Boyle Heights
March 24, 2008
The release of a 100-foot mural by artist Sandow Birk has sparked outrage amongst some residents of Boyle Heights, the infamous East LA barrio that was the site of the Chicano Power movement. The homogenouse nature of the Latino community, a portrait that elected officials and the media like to portray, is an invalid description of the multi-ethnic and multi-generational barrio. In Birk’s mural, Latinos are portrayed near a cop car, selling illegal goods, and in ‘unhealthy’ body types. Many people are outraged, claiming that the mural presents a stigmatized portrait of Latinos and moreover does not represent the Boyle Heights community.
First off, the artist is a non-Latino/non-person of Color who ‘lives/lived’ in the community. At first glance its a classic case of the outside looking in and defining the other. However, a deeper look at the protests’ talking points reveal a larger paradigm, Boyle Heights is a heterogenous, mixed-income, multi-generational community. It always has been. Since the Japanese American Museum currated an impressive exhibit about the region, tagging it as the first immigrant community. Boyle Heights was home to Russians, Mexicans, Japanese, Italians, and other ethnic communities. Moreover, the community was strong, united, even during the horrid internment of their Japansese neighbors and peers.
This is still true today. Albeit Latinos themselves encompass a diverse range of geographic locations, linguistic tongues, and more, the increased migration of Asians into the community have made it even more diverse. Also, for decades Boyle Heights has been the hub of Chicano families, many of whom have owned their properties for generations, intensifying the factions of economic class within the neighborhood. The instances of race, class, and intersectionality make the protests agains Birk’s mural valid and believable. Boyle Heights is not a community that is easily defined, and in the 21st century it is definately not defined by street vendors, overweight brown faces, or criminalization.
Public art must be inclusive, accessible, and culturally compentant to all community members. This is not to say an artist’s vision must follow these parameters, but it is to say dissent and oppositional discourse is allowed and cultural criticism by community members is valid. Afterall, Boyle Heights has the largest concentration of murals in the entire city; Birk’s mural isn’t anything new.
As an artist myself and an assistant on this project, I would like to comment on some of the inaccuracies in your blog post:
Sandow was chosen for this project by a committee made up of community members and police officers from the area, and the project was five years in development. Every step of the way community members and police officials were involved, from conception to design to the suggestion of which scenes to portray in the mural, and the final design was approved by the community and the police three years ago. There was an incredible amount of input and participation by the community. The scene with the police car you mention was actually requested by the police representatives, and there are no illegal activities portrayed in the mural whatsoever. Furthermore, there are scenes of the Jewish history of the neighborhood, as well as the Japanese history and many ethnic groups are represented in the image, as in the city. All of these were requested by the community and included in the mural.
Finally, there has been extensive opportunities for anyone in the community to work on the mural, participate in its design, and review its design in a series of meetings over the years. Only now that the mural is completed have so many come forward, rather than during the time when it could have been beneficial.
Sandow is one of the most respected artists in Los Angeles today, and I am proud to have assisted on this important project. I wish the public would actually see the mural before objecting - rather than just looking a very small photos of it online.
Thank you Greg S. for your well-thought out comment. I am pleased to see that there were early attempts to make this project transperant to the community. However, the underlying argument in my blog post was at the heterogenous nature of Boyle Heights and the cultural legacy associated with it. A lot of the major arguments against the mural were with what current residents associate images with, obviously they were upset and felt that the community they identify with was not represented within the larger mural.
This is not to say the mural purposely chose to depict specific instances, people, actions, that represent Boyle Heights, but to bring to attention that not all Latinos are the same nor are the residents of this urban mecca from one cultural group.
In essence, this mural sparked outrage because of several different things, but a major theme of protest was the clash between wealthier residents and what they perceived to be a a community mural that does not represent their class background.