publication of monographs and articles on various aspects of Chicana/o Art.
Book Review: “¡Mi Raza Primero!”: Nationalism, Identity, and Insurgency in the Chicano Movement in Los Angeles, 1966–1978
