IV.2.9 DIGITAL ARCHIVE 1061782
In her essay “Why a Latin American Art?”, Mexican art historian Rita Eder (born 1943) offers her view on the question at the core of this section, and, in particular, she examines one of its pivotal aspects: the establishment of theoretical frameworks and critical approaches for interpreting art made in the Americas. From Eder’s perspective, the persistence of a comparative methodology that diminishes Latin American art by considering it vis-à-vis unattainable European or North American standards, parameters, or models is not productive. Such a comparative anti-methodology overlooks the new sociology of Latin American art. [FOR OTHER SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXTS, SEE DOCUMENTS IV.2.3, IV.2.4, AND V.2.6]. Eder proposes that theory must be developed to address the complexities suggested by interdisciplinary collectives such as Tucumán Arde (in Argentina) or the T.I.P., Taller de Investigación Plástica (Workshop for Visual Arts Research), which put into practice the unrealized utopian ideals of the Mexican muralists. The text was originally published in English [Rita Eder, “Why a Latin American Art?”, Southern California Art Magazine (Los Angeles), no. 25 (December 1979): 62–65].
THE CONCEPT OF A LATIN AMERICAN CULTURE IS—by no means of recent origin. Since the beginning of this century thinkers such as the Uruguayan José Enrique Rodó (Ariel, 1900) and a little later the Mexican José Vasconcelos (The Cosmic Race, 1925), [SEE DOCUMENTS II.2.1 AND IV.1.2] to name only two examples, have been developing a school of thought in connection with the cultural generalities unifying Spanish and Portuguese America. [Painters] José Clemente Orozco and Joaquín Torres-García, among others, made it their particular business to transplant this question into the field of the visual arts.
The most recent discussions on this theme were not invented yesterday; nor were they gestated inside a North American university (Austin, Texas), which held a symposium on Latin American art in 1975. Since then there have been some ten meetings from Mexico City to Buenos Aires, by way of Caracas and São Paulo. No matter how possible it may be to criticize these events (given that in some cases the organizer take advantage and use them as displays of power), they have nevertheless fulfilled the function of posing questions and provoking new responses. This renewed introspection has focused discussion on the need to formulate adequate tools to permit a more complete analysis of this thing we call “Latin American art.”
Skeptics affirm that the idea “Latin American art” is an abstraction since they think (simplistically) that it has scarcely been possible to verify the constants of artistic creation in twenty-one countries.
Apart from the fact that one can indeed speak of generalizing tendencies in Latin America, such as the proneness to integrate the arts or the presence of a mythic substratum in painting, etcetera, I think that such a focus (although desirable, of course) is not the fundamental pillar on which this Latin Americanism in art can legitimately rest. It is as useful to point out similarities, as it is to emphasize differences. The essential thing is to have created one’s own frame of reference, not only for art theorists, but also for the artists themselves. For a long time now, the influence of Paris and New York has been of use in understanding, placing, scorning or applauding our countries’ artistic production. Although this situation of course persists (one has only to look at the enormous list of painters from Latin America who live in these two great capitals), one can no longer ignore the fact that Latin Americans are successfully performing closer to artistic production.
The first problem that has become apparent in the study of art in Latin America is the constant reference to and comparison with European styles. The result of this (when the characteristics of the compared objects do not identically correspond) is that the Latin American product is labeled lesser, provincial, pseudo, etcetera. In twentieth-century painting, for example, the ongoing comparative fluctuation continues: with cubism, surrealism, informalism, constructivism, and many more. Just occasionally one glimpses the possibility that a relatively independent movement like [Mexican] muralism or Argentine-Venezuelan kinetic art might be classified as uniquely Latin American. This attitude arises out of considering originality (along with the possibility of surpassing the European model or not) as the only consideration. This way of looking at art originates in a methodology—or perhaps one should say anti-methodology—whose point of departure is the theory of styles, and which tends to overlook the social history that provokes its particular adaptation.
It can be said that there has been a theoretic renewal since the time when changes took place in art itself. Such changes were marked by the transference of emphasis away from the object towards the productive processes, and its insertion into society (the spaces which it occupies and the form in which it affects the public) these repercussions are peculiar strategies by Latin American artists, and an increased interdisciplinary perspective on the part of students of art. Substituting new methods of participation for the work of art itself has increased art’s public in an unexpected way. Occupying open spaces and working inside unionized organizations, for example, is only one of the different functions of art, and throws into relief its democratic relationship with sectors that are unlike the usual spectators of the arts. It may be true that the events of 1968 in France stimulated this method of making art. Nevertheless, groups of Latin American artists who refuse simply to make objects have proliferated, developing ideas about the relationship between a community of artists, or producers of art, on the one hand, and society on the other. On this point, one could cite a number of examples ranging from the Argentine experience Tucumán arde [Tucumán is burning],1 of a political nature, to the activities of the T.I.P., Taller de Investigación Plástica [The Visual Arts’ Research Workshop].2
The T.I.P., anchored in the prestigious tradition of muralism, aspires to put into practice what Orozco, [Diego] Rivera and [David Alfaro] Siqueiros only expounded as theory: Public Art (that is, art not only for everyone but also by everyone), where the spectator does not remain as the eternal watcher or “voyeur,” but rather joins with the artist to produce images about his immediate problems. In this respect, there is a bold emphasis, given the social problems of Latin America, on considering art as a proper instrument for criticism and change. There are numerous examples of artists who are interested in a kind of art that modifies the immediate conduct of individuals and institutions. This, accompanied by a major development in the sociology of art, will result in a new theory of artistic production that will respond to Latin America’s specific process.
1
In August–November 1968, a collective comprising Argentinean artists, theoreticians, and political activists gathered to tackle a specific social problem or, rather, the official denial of the severely depressed economic conditions of the sugar mill workers living in Tucumán, in northern Argentina. In an effort to bring attention to the devastating closing of the mills, the collective employed various strategies—many of them demonstrating an appreciation for the merging of art and the mass media—including, on-site research, statistics, photo documentation, film, posters, interviews, and press conferences. The group ultimately held an exhibition, Tucumán Ardé, in Rosario and Buenos Aires, cities under unionized support of the CGT (the General Labor Confederation of Argentina).—Ed.
2
In 1976, José Luis González Soto organized the Taller de Investigación Plástica (T.I.P.) in order to foster new methods and art practices to address and express the collective goals of the community. The T.I.P. focuses on both interior and exterior art practices, with an emphasis on the visual arts’ integration with the architectural and urban environment. As time went by, several of the group’s performances received attention from art critics such as Ida Rodríguez Prampolini, Raquel Tibol, Néstor García-Canclini, Shifra M. Goldman, Bruce Campbell, as well as the author of this paper.—Ed.