Jane Livingston and John Beardsley reflect on the process of organizing the exhibition Hispanic Art in the United States: Thirty Contemporary Painters and Sculptors, and they respond to the criticism generated in response to it. They begin by acknowledging the limits of what a given exhibition can represent, and by admitting that complete curatorial objectivity is impossible. Describing their research process, they maintain that they tried to keep preconceived notions about style at bay while seeking out works to include in the exhibition. They explain their logic in focusing on contemporary works, on painting and sculpture, and on showing a limited number of artists. They acknowledge the importance of politics in Hispanic art, but defend their decision to emphasize the “subjective and private.” Livingston and Beardsley admit to seeking some kind of visual “coherence,” such as recurrent themes like images of the Madonna, arguing that this was a way to help guide viewers through the show. In defending their exhibition, they note that the quality and contemporary being of the art was universally acknowledged. The complaints from the Hispanic community, they argue, are essentially old ones, mainly focused on the lack of political content in the exhibition, their use of the term “Hispanic,” and the predominance of works that present “primitivistic” ideas about Hispanic ethnicity. In their defense, they point to the presence of political content that is more subtle in the show. They admit that their choice to introduce the works in the exhibition by juxtaposing the self-taught Mexican artist Martín Ramírez with that of the formally educated Corpus Christi-based Jesús Bautista Moroles was ill-conceived. But, they end by reminding readers of the “dramatically increased public awareness” of the high quality of Hispanic art their exhibition achieved.