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.
126 Rachel Weiss<br />
Guevara]), 74 was a large portrait of the guerrilla martyr that covered most of<br />
the gallery Xoor. During the opening, someone dressed in a policeman’s uniform<br />
(a stranger to the artists) walked across the work, and then some others<br />
improvised a kind of dance on it. 75 This generated an enormous scandal,<br />
with the artists accused of sacrilegious treatment of the revolutionary icon.<br />
In a harshly critical review published in Juventud Rebelde (authored not by<br />
an individual writer but by the entire “Cultural Editorial Group”), the show<br />
was attacked for “vulgarity, superWcialism, the absolute absence of convincing<br />
artistic value, and an excess of snobbery.” With their “coarse dogmatism<br />
and schematic pronouncements, supposedly critical of socioethical problems,”<br />
it declared, the artists had only succeeded in deWning a position “contrary<br />
to the interests of our socialist culture.” 76 Despite its denunciation of<br />
the exhibition on aesthetic grounds, however, there is no mention, much<br />
less discussion, of any of the exhibited works in the review, a fact pointed<br />
out in the artists’ response (which the newspaper refused to publish). The<br />
review, they wrote, was a political manipulation: whatever the weaknesses<br />
of the artworks, they were the sincere expressions of young people “who are<br />
part of this Revolution and who are integrated and committed to the destiny<br />
and political reality of this country in the process of building socialism.” 77<br />
The review is a telling document for two reasons. First, it discredits<br />
the art on aesthetic terms, without bothering to make any aesthetic<br />
argument: this Ximsy strategy was used regularly to deXect attention away from<br />
the content of problematic works. It also had the indirect effect of divorcing<br />
a work’s form and content (an odd feature of Cuban cultural policy since the<br />
beginning of the revolutionary period), 78 placing primacy on formalist criteria<br />
in the evaluation of a work of art and in fact disallowing any critical<br />
expression that did not Wrst conform to unspeciWed and evasive standards of<br />
technical accomplishment. Second, while the review acknowledged that<br />
there were problems in Cuba and that it was acceptable for “revolutionary”<br />
artists to be critical, it insisted that this must be done in a “revolutionary”<br />
manner: here, in full bloom, was the danger signaled much earlier by various<br />
critics in response to Castro’s 1961 dictum “Within the Revolution,<br />
everything. Against the Revolution, nothing,” namely, that of who would<br />
have the power to determine what was “inside the Revolution” and what<br />
was not. In the wake of this scandal, Arte Calle was placed under continual<br />
surveillance by State Security, and not long <strong>after</strong>ward, in January 1988, it<br />
dissolved for real and for good.<br />
Grupo Provisional (which started at more or less the same time)<br />
was a kind of fraternal twin to Arte Calle in its roughhouse aesthetic, its<br />
strong ties to the punk and rockero subcultures, 79 its generally anarchic ethic,<br />
and most importantly its supra-artistic conception of art’s relation to politics.