Ashley James

or someone who is generally more interested in the food display at events on campus than the actual presentation being held, I found “Dessert and Discussion: Graffiti Art with Lady Pink” to be a refreshing exception. As part of Latino Heritage Month, Lady Pink, a forerunner in the American underground graffiti arts movement of the 80s and 90s, was invited to speak with students about her experiences. There was much to be enjoyed in Lady Pink’s friendly and communicative approach, especially since the attending group was small and intimate. But, perhaps more interestingly, the discussion was illuminating in that Lady Pink, though an Ecuadorian American, did not so much stress her ethnic background as an important aspect of her identity as she did her identity as a female fighting against anything and everything she found to be an oppressive force in her life.

Forming a circle with the twenty or so chairs in the Guastavino Room of St. Paul’s Chapel, Lady Pink took her place in an unspecific spot in the formation. With her jeans, casual shirt, and youthful long hair, Lady Pink could have been just another student. In this way, her informal countenance mirrors her approach to the discussion as well as her general attitude toward life, a topic she was not hesitant to provide her opinion on. As much as her initial talk sounded like it has been rehearsed and recited to many an audience before, the actual content of her words makes this fact not really important. Because, what she stands for and stresses as important about her art and her life is anything but conventional or boring; in fact, its essence is the direct opposition to all things status quo.

If there was a single theme a person could take from the discussion it was that of rebellion. Lady Pink used the word as frequently as a freshman uses “I feel like” in Lit Hum. And whether or not one always agreed with what Lady Pink had to say about authority, the need to subvert it, and how to do this best, Lady Pink definitely saw her confirmation on such issues as good enough. Much of her speech discussed issue of punishment in regards to graffiti art, and her general disdain with the authorities that put away kids for years for crimes she found inappropriate to the punishment.

“Anarchy is good. Rebellion is good,” she declares as part of her quasi-speech. Part of the allure of graffiti art, Lady Pink explains, is the danger the medium brings. And there is arguably no better art form which encompasses this subversiveness which Lady Pink so prizes. And it is not just her. Lady Pink spoke of an entire movement of kids who found an outlet for their angst in the form of graffiti art. Sneaking into train yards, running from dogs and hiding on garbage piles for hours on end (as one of her nights unraveled), the journey in graffiti art is just as affirming as the art itself. Perhaps even more so. Summarily, Pink declares in quoting Andy Warhol “Art is anything you can get away with.”

It would seem a contradiction, then, that Lady Pink would later exhibit her work in museums for large sums of money, an apparent opposition to the ideals of graffiti art in the first place. However, after hearing her speak more, it becomes clearer that Pink is not concerned with maintaining some sort of image to be affirmed by others. And with her fierce individuality and use of the mainstream in order to further her own goals, she can be seen as upholding her subversiveness even more so. This sense of opportunism as value is seen in other parts of her speech as well. She recognizes herself as, at some point in her career, especially early on, the “token female,” but has no problem being so if it furthers her career. She is unabashed in noting that she is concerned, as an artist, with issues of finances, and that she has no problem “charging lots of money” for her work because artistry is now her career.

This is not to say she does not hold values. She is dedicated to helping her community, and does so by volunteering with local schools as part of their arts program. As well, her art itself often times advocates anti-gay oppression, feminine oppression etc.

A large part of what Lady Pink found she was rebelling against was ideals of femininity she could not conform to, ones that were perhaps valued more in Latin American. In fact, to begin her informal “speech,” she said she was “more in touch with graffiti culture than Latin [culture].” She brings up the example of her sisters wanting her to wear skirts just like them and how she was “just not interested in it.” Doing graffiti with the boys was her way of rebelling against these ideas of femininity, but also a real example of what it means to be a hyphenated “something” in America. She did not dwell on her culture as an Ecuadorian but her experience growing up in New York, wanting to make a name for herself as a female, but also as an individual.

And within the terms of Latino Heritage Month, it is both novel and progressive in the sense that she did not come to Columbia to talk about what it means to be a Latina, preserving her “culture,” whatever this term means, but came to speak about her experiences as a person, and by extension as a Latina. It complicates what it means to celebrate one’s heritage. Questions about what this heritage consists of becomes important. And a person like Lady Pink is an example of a woman who, unquestionably is the product of her upbringing, but is also an American and individual who has paved her own way. And it is not necessarily important to present oneself as a Latina artist in order to be a beacon of your culture, but being successful in what she does can perhaps prove this more indirectly, and I would argue, more effectively.

While the event was evidently rewarding for the students who came, there was still a visible paucity of students present. And with such an engaging topic, it is interesting to look at why this is the case. Samantha Stanton, publicity chair of SOL, Society of Latinos and organizer of the event, discussed with me why this may have been the case. For one, the event was only confirmed a few days before the date, because of Lady Pink’s initial reluctance to confirm (due to her general wariness of college appointments in general). As well, there were not many fliers put up, and publicity was limited mostly to facebook.

Why such a small amount of people came could be due to short notice or perhaps the rain, but I think it may speak to a greater question of what is expected and frequented by students as far as heritage month events go. Food events in general get many attendees, eager to get a little “ethnic” for the night. Case in point: Diwali Night. But perhaps people are more used to events that explicitly make knowledge of one’s culture, such as dances and music. While this is of course relevant to one’s perception of culture, especially to those dedicated to the arts, other aspects of culture are just as relevant, and perhaps less easily celebratory. But a woman like Lady Pink, who represents not only her culture, but her self as an individual is an equally important contribution to the month’s proceedings.

Stanton said that Latino Heritage Month events were in general not that widely attended. This was in part due to the fact that there was not much of a Latino collective until this year. So, the group is just starting to build up, as opposed to say, Black Heritage Month events which are more attended and more widely known. And this can and should be taken into account as well.

Regardless of the reasons for the scarcity of attendance, all students who did come seemed genuinely engaged in the discussion. At least two of the about four students who asked questions were interested in Lady Pink’s methods of art and the ways in which she uses paints, and other technical aspects of her work. Not many questions were actually pointed to her Latina identity in her work, in fact there were none of these types of questions at all. The general make up in the room was not solely Latino, either.

Stanton herself expressed her reasons for inviting Lady Pink in the first place. She said she was personally interested in having Lady Pink speak because she thought she was simply “really cool” and that her work is an opportunity for “political education.” She went on the explain that “as Latino students there is a tendency to focus on Latin America... but Latino identification is the result of several social processes.” In this sense Stanton, and more indirectly Lady Pink, indirectly champion a kind of broadened idea of what it means to be an ethnic person in the United States.

And the fact that all types of students can connect with what a speaker has to say, not just those who are direct descendents of said culture, is a true testament to what it means to achieve some commonality within this disparate American culture. Like graffiti art itself, such a concept is subversive indeed.