Art in the Americas
Many Voices, Many VisionsWinter 2001
Latin American Art
From Inside OutMary Schneider EnrÃquez
 Eugencia Vargas Detalle, 1993 |
While researching the Geometric Abstraction exhibition that I am guest curating at the Harvard University Art Museums, I realized the extent to which the western perspective on 19th through 20th century Latin American art homogenizes the artistic achievements of individual nations. Moreover, I noted that the problem of how Latin American art is defined and received is as much at issue inside as outside the region. Although the artists who conceived of Geometric Abstraction in Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil achieved momentous change with their new visual languages, their accomplishments have gained relatively little attention beyond the surrounding region. Not surprisingly, each nation tends to focus upon its own cultural history, measuring its achievements against those of its neighbors. Hence, Mexico, Peru and Brazil project themselves as independent voices, not as the single artistic body, as the world has defined them.
 Lydia Pope Sin titulo, 1959 |
 Ofill Hechavarria Ahogado desahogado, 1994 |
Over the last ten years, in particular, the place of Latin American art within international art movements has been widely discussed. Art from Latin America, long deemed exotic for its unusually bold palette and startling subject matter, was first relegated to the margins of art history as the largely incomprehensible "other." Later it was embraced as warranting special interest because of these unusual qualities and received attention in dramatic museum exhibitions.
In the mid-1990's, increased globalization in the art world amplified the dialogue about Latin American art. Artists from Latin America became regular participants in the international exhibitions incorporating talents from throughout the world. This resulted in part from a renewed interest in the international biennials, the growth of the world's commercial art fairs and the emergence of prominent, international curators who focused upon Latin American artists, among other worldwide talents, in their high profile traveling exhibitions. Finally, the emboldened art market, resulting from economic prosperity, led collectors to buy the artists shown in these exhibitions, at the biennials, art fairs and then in the New York, London and Parisian galleries and museums. As a result, the profile of Latin American artists outside the region rose dramatically in the final years of the century. In many instances, these Latin American born, international art "stars" conceived visual statements without reference to their cultural heritage. Instead their art expressed the language of the avant garde and was indistinguishable in subject and medium from that of many international artists.
 Maria Izquierdo El gato sabio, 1943 |
 ">Juan Iribarren Sin titulo III, 1994 |
Simultaneously, over the last decades, a handful of historical exhibitions were mounted exploring the contribution of Latin American artists to world art movements. The Cubism of Diego Rivera at the University of California, Santa Barbara and The School of the South and Its Legacy, exploring the constructivism of Joaquin Torres-Garcia, at the University of Texas, Austin, are two-of many-shows that touched upon the role these artists played in the international vanguard.
Although Latin American art has recently gained exposure and recognition, issues persist surrounding the presentation and reception of art from this region. Guy Brett, one of the most respected art historians and curators in the field, summarized the nature of these enduring problems,"The centres of power always assumed the right to define and explain the rest of the world. The West assumes, consciously or unconsciously, it is 'the measure of all things.'...These assumptions lead to an unresolvable dilemma when it comes to the presentation of art by Latin Americans?. If these presentations stress cultural similarity, they are positive in the sense that they acknowledge that Latin America is part of the mainstream of modern culture, but raise the danger of assimilating the work to a bland 'international art' which makes nothing of the context from which the art comes, and especially the fundamental gap between the living standards of the First and Third worlds. If on the other hand, the presentation stresses difference, it acknowledges that Latin America has a history, cultures, and present conditions different from those of Europe, but raises the danger of defining those differences in telluric, folkloric, essentialist terms. Both sets of alternatives lead inevitably to separate, restrictive categories for the artists?. No European artists are asked that their work give proof of their 'European identity,' but this is always the first thing expected of a Latin American. This restrictive categorization is so powerful, and the assumption of Eurocentricity so implacable, that it often hardly matters if the response of the West is to praise or condemn," Brett observes in his essay "Border Crossings," inTranscontinental: An Investigation of Reality, Nine Latin American Artists, (London: Verso).
 Adriana Varejáo Azulejaria 'De Tapete em Carne Viva', 1959 |
 Jac Leirner Blue Phase |
Although the reception afforded Latin American artists has improved since Brett wrote this essay in 1990 and they no longer must prove their roots in visual terms, the Western view of art from the region remains largely fixed upon the visual language of bold or fantastic realism practiced by Mexican painter Frida Kahlo or Colombian artist Fernando Botero. This continues despite the prominence today of Latin American-born artists whose work lacks Latin American references, such as Gabriel Orozco from Mexico, Guillermo Kuitca from Argentina, Alfredo Jaar from Chile and Ernesto Neto from Brazil, among many others. Consequently, this is one reason among many, for the presentation of exhibitions such as the Harvard University Art Museum's Geometric Abstraction show. The abstract visual languages explored in this exhibition, shatter the commonly held U.S./European perspective on Latin American art.
An example of the Mexican emphasis given Latin American art in the United States, was demonstrated in a recent New York Times article lauding the exhibited collection of Jacques Gelman, who is attributed with an "unerring artistic sensibility." The January 1 article "Two with Unerring Eyes for Art's Visionaries," mentions Gelman's "unerring eye," a statement substantiated by the fact that he bought the work of "?some of the finest artists Latin America has ever produced, among them Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, Josée Clemente Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros and Rufino Tamayo?." All are from Mexico and the article implies first, that Mexican artists top the list of the regions most talented and second, because all of these artists explored figuration, that this is the visual language of the Americas. Although these implications were, perhaps, not intended by author Stephen Kinzer, given the relatively few articles on Latin American art and collections in this prominent newspaper, the average reader has few visual references with which to contrast the author's statements.
Having touched upon the international reception of Latin American art, I would also like to comment on the region's perspective on its art history, an issue largely overlooked by the Western approach to art from Latin America. Vast differences in visual languages and traditions exist in the art of Latin American countries. To speak of the visual culture from the region as a unified body, in which Chilean, Guatemalan or Brazilian art combined presents a varied, but single voice, ignores the multiplicity of approaches existing between the cultures of each nation. Similarities are evident based on historical influences but differences abound. We would not dare group 20th century European art under one heading, seamlessly combining Italian and German art as a single expression, without recognizing the history and tradition of each country. The same approach must be taken with art from Latin America.
During the twentieth century, in particular, art movements varied dramatically between Latin American countries based in large part on the artist's level of education, affluence and international exposure, both from travel abroad and from contact with European artists in the Americas. Mexico, for example, pursued a national, social-realist movement supported by the national government beginning in the 1920's. Artists were invited, under the auspices of the newly formed Ministry of Education to paint murals upon the walls of public buildings presenting easily readable images to explain the tragedies and triumphs of the Mexican Revolution. This engaging political propaganda educated a largely illiterate public to the successes brought by the bloody civil war, while celebrating the visual arts and the muralist painters.
Not long after, beginning in the 1940''s, artists in Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil propounded visual languages dramatically different from the readily legible realism employed in Mexico. Independently and in fact, at odds with the Argentine government, groups of artists, writers and poets organized a wholly abstract means of expression. They began by publishing a journal of the arts called Arturo, then splintered into several groups, each professing specific aims in written manifestoes. Poetry, sculptures, paintings and performance pieces were produced by this generation of artists, employing a non-figurative language.
Similarly, by the early 1950's, artists in Venezuela and Brazil were creatinged abstract expressions on canvas and in three-dimensional form. In both countries, the talents who lead these new visual directions had spent time studying, painting and/or sculpting in Europe and returned to their countries armed with the technical tools and determination to explore further these modern means of expression. Their hunger to create was encouraged upon their return home. Both nations underwent a period of economic prosperity in the 1950's. Especially in Venezuela, prosperity fueled the explosion of public commissions. Painting, wall reliefs and sculptures that imparted a sense of movement and the modern pace of life, dotted public spaces in Caracas, triumphantly symbolizing Venezuela's modern state.
In Brazil, concrete abstract sculptures and paintings also figured in the public environment, but were primarily embodied in the newly created capital city, Brasilia. This planned city built of cooly abstract architecture opened in 1960, a testament to their economic and cultural progress.
During the 1960'ssixties, as Brazil's environment continued to change, the extraordinarily progressive, neo-concrete movement arose propelled by artists who ruptured the definition of art. Their artistic expressions evolved from pieces of organic form and moving parts to audience participatory expressions that no longer privileged an untouchable, unique art object, but encouraged the movement and actions of the viewer in a multi-sensory experience. No longer would the viewers observe a static piece displayed in a museum setting; instead the audience became integral participants in the life of Lygia Clark and Helio Oiticica's expressions, wrapping each other in netting or entangling their limbs in a labyrinth of elastic bands.
These brief art history examples illustrate the fact that distinctive visual expressions evolved from nation to nation. To group them summarily, dilutes and belittles their particular qualities and ignores the diverse contexts from which they evolved.
Having said this, I must add that, having spent seventeen years extolling the achievements of 20th century Latin American art, I, too, have summarized the art of the region in my efforts to broaden its audience. My graduate education in Latin American art at Harvard University was "Mexi-centric,"as is the case for many who study the region from the United States, and I have found myself comparing the art of other nations to Mexican visual trends. After all, Mexico's art history is better known in the U.S. than that of most Latin American countries, as is Mexican culture in general, due to proximity, the growing immigrant population and to the number of scholars and exhibitions in the field active in North American institutions.
Moreover, although I lived in Mexico nearly ten years, I learned relatively little while there about modern and contemporary art from the rest of Latin America. What I absorbed focused primarily upon artists who moved to Mexico. These artists included Cuban talents Jose Bedia and Sandra Ramos who immigrated in the late 1980's, and a handful of South Americans, such as Chileans Eugenia Vargas and Carlos Arias, who gained considerable attention through exhibitions in Mexican museums and galleries. The art historians, curators and artists with whom I worked closely in Mexico tended to focus more on Mexican, U.S. and European art than on the art of Peru, Argentina and Colombia, for example. But until the mid 1990's and the internationalization of the art world, and with it the appearance of traveling international curators, many of whom worked in Mexico, the country's museums and galleries focused mostly upon local talents. Given the Mexican gGovernment's steadfast support of the nation's art institutions, despite economic downturns, the emphasis on national art is expected.
Within Latin America, although an awareness of the cultural accomplishments throughout the area exists, a national and at best, regional emphasis predominates. A recent trip to Venezuela while researching the Geometric Abstraction exhibition confirmed my thought. Historically, the vast distances separating artistic capitals before the advent of modern communication systems and particularly, the Internet, precluded the fluid interchange of artists and ideas. But, most important, just as each nation in Latin America focuses upon its economic development, comparing their progress to others in the region, the same competitive, nationalist pride infuses each country's cultural achievements. Even in today's globalized world with unprecedented exposure to the ideas and art of the region, through cyberspace and biennials in Sao Paulo and Havana, the artistic traditions of Chile or Venezuela are focused upon chiefly within their borders.
Overall, the western art establishment has chosen to overlook national differences in its move to include Latin America in the world scene. Twentieth century Latin art has been embraced for its bold and lively means and themes, hence it remains largely unknown, save for a few dominant expressions. Now that it has achieved a place within the international establishment, art from Latin America requires the rigorous academic scrutiny of western universities and museums to address the complexities of its many visual languages and cultures.
Mary Schneider Enrîiquez, Harvard AB ' 81, MA ' 87 in fine arts, is guest curator of the current exhibition, "Geometric Abstraction:Latin American Art from the Patricia Phelps de Cisneros Collection" at the Harvard University Art Museums. In addition to this exhibition, she has curated shows with the Smithsonian and the Americas Society focusing on Latin American art. She is also an art critic who contributes frequently to ARTnews and Art Nexus Magazines. She serves as an Advisory Committee Member of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.