Bella Artes?

Barbara A. Babcock writes in her piece, The Tribal Artist in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, about how the art and ceramic making of the Pueblo Indian tribes had changed over the years and how reviving the art process created changes in the both the artist and their communities. She talks about how Maria and Julian Martinez were basically made into the poster image of the Pueblo and the handmade crafts they they produced. She goes as far as to say that they were almost a museum themselves. While reading this piece, I wondered to myself what it had to do with aesthetics and why it was necessary for us to read it, until I got to the last paragraph where she sums up her thoughts. She says that Pueblo women are basically aesthetic objects in themselves. We enjoy the experience that comes along with the traditional making of the Pueblo pots and the image associated with it. I think this sort of gives the art a cliche. Now whenever one thinks of a Pueblo woman creating pots, there is a stereotypical way of what the woman looks like and how she creates the art.

When Liza Bakewell describes how a painting described as folklorico by critics is a painting considered bad and too much inspired by the Mexican crafts, you can't help but think that that is unfair. Just because a painting or sculpture does not fit into the standard "westernized" look does not mean that it is a bad piece of artwork. I think that this could only benefit the artwork by making it appear different than the rest and help give the piece more significance. Also while reading this chapter, I never realized how much art can influence cultural and political decisions and choices. They are a lot more linked than you think.

Questions:
1.What other culture's art is heavily stereotyped, such as the Pueblo?

2.How has the Mexican culture embraced westernized art?

3.What are some characteristics of typical folklorico artists and how is a particular painting or sculpture fit into that category?