May 23, 2001
Subject: FW: call log
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:42:01 -0600
From: "May, Laura" <LMay@moifa.org>
To: "'almalopez@earthlink.net'" <almalopez@earthlink.net>
CC: "Nunn, Tey" <TMNunn@moifa.org>
Alma-
This call came in on Wednesday May 9. I really
think this should be investigated with all law enforcement groups.
I suspect the caller learned got the museum
phone number from the America Needs Fatima people who featured the Museum
and Our Lady in their newsletter ( since the caller said he had the museum
mailing address somewhere). The web site that is sending us the form submission
email is tfp.org.
For the safety of all, I think we need to know
this group is not connected to terrorist anti-abortionist groups. Further,
as this caller has made at least one threatening call that we know about,
his activities should be monitored.
If anyone needs to talk to me about this, my
work number appears below and my home number is ... I will need to verify
their credentials before I release any information.
Hang in there, Chica. All blessings-Laura
Laura M. May
Special Events Coordinator
Museum of International Folk Art
-----Original Message-----
From: May, Laura
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 1:51 PM
To: McCarthy, John
Cc: Perea, Andy
Subject: call log
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
John:
The call came in to 476-1200 just after 5 p.m.
Wednesday, May 9, 2001. The call display gave the orginization number as 714-626-4099.
The caller was male, possibly Hispanic, I could not guess as to the callers
age. His first request was for the address of Alma Lopez. I replied that I
did not have that information, I had an email address, or he could write to
the museum and we could forward the letter on. I asked if he wanted the museum's
mailing address. He said he thought he had that info around somewhere and
then began to rave about blasphemy against our blessed mother and he wanted
Alma's address so he could go and burn down her house. He added that Catholics
would not take this shit. I interrupted him to ask if he wanted the museum's
address and he said yes. I gave him the PO box number, thanked him for his
call and hung up to call you and left message on your voice mail.
I strongly suspect this individual is on the mailing list for tfp.org and received a letter in the mail from America Needs Fatima Organization. I do not know much about this organization, but the authorities might. As the area code of the caller is close to Ms. Lopez, I ask that this threat be investigated by all possible law enforcement. Please feel free to contact me at any time for more information, my home # is ...
As this message is senstive, please do not forward
to anyone without letting me know.
Thanks.
Laura M. May
Museum of International Folk Art
Subject: [CHICLE] Regent under Fire
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:19:14 -0600
From: chicl <chicl@UNM.EDU>
Reply-To: Chicano literature discussion list <CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU>
To: CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU
Frank V. Ortiz, Museum of New Mexico regent, is under fire and several calls have been made for his resignation for his views and letters that he wrote regarding the controversy over the Our Lady art work.
In some correspondence Ortize wrote:
At issue is whether or not a state funded museum
in interpreting curtorial rights granted by the First Amendment uses sound
judgment when it exhibits works equivalent to the impact of "Savages,"
"Niggers," "Faggots,: "Kikes," "Dikes,"
(sic) "Greasers" in the community at large.
The Sensitive Materials Committee called Ortiz's
comments dangerous. The committee wrote:
The committee believes that the racist ehpthets
you use as a metaphor for the museum's decision to exhibit this artowrk are
inappropriate, inaccurate and dangerous hyperbole. By using this metaphor,
you are accusing the museum of cultural racism that simply does not exist.
There is more in the Albuquerque Journal, Wednesday,
May 23, 2001. Pages A1 and A2.
Regent Ortiz has opposed the artwork and has said and done more behind the scenes. His actions are documented in public documents.
Subject: [AztlanNet: ARTS|LETTERS] CYBERARTE
EXHIBIT & the LADY]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:30:54 -0000
From: "Pedro Romero Sedeno" <romesedeno@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
CC: AnMora@phs.org, dadsacp@hotmail.com, Gloria_Mendoza@excite.com
CyberArte, as curated by Tey Marianna Nunn,
is a slam against the Catholic institution and is a bulldozing of traditional
culture, as in the tradition of religious folk art in NM which is based on
PenitenteCatholic expression. Nunn's commandeering of Catholic ritual
forms, such as oratorio, altar (with computer as the tabernacle), Catholic
votive candles, frames referent to tinwork which traditionally framed religious
art, Alma's secular prints presented as if they were Stations of the Cross,
a call for "ofrendas" (to the computer?) is sheer ignorance, as
in ignore ance.
Nunn as a 21st-century secularist demands that
God can and should be ignored. CyberArte: Tradition met Nunn's computer-altar
and gets sent to "Trash Bin". Nunn's secularist-revolt installation
is a parody of Catholic ritual and if she wants to vent with this mock-chapel
installation, she should rent a private gallery space to do so., just
like I would have to. To exploit a state museum to do so and to use her position
as a state employee to make this anti-church statement is, in my
opinion, a violation of the separation of church and state. Alma's poster-idol-to-the
female-body, "The Lady of Holy Carne", is just a pawn in Nunn's
and MOIFA's game which actually serves the dominant culture view.
Chicl,unm.edu , aka Teresa "M", is misinforming about the protesters with her assertion that they were "not above violence"; they were simply vocal about wanting to get into the meeting. These protesters' idea of "action" is reciting the rosary. Nunn and Alma did not get a chance to say their piece because the MUSEUM was unable to organize a meeting to accomodate 600 people in attendance, so the meeting was cancelled. Get real, Teresa whoever you are. PRS< Santa Fe, NM
p.s. to gberajano: "He who seeks to find his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life, for My sake, shall find it."
Subject: [AztlanNet: ARTS|LETTERS] re: dorinda's
post from chicle)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:56:34 -0000
From: "michael sedano" <mvsedano@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
hey, sedeno, recognize yourself? I wish teresa
had described in more detail so sedeno could see his blind hatred through
the reasoned and eyes of people who don't know his aztlannet persona. btw,
teresa marquez, a real-life woman, is also a cameo character in a rodolfo
anaya novel, shaman winter.
regards, mvs
Subject: [AztlanNet: ARTS|LETTERS] p.s. to sedeno
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:00:39 -0000
From: "michael sedano" <mvsedano@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
my friend matthew reminds us "what does
it profit a man to gain the whole world yet suffer loss of his own soul?"
to which i add a modern secularist twist for sedeno, "what does it profit
an ideologue to lose an argument yet continue to beat his dead meat to death?"
regards, mvs
JMJ
Subject: [CHICLE] Wrongful use of First Amendment
Rights(fwd)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:58:12 -0600
From: chicl <chicl@UNM.EDU>
Reply-To: Chicano literature discussion list <CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU>
To: CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Sunday, May 20, 2001, 11:02 PM +0000
From: Octavio Romano <oromano@TQSBOOKS.COM>
To: CHICLE-request@linux08.unm.edu
Subject: Wrongful use of First Amendment Rights
==========
=============
I wish teresa had described in more detail so sedeno could see his blind hatred
through the reasoned and eyes of people who don't know his aztlannet persona.
This is a request to the moderator, Teresa Marquez,
who holds opinions contrary to mine, to kindly furnish me with the reason
for this abrupt and unannounced termination.
The major theme stated for the naked virgin
exhibit is freedom of expression. It appears clear that Chicle's moderator
does not believe in the First Amendment, except only when it agrees with her
opinions.
Octavio Romano
B.A. UNM
M.A. UNM
Ph.D.UC Berkeley
================
================
Subject: [CHICLE] Wrongful use of First Amendment
Rights (fwd)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:07:24 -0600
From: chicl <chicl@UNM.EDU>
Reply-To: Chicano literature discussion list <CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU>
To: CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU
Octavio: At this time you are not yet banished
from the Chicle list. As I have explained in previous postings there are problems
with the computer center's new system. I am meeting with the computer people
tomorrow.
Moreover, I informed the list that I would be
out of the office for a time.
What makes you think that your opposing views
are the reason for your perceived banishment? I am still getting postings
from you. Give me a
break with your complaints. I have been getting messages from other Chicleras/os
that they have been denied the right to post to chicle or that they have been
dropped from the list. Even as moderator of Chicle I was denied the right
to post from my personal email.
It is great to be in America where I can form
opinions and express my views without fear of repression from those who hold
opposing thoughts or ideas.
The First Amendment Rights are there for interpretation, right or wrong.
Subject: [AztlanNet: ARTS|LETTERS] Re: don octavio
answering his own Chicle tonteria
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:04:51 -0000
From: "michael sedano" <mvsedano@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
if, as you say, you are "banished"
owing to your opinions, why ask for an explanation why you were "banished"?
with this variety of illogic, perhaps it's not too late to demand a refund
on your unm tuition?
mvs
c/s
Subject: [CHICLE] Hola, Raza (fwd)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:21:42 -0600
From: chicl <chicl@UNM.EDU>
Reply-To: Chicano literature discussion list <CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU>
To: CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 6:37 PM +0000
From: JoeOlver@aol.com
This is Joe Olvera . Isn't it funny how life
makes sure that what goes around, comes around? I remember when I was kicked
off la lista - I forget the name of the guy who owns that list - because I
criticized Octavio Romano - the Chicano icon from Berkeley, Califaztlan. I
kept hitting Octavio on that list, because es un mentiroso. He reneged on
a contract we had signed in 1976, whereby he was going to publish my book:
"Asolear Marmol Ojos: Book of Thailand." After promising that he
would publish my mss. in 1977, nothing evr came of that. I worked for Octavio
in 1976 at Berkeley, when he was publishing under the Tonatiuh International
banner.
He was also involved in a court battle with
his former partner Herminio Rios C., over control of Quinto Sol. I was his
editorial assistant, mail room clerk, flunky, and unloader of books. I once
unloaded 10,000 copies of Rudy Anaya's Bless Me Ultima. Octavio told me that
he wasn't going to publish my Thailand book after all, because it was too
sexual, and he felt that the Chicano nation wasn't yet ready for my brujerias
and pendejadas.
Yet, we had a contract. Later, he told me that
he would hand over the typeset manuscript to me, if I could find a publisher.
Even after I told him that I had such a publisher,
he reneged even on that.
Oh, the things I could tell you about Octavio
- enough to write a book.
Anyway, the guy who owns la lista said that if I didn't behave and if I didn't quit knocking Octavio, he would kick me out. Well, I made it easy on the guy. I removed myself from the list, although I understand from a friend of mine that he ran one of my columns awhile back. Como se llama ese vato? Que curadas, raza? Here we are - self assured, modern, cosmopolitan chicaspatas - yet, we are still kicking each other around.
I've read Octavio's criticisms concerning the
work of Alma Lopez, and I wonder where his head is. He is preaching censorship
- which doesn't surprise me. Didn't he censor my book, and arbitrarily decide
not to publish it after all?
Asi es que, aguanta bara, carnal. I don't think
Teresa would ever kick you off the list. If she had, how come you're still
writing? Come on, Octavio - play nice. Alma Lopez is an artist, and it's an
artist's job to challenge, to question, to be iconoclastic. I think her Virgen
Morena rendition is a true work of art, and kicks ass. So, lay off the censorship
noise. Remember the cartoon you used to run in Grito del Sol - "El Yo
Yo?"
That's you all over again, Octavio. Yeah, you
have the right to not agree with Alma Lopez, but you don't have the right
to expect everybody else to follow your line of thought. Que no? Orale!
Sin Fin
Subject: Sacreligious work
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:50:54 +1000
From: David Obeid <dobeid@cbhslewisham.nsw.edu.au>
To: "'almalopez@earthlink.net'" <almalopez@earthlink.net>
Dear Miss Lopez,
I write to you to let you know how offended
I am by your blasphemous treatment of the miraculous image of Our Lady of
Guadalupe.
Please take whatever steps are necessary to
have it removed from display.
In Jesus and Mary,
David Obeid
Subject:
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:00:47 -0000
From: "Jenny O'Grady" <jennyo_grady@hotmail.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
I think your statue of the Virgin Mary is absolutely disgusting and very distasteful. You are a very, very disturbed person. How dare you call yourself a catholic!! You are a big shame to our religion and I think you need serious help. I spit on you.
Subject: Our Lady
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:04:49 +1000
From: "fredy fred" <fredy_fred@hotmail.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
Alma,
What you have done to the Mother of God is a
sacrilege. You have no love for God, his Mother and the church. Because if
you did you would not create such a thing. This is a sign of a person who
hates the Catholic Church.
Our lord said to St. Peter (The Popes are their
success today), Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;
and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it."
That's right, the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.
This is a great offence against God. By committing
this great offence you have lost all sanctifying grace. Meaning you are not
on Gods side anymore, you are a slave of Satan now. The only way you can restore
this grace with God is by confession.
I pray for you that you realise what has been
done and the grave of its sin committed and to repent for it. What killed
me when reading about this is that it said you are a catholic. I couldn't
believe it.
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy on you)
Subject: Fwd: Message rejected by system
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:33:37 EDT
From: JulianOlaf@aol.com
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
May 22, 2001
Alma Lopez, Raquel Salinas,
As I view the on going situation with 'the virgin'
controversy I cannot help but noticing your defenses which are a concern.
I've seen the portraying of the Blessed Virgin Mary in art form, plays, motion
pictures films, etc., and has had positive impact toward many in the community.
She is a reflection of God's goodness. I don't believe that Mary's intentions
were for people to reveal her in a bikini to deliver worldly messages.
Today's society mentally of a women in a bikini
is generally a sensual message and nothing more.
No one is attacking you as an artist or being
a woman, nor your rights being violated but, rather a particular work of art
that is tasteless and offensive.
I am a cook with rights as well and cooking
is also an art. But, if I prepare a dish that is tasteless and offensive I
must get rid of it and not play victim; and has nothing to do with my being
a cook.
What I am also noticing is if Mary the mother
of God is a hero and a strong woman why then was she replaced by you in a
worldly sense? Now who is being insulted? You claim that you're a better Christian
than those attacking you! A good catholic Christian does not deface a sacred
image especially that of 'Our Lady of Guadalupe,' which was imprinted in heaven
and not by any h human artist on earth. The image i for all time.
Many people that are not catholic are in your
defense not so much for the artwork or your rights but using it as a tool
against the Catholic Community and others are not sensitive to our beliefs.
There are also a few people who are not spiritually oriented {Catholics} that
place greater value on materialistic things than on sacredness. It is also
sad that many non-Catholics do not try to understand our faith and much less
respect it.
You also mentioned 'naked male angels'. Angels
are spirits and are neither male or female they have no gender. And Christ
being crucified on the cross in a 'loincloth,' was the manner in which he
died and not an artist conception. He died by evil men.
You giving thanks to Mr. Villegas for creating
the forum for thousands to see; you might be enjoying these few moments of
worldly gain, but I would be concern with the spiritual effect it might have
on you on the long run. The Catholic Church may not have much power over material
matters but spiritually it has the final word.
Yours truly,
Julian Sanchez
Subject:
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 04:53:52 -0000
From: "tony souied" <tonysouied@hotmail.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
Hello Alma,
I have seen the picture of Our Blessed Lady
in a two peice swimsuit. It is disgusting and a sacrilege. I take it u have
no fear of God or Our Queen.
From your name I c that u might b a catholic. If so, it is a shame beyond comprehension. I hope u stop this! God Bless!
Subject: The Virgin Mary
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:11:17 +0800
From: "Sajbens" <sajbens@kda.attmil.ne.jp>
To: "Alma Lopez" <almalopez@earthlink.net>
Dear Ms. Lopez,
I saw the picture you did of the Blessed Virgin and it just made me think
that she has nothing in common with the kind of woman you portrayed her
to be. There is nothing liberating about it. It's just another
example of a female thinking that showing her bare body somehow makes her
more feminine or powerful. It only seems exploitive. The Blessed Mother
is nothing like the woman in your picture. Would you stand in front
of Christ like that??? It's a picture of defiance and is demeaning to
Her. She always did the will of God in everything. You said you
were a Catholic, does that mean that you regularly take part in Communion
and Reconciliation and the Sacraments of the Church? Did you spend alot
of time in prayer with God asking if a picture like this was His will or did
you just do as you like without a thought to it? How long did you take
to discern this in serious prayer time?
Sadly, this image only exploits women and definately offends. What good
comes out of it, except alot of publicity for you. It all seems so self
serving. Please pray. May you look to the Holy Spirit in guidance
and peace to you.
Sincerely,
Erika Sajben
Subject: E\' una profanazione! E\' un sacrilegio!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 05:02:57 -0400
From: DegAng <degang@libero.it>
"Deus non irritetur"!
E credo che la citazione non abbia bisogno di traduzione.
E' una profanazione grave nei confronti della Vergine Maria. NON E' ARTE!
E' solo un volgare e deliberato atto di libertinaggio nei confronti della
nostra religione.
L'autore dell'articolo sottotitola: "Un'opera religiosa [...] scandalizza
i benpensanti [...]": E' VERGOGNOSO
DOVER SENTIR PARLARE DI "OPERA RELIGIOSA" E DI "BENPENSANTI".
Stento a credere che possa essere considerata un'OPERA e men che meno RELIGIOSA!
E da "cristiana cattolica" come si usa dire "praticante"
mi RIFIUTO CATEGORICAMENTE DI ESSERE DEFINITA "BENPENSANTE".
Questo è il minimo, è un miliardesimo della reazione che ogni
persona al mondo che si osi definire "cristiana cattolica" dovrebbe
manifestare!
E' UNO SCEMPIO LASCIATO AL PIU' TOTALE ED INCONTROLLATO LIBERTINAGGIO!
Alma Lopez si definisce "Artista": NON RIUSCIREI AD ARRIVARE A DEFINIRLA
NEMMENO DONNA!
Certo è disarmante e quanto mai doloroso comprendere, da queste vili
e scellerate manifestazioni, quale punto di degrado etico, morale, psicologico
ed esteriore stia rasentando la DONNA MONDIALE!
E, da donna convinta della propria fede, della proprio morale, e' altrettanto
doloroso costatare quanto silenzio raggiunga l'indifferenza (o peggio il consenso!!)
dell'UOMO MONDIALE davanti a tanta immoralità, tanta profanazione,
tanto sacrilegio.
DOVE E' FINITA LA DONNA
Subject:
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:34:14
From: "Khalil Elias" <k_elias@hotmail.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
Alma,
Your portrayal of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not
art, but a direct reflection of your feminist view.Our Lady was neither a
feminist, nor independent. Our Lady relied on God.
You won't be remembered for your talents rather
your controversial and overly opinionated publicity stunt. Why don't you go
and make a mockery of Buddhism or Islam (not that doing that is right either).
You have offended me and many others, I'm sure
you wouldn't like anyone to make fun of your own family. In this instance
you have made a mockery of the "Mother of God".
I leave you with this.
"Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among
women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus. Holy Mary mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death. Amen"
How could anyone who considers themselves a Catholic and meditate on this, portray Our Lady in the way you have.
Subject: No support
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 07:30:35 EDT
From: LRLynnrcl@cs.com
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
You will get no support from me. You are disgracing the name of a beutiful person, the true Virgin Mary. You will have to face God one day. God help you
Subject:
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:08:17 +0100 (BST)
From: jane dot <dnanaz@yahoo.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
I am sorry that you should use some one like saint Mary to show your digustng taste and the wish to show your deformed body, I suggest you get a life rather than trying to portray those in your dirty mind as holy characters, I must say I am a moslem but feel so sad what christianity is coming to and how they are beating at their own roots, may God himself guide you to the right path so that you need not disrespect the mother of Jesus for your worldly desires; fame!! and $$
Subject: support for "Our Lady" image
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 06:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Elvidge <einstein213@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: relvidge@dolphinics.com
To: jice@moifa.org, TMNunn@moifa.org,almalopez@earthlink.net
I am writing this letter as a sign of support
and respect for the digital image of "Our Lady". Being a catholic
myself and growing up in a very religious home in Bernalillo I find that the
objections and protests being brought against the artist are unfounded and
have little basis for complaint. The critics are saying that this is offensive
for the numerous followers of Guadalupe being as she is portrayed in a different
light than normal. She is not wearing a thong or showing HER breasts, she
is merely covered by flowers and tactfully at that. Where are the objections
for the passage that says that Noah yelled at his children for covering his
naked body? He was nude if I'm not mistaken? They cannot assume that there
ideals are the same as the rest of the state and what offends them offends
the rest of us. In my opinion Guadalupe is beautiful and any image of her
that is meant to be a sign of respect should not be vilified but embraced!!!
The critics are merely upset that the image requires the viewer to think about
the preconcieved notions about the church and catholism in there own light,
something they obviously do not like. Let people make up there own mind and
see what happens, if someone is offended by the image than they do not have
to view it but there cannot take away the right for me to view it. I recently
heard something that sums up my feelings for the artist "You go Girl!!!"
Robert Elvidge
27
catholic,member "Our lady of Sorrows" in Bernalillo
where Guadalupe is highly regarded.
Subject: Our Lady of Guadalupe
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:11:55 -0500
From: "Kelley, Katherine" <Katherine_Kelley@fmi.com>
To: "'almalopez@earthlink.net'" <almalopez@earthlink.net>
I, also, am of Mexican descent. I am an Artist living in New Orleans. I think the picture of "Our Lady" is a disgrace to God and His mother. You have found a cheap way to make a buck. You will have to stand before God and explain why you were disrespectful to His mother. Everything is Heaven is totaly pure and holy. You have turned the God sent image into a lustful image, so men will think of her in an evil way.
It's never too late to remove the trash off
the display case and may The Blessed Mother forgive you and your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Katherine Kelley
Subject: Re: [CHICLE] CHICLE: approval required(D5062C17)
(fwd) (fwd)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:38:20 -0600
From: chicl <chicl@UNM.EDU>
Reply-To: Chicano literature discussion list <CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU>
To: CHICLE@linux08.UNM.EDU---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2001, 4:43 PM -0600
From: miguel angel acosta <m08956@unm.edu>
Chicleros,
Here's some things to think about. Food for
thought.
1) I find it very interesting that the "original"
image of the Virgen de Guadalupe is itself a cultural appropriation of the
indigenous Tonatzin but with modifications (16th century cyberarte) that made
it more acceptable to the european minds.
2) I also find it very interesting that this,
the most Mexican of images, is embraced so strongly by a population that according
to the Alb. Journal, finds it very difficult to admit being Mexican (ethnically).
3) Finally. It seems to me that if we are going
to wage battle for cultural preservation or at least respect of our practices
and traditions, we should begin by demanding the Downtown Action Team and
the Alcohol pushers/dealers/cartels stop using 5 de Mayo and other holidays
as excuses to get Mexicans drunk and diluting the real meaning of the holiday.
Imagine if they did something similar for Memorial
Day, somewhat of an equivalent.
Miguel Acosta
Subject: Re: Don't burn my home.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:03:28 -0700
From: "Eliza Rodriguez y Gibson" <emr9@cornell.edu>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
References: 1
Alma,
I'm glad to hear the news about the exhibit,
but obviously distressed to hear you are being threatened. Thats really terrible,
I'm sorry. I'm sending you and your casita good vibes to stay safe.
Take care
eliza
Subject: Lady of Guadalupe
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:09:38 EDT
From: ANTQUELADY@aol.com
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
Poor taste. No redeeming effort. Why?
Paint/draw/photograph whatever but why this.
What's the use? Pick on someone/something else to show off your
ability/art.
Do porn. or something else if need be.
Subject: Mary
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:13:19 -0400
From: "Thomas J. Willke, MD" <willkemd@ipninet.com>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
Not that it makes a difference, but may God have mercy on your soul. Did you ever read the first two commandments-or have you found some way to desecrate them also?
Subject: Mary
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:03:58 -0400
From: Ed Toner <captained@home.com>
Organization: @Home Network
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
This is nothing but obscene blasphamy. Take
on like this to Mexico, and depict Out lady of Guadelupe, and you'd most likely
be stoned to death. Diversity is out strength. Yeah, right.
Ed Toner
Subject: Folks:
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:53:27 -0400
From: "Preston, Steve (CRTRES)" <Steve.Preston@concert.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
This is a very reasonable painting and should remain on display within the Museum. Are all our tastes to be subjected to the whim of those who are offended and complain? If someone does not like the painting, then they may say so, but to have the painting removed is ridiculous.
This is not an offensive painting taken outside of the religious context. If I am right, this would not be the first time that the Virgin Mary was portrayed less than fully clothed. Art is art and does not have to comply with anyone's rules. It may offend, but I think all art will always offend someone.
Subject: about your piece
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: dontknow somethingpretty <fridachips@yahoo.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
I heard about your work in the news but thought nothing of it. Then for a discussion in my chicano art class your name came up and we began to talk about your piece. I first found it stupid, As an artist I felt you started all this to get more publicity not only for your piece but for you as an artist. I was going to leave it like that but instead I went to your website and read your artist statement. I dont like the work, not becasue its offensive but its not my stle. I think its cool you did somthing that you liked and inspired you. I also believed you did the answered good in responding to that activist email. I believe they do not understand art, and I think he was a stupid machista who has believes women should be one way and not the other. Activist like him who are all down with brown pride should worry about hunger in their country and uniting as humans rather than a race instead of a little art piece, I doubt hes all religious, look at how hard and angry he talks? religion is one thing you just dont talk about, it gets people all roudy out. But continue to do art that you like, either way people will hate and love you so do what you want to do.
Subject: Our Lady
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:22:29 -0500
From: "Caleb Foshee" <fosheec@okstate.edu>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
Ms. Lopez:
I am a firm believer in our right to free speech.
In fact, I would not be one of the people to protest against the expostition
of your piece of art "Our Lady." As a student of law, I am well
versed in the First Amendment and regard it with great reverence. I also must
mention that I would never encourage anyone to be a patron of the any museum
that displays this piece. As a Catholic in a very non-Catholic state (Oklahoma),
I cherish every bit of the church and those who uphold its teachings.
Unfortunately, you have blatantly undermined
the Blessed Virgin in your artwork.
While your arguments of freedom of speech and
"showing Mary in a modern sense" are good for the liberal media
and schismatics among the Catholic Church, there are many, especially converts
who cherish the Church for its Tradition, who find this work offensive. I
look at the work and praise you for your originality but there are some things
that should be, and for the most part are, held in reverence. Your replacement
of the Blessed Virgin with a barely dressed hispanic woman is inherently wrong.
While the Virgin of Guadalupe is seen mainly as an icon of the hispanic community,
one must remember that She has been declared the Patroness of North America.
One must also remember that the Virgin Mary was not hispanic, She was Jewish.
Another abhorent attack on the Church and push of the feminist agenda is your
replacement of Juan Diego with a topless hispanic woman. Only in the feminist
(or pornographic) world would a topless woman be seen as powerful. You show
quite a bit of uneducated audacity in this move. As a Catholic and a believer
in the Constitution, I must say that you have created an offensive and untasteful
work of art, but due to your First Amendment right I will not try to censor
you and your efforts. I also realize that the Fourteenth Amendment contains
an equal protection clause and the presence of your work in a state based
institution violates this by persecuting one faith and not all faiths. All
that I ask is that you remove your work from this state based institution
and place it in a private gallery.
Caleb Foshee
Subject: a lotus for you
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:04:05 -0700
From: "Eloisa de Leon" <eloisadeleon@hotmail.com>
To: almalopez@earthlink.net
Dear Alma,
Patricio Chavez has filled me in with what has
been going on with you. (He and I worked together at the Centro Cultural de
la Raza as curators.)
I just wanted to say that my heart is with you
and that I support you and your work (it's beautiful). I hope that you will
be able to teach us all something from your experiences when the fire of it
all has finally died down. You have so much to proud of--of your art and your
strength and all of your accomplishments.
I pray that you are kept protected from crazy
people -- I am sending you love and blessings.
Best Regards,
EloisaEloisa de Leon
Artist in Residence
UC MEXUS at UC Riverside
Subject: [AztlanNet: ARTS|LETTERS] Dorinda y
Frida
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:35:50 -0000
From: "Pedro Romero Sedeno" <romesedeno@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
To: AztlanNet@yahoogroups.com
CC: robertaf@arches.uga.edu
Dear Dorinda, do you still have the posting of Irene Blea's view? (around May 10?).
I inadvertently deleted it -a Mental Menudo
breakdown, I guess. I wanted to
see if she mentions Jeannete Rodriguez and her book Our Lady of Guadalupe:
Faith and Empowerment among Mexican-American Women, 1994. Univ of Texas Press.
As per my views, I wish Alma Lopez, nor her
fans, no ill will as mi gente. I just think her pseudo-Guadalupe
posters are stupid and unethical. Too Hollywood. Sorry. And the CyberArte
show is even more problemmatic.
As per Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, I think it is significant that they, as Mexican, secularist and radical as they were, never commandeered the Guadalupe image in their work. Creo que tenian respecto por, o por lo menos, temor del fervor Mejicano Guadalupano, una tradicion desde hace siglos. Right on, mom and pops.
Subject: Our Lady
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:38:11 -0400
From: "Bill Rigg" <brigg@bghost.net>
To: <almalopez@earthlink.net>
CC: <jice@moifa.org>, <tmnunn@moifa.org>
Hello Ms. Lopez,
I'm one of the multitudes introduced to your
work by the silly media "controversy" surrounding the CyberArte
exhibit. A comment and a question:
Although I'm neither Hispanic nor Catholic,
I entirely support your work in both its content and quality, and its social
vision. I find your expressions fascinating, and urge you to be strong and
continue.
Reading MOIFA's statements yesterday, I'd also
like to congratulate them for remaining rational in the face of ignorance.
My question is: Are you, or MOIFA, producing
prints of your exhibited work?
I'm interested in purchasing a copy of "Our
Lady" and "Heaven, Lupe and Sirena". Possibly others, but since
I live in Ohio I didn't get a chance to see the exhibit...:)
Thank you...
Bill Rigg
Subject: lucky
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:16:39 -0600
From: Coco <rainbow@cybermesa.com>
To: Alma Lopez <almalopez@earthlink.net>
Hi Alma...Just wanted to express support and say how lucky one is when the church goes after them in these times we are living in...great publicity. Just think...not too many years ago the church would have tried you...done a bit of torture to keep the sadists happy and in practice...then burned you at the stake with an audience to cheer on the flames. Although I am sure some "Christians" would still love to light the fire they just cant get by with it anymore. I guess one might say the church has come a long way. Enjoyed your words as well as your art.
Keep on trucking....best, Dan McCoy - Santa Fe