Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
118 Rachel Weiss<br />
of socialism, and of the New Man who was to construct it, this body has<br />
generally been imagined as multiple, an “aggregate of individuals” in Che<br />
Guevara’s words, 15 which was simultaneously heterogeneous and consensual.<br />
“This multifaceted being,” wrote Guevara in his classic text Socialism and<br />
Man in Cuba, “is not, as is claimed, the sum of elements of the same type<br />
(reduced, moreover, to that same type by the reigning system), which acts<br />
like a Xock of sheep.” 16 The New Man was neither alienated nor “housebroken”<br />
nor fooled by bourgeois idealism with its deceitful yearning toward<br />
“freedom”: he was an individual being whose individuality did not clash with<br />
his simultaneous subsumption into the collective social body. Or as Muguercia<br />
puts it, “not a being but a principle of association that rejects the categorical<br />
division between the self and the society, between the personal and<br />
the mediated,” and constituting the Cuban people’s “potential for obedience<br />
or revolution.” 17 (Guevara’s formulation, however, was not the only one with<br />
traction: against his emphasis on ethics, conscience, and cultural change, a<br />
more traditional and orthodox Marxist model was held by Carlos Rafael<br />
Rodríguez, in which productive forces transform productive relations, not<br />
the other way around.) 18 For leftist intellectuals elsewhere in Latin America,<br />
the revolutionary achievement in Cuba signaled an unprecedented and<br />
precious moment: the Uruguayan writer Mario Benedetti, for example, wrote<br />
in 1968 that, even though increased pressure on intellectuals to “participate”<br />
in the revolutionary process was likely to develop, nonetheless it was<br />
worth it, as “the only opportunity (and watch out when it is lost!) that a<br />
human being has for participating in a collective assumption of dignity.” 19<br />
“Volumen Uno,” the exhibition that launched the new Cuban art<br />
in January 1981, 20 manifested the loose collective spirit born among young<br />
artists of a shared refusal of the ideological prescriptiveness applied to art and<br />
culture as a consequence of the Sovietization of Cuba in the 1970s. 21 In place<br />
of instrumentalization they proposed that ethics lie at the core of art, and further<br />
that such ethics are situational rather than metaphysical, derived from<br />
their work and from the afWliations and obligations they had to each other<br />
rather than from grand claims. The show was organized by a group of artists<br />
who—more out of friendship than from any concerted aesthetic or ideological<br />
platform—opened a process that transformed not only artistic practice<br />
in Cuba, but also the ideas and aspirations that were its foundation. With its<br />
mix of installations, performance, and pop inXuences, and its general freshness,<br />
the show overturned reigning visual orthodoxies and presented, in their stead,<br />
what the Cuban critic Tonel has called “an almost totally renovated image<br />
of what a work of art could be in Cuba.” 22 What bound this group together<br />
was a conviction about artistic creation as a process of investigation and<br />
introspection, cognitive-ethical in nature, that was conceived not within the