by Harold McMillan

So, there is this public body appointed to commission some permanent artwork for the new Latino cultural history museum. The panel has a mandate to pick art and artist that represent the culture and history of Latin America. The scale is large, the money is relatively small, but the prestige is huge. The artists who ultimately receive the commission get to have their work live in this public edifice forever. Their legacy-making, most permanent work will be a part of this homage to the people, culture, and history of this community for future generations. It seems to make sense that the artists chosen for such a prestigious commission should reflect, as closely as possible, the essence -- the cultural bloodline -- of Latin America. Right? After all, whether implicit or implied, that is also the essence of the mandate to the selection panel: Come back with art and artists that have an integral connection to the history and culture of the Latino Community of Austin.

The panel puts out a call for submissions, collects the materials, judges the entries and selects three artists for the project. All hell breaks loose.

Of the chosen artists, one is a young African American painter who studied the Mexican art tradition in college. He is from Oklahoma. The other two artist are Anglos who "have always been interested in the work of Armado Pena and Frida Kahlo," respectively. Both are from Austin; one, Tarrytown, the other, Travis Heights. Although the majority of submissions were from non-Latino artists, there were many Latinos who put together strong proposals for the project. The selection panel was composed almost entirely of Latin American arts professionals.

The selections and the process outrage the "community." Their position is pretty clear. Their sentiment is that the art and artists selected for the new museum should have a connection to the culture that is direct, an actual bloodline connection. There seems to be little concern for disingenuous PC legal phrasing. The "community" -- un-ashamed, un-apologetic -- very clearly wants a Latin American artist to get the commission. They wonder why that is so hard for the panel to get: "We want a Latin artist to do the work, not an artist "who has only studied Latin American Art."

Okay. The previous paragraphs detail a fictional situation. As far as I know, there is no new Latino Cultural History Museum on the book for Austin anything soon. But if there were to be one in the planning stages right now, you can bet that it would need support of governments funding sources. And, government funding means this kind of process. Government money, sometimes, also means you can't just come out and say what you want. The new republicanism and it's particular kind of post-affirmative action PC-ness dictates that you can't just come out and say, for instance, that the community really wants to find an African American artist to do permanent work for a new African American community-based cultural arts institution. That would not be PC.

But when you use the formula (the "process") that comes along with the government money for such projects, and you end up commissioning artists who don't share a bloodline with the cultural group in question, the shit hits the fan. And we have yet another opportunity to ask ourselves if race and culture are the same concepts. Is this a good time to play the race card? Is affirmative action such a bad thing?

I still don't have the inside scoop on any of that. I got some ideas, but who doesn't? But I am bothered that there are some folks out there who just continue to bury their heads in the sand and assert that there is no problem with such situations. For them it's just fine for a black kid from Oklahoma, who studied some Mexican art and read some books, to get a commission to do the permanent art work for a city-supported Latin culture center.

Maybe they are right. What do you think?