February 1, 2002

Subject: Re: AztlanNet: reply to urrutia (ARCHIVE!)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:58:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Pedro Romero <romesedeno@yahoo.com>
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
CC: almalopez@earthlink.net, gbejerano@AztlanNet.com, elbulldog69@hotmail.com, TraveisaBlue@aol.com

--- jmup2000 <urrutia@hobbes.physics.ucla.edu> cited

Pedro Romero Sedenyo:
> > maybe its time for
> > "The Dissection of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Alma
> Lopez's Morgue" by Pedro Romero Sedenyo M.F.A.

to which jmup2000 <urrutia@hobbes.physics.ucla.edu
responded:
>I am beginning to supect that
> that deity inside of you is not guiding you along
> the right path.

urrutia, this deity inside of me guides me to "speak truth to power". The power here is ignorance, ignorance about the pictorial revelation of deity's MOTHER aspect, La Lupe, ignorance about her Image as a CULTURAL standard, ignorance in Alma Lopez's mind, yours and various sundry individuals whom I perceive as POSTURING to be progressives and intellectuals. A la Madre!

>This "Our Lady" has become an albatross around your
neck, hasn't it?

As long as AztlanNet.com exhibits this poster in its gallery, I will voice my opinion that the piece is an ignorant interpretation of the traditional Image, and seriously flawed digitalia, an arrogant attempt to dissect not only a religious icon, but also of a Chicano/Mejicano CULTURAL consciousness that identifies with the traditional Image. I am standing up to challenge Alma Lopez's political agenda propagandized by her poster. What part of CHICANO don't you understand, urrutia?

>
>Let it go. You had your say.

urrutia, please don't be a fascist and try to silence me. You got a problem, then do like dorinda and Traveisa espoused: DELETE. I wager that the same deity inside my mind which is also inside your mind will still witness to the truth in my words.

>The more you drag it out and shake it in our
> faces the more we* will believe that it is all
> "drunken rants."

The characterization of my postings as "drunken rants", put forth by Alma Lopez in Dec 2001, is an example to me of the "Catholic hate" she has found is politically expedient to whine about. Instead of intellectually defending her work, which is a responsibility that comes along with the "freedom" to create, Alma puts out smokescreen arguments. Arguments which YOU, urrutia, (*what's w/ WE? you got a mouse in your pocket or what?, believe for yourself!) "the more" have inhaled hook, line and stinker.

> BTW, a true scholar does not need to put in the
> degrees after her/his name. It displays internalized
insecurity. This is
> like someone saying
> that they are right because they are engineers.

I put MFA along with my name to identify which field I have my credentials in, which is art, to substantiate my argument. Get it? Substance. Sadly lacking in your postings about art.

> Statements stand by
> themselves, independent of the rancio abolengo or
> laurels worn by the
> person who makes them.
>
> >I make art that speaks for itself. As to my art
criticisms, I champion contextual integrity and
cultural continuity as postModern esthetic values,
values you probably haven't even begun to think about.
"No amount of evidence will convince anyone of the
truth of something they do not WANT." -ACIM
Abolengo rancio? Yo' mama, urrutia.
Anybody got any more contributions/articles/ideas for
the archive? Maybe we could call it "ASlumNet.com"

>urrutia responded: Bad name...

DUH! Can't you take a joke? Addressing the issue:

Evidently you don't have art criticisms you've saved to contribute to the archive. What DO you read, urrutia?
>
>

 

Subject: Re: AztlanNet: reply to urrutia (ARCHIVE!)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:35:48 -0000
From: "jmup2000" <urrutia@hobbes.physics.ucla.edu>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
--- In AztlanNet@y...,

Pedro Romero <romesedeno@y...> wrote:
> --- jmup2000 <urrutia@h...> cited

> Pedro Romero Sedenyo:
> > > maybe its time for "The Dissection of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Alma Lopez's Morgue" by Pedro Romero Sedenyo M.F.A.
>
> to which jmup2000 <urrutia@h...
> responded:
>
> >I am beginning to supect that
> > that deity inside of you is not guiding you along
> > the right path.
>
> urrutia, this deity inside of me guides me to "speak

Nah, you have deceived yourself into thinking that you speak the Truth. It may be "truth" to you, but for the majority here it seems like bullshit, me included. Of course, your deity will still convince you of the "correctness" of your thoughts. But hey, if you need that to function, it is your life...

> truth to power". The power here is ignorance,

Don't talk in circles. "Truth to power?" And then call ignorance power? Do you talk to your kids like this? 'Cause if you do, you sure are raising some confused individuals.

> ignorance about the pictorial revelation of deity's

And who says that there is an absolute representation? And don't tell me it is the tilma. After all a representation is what the person wants to see...

> MOTHER aspect, La Lupe, ignorance about her Image as a

"MOTHER aspect?" If that were so, why isn't she in la tilma in the usual "madonna pose" with a child in her arms? Or better yet, why isn't she depicted pregnant?

The image is what it is, and because we are living in a society that does not put us in an ideological/religion straijacket, we are free to interpret it in any way we feel like to. And no amount of berating from you or anybody else is going to change that.

> CULTURAL standard, ignorance in Alma Lopez's mind,

"CULTURAL standard?" What is that? Can you define it? Does it mean that only guadalupanos can be Mexican? How restrictive you can be.

As for there being ignorance in Alma's mind, I take the view that she is cognizant of oppressive and narrow minds like you. Nevertheless, she is not allowing people like you to dictate what she can do and when.

> yours and various sundry individuals whom I perceive as POSTURING to be progressives and intellectuals.

I am not posturing. I am telling you how I feel in this regard. If you think that is a "posture," that's your problem, not mine.

> A la Madre!

Como chingados tienes los huevos de escribir eso? Por un lado estas alabando el concepto de una madre universal, y por el otro, nos mandas a la chingada? No nada mas eres un fascista de banqueta, tambie'n eres un hipo'crita...

> >This "Our Lady" has become an albatross around your
> neck, hasn't it?
>
> As long as AztlanNet.com exhibits this poster in its
> gallery, I will voice my opinion that the piece is an

Well, you are tilting at windmills because I understand it ain't coming down as long as you keep making noise about it. Now, what to do about your voice? I suppose that it is best to ignore it, as one ignores the whining of a bothersome child when they throw a berrinche.

> ignorant interpretation of the traditional Image, and

Careful there. The same could be applied to your art. For instance, it could be argued that that beautiful Sol Nativo should not be presented in a "classical greek" manner, but instead it should be depicted as the ancient teotihuacanos did. And all those other panels would have been at home in Pompeii. So you too can be accused of changing traditional images. Or worse, of pretending to be a painter who is deriving his iconography from Boticelli.

> seriously flawed digitalia, an arrogant attempt to

It aint flawed. The colors are diiii-viiii-nos...

> dissect not only a religious icon, but also of a

Arrogant? Why? Because Lopez took the icon and changed it to her views? Do all the "tradional" followers have an exclusive right to the image?

> Chicano/Mejicano CULTURAL consciousness that identifies with the traditional Image. I am standing

Fine. Keep your traditional image and leave the rest of us to explore other representations. But leave us the fuck alone.

> up to challenge Alma Lopez's political agenda

You are the only one that is pissed about it. And everybody, except for a few that try to reason with you, ignores you as a raving nut. Doesn't that tell something? Doesn't that tell you that maybe you don't want to be where your rants are not wanted?

> propagandized by her poster. What part of CHICANO don't you understand, urrutia?

I understand more than you think. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that you have sole rights to define what a chicano is. And it certainly does not mean that we all have to think like yourself. Now, what part of that don't you understand, romero-sedeno?

> >Let it go. You had your say.
>
> urrutia, please don't be a fascist and try to silence

I am not trying to silence you. I am passing you good advice given to me by the deity that sits on my right shoulder. The one that sits on the left shoulder is telling me to make fun of you, your religion, and your art, but I won't listen to my angelito negro. At least not now.

> me. You got a problem, then do like dorinda and Traveisa espoused: DELETE. I wager that the same

Well, that is a good thought. You have proven to be completely closed minded about the whole affair. Let me think about it for a while. I may take you up in that offer.

> deity inside my mind which is also inside your mind will still witness to the truth in my words.

Hey, like I said, one wants me to be nice and the other to tell you to go to hell. Two deities are better than one, you know.

SNIP....

> create, Alma puts out smokescreen arguments. Arguments which YOU, urrutia, (*what's w/ WE? you got a mouse in your pocket or what?, believe for yourself!) "the more" have inhaled hook, line and stinker.

And you are the prophet sent to set us straight? That's very funny!!

> I put MFA along with my name to identify which field I have my credentials in, which is art, to substantiate

Like I told you once, that MFA will not get you respected. It is the quality of your art that will. But if your mentalidad enana keeps getting in the way, not even your power as an artists will give you credence.

> my argument. Get it? Substance. Sadly lacking in

Substance? What substance? All you have done is rant about how wrong it is to appropriate an image in a way you don't like. Is that substance? I don't think so.

> your postings about art.

Hey, I don't make them to show how chingo'n I am. I make them to comment on what makes me tick, to learn from the responses. You, OTOH, seem to think that because you write MFA after your name people should take you seriously. What a joke.

> I make art that speaks for itself. As to my art

True. Some of it is beautiful. Some of it is shit.

> criticisms, I champion contextual integrity and cultural continuity as postModern esthetic values,

Artsy-fartsy gobblediguck that you picked up at art school to validate snobbery and elitism. I dare you to write it in plain English.

> values you probably haven't even begun to think about.

How do you know? Don't ASSume too much.

> "No amount of evidence will convince anyone of the truth of something they do not WANT." -ACIM

"No hay peor sordo que el que no quiere oir." Refra'n popular (Sources? We don't need no stinkin' sources!)

> Abolengo rancio? Yo' mama, urrutia.

Ah, I see that te quedo' el saco? Why? Have you in the past made derroche of your pedigree? Yeah, you did. Well, tough beans, g:uey. Y no te metas con mi madre, pendejo, 'cause she hasn't done anything to you.

SNIP...

> DUH! Can't you take a joke? Addressing the issue:

No. Not from you.

> Evidently you don't have art criticisms you've saved

Maybe. But why should I cast pearls to swine like you?

> to contribute to the archive. What DO you read, urrutia?

Not that "book' you keep ranting about, I assure you... (That damn angelito negro, he won at the end.)