Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs

Performing Revolution 137
reason for the collective exhibition “No es sólo lo que ves” (It’s not just what you see), 111
which came precisely from those discussions among all of us. Because the phenomenon of
the group was gradually becoming blurred, disappearing. It was already practically absurd
to have a group because we were all working collectively. This is one of the external reasons
why Puré disintegrated, because the proposals that gave rise to Puré were being done
. . . it had moved to the level of the generation, and so there was no sense in maintaining
a group. In addition there was more sense of a relationship among us: in 1987 or 1988
what is now called Fototeca was created, spaces were created for debate where the members
of all the groupings or those who did not belong to any group went and had discussions.
It began with a small group but it grew and at a certain point the fact of the meetings
bothered somebody high up and they sent a social psychologist to investigate . . . to investigate
the concerns of young people, to make inquiries into what was being said there, to
Wnd out about our motivations. 112
While there may have been unanimity about the goals that were
being fought for, there were real differences in strategy and tactics. These
were perhaps most clearly manifested in the piece done by an assembly of
artists in the Plaza de la Revolución on the occasion of Che Guevara’s sixtieth
birthday in 1988—twenty years after Guevara’s death. 113 The artists were
solicited by Roberto Robaina, at the time the head of the UJC (Union of
Young Communists), who had adopted a policy of constructive engagement
with the artists and other Cuban youth who were agitating for change. 114
After much debate, the group decided to make a large sign reading “Meditar,”
a plaintive demand for reXection. The other option that was considered was
a sign reading “Reviva la revolu . . .”—literally, “revive the mess/confusion”
and playing on the slogan “Viva la Revolución,” as if to suggest the radical
incompleteness of that project or even its death. 115 The disagreement was
not only over the positivism of the former proposal that, like perestroika (of
which the artists were very aware), was a basically reformist proposition, but
also with regard to the nature of the “pact with power” that would, or would
not, be conserved. According to Ernesto Leal, the goal for some was not the
overthrow of socialism but rather the emergence of a “real,” or “radical” form
of it (and keeping in mind that “radical” means not only “carried to the
utmost limit” but also “arising from or going to a root or a source”); 116 for
others, however, Meditar represented a fundamental and unacceptable compromise
in agreeing to coexist with power, and on terms acceptable to it.
Meditar’s neutral, philosophical, and inoffensive tone masked the fact that
others in the group were far too disenchanted to believe that simply thinking
well about things was any kind of response. 117 (Later that year Novoa did a
performance, Levitar, perhaps as a belated retort to the lightness of the work’s
proposition.)
“No es solo lo que ves” had performed on a broader platform what
had happened in 1981 when the “Volumen Uno” exhibition symbolically