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.
136 Rachel Weiss<br />
things to a head: censorship of exhibitions became a routine response by the<br />
authorities, 109 and the summary removal of the more liberal cultural administrators<br />
who had been advocates for or protectors of the young artists left<br />
the situation even more polarized. Although under the weight of this continual<br />
tension and confrontation some of the collectives began to fray, the<br />
showdown between artists and power also had the opposite effect, becoming<br />
in itself a collective referent and galvanizing unity and collective purpose<br />
not only among the small groups that had been such irritants but also among<br />
virtually all of the active and visible artists in the city. If the groups discussed<br />
above functioned collectively according to a range of deWnitions, methodologies,<br />
and linkages, they also functioned, increasingly until around 1989, as<br />
a collective of collectives.<br />
Performances, exhibitions, interventions, debates, disturbances,<br />
aggressions, retaliations, counterretaliations all piled up like tightly packed<br />
isobars in the years between 1986 and 1989. “The moment of splendor of<br />
these groups was 1987 and 1988,” writes Aldito Menéndez,<br />
It took the Cuban government two years to dismantle this phenomenon which, like a<br />
child, had slipped between its legs . . . Debates and group shows took place in galleries,<br />
museums, universities and all kinds of cultural centers, and in private homes, parks and<br />
streets. We were not focused on personal beneWt or transcendence, but rather on fraternal<br />
collaboration based on common goals . . . Artists met almost every day, since there was a<br />
strong sense of the historic role that we were playing, and the leaders of the movement<br />
wanted to achieve certain goals by setting out collective strategies to meet them before<br />
we were neutralized. We were working against the clock, and immediacy and the ephemeral<br />
were the only means of achieving transcendence. . . . None of this would have been<br />
possible if it had not been for the popular support we received from the outset. Nothing<br />
was easier for the experienced and efWcient Cuban censors than to repress a bunch of<br />
crazy youths, but the massive popular participation in our events created international<br />
repercussions that made the work of the censors quite difWcult. Here we must ask: why did<br />
the Cuban people support modes of expression that were strange and incomprehensible?<br />
Very simply because the same worries and needs that motivated us were shared by them,<br />
and because these angry and rebellious methods established an alternative mode of public<br />
communication that compensated for the lack of liberty in the mass media. Our works<br />
expressed popular sentiments, and the public ratiWed this by their approving presence. 110<br />
At a certain point this sense of mutual purpose and will made the<br />
collectives obsolete: there were numerous crossovers and collaborations that<br />
had blurred the boundaries of the grouplets, their work often addressed similar<br />
or overlapping issues, and there had been a rich and cumulative dialogue<br />
among the artists, all of which enhanced the sense of being one large polis.<br />
“We shared ideas,” recalls Lázaro Saavedra,<br />
actually we worked together from the point of view of discussions, reXections. For instance,<br />
we came to similar conclusions regarding the pedagogy of art, . . . battles we felt we had<br />
to win. There were various nuclei of interests that had to be renewed . . . that was the