LACMA

the development of iconographies rooted in Aztec and Maya cultures, the Spanish conquest, and Mexican history. The artists often linked these iconographies with the visual culture of everyday life in the urban barrios of the U.S. Southwest, placing an emphasis on representational and historical works aimed at reinforcing the identity of a community-based audience —although this was hardly the seamless and harmonious process critics might assume. 11 Phantom Sightings takes an oblique look at this project, considering those artists—from Asco through emerging artists such as Juan Capistran—who examine the conceptual dimensions of invisibility rather than fill the void with new or reclaimed iconographies. Thus, Phantom Sightings presents a counterpoint to such an aesthetic project in order to explore a wide array of new artwork being made today—artwork that has significant, yet neglected precursors. In such a historical context, Phantom Sightings presents itself as a fundamental break, considering new genres and mixed-media forms, conceptual rather than realist approaches, and an aesthetic project that takes a more ambiguous or fluid approach to identity. For good measure, the exhibition presents examples since the 1970s, suggesting a historical dimension that is both genealogical (through direct influence) and retrospective (through an "invented tradition" learned in art school). But, alas, the above historical account—with its thesis and antithesis—is a paradox. What has been called Chicano art has always been an unruly category, since the artworks attributed to this category often do much more than illustrate the agenda of a social protest movement, define the boundaries of a community, or express an identity in search of recognition. Instead, they push in other directions, make other connections, and participate in other worlds. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that if "Chicano art" does not suffice as a description for the artwork included in Phantom Sightings, neither is it always the best measure of the artwork that goes by the name. To be sure, Chicano art remains a viable basis for exhibition, collection, and scholarship, since it is no more "imagined" and contradictory than any other ethnic, regional, or national category within art history. But the artists and art that are included in this category belong elsewhere, too. For the most part, however, neither happens: there are still precious few Chicano art exhibitions, conferences, publications, and course offerings; and Chicano artists remain excluded from activ- ities in the arenas that are organized around other social and/or aesthetic criteria— such as American art, conceptualism, or painting. THREE PHANTOMS Given the above paradox, if we argue that Chicano art is a phantom sighting, then there are at least three phantoms, not one. In outlining these three phantoms below, I am suggesting neither a hierarchy nor a teleology. In fact, these three phantoms are not meant to be mutually exclusive, but rather to highlight several tendencies in works associated with the category of Chicano art. 20 Yolanda M. López, Portrait of the Artist as the Virgin of Guadalupe, 1978, oil pastel on paper, 22 x 30 in. Yolanda M. López, tableau vivant, 1978

• Cover