Page - 92 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 07/02

92 | Héctor M. Varela Rios www.jrfm.eu 2021, 7/2, 87–106 where between (conscious or unconscious) understanding and misunder- standing depending on the “positions” of both producer and receiver. Indeed, Hall hypothesizes that message and its meaning can be constructed from one of three positions: the “dominant-hegemonic”, which I would here call the co- lonial; the “negotiated”, which I would call colonialized; and the “opposition- al”, which I would call decolonial, which according to Hall “detotalizes the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework of reference”.13 This “alternative framework” is lo coti- diano, which “retotalizes” El Velorio’s normative meaning through its decolo- nial, that is, “oppositional” force. Moreover, El Velorio was painted by a Puerto Rican, its subject matter is a Latinx funerary ritual, and in this article its receiver/decoder is Puerto Rican – the painting is thus thrice colonialized.14 Because of this dense coloniality, El Velorio necessitates strong “opposition”, one that questions Oller’s position and nuances his intended message by applying a lo cotidiano focus. To do that, I will analyze El Velorio in three in- terrelated steps: description, Oller’s interpretation and my critical (re-)inter- pretation of the bakiné, and my own signification of the painting, concluding with the theological constructive insights that emerge from this process.15 The Painter and the Painting: Description Oller was born in Puerto Rico in the first half of the 19th century. Puerto Rico, located in the Caribbean Sea, was then a colony of Spain and has been a territory of the United States since 1898. Oller started training as a painter on the island at a young age but later refined his studies in Paris. Arriving 13 Hall 1993, 101–103. In my view, previous scholarship on El Velorio vacillates between the “domi nant-hegemonic” (e. g., Benítez 1983; Delgado 1998) and the “negotiated” (e. g., Mar- torell/Hurley 2010) because their “decoding” is too closely aligned with Oller’s “encoding”. 14 The methodological implications of being both colonialized beholder and decolonializing agent were astutely raised by one reviewer. As they pointed out, this issue might necessitate its own essay! The possibilities and pitfalls of decolonializing are discussed at length by decolonial thinkers (cf. Mendieta 2012), especially considering prevailing colonialism on top of colonial- ity. In my case, as a Puerto Rican studying Puerto Rico, I must presume a “phenomenological bracketing” of my coloniality while doing decolonial work. In the end, however, I would say that liberative hope is of the essence of any decolonializing, and there it encounters theology. 15 Methods in material culture studies are numerous and diverse. One excellent methodology and four-step method foundational to my own work as theologian is in Prown 1982. In my second step, I present El Velorio’s normative interpretation and my critical reinterpreta- tion, which then leads to “alternative” decolonial signification.