This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Black Arts at Oxy

Compton Communicative Arts Academy

This page has annotations:

Contents of this annotation:

This page is referenced by:

1970-1971 In 1970-1971, “black art” in Los Angeles was still quite young. Many of the young artists who were rising in their careers were only beginning to create their own works of art. Artists of this time, such as Noah Purifoy, Bettye Saar, and John Outterbridge, would later come to be recognized as pioneers and their work quintessential when discussing black art in not only Los Angeles, but the United States. One LA Times article tries to wrap its head around the concept of a black art exhibition in which the author poses the question: is it merely grouping together artists “whose sole affinity is the color of their skin?”. The reality for many of the young black artists during this time was that their work would be displayed in galleries that were established specifically for fostering artists of color (like the Brockman Gallery) or labeled as “black art” when shown in the larger settings.

Aside from being segregated in the gallery setting, there was also a discussion going on about the distinction between East and West coast when it comes to black art. The same article from above complains that “westerners” were omitted from the show, most likely because the organizers, who were primarily from the East Coast, did not know them. Black artist recognition was therefore largely regional, and at this period did not extend to both coasts.

Not only within the geography of the United States was there a struggle over recognition across state lines, but also a controversy as to whether or not the galleries would recognize black art as Western art when it is inspired from the individuals’ heritage from a different culture. In the fall of 1971, LACMA installed an exhibit known as “Black Africa,” which housed art all influenced and derived from Africa and how it had inspired so much art of the Western world. Los Angeles Times writer, William Wilson said about the exhibit:
"Two small exhibition spaces are crowded with 127 top examples of the art of Africa, mainly from the central portion. That is the area mined by slave traders who brought black captives here. The artistic heritage that was stolen from them is incalculable... it is chilling to think what an insipid business modernistic art might have been without the inspiration to formal dignity and spiritual passion it derived from the art of Black Africa."
Despite the aim of the exhibition, an acquaintance of the article's author recounted a scene of a white mother and child still referring to the art as savage and inferior to the art of the West and white people, unconsciously displaying racism.

Perhaps spurred after the Watts Uprising in 1965 in which racial tension in America became loudly undeniable, newspaper articles from 1970 onwards show a awareness of the socioeconomic inequality and racial bigotry against black Americans. By the early 1970s, a decrease in industrial work in California caused a dramatic increase in African-American poverty. Leimert Park, home to Brockman Gallery, and like many other Los Angeles neighborhoods was likewise affected, as a lack of jobs invited gang activity and the more wealthy residents moved to Baldwin Hills. By bringing common ideas and sentiments together about identity, heritage, and opportunity, the black art of this time started to become its own genre in addition to building community. Leimert Park and the Brockman Gallery is a prime example of art and small business helping to create neighborhood cohesiveness while pioneering black art in Los Angeles.

As poverty and crime increased in Los Angeles, so did tension between poor communities and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In addition, there were boycotts aiming for a higher percentage of black employees in certain fields, requests for better funding and education in black schools. By March of 1971, black police officers used a program called the Oscar Joel Bryant Association, founded in 1968 in honor of the first black police officer to be killed in the line of duty, to work on closing the gap between LAPD officers and black communities. One ways they hoped to achieve this was by enlisting more black police officers. They also awarded scholarships to students in need. 1970 marked a renewal of black americans--from the art organizations to law enforcement--working to create a stronger and greater sense of united community.

It seems as though the most notable art by black Americans was not only seen as a “positive alternative to whatever else was going on in the ghetto”, but succinctly conveyed frustrations dealing with “the black man’s condition in America”. The LA Times writes on one poignant show exhibiting the artwork and with the various styles of Charles White, David Hammons, and Timothy Washington. The great contrast of styles was meant for the show to attract a mass audience while presenting the timeless subject of black anger towards prevalent white indifference and perpetuation of oppression. One individual, Jon Lockard, stated in a Los Angeles Sentinel article, “The black artist today has an obligation and a responsibility to be the clarion of black life…Artists have for long periods of time had to paint to the satisfaction of critics and galleries rather than the very community that they were from.”Black artists at the time were not solely making art for the sake of exhibitions and sales, but for their important narratives resulting in experimental and entirely fresh work.

Page created by Jocelyn Lo, Sophia McGinty, Vanessa Todd and Leila Wang in December 2016.
Test page and social contexts for framing Asian American experience. Third, the por- trayal of Asian Americans as model minorities has historically been used as a wedge between minorities by implying that if Asians can make it, then all minority groups should be able to achieve academically, as long as they uphold the values of education, hard work, and a nuclear family that Asians supposedly prize. This focus on individualism and meritocracy inherent in the model minority discourse buoys the culture-of-poverty argument that runs in tandem with it. As such, model minority discourse ignores critical struc- tural factors such as class, race, gender, and schooling resources that serve to contextualize Asian American students’ academic performance, while ig- noring those children who are living in poverty, failing or dropping out of high school, and facing downward mobility (Fong & Shinagawa, 2000; Hune & Chan, 2000; Hurh & Kim, 1984; Kiang & Kaplan, 1994; Lee, 1996; Lew, 2003a, 2004, in press; Louie, 2004; Pang & Cheng, 1998; Park, Lee, & Goodwin, 2003; Weinberg, 1997).

In order to address the limitations of the cultural argument, researchers have focused on important structural factors such as immigration history, economic context, and opportunity structure to explain Asian American achievement. For instance, it has been argued that selective migration of post- 1965 immigrants—namely, those entering under professional status—favored those who are coming with a higher education level and from higher socio- economic backgrounds. That is, Asian American children’s educational suc- cess can be largely attributed to those who are coming from Asian families who were middle-class professionals in their country of origin (Barringer, Gardner, & Levin, 1993; Hirschman & Wong, 1986). Researchers have also underscored ethnic economies and networks as important means for Asian Americans to achieve social mobility. Although ethnic economies have been historically formed as a result of racial and social barriers, as well as lack of access to the primary-sector-market economy, researchers argue that this avenue allows Asian immigrants to gain important economic and social re- sources for first- and second-generation immigrants (Hirschman & Wong, 1986; Light & Bonacich, 1988; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996, 2001). While high- lighting the structural and economic conditions into which the immigrant groups become situated, Portes and colleagues note the significance of strong co-ethnic networks and ethnic economies, which help promote social mo- bility for immigrants and their children. Particularly for those residing in poor and isolated urban communities, strong social capital in the form of entrepreneurship, local churches, and co-ethnic networks provides impor- tant economic and social resources for first-generation immigrants and their second-generation children. It is argued, therefore, that post-1965 Asian immigrants and their children are able to achieve in school and gain eco- nomic opportunities as a result of their ethnic economy and ties to immi-