Integrating the Houston School: Race and Diversity in Two Exhibitions at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
- allisonvyoung
- Jun 5, 2025
- 19 min read
Updated: Jun 6, 2025
Institutional representation, identity, and (racial) integration have been omnipresent issues in art historical and sociological scholarship. Throughout the twentieth century, U.S. art museums–as cultural centers–were under scrutiny for their action (or inaction) to the political and cultural currents rippling through American society. Exhibitions and their curation became viable subjects for the evaluation and critique of integration and representation in these institutions. This essay focuses on two critical exhibitions which demonstrate the curation and narration of local art and identity at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston in the twentieth century: The Twenty-Fifth Annual Exhibition of Works by Houston Artists (March 12-26, 1950) and Fresh Paint: The Houston School (January 25-April 7, 1985). Within their determinations of a local (art) identity–which illustrates a diversity within that identity–these exhibitions marked specific moments of racial integration and representation in the museum.
The Twenty-Fifth Annual was the first “integrated” exhibition at MFAH, though “the trustees and patrons [had] not expect[ed] a black artist to even enter the competition, much less to win it.”[1] When John T. Biggers won the Museum Purchase Prize of 1950, the institution was confronted with its own segregationist policies as the winning artist was not allowed to attend his own ceremony. This resulted in the desegregation of the museum. This process was not publicized nor documented in their archival record, yet this exhibition and its reception still grant insight into the desegregation of the museum as a public space and as a collection.
Fresh Paint was the first major museum survey of Houston artists and marked a revival of MFAH’s attention on the city’s arts scene. The exhibition sparked some confusion and controversy, mostly for its determination of a “Houston school” and the involvement of New York-based critic and MFAH curator Barbara Rose. However, one of the objectives of the exhibition in hindsight is the exhibition of a local Houston identity, though one reflective of the multicultural nature of the city’s population. An emphasis in the exhibition curation, publications, and publicity, was the diversity not only of Houston’s painting practices, but of its practitioners. As such, this essay investigates the development and application of this narrative of inclusivity in Fresh Paint and compares it as a sort of successor exhibition to The Twenty-Fifth Annual. Revisiting past exhibitions that challenged or were confronted by pertinent issues on institutional representation, identity, and inclusivity provide a more cohesive perspective on how far we have come and how we can continue to approach these concepts.
Prior to discussing The Twenty-Fifth Annual and its role and implications on racial inclusion and integration at MFAH, some historical context relating to the museum, these annual exhibitions, and segregationist policies is necessary. MFAH was opened on April 12th, 1924 with James H. Chillman Jr. as the founding director.[2] In addition to maintaining a good rapport with the philanthropists of Houston who were the financial backbone of the institution, Chillman was tasked with building public interest and trust through the exhibitions and programs at the museum. Programs included adult and children’s art lessons; film screenings; lectures; music and theater performances; and school and private tours.[3] One of the most popular exhibitions programs was The Annual Exhibition of Works by Houston Artists. This juried competition was initiated by Chillman in 1925. Several awards were offered but the most prestigious award was the Museum Purchase Prize. This prize demonstrated the museum’s dedication to the local arts scene and grew the permanent collection.
MFAH was quickly elevated as a social and cultural center in Houston, though its interest and dedication to the public was, like other institutions in the American South, racially segregated. The museum’s opening day–or night, rather–for Black residents was Thursday, April 24th from 8pm to 10pm.[4] Thursday evenings continued to be the only allotted time for Black visitors, yet they were still encouraged by MFAH via Black-owned newspapers to “visit the art museum [and] visit it regularly.”[5] Segregated public transit and no legal parking for Blacks downtown further limited accessibility.
Other marginalized groups, such as Mexicans and Asians, suffered from the social and political buffers of segregation in Houston. These communities teetered on the White/Black color line of the Jim Crow South: they were classified as “White” by the state, but often did not receive the privileges associated with that determination. It is unknown if they were excluded from MFAH as well.
The Twenty-Fifth Annual Exhibition of Works by Houston Artists (March 12-26, 1950) was the silver anniversary of this competition. Chillman served as the exhibition curator and remarked in the exhibition booklet preface:
As the Museum itself can boast of an active history of but twenty-six years, it can be seen that its responsibility to the local creative artist was early recognized and continuously acknowledged.[6]
Each artist was permitted a maximum of four works for submission. The eligibility for entry was as follows:
All work entered must be the product of the artists who are residents of Houston and who have resided in Houston or in the incorporated towns immediately adjacent to its boundaries for at least one year. All work must be original and not shown before in Houston. No copies or student works are eligible.[7]
The Jury of Selection and Award consisted of three Texas artists and/or art educators: Robert Joy (Houston), Everett Spruce (Austin), and Raymond W. Witt (Kingsville).[8] They narrowed the entered 343 works by 148 local artists to 99 works by 62 artists. Among the selected works were three by John T. Biggers: The Cradle (1950), Cotton Choppers (undated), and Cotton Pickers (1947).
Biggers was a Black American artist who moved to Houston in 1949 following an invitation to develop an art department at the Texas Southern University for Negroes.[9] The selected works visualize—like many of his works at this time—the Black experience in the rural and segregated South. The inclusion of these works in The Twenty-Fifth Annual made Biggers the first local Black artist to be included in the competition.[10] The Cradle won the Museum Purchase Prize, making this the first work by a Black artist acquired by the museum. The exhibition guidelines made no explicit mentions of race, but it seemed that MFAH had anticipated the segregation of the museum public also applied to these exhibitions of local artists.
The Twenty-Fifth Annual’s position in the integration of MFAH largely revolves around the indirect acknowledgement of desegregation both by the museum and the press. It was quickly realized after the declaration of Biggers’ winning that he would be unable to attend the award ceremony due to the museum’s segregated policies. According to Biggers, Chillman called him at Texas Southern University and invited him to a private reception on a Thursday evening. Chillman promised him “if you will do this thing, I guarantee there will be no segregation at this museum next year.” Biggers agreed and said that the director was true to his word, and MFAH was desegregated the following year.[11] MFAH’s online description for The Cradle recalls this event differently: “Using this egregious injustice as an example, [Chillman] forced the board of trustees to fully open the Museum to People of Color.”[12] No additional documentation detailing the integration of MFAH has been found in the museum archives.
Publicity for The Twenty-Fifth Annual acknowledged Biggers and his winning in passing, though it also appears that the exhibition itself was not as reputable as other iterations. There is no photographic documentation for the show, but Patye Billfaldt in the Houston Post claims there was an “absence of creative conviction.” Based on the titles of works in the exhibition, it is assumed that the large show was a mix of still-lifes, landscapes, and regional takes of Modernism. Billfaldt states:
Arbitrarily it may be said that the evidence simply does not meet the standards anticipated for efforts of twenty-five years. … Looking around the galleries, one is impressed by the lack of creative conviction. The struggle with materials absorbs the artists’ energy. In an exhibition favoring the youthful aspirants this is a healthy direction. But without accent or aim, even a winning effort is a loss to the spectator.[13]
She mentions Biggers and his award with no further comments.
On March 26th—the closing day of the exhibition—Ann Cody of The Chronicle mentioned George Shackelford’s Nancy won of the Lillie T. Breaker Memorial Award, the exhibition’s popularity prize. She mentions that Biggers’ The Cradle was a runner-up.[14] Voting was conducted by visitors from March 12th to 19th. Interestingly, the exhibition booklet in the MFAH archives has “Popularity Ballots” written at the top of the cover page in pencil, with tally marks next to works counting votes. While there is no date for when these votes were tallied, The Cradle was shown to have forty-seven votes in comparison to Nancy with forty-one. It is speculative to assume that race may have contributed to the voting of visitors, but it is pertinent to include here.
The Chronicle did not mention Biggers winning the Purchase Prize until May 8th, when Ann Holmes covered the second annual arts festival at Texas Southern University. Holmes mentions a symposium held on campus, “Art and the Development of the Individual.” The panel included Biggers and other arts educators from Black schools, and Ruth Pershing Uhler of the Museum of Fine Arts Houston.[15] This may have been part of MFAH building a connection with Black arts institutions during its integration process.
The decision to integrate was ultimately the right call to make as an institution.
What is left to speculate on is the motivation to do so. As mentioned, both the board and public seemed surprised by the inclusion of a Black artist, as the identity of Houston art was centered around Whiteness. This surprise may have been exasperated with Biggers’ work being more “legibly” Black in its figural and narrative representations. Chillman perhaps took this as an opportunity to integrate the museum, with the inclusion of a Black artist and his artwork as an example of progress. It is also just as possible that the confrontation of the institution’s segregated practices was an embarrassment to be corrected. Whatever the case, Biggers had become the first (local) Black artist in MFAH—and he would remain the only one exhibited until 1975.
In the decades following The Twenty-Fifth Annual, MFAH had worked on building a national and international reputation. The exhibition and acquisition of works centered on this new institutional mission. Directors, curators, and collectors from prominent institutes on the East and West Coasts further emphasized the more prestigious atmosphere the museum was cultivating. At the same time, MFAH no longer claimed responsibility to the local art community as it once had. Exhibitions of local artists became rare, and those who were displayed in one- or two-man shows were almost always White men. Houston artists began accommodating this lack of recognition by organizing their own art centers. It became increasingly obvious that the Houston arts scene was blossoming, diversifying, and something worth celebrating. This would become an overarching narrative of Fresh Paint.
The lack of local recognition at MFAH, in addition to some blunders by previous directors, had “shook public confidence a bit” with the general audience and art scene in Houston.[16] Peter C. Marzio came on as director in 1982 and one of his principal objectives was to build a collection of Texas art, which had not been considered since Chillman’s administration.[17] This mission aligned with the perspectives of MFAH’s senior curator of contemporary art, Barbara Rose. Rose had considered a show of Houston’s best artists “ever since her first days at the museum” in 1981. She stated:
I wanted to do something really important. I wanted to show the people at the museum that they were living in a place that’s full of really good artists, and that they should know it. I got along well with Peter [Marzio], the show wasn’t going to cost anything, and I think he knew that if he didn’t let me do it, I was going to make a fuss.[18]
Rose invited Susie Kalil, a young local arts critic, to serve as co-curator for Fresh Paint: The Houston School, which began to develop in 1984. The ultimate objective of the exhibition was to narrate an art history in Houston with a focus on painting. This would identify both “pioneers” of the arts scene and emerging artists. Within this narrative of Houston art history, however, there was an emphasis on diversity. This diversity was found in the broad approaches to painting in Houston as well as the backgrounds of the artists involved. This paralleled the shifting social identity of the city.
Multiculturalism had begun to occupy the social and political consciousness of Houston. The post-war economy provoked unprecedented growth in the city with more employment opportunities and an expanding, and diversifying, urban population. In 1950, the recorded non-White population was 21.1%.[19] In 1980, this was at 34.8%.[20] The Black, Latino, East and Southeast Asian demographics grew substantially. The U.S. Census had also begun to specify race and ethnicity in the population, and the social and political self-determination of identity in the post-Civil Rights era contributed to more diverse statistics shown.
Race/Ethnicity | Population | Percentage |
Total* | 2,905,353 | 100% |
White | 1,894,518 | 65.2% |
Black | 522,868 | 17.9% |
Spanish Origin (Hispanic) | 423,428 | 14.5% |
Asian/Pacific Islander | 53,249 | 1.8% |
American Indian | 7,332 | 0.25% |
Other/Not Specified | 3,958 | 0.13% |
While Fresh Paint would eventually lean into its integrated roster, Rose’s initial choices for artists did not visualize the racial and ethnic diversity of Houston or its arts scene. She had focused on John Alexander and a tight circle of his colleagues and students.[21] Alexander was one of the few Houston artists who broke out of the local mold and received more national attention, and was a personal friend of Rose. This was too narrow a focus and an all-White cast save for Bert L. Long Jr. who was Black. According to Collision: The Contemporary Art Scene in Houston, 1972-1985:
Richard Stout, the only artist on the [MFAH] board of directors…and therefore a museum insider, believes it was Peter Marzio that encouraged Rose to take a broader view. Others think the pressure may have come from the city’s artists and from their gallery representatives.[22]
These are plausible motivators to diversify Fresh Paint, and it could have also been the multicultural reality of the arts scene and city. With integration of artists in mind, the narrative of Houston art history relied on diversity and a sense of individuality in a Houston (and Texan) collective identity. Rose would later claim that she was “‘fixated’ on getting Latino and black artists in the show, since they had always been proportionally underrepresented in Houston’s museums and galleries,” though this attitude seemed to appear after the redirections to integrate the exhibition mentioned above.[23]
Fresh Paint featured 54 works by 44 artists; only ten were artists of color. There were ten women in the show–with Margarita Rivera being the only woman of color–though the exhibition history at MFAH and in Houston seemed to favor White women artists almost as equally as their male counterparts. Black artists included: Paul Bettison, John T. Biggers, Bert L. Long Jr., Kermit Oliver, and Bert Samples. Long and Bettison were earlier additions to Fresh Paint due to their proximity to the midtown arts scene and Lawndale Annex. Biggers was rightfully included as one of Houston’s “pioneers,” yet he had not been exhibited in Houston in over fifteen years.[24] Biggers referred the curators to Oliver and Samples, who were former students of his at Texas Southern University and worked primarily in allegorical painting. The Latino artists included: Bert Leon Luna (Colombian), Antanacio Davila (Mexican), Ibsen Espada (Puerto Rican), Luis Garza (Mexican), and Margarita Rivera (Mexican). Luna and Davila were part of the Fine Arts Latin Association, which displayed Latino artists and connected them with each other and other art spaces. Luna referred Rose and Kalil to Garza and Rivera, who “scarcely had a chance to show their work anywhere.”[25] Espada, however, had done “the nearly impossible” for a Latino artist and “found a place for himself in Houston’s mainstream art community.”[26]
The integration of artists of color can at once be respected while also scrutinized. Rose and Kalil did include Black and Latino demographics as planned. The inclusion of Black artists could have focused solely on Biggers’s art department, but Bettison and Long showcased two Black artists working outside this bubble and in radically different painting practices. Oliver and Samples evinced the contributions of Biggers to local Black art, while their works also operated–visually and narratively–independent of their mentor’s. The same applied to the Latino artists, whose works ranged from Catholic imagery to abstract expressionism. However, a comment made in Collision regarding the search for Latino artists has racialized implications:
[Rose and Kalil] recognized the unique demographics of Houston, and though they were wary of what Rose called “phony shamanism” and the “Carlos Castenada syndrome” evident in some of the works by Houston’s artists, they were determined to seek out the best Latino painters the city had to offer.[27]
This “phony shamanism” seems to imply the figural and symbolic explorations of racial and cultural identity, often regarding Indigenous heritage, that was prevalent in Latino and Chicano art at this time. Such hesitations were not regarded to the White artists in Fresh Paint that drew from the Mexican cultural landscape in their practice, such as Dorothy Hood, Lucas Johnson and Earl Staley, whose inspiration south of the border lent them praise. Moments like these provide a nuanced yet comprehensive understanding of the integrated identity of Houston art in Fresh Paint.
While the argument on Fresh Paint revolves primarily on the development and reception of the show, the exhibition itself illuminates what narrative was curated and how effectively this was displayed. Fresh Paint was an enormous exhibition spread across two galleries–Cullinan Hall and Andrews Gallery and their adjoining hallways.[28] Cullinan Hall was the most populated with thirty-seven works and four freestanding display walls, with the colors being light grey, blue, or purple. All of the works feature bold contrasting color palettes, which seems to clash with the pastel colors of the walls. Works by artists of color are scattered throughout the gallery spaces. This may have been a conscious choice. At the same time, the curation may have followed affinities shared or subverted between works. It must also be noted that the selected artists of color did not all produce “legibly” Black or Latino art—as in overtly referencing or visualizing racialized figures and/or experiences. This seems to have aided in the integration of this narrative of Houston art history. Only tombstone wall labels were provided for each artwork, stressing the visual experience of the show.
Fresh Paint as an exhibition did integrate–however marginal among their peers–Black and Latino artists to demonstrate the diversity of the Houston arts scene. Although the topic of integration and diversity was textually absent from the exhibition, it was stressed in exhibition materials, publicity, and programming. Found frequently in materials and publicity is the following:
The confluence of Anglo, Hispanic, black and Native American cultures in Houston has created diversity, audacity, and a distinctly human touch. … Many of the works display a similar sensibility that can be directly tied to…the local color of a dynamic, vital, polyglot culture, rapidly becoming more cosmopolitan in character.[29]
Houston art being influenced by a multicultural social climate shapes the assertion of a regional school of artists. This use of multiculturalism and diversity to support the exhibition’s argument vastly differs from the hushed attitude of integration seen in The Twenty-Fifth Annual. Art critic Ann Holmes in a special edition issue of The Chronicle praised the emphasis on originality, freshness, and representation of Houston’s artists.[30] Eleven artist statements and portraits were included, showing a mixture of White, Black, Latino, male, and women artists. A similar mixture was featured with the half-hour Fresh Paint documentary on KUHT-TV. The documentary showed Biggers, Davila, Rivera, and Long interspersed among their White peers.[31] The exhibition catalogue featured essays by Rose and Kalil narrating an art history of Houston while integrating the contributions of artists of color (including those not in the exhibition) in this overview. Each artist is included with a longer artist statement; chronology of their career; solo and group exhibitions; and a selected bibliography.
MFAH organized numerous related events for Fresh Paint. Free gallery talks, tours, lectures, and symposiums were hosted. Two “Fresh Fresh Paint” children’s workshops were offered and taught by Margarita Rivera and Andy Feehan.[32] Antanacio Davilas served as a project consultant for the permanent student mural initiated at Scroggins Elementary School, a lower-income public school near the Union Pacific Englewood Railyard.[33] These events encourage a new perspective of MFAH as community-based and engaged with the public and arts scene. These actions seem to be an early iteration of outreach programs focused on marginalized communities that would take shape in later decades, demonstrating MFAH as “a place for all people.”[34]
The opening night of Fresh Paint on January 25th witnessed a “near record-breaking” attendance, with some estimates at 5,000.[35] Mayor Kathy Whitmire addressed the black-tie preview: “Our arts community has provided an upsurge of energy for the city.”[36] Whitmire presented Director Marzio with a framed proclamation for “Fresh Paint Day.” This appropriation of identity was not just restricted to the Greater Houston area, but also the uniqueness of Texas pride. A pull quote by Rose in The Chronicle’s special edition exemplifies this:
Ethnic and family pride is extremely significant to these artists: they are proud to be Texans, and to share a sense of independence that still characterizes the only American state ever to have been an independent republic.[37]
Such enthusiasm for the exhibition was short-lived by the public and critics. Rose had aimed for a European tour, but Fresh Paint only made it to the Museum of Modern Art’s PS1 in New York and the Oklahoma Art Center in Oklahoma.[38] The ultimate factor in the reception of the show was the public reception—or, perhaps, rejection—of Rose’s determination of a “Houston school.” Many viewed it as an ostentatious observation of local art. Local and national critics and visitors praised some artists, or the idea of a Houston show, but many commented on how the exhibition fell short of evincing a local school (Figure 3). Carol Everingham’s end-of-year review of Houston art happenings in the Post had placed Fresh Paint in both the best and worst lists.[39]
Integration of (local) artists of color into MFAH exhibitions and its permanent collection came as a trickle before a flow. When Fresh Paint finally dried, MFAH had purchased nine works by eight of the featured artists, including John Biggers and Kermit Oliver.[40] Exhibitions of Black artists became more frequent from the 1990s onward, correlating to the establishment of MFAH’s African American Art Advisory Association in 1993.[41] Three exhibitions of Latino or “Hispanic” art from Houston or the U.S. occurred in 1987, but no installation of Latino art would occur until the 2000s when the Latin American curatorial department was established. Works of contemporary Asian artists or an Asian arts department also did not appear at MFAH until the 2000s.[42] Contemporary art by Indigenous Americans have been seen in recent years.
The Twenty-Fifth Annual Exhibition of Works by Houston Artists and Fresh Paint: The Houston School both highlight crucial social and cultural moments in the city of Houston and MFAH as an institution. Although both exhibitions received mixed reviews, each demonstrated radical measures regarding integration and diversity within the determination and display of a local identity. In 1950, The Twenty-Fifth Annual had quietly applauded John T. Biggers as the leading example of Houston’s artistic prowess, identifying the possibility of a non-White identity in Houston in the museum. By 1985, Fresh Paint used the diversity of art practices and artists to support the assertion for a serious consideration of Houston art, making it a landmark exhibition in Houston art history and of racial representation and integration at MFAH. The exhibition and curation of racial diversity in the art world continues to be a prevalent issue in museums and galleries, and looking back allows for critical analyses with the clarity of hindsight as well as a moment to recognize how far some institutions have come.
[1] Wardlaw, Alvia J. “Metamorphosis: The Life and Art of John Biggers.” Essay. In The Art of John Biggers: View from the Upper Room, 16–75. Houston, TX: Museum of Fine Arts, in association with Harry N. Abrams, 1995. 40.
[2] Billings, Theo M. “The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston: A Social History.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston: A Social History. Thesis, University of Houston, 1994. 184.
[3] Advertisement. “Houston’s Museum of Fine Arts.” The Houston Chronicle. January 16, 1950: 20.
[4] Billings, “The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,” 197.
[5] Richardson, Clifton F. “The Houston Informer (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 6, No. 1, Ed. 1 Saturday, May 24, 1924.” The Portal to Texas History, October 31, 2014. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth523753/.
[6] The Twenty-Fifth Annual exhibition booklet, 1950. RG 5, Series 1, Box 7, Exhibition Files, December 1947-March 1950, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Archives.
[7] Exhibition guidelines for The Twenty-Fifth Annual, undated. RG 5, Series 1, Box 7, Exhibition Files, December 1947-March 1950, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Archives. Houston, TX.
[8] See footnote 6.
[9] Theisen, Olive Jensen. “Building in Houston and Texas Southern University, 1949-1957.” Essay. In A Life on Paper: The Drawings and Lithographs of John Thomas Biggers, 31–54. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 2006. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uh/detail.action?pq-origsite=primo&docID=315769. 31.
[10] Theisen, “Building in Houston,” 35.
[11] Ibid.
[12] The Cradle, “The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.” Collections, January 1, 1970. https://emuseum.mfah.org/objects/46469/the-cradle.
[13] Billfaldt, Patye. “Absence of ‘Creative Conviction’ in 25th Houston Artists’ Show.” Houston Post. March 12, 1950: 65.
[14] Cody, Ann. “Shackelford Winner Of Artist Award.” The Houston Chronicle. March 26, 1950: 90.
[15] Holmes, Ann. “TSU Fine Arts Group Begins 8-Day Festival.” The Houston Chronicle. May 8, 1950: 2.
[16] Gershon, Pete. “Marzio.” Essay. In Collision: The Contemporary Art Scene in Houston, 1972-1985 19, 19:357–61. Sara and John Lindsey Series in the Arts and Humanities. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 2018. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uh/detail.action?docID=5509153&query=collision%2520houston. 359.
[17] Gershon, “Marzio,” 360.
[18] Gershon, Pete. “Fresh Paint.” Essay. In Collision: The Contemporary Art Scene in Houston, 1972-1985 19, 19:362-374. 362.
[19] “General Characteristics - Texas.” IPUMS USA. Accessed May 2, 2025. 57. https://usa.ipums.org/usa/resources/voliii/pubdocs/1950/Population/Vol2/11027772v2p43ch2.pdf.
[20] “Characteristics of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics - Texas, Section 1 of 2.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed May 2, 2025. 59. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1980/volume-1/texas/1980a_txcs1-01.pdf.
[21] Gershon, “Fresh Paint,” 363.
[22] Ibid, 372-73.
[23] Few artists of color that were not Black or Latino were documented at this time in Houston, aside from Mel Chin—a Chinese Houstonian. He was not considered for the exhibition as his practice was not centered on painting. Gershon, Pete. “A Houston School.” Essay. In Collision: The Contemporary Art Scene in Houston, 1972-1985 19, 19:390-408. 395.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, 402.
[26] Ibid, 405.
[27] Ibid, 402.
[28] Exhibition floorplans, undated. RG 5, Series 1, Box 150, Folder 27. Exhibition Files, December 1984-January 1985, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Archives. Houston, TX.
[29] The mention of “Hispanic” and “Native American” cultures aligns with previous point argued on Latino “phony shamanism” and the White appropriation of the Mexican cultural landscape. Here, it appears to be embraced and reflected for both parties to continue a narrative of multicultural harmonization. Rose, Barbara, and Susie Kalil. “Preface.” Preface. In Fresh Paint: The Houston School, 7–8. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press, 1985. 7.
[30] Fresh Paint: The Houston School, The Houston Chronicle, 25 January 1985. RG 5, Series 1, Box 150, Folder 39. Exhibition Files, December 1984-January 1985, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Archives. Houston, TX.
[31] “Fresh Paint: The Houston School - University of Houston Libraries Audio/Video Repository.” University of Houston Libraries Audio Video Repository. Accessed May 2, 2025. https://av.lib.uh.edu/media_objects/9593tv20s.
[32] MFAH Bulletins, undated. RG 5, Series 1, Box 150, Folder 39. Exhibition Files, December 1984-January 1985, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Archives. Houston, TX.
[33] MFAH Bulletin, 1985. Box 36, Folder 9, Bert L. Long, Jr. Papers (2014-016), University of Houston Special Collections, University of Houston. Houston, TX.
[34] “A Place for All People” was also the title of Beth B. Schneider’s 1998 book on community outreach and education programs at MFAH. “MFAH Mission and Communities.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Accessed May 2, 2025. https://www.mfah.org/about/mission-communities.
[35] Gershon, Pete. “The Big Show.” Essay. In Collision: The Contemporary Art Scene in Houston, 1972-1985 19, 19:409-20. 413.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Fresh Paint: The Houston School, The Houston Chronicle, 25 January 1985. RG 5, Series 1, Box 150, Folder 39. Exhibition Files, December 1984-January 1985, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Archives. Houston, TX.
[38] Gershon, “The Big Show,” 417; 420.
[39] Ibid, 420.
[40] Gershon, Pete. “Epilogue.” In Collision: The Contemporary Art Scene in Houston, 1972-1985 19, 19:421-26. 421-22.
[41] “5A: African American Art Advisory Association.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Accessed May 2, 2025. https://www.mfah.org/patron-groups/african-american-art-advisory-association.
[42] “Exhibition Database.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Accessed May 2, 2025. https://www.mfah.org/research/archives/archives-exhibition-database.
Comments