That interest has taken different forms: from very comprehensive exhibitions like “Radical Women: Latin American Art, 1960–1985” at the Brooklyn Museum; to the appointment of Marcela Guerrero by the Whitney Museum as a curator who specializes in Latinx art and is responsible for the upcoming July 13 opening “Pacha, Llaqta, Wasichay,” featuring works by indigenous Latin America groups; to a series of talks and discussions like “Latinx Art is American Art” (organized by El Museo del Barrio); to the recently closed, nationally-influential “Pacific Standard Time: LA/LA” initiative. That variety of formats and interests have contributed to showing the extended multiplicity of Latinx art in the U.S. and its indissoluble connection with American Art.

Those events have contributed to building a visibility of Latin art and artists, but there is still the question on how they actually impact Hispanic communities. Even when there is an (at least apparent) interest of many art institutions in showing a more accessible face to a more diverse audience, still the art world is perceived as an elitist space. The average museum visitor continues to be a white, non-Hispanic, middle-aged, middle-class individual even when some of those institutions’ locations reflect different demographics. While it is a reality that museums are consistently developing strategies to attract diverse sectors of the population, still the art market dynamics and the traditional concepts upon which those institutions have been built become a wall to capturing the interest of culturally marginalize sectors. The new interest in Latinx art is very effective for making visible the importance of it in the history of the art, particularly in the United States, but it can also go unseen by the Hispanic and Latin community. The extremely beneficious possibility for these communities to see how artists deal with a common collective experience can be lost if there is not a clear strategy to make the art events accessible to groups who have been traditionally marginalized from them. Another discussion around the phenomenon of Latinx art in the U.S. could be precisely how it reflects in the Hispanic community’s interest in art institutions, if there is any.

There is a constant challenge for museums and other art institutions to be able to balance between opening to new audiences while still relating towards their main constituency. Often, the interest towards certain forgotten artistic practices becomes only an effective move to create an image of inclusivity that rarely affects the context in which that art was created. That is an important issue to consider if there is an authentic interest in an ethical approach to marginalized art practices. Frequently, the art that is done in the outskirts of the institutions bear a criticism of the nature of its power dynamics. To try to deal with it means to deal also with a social context that has been as invisible as the art it has produced. The history of Latinx art as a subaltern activity is not only the history of the different works or objects produced by the artists but also the means of their production. Latinx art is inevitably connected to stories of migration, cultural instability and identity politics. Any interests in the different artistic practices of members of the Hispanic and Latin communities in the U.S. should take into consideration the contexts and means of those practices. The recent events focusing on Latinx art allow us to perceive its strong history and accomplishments, and it could help us to understand art as an ongoing inclusive practice that could reflect beyond the walls of the museums. •