This page is referenced by:

• 1 2016-11-17T15:23:14-08:00 David Hammons, "Prayer", 1969 21 print, 36 1/4 x 25 1/8" (92 x 63.8 cm) plain 2016-12-01T15:44:58-08:00 David Hammon’s work “Prayer” of 1969 shows a print of a black male figure with hands in prayer formation. The figure wears a sweatshirt, pulled over his head that is tilted back.  The sweatshirt is shear, and reveals the black body underneath.   The viewer’s attention is drawn to the hands of the figure, bold in color and containing defined lines. The print looks much like an X-ray, with its black, white, and grey colors.  Furthermore, the eyes of the man’s face are not printed on the paper and look like mere sockets, resembling a skull. The figure was achieved through the use of Hammon’s own body: as described by Connie Rogers Tilton and Lindsay Charlwood, “To create these works, Hammons literally used his own body as a printing plate - coating his skin or the printing paper with margarine and then pressing his greased body onto the printing paper” (L.A. Object, 93).  One can note the wrinkles and creases of his sweatshirt, the texture of his beard, and the lines of his hands; there is a direct focus on the body, and the black body in particular.  These prints were an opportunity to bring visibility to bodies that have been historically violently oppressed, exploited, and abused. The figure in “Prayer” is awkwardly positioned: his neck appears to be missing as his head rests directly upon his shoulders.  The top of his head, where the hood is place, looks abnormally large - as does his back and upper shoulders.  Therefore, this historic distortion of the body is rendered in Hammons works, as Tilton and Charlwood note, “Viewers of these images are confronted with distorted but readable representations of the body, often appearing frozen in profile or with entire expanses of flesh unraveled onto the printing surface” (L.A. Object, 93).  
  
  The body prints are deeply rooted within the history of the Black arts movement, prevalent in Los Angeles during the 1960’s and 70’s. Noonan argues that these prints can be read with more meaning if they are considered in the period in which they were created, as they ‘include signs drawn from the discourse of Blackness’, which was being questioned at the time. They also help to represent how ‘identity was always mediated by language, discourse, and the authority of the Other’(Noonan 2007). This specific artwork, ‘Prayer’ emphasises and dramatizes this idea that a ‘racial Other alienates the subject’, as the artwork medium is so raw. The print itself is so defined by the physical lines in Hammons' skin, hair and clothing, that it confronts the viewer head on, making it inescapable to question the piece and consider its meaning. Consequently, this gives an immediacy to the artwork which Cooks argues shows the ‘interconnectedness between the personal issues and the political’ (Exhibiting Blackness, 2011). For instance, the physical presence of a black-man's body in the artwork, with his hands in a prayer as he looks upwards, wanting and hopeful, alludes to the political change, the artist himself (the figure in the artwork) wanted. This is emphasised by the ‘ghostly’ appearance of the figure in the print, as it is almost as if there would be more solidness and definition to the form of the body’s outlines if issues that the Black Community were dealing with - such as racism, prejudice and targeted aggression - were alleviated and removed from their world.
• 1 media/Scan p 125.jpeg 2016-11-29T15:58:17-08:00 Test page 6 test structured_gallery 2016-12-01T15:35:23-08:00 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-