VI.1.8 DIGITAL ARCHIVE 1103020
In this essay from 2004, Mexico City-based Argentinean cultural studies theoretician and anthropologist Néstor García Canclini (born 1939) traces the decline of the concept of “Latin America” through an examination of three twentieth-century manifestations of Latin Americanism. The first of the moments he highlights emerged in the 1960s as a result of the widening and facilitating of communication between the region’s peripheries and the mainstream. At a time when many Latin American artists connected with the global market and international patronage circuits, as well as with each other, a yearning for a transcendental future surfaced for the first time. Coup d’états and military conflicts throughout that decade, however, stifled this utopian dream and the potential for its resulting artistic innovations and interconnections. The second manifestation which involved the art production following the Dirty Wars of the 1970s (most notably in Argentina, 1976–1983) featured “memory” as its main tenet and oscillated between two opposing genres: testimony and farce. The third and current period began as soon as the region returned to democracy in the mid-1980s. García Canclini also reflects that during long decades when disenchantment with the past and lack of faith in the future were pervasive, Latin American artists channeled a broad, societal concern for “the instant” and for “velocity,” fostering both a culture and an aesthetic of the “here today-gone tomorrow.” The author is one of the most influential postmodern thinkers in Latin America, and he has been internationally recognized for his anthropological readings on hybridity [See Culturas híbridas: Estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad (Mexico City: Conaculta/Grijalbo, 1989), available in English as Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995)]. Translated by Patricia Legarreta, this text was taken from its original publication [Néstor García Canclini, “Aesthetic Moments of Latin Americanism,” Radical History Review (New York University/published by Duke University Press), no. 89 (Spring 2004), 13–24].
I CAN IMAGINE AN EXPLORATION OF THE PAST in which we are able to compare three ways in which arts are related to social time. In the 1960s, art worked as a herald of utopia, trying to include in the present a future that seemed feasible. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was a memory of the defeat—seeing to it that the future that could never be would continue to have a place in the present, albeit by evoking the dead and the losses, the exiles and the hopelessness. Since the 1990s, a large number of artists speak of the instant: instead of works that portray long-term possible or historic scenes from history or long-term possibilities, they put forward installations and performances to be seen right now.
By taking up the issue of aesthetic moments, I am not adopting the latter perspective. Inasmuch as I am suggesting a rethinking of “the Latin American” or “Latin Americanism” as it relates to three different situations of the last forty years, I am interested in trying to understand a certain amount of time. However, I am not able to find any conception of Latin American history, or of the ways in which the arts are situated in each moment, that allows one to conceive them as stages or periods, part of a larger evolutionary or involutionary logic. Certainly, there are other keys to understand what happened in the arts and what is now happening in the arts. Here I offer a reading of three moments that become less and less enigmatic to me when I explore their relationship with the present.
What I attempt to understand is how art has participated in the development of three styles of Latin Americanism. I have chosen the 1960s as the first moment because at that time, the issue of what was Latin America was reformulated from the internationalizing projects and the vanguards that redesigned artistic and literary fields. “Foundational functions” had existed since the nineteenth century in literature, according to Doris Sommer, where readers learned to compare their countries to the others on the continent.1 During the first half of the twentieth century, Antonio Berni, Diego Rivera, and Joaquín Torres García, among many others, experimented with how to implement the formal elements of cubism, futurism, and abstraction to create a new iconic body of Latin American symbols. In Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries, the renewal of cultural languages was associated with economic modernization or political battles, and with the growth of popular voices. However, only in the middle of the twentieth century were conditions created to allow an alliance between artistic innovation and the internationalization of culture. Industrialization and urban expansion created the basis for this step, which together with advances in high school and college education extended the audiences for arts and literature and made the populations’ tastes more sophisticated. New means of communication increasingly and simultaneously connected the periphery societies with each other and with the metropolis.
Various utopias found institutions and other circuits to spread their message in those years. The vanguard artists and critics were sponsored by foundations like the [Francisco] Matarazzo in Brazil, which financed the Bienal in São Paulo, and by the [Torcuato] Di Tella enterprise, which backed the Art Institute in Buenos Aires. Weekly journals sprang up promoting developmental-ist imaginary and more cosmopolitan consumer habits. In Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela museums of modern art and networks of galleries were created and connected to the international market. On the one hand, various metropolitan organizations (the Pan-American Union, the Organization of American States, the International Council of MoMA [Museum of Modern Art], and assorted transnational corporations) supported modernizing programs and offered international awards, grants, and exhibitions, especially for those who experimented with alternatives to social realism. On the other hand, those who criticized the de-politicization of exhibitions and museums for their sole interest in vanguard formalism found in the unionist effervescence and in the new social movements—as well as in institutions like Casa de las Américas [in Cuba]—a broadened sociopolitical and international horizon that encouraged their proposals.
After examining the manifestos and actions of the vanguards of that time [in Argentina], Andrea Giunta concludes that artists had the conviction that “anything was possible.”2 I would add that, with different perspectives, those who were integrated by philanthropy, as well as those who were rebellious militants, painted, wrote, and filmed as if time belonged to them. Those whose ambition was to leave the domestic workshops and galleries for New York, or to go out onto the streets of their own cities, felt they were chasing after a transcendental future. In a more extensive forum, we would be remiss not to explore all of the political and aesthetic differences between each of these artists, but here I am more interested in pointing out that hundreds of Argentines, Brazilians, Colombians, and Venezuelans worked at ease in the belief that their experiences would become part of a broader and brighter future. Some aspired to be recognized in the capital cities of the artistic market; Latin Americanists rejected the “lesser” or “marginal” space that the metropolises had attributed to them in the history of modern art, and they searched for unique and renovating images.
These tendencies did not always oppose one another. Sometimes, the same artists would spend years in Paris, then in New York, and later they would go to Havana and join in solidarity with the insurrectionist movements of their countries. With no pretensions of summarizing the diversity of the artistic movements of this moment, or in the two that follow, I would like to highlight the utopian sense, or at least the prospective utopian sense, within the arts of that moment. It is not easy to use these terms in a purely positive manner; the exaltation of the revolutionary promises often intermingled with a Manichaean blindness toward censorship or intellectual and aesthetic simplicities that some leftist groups imposed on the present.
It is necessary to investigate—as a Mexican artist used to tell me—the moment in which those artists decided to return home and what they confronted. At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, they returned to see the combined frustration of the aesthetic and political vanguards, which eventually brought an end to their weak cooperation. After the 1964 coup d’état in Brazil, other military interventions in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Central America removed the democratic context in which developmental-ist modernization, the irreverent actions of the Left, and so-called disciplinarian U.S. policy had contested each other. Inter-American institutions—controlled from Washington, D.C., or New York—were quickly losing their interest in Latin American art or were discredited on discovery of their true political motivations, indicated, for example, by some CIA grants. Student and labor movements in Córdoba (Argentina), Mexico City, Montevideo, and Rio de Janeiro—also the echoes of Paris and Berlin in 1968—criticized the cultural institutions, not only in these cities, which had embodied artistic innovation since the mid-1960s. Alternative exhibition spaces and forms of political protest, artistic action through mass-media communication, and the alliances among artists, writers, filmmakers, and social scientists all changed the ways in which art and society articulated. Artists sought out other audiences, and some social sectors began to expect new applications of art. Even today, the attraction that moment holds does not lie in the fact that the relationship between art and politics reached its most intense point, but rather in that it shows precisely this interconnection’s utopian aspect: complicities and misunderstandings between the aesthetic and political vanguards’ imaginaries. Only a few of those who sought recognition as Latin Americans found resonance, always fleeting and fragile, in an increasingly plural metropolitan market, where abstract art was ceasing to be the obligatory style. In addition, there was the expectation that Latin Americans represented a subordinate cultural difference, one that had never fully disappeared, rather than fashionable formal institutions. Those who chose to modify their approach (or to abandon it completely) in order to participate in sociopolitical insurrections had only a few years and even fewer places without repression to develop their craft.
. . .
During the “dirty wars,” the dictatorships and the exiles cancelled out the sociopolitical and institutional conditions that had encouraged aesthetic innovation during the 1960s: the epic of the metropolises’ cultural conquest, the epic of insurgency, and the parodies of order. Later, art, literature, and film that spoke of the fall of the utopias, or of what followed, oscillated between two very different genres. On the one hand, drama emerged as the prevailing way to narrate testimonies of disappearances, tortures, and deaths; on the other, farce lent its tone to many novels, films, installations, and performances, which no longer found any victories or heroes in a history understood as an absurd tragicomedy.
. . .
The identity and continental solidarity claims are replaced by concealment and disguises: fake ex-combatants who are not Argentinean but Chilean act as though they had fought in the Falklands, and fake army volunteers prefer to be taken prisoner by the English in order to meet the Rolling Stones.3 . . . According to [Martín] Kohan, there is no need to choose between drama and farce, because the war was both: “In literature, the Falkland Islands War needs not be repeated first as a tragedy and then as a comedy, because already from the start, the war was a comedy. According to the testimonies of the soldiers, the War should be repeated, not to change from a tragedy into a comedy, but so that the tragedy of the defeat may transform into a triumphant epic.”4 Even if the tension between drama and parody helps us to move beyond the frequent Manichaeism pointed out in the previous period, we need to understand the legitimacy of each enunciative style according to who participates in the fight over the representation of history, and from what perspectives.
The question of how to represent memory and defeat is still in force in various Latin American countries through exhibitions and monuments that memorialize the victims. It is not frivolous to situate this process, as Andreas Huyssen does, in a set of complex evocative exercises taking place on a global scale in the last two decades: the restoration of historic centers, the expansion of museums, the emergence of retro fashions, the boom of biographies and novels about bygone epochs, and the revision of the Holocaust.5 . . .
Not everyone shares the same interest in revising or recording history. In Chile, the agreements of the transition to democracy tried to shut down the debate about the dictatorship in the name of “consensus,” which Tomás Mulián defines “as the highest degree of forgetting.”6 The studies of Nelly Richard show that only minorities, mostly artists and writers, attend to the reflection on old wounds and, facing the complete silence by politicians and the media, the tasks of memory remain bound to the audacity of the vanguards and to the “inadaptability” of madness.7 In Argentina . . . political “arrangements” ended up providing amnesty to the repressors and painting memory into the corners of the marginal fields of art and madness (“crazy women” is one of the names given to the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo). The history of media and institutional censorship proves that even an explicitly public action such as the construction of a monument/memorial to the victims of state terrorism can be relegated to architects-cum-artists, as if the search for ways to “collectively express memory” and “think about the limits of life and death” characterized this specialized field.8 . . .
Where are we now? We are at a moment when whatever is left of utopias is becoming globalized, but above all, the difficulty of creating them and making them endure is “globalizing.” We live in times of wars and domination headed by minorities, and the globalization of defeat of almost everybody. To be Latin American is to share with the majorities from other continents the drama and the farce of attempting to be somebody. Somebody who is represented in decision-making circuits, somebody who is able to give rise to memory when a few are able “to globalize” deprivation and obstruct national, ethnic, urban, and personal projects. Nevertheless, the experience of defeat and memory is not the same in the First World as it is in the Third World continents. If there are still any doubts about the shared condition of the two, however, take a look at all the migrants from the Third World in the First World (10, 15, 20 percent, depending on the country), looking for space, utopia, and a way to keep memory alive. Conversely, those from the First World fear that their own utopia— the American Dream or European prosperity—is being snatched away from them and do not really know what to do about the memory of their wars and holocausts. Is it possible that by speaking about these memories, by telling these stories of wars and holocausts, and of migrants from the Third World in films and novels, at museums and art exhibits, and through e-mail and on the Web, the danger of history repeating itself looms over us? Faced with the difficulties of not knowing what to do about the past or the future, young cultures are dedicated to the present and devote themselves to the instant. . . . In music, if anything happens to unify us as Latin Americans, it is the coincidence of the absence of melodic narratives in techno, the fight to tell stories in a world with an occluded future exhibited by the narcocorridos,9 and the sputtering clips in erotic funk and rock music. The here-today-gone-tomorrow world of music is typified in the hyper-reality of the instantaneous, the fleeting nature of records that must be listened to this week, the speed of information and cheap communication that fosters oblivion. There is a huge chasm between the 1960s philosophy of the aesthetics that nurtured open, unfinished works, and the philosophy that now feeds the aesthetic of instants that come about with no connection whatsoever, leading nowhere in particular. Zygmunt Baumann has stated that today “beauty is a characteristic of the event, not of the object,” and that “culture is the ability to change topics and sides very quickly.”10 . . .
Today, there seems to be a general disbelief about what happened in the past and what is yet to come in the future. Can one only trust in what is actually happening? Everything occurs so fast that the model of social triumph is to be an ex–Big Brother. If you want to live in the hyper-present, you have no time for memory or for utopia: the oddity before the lost temporality conspires with the high-tech simulations of Jurassic recollections of the past and intergalactic star wars of the future, ever so similar. . . .
. . . It occurs to me that if we are going to get out of our current indigence, it can be neither by repeating a past that we should never forget, nor by creating apocalyptic prophecies of our future. In a way, everything happens in the instant, and the task is about grasping its density. I find company for this statement, and for its aesthetic elaboration, in authors whose last names, and who knows why, all begin with the letter B: Benjamin, Borges, and Berger. In the text in which he wonders why he is so intrigued with a man who had built the almost infinite Chinese Wall—the emperor Shih Anang Ti—yet who ordered all books burned prior to his reign, Borges closes with a definition of aesthetics: “Music, the states of happiness, mythology, aged faces, certain twilights, and certain places, want to tell us something, or something they said that we shouldn’t have missed, or they are ready to tell us something; the imminence of a revelation that does not occur, is, perhaps, the aesthetic fact.”11
Half a century later, John Berger explores how to operate, abreast the deep pockets of the financial empires, from the rebelliousness of pockets of resistance. He dedicates his last book to the pockets conforming within the arts. His aesthetic theory comes close to that of Borges and to the current celebration of the present. He is not at ease with this, but notes that “the future has shrunk and the past has become redundant.”12 On the one hand, we cannot live in the “sudden anguish of mourning over things that no longer exist.” On the other, “To imagine is too easy and too wasteful.” Let us pay attention, then, to what still exists. This has been—from Paleolithic cave paintings up until our century, according to Berger—the task of visual arts: to state “the visible world that surrounds us and continuously appears and disappears. If it weren’t disappearance, perhaps the impulse to paint would not exist, because the visible world would have the certainty that the painting attempts to capture.” . . .
. . . The painter, the writer, and the musician continually try to discover or stumble on “the place that will contain and surround their present act” of painting, writing, or singing. Ideally, there should be as many places as paintings. According to Berger, “The problem is that many times a painting does not successfully become a place. When it is not achieved it remains as a representation or a decoration: furniture.” Moreover, “When one finds a place, it is somewhere between the boundaries of nature and art. It is like a hole in the sand within which the border has been erased.” We have, as you can tell, almost arrived at the Benjaminian version of aura, which occurs in the whole of time, the “now-time,” the present as transition.13 It is very close, indeed, to “the imminent revelation” that according to Borges constitutes the aesthetic act. Does Latin America still exist? If we do not want to lose what it once was, nor drown the future still to come, then it is necessary to look for a way of grasping hold of the quality and density of the present. Aesthetics may contribute to that effort if it is in fact true that it allows us to see an imminence in absence, or, in the words of Berger, “that which begins over and over again.”14
What can we conclude? With such dizzying changes from utopia to defeat and from memory to the encapsulation of the instant, theory has jet lag. In spite of all my searching, I am unable to realize any conception of Latin American history that aptly organizes the three moments under consideration as periods. I said utopia, memory, and instant with fear, because there no longer exist any bulletproof concepts. What is to imagine, what is to remember, and what is to seize the day at the beginning of the twenty-first century? These vacillations are connected to the debate about the diversity of names for Latin America: Native, Afro, modern, postmodern. The cultural and aesthetic options complicate the issues that modernizing rationalism on the one hand, and magical realism on the other, once simplified. There are utopian Latin Americanisms, and therefore epics—some dramatic and others tragic as they are forced to revive memory. I wonder whether there will also exist ways of working with the present that will not force us to avoid the questions of what used to be and what can be?
One possible conclusion is that so much variety makes us dizzy, and that it would be better to let go of Latin Americanisms or “the Latin American.” There continue to be Latin American studies centers, however, and multinational corporations who fancy us altogether as a market. Latin American presidents and ministers of culture—with less power than the multinational companies—continue to sign declarations and appear in pictures together two or three times a year. Publishers, television networks, and music industries all want to reach their clientele in Spanish. Then there are also the Latin American Studies Association conferences, and, finally, the disquieting American Free Trade Agreement proposed for 2005. One can doubt the existence of Latin America, but it is evident that there are plenty of Latin Americanisms.
In these spaces or along these lines I handle questions about styles that open up new perspectives to rethink current dilemmas. I beg my readers not to assume that I am giving questions of form and style the final say in the matter. Neither can we expect much from aesthetics, which is not a very dazzling discipline today, let alone a well-equipped toolbox. Besides, it is always better to avoid the risks of shifting from politics to art as though we were repeating the transition from social disillusionment to the consolation of intense personal emotions.
The old question of how to relate art and society reappears, then. I would like to pose it by taking into account the analysis of the place of culture in capitalism. For example, how is present-ism in art and media bound to the long-term structures of social processes? The expansion of markets also happens in time, because it occurs through an apparent denial of temporality, which is the planned obsolescence of products to attain the marketing of new ones. . . . These agents do it by pretending that neither the past nor the future matter, but they are able to transform the acceleration and discontinuity of tastes into a permanent way of life for the consumers. They are achieving, through an upgrading of products and expansion of sales, a guaranteed and durable reproduction of capital.
We are not going to relapse into the old idea of an economic determination over the symbolic, nor its consequent conspiratorial hypothesis: in post-modernity, the processors of capital would be making use of the “absolutized present-ism” as a manipulating resource in order to optimize their profits. . . . Doesn’t the aesthetic of the instant-without-history have anything to do with unstable trends of investments and profit that hide the negotiation policies of capital and infrastructure (factories, banks, control over transportation and means of communication)? In macroeconomics, the past and the future are certainly important. This does not seem too hard to demonstrate even in the unstable cultural industries, despite the inconsistent and excited rhythm that forces them to constantly be on the lookout for best-sellers, their competition, and business mergers. . . .
It is necessary to make these kinds of connections in order to understand how to open up the instant to history. Because of that, I would like to investigate a possible articulation between aesthetics and society, between art and place, which is not as boring as the telluric perseverance of those who insist on “building a home in the neighborhood of the autochthonous” as the only possible solution.15 I would like to search for a more convincing articulation than the romantic utopianism of drama and protest songs; a project with memory and drama aware of the conflicts not relapsing into the Manichaean antagonisms of those who reduced politics to war; an elaboration of failures that does not remain jumping from one crisis to another, or, as its aesthetic equivalent, the illusion that each event lacks history.
The decline of “Latin America” did not occur by chance, let alone by the apparent arbitrariness of a passing fad. There must be some way to pry that out of the instant that speaks of the failed utopias and the neglected memories. To enjoy the present, would it not be appropriate to wonder whether there is a way to narrate temporality other than in the ways of those who gamble in the casinos of investment or govern the succession of our acts so that we will pay the fee? Perhaps we may be able to imagine an aesthetic that finds out how to invent performances that will not diminish our future nor make our past redundant.
1
Doris Sommer, Foundational Fictions: The National Romances of Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).
2
Andrea Giunta, Vanguardia, internacionalismo y política: Arte argentino en los años sesenta (Buenos Aires: Paidós, 2001), 15.
3
Rodolfo E. Fogwill, Los pichy-cyegos (Buenos Aires: Ediciones de la flor, 1983); Juan Forn, Nadar de noche (Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1991); Rodrigo Fresán, Historia argentina (Barcelona: Anagrama, 1993).
4
Martín Kohan, “El fin de una época,” Punto de vista, no. 64 (1999): 7.
5
Andreas Huyssen, En busca del futuro perdido: Cultura y memoria en tiempos de globalización (Mexico City: FCE-Goethe Institut, 2002).
6
Tomás Mulián, Chile actual: anatomía de un mito (Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Lom/Arcis, 1997), 37.
7
Nelly Richard, Residuos y metáforas: Ensayos de crítica cultural sobre el Chile de la transición (Santiago: Editorial Cuarto Propio, 1998).
8
Graciela Silvestri, “Memoria y monumento” Punto de vista, no. 64 (1999): 44.
9
“Narcocorrido” refers to the popular music from the north of Mexico that narrates the stories of drug dealers.
10
Quoted in Flavia Costa, “Lo que queda de la belleza,” interview with Zygmunt Baumann, Clarín, Cultura y Nación supplement, December 7, 2002.
11
Jorge Luis Borges, “La muralla y los libros,” in Obras completas (Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores, 1994), 13.
12
John Berger, La forma de un bolsillo, trans. Paloma Villegas (Mexico City: Biblioteca Era, 2002), 39. Following quotes, pp. 39, 32, 12, 13, 19, and 21, respectively.
13
Walter Benjamin, “Tesis de filosofía de la historia,” in Discursos interrumpidos, trans. Jésus Aguirre, vol. 1 (Madrid: Taurus, 1973), 175–91.
14
Berger, La forma de un bolsillo, 24.
15
Julio Ramos, Por si no nos da el tiempo (Rosario: El Escribiente, 2002), 23.