Soul

“If I love you, I have to make you conscious of the things you don’t see.”

James Baldwin’s quote about the artist’s role in society is emblazoned on billboards across Los Angeles this winter. Created by artist Patrick Martinez, the purpose of the signage is two-fold: to promote Frieze Los Angeles and, in the case of neon signs at the art fair’s entrance, to stand as a discrete work of art on its own.

Martinez, an East Los Angeles-based artist, has long translated protest language into storefront-style neon, a strategy he now extends into a broader campaign tied to Frieze, which runs Feb. 26 through March 1 at the Santa Monica Airport and features more than 100 galleries.

This year, however, some of the fair’s most compelling work may be happening outside the tent. Frieze Projects’ “Body & Soul” features eight installations staged across Santa Monica’s Airport Park and beyond. The initiative is intended, organizers say, to broaden the fair’s reach beyond its art world audience — positioning Frieze as a civic platform rather than a purely commercial event.

In addition to Martinez’s creations, “Body & Soul” brings together site-specific works including Amanda Ross-Ho’s durational performance rolling a 16-foot inflatable Earth around the perimeter of a nearby soccer field; Cosmas & Damian Brown’s interactive fountain installation incorporating ceramic heads, incense and water; and Shana Hoehn’s first large-scale public sculpture, fabricated from a fallen tree sourced through Santa Monica’s Urban Forest program. Off campus, Kelly Wall extends the program to a former Westwood Village newsstand, where glass “magazines” will be displayed — 136 in all, priced at $300, with 15 given away.

Martinez’s billboards bearing 2024’s “If I Love You (James Baldwin)” serve as the most highly visible part of the fair’s public outreach. His neon installations respond to ICE raids and immigrant rights, placing protest at the literal threshold of one of Los Angeles’ most visible art events.

L.A. artist Patrick Martinez’s work is featured on billboards around the city, as well as at the entrance to Frieze Los Angeles.

(David Butow / For The Times)

The public art program acts as “a way that we can bring in people who may not be just the ticket goers or the VIP,” said Christine Messineo, Frieze’s director of Americas.

It also serves to amplify the city’s cultural temperature.

“Our job is to represent what’s happening in our community,” Messineo said, adding that immigration and social impact are not anomalies at the fair but part of its foundation.

Some of Martinez’s neon entrance signs — including “Abolish ICE” (2018), “No Body Is Illegal” (2021) and “Then They Came for Me 2” (2025) — predate the current political moment. Instead, they emerge from years of observation and protest.

The artist credits Messineo with approaching him last summer to utilize what he calls his “urgent warning signs” as the face of the fair. Demonstrators also carried signs bearing Martinez’s imagery last June during protests against ongoing federal immigration crackdowns in downtown Los Angeles.

Those events, Martinez says, are not experienced evenly across the city — particularly by the well-heeled audience that attends Frieze and spends $85 to $106 for weekend general admission tickets.

Patrick Martinez, “If I Love You (James Baldwin),” 2024.

(artwork Patrick Martinez / photo Paul Salveson)

Martinez wants his signs to unsettle viewers who are insulated from the city’s unrest.

“The Westside people aren’t even going to see any of that, right? So it’s bringing that kind of mindfulness to that space.”

“It felt prescient then,” Messineo said of engaging Martinez last year, “and I think even more so now.”

Frieze has integrated public art into its Los Angeles fair since its 2019 debut. But the works in “Body & Soul,” produced with the nonprofit Art Production Fund, lean into the particular conditions of public space.

The exhibition brings together Los Angeles artists exploring ideas of memory, community and collective experience — often in quieter ways than Martinez’s overt messaging.

Additional participants include Dan John Anderson, Polly Borland and Kohshin Finley.

Casey Fremont, Art Production Fund’s executive director, said most of the works are newly commissioned.

The program is designed to prioritize innovation over sales. “It isn’t transactional. It’s really just about experimenting and giving the public the opportunity to experience art like they’ve never experienced before.”

Artists scale up — and slow down

“Body & Soul” marks several participants’ first ventures into public work, including Hollywood artist Finley, whose “The Piano Player” will be installed near the corner of Airport Avenue and Donald Douglas Loop. Finley’s piece arranges ceramic vessels inside shadow-box shelving that the artist describes as containers for memory — some “you love to take out and peek into,” others that “should just stay shut forever.”

Kohshin Finley’s “The Piano Player” arranges ceramic vessels inside shadow-box shelving that the artist describes as containers for memory.

(Micaiah Carter)

The title references the film “Casablanca,” and its piano player, Sam, whose music stirs up memories of the central love story.

Finley said the public setting creates an unusually direct encounter as he, like many of his fellow artists, will be standing with his work.

“A lot of people have never seen a living artist,” he said.

Ross-Ho takes visibility even further with her inflatable soccer ball Earth, which weighs 78 pounds. The familiar “blue marble” image will no doubt draw spectators at the Airport Park Soccer Field outside the Frieze tent.

Amanda Ross-Ho is creating a durational performance on a soccer field by Frieze Los Angeles.

(Jennelle Fong for ILY2)

Ross-Ho’s performance, “Untitled Orbit (MANUAL MODE),” functions as an endurance test that is a response to what she calls “the temporal container of the art fair” — and to the pressures of contemporary life.

“Gesture and duration are the ways that I could achieve scale rather than something that was materially constrained like a giant sculpture,” she said.

Designing for gathering

Brown’s installation, “Fountain: Sources of Light,” invites guests to congregate. Positioned between the Airport Park playground and dog park, it combines running water, ceramic vessels, incense and sound.

“I really wanted to make a fountain because I thought that [it’s] something that … people tend to gravitate to,” he said.

The work will incorporate metal plates and bowls created by participants in the youth workshop Art Sundae, taking place Feb. 28 at Airport Park.

Near Brown’s fountain, Echo Park artist Hoehn will present “Deadfall,” a massive fallen fig tree embedded with carved cheerleader legs and skirts — imagery drawn from her Texas upbringing.

Shana Hoehn with one of her carved wooden sculptures.

(Josh Cohen)

“I’ve been working with cheerleading iconography for the past few years,” she said, linking the imagery to what she calls an omnipresent football culture layered with “American patriotism and militaristic qualities.”

Hoehn acknowledged that the fair’s four-day window and limited nearby parking may keep the audience closer to fair-goers than the broader public the program aims to reach.

Beyond the airport fence

A few miles away in Westwood Village, Mar Vista artist Wall will extend the program beyond the airport campus with “Everything Must Go,” installed at a defunct newsstand and on view from 5:48 p.m. (sunset) to 8 p.m. during the fair.

Where magazines and newspapers once were, glass stand-ins bearing skyline imagery will occupy illuminated lightbox shelves. As the glass “magazines” are removed, glowing silhouettes mark their absence.

Kelly Wall, ‘Everything Must Go’.

(Kelly Wall)

Wall’s related project will appear on the Frieze campus with found newspaper boxes transformed into lightbox displays for her glass publication.

“In things coming to an end, there is no real end … there’s transformation,” she said. “How you might see [the piece] may differ depending on different times — or where you’re personally at in your life.”

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”