[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib

dragan.tabakovic
from dragan.tabakovic More from this publisher
15.08.2023 Views

Performing Revolution 155boy in question was Alejandro Acosta, a neighbor of Novoa’s, “with certain troubles(trastornos) and a singular personality which allowed him to join in our projects.”E-mail from Novoa, August 19, 2004.84. February–March 1988. Sites for the installation included the NationalMuseum of Fine Arts, the Castillo de la Fuerza, La Casa de las Américas, GaleríaHaydée Santamaría, and Habana Club. As though anticipating criticism of theproject from an anti-imperialist position, Roberto Fernández Retamar (the Presidentof La Casa de las Américas, and a leading ofWcial intellectual Wgure) went to somelengths to justify its importance in “Rauschenberg, American Artist,” his text forthe exhibition brochure: “It is understandable that a man who incorporates so much[referring to the artist’s work with assemblage] goes around the planet to show hiswares in the most distant sites, and also to enrich those sites with new visions, bornin those sites. Of course: one should not look in those visions for the spirit of thepeople in those places, but instead for that of Rauschenberg, heir to the pedigreeincluding those North Americans who, like Whitman or Hemingway, brought togetherin their work, in the manner of vast collages, that which the world requiresto express itself: in order to express the best of a community of energetic pioneers,who we cannot confuse with those responsible for other adventures.”85. The group did quickly move on to more confrontational, performative works.And, as Novoa has pointed out, even if they were painting murals, “more thanpainting on the wall it was the fact of going and doing it illegally, clandestinely, ofdoing it on the run. Also, with the attitude that they would arrive and burst intosome place or other.” Interview with the author, Miami, December 30, 2002.86. Glexis Novoa, interview with the author, Miami, December 30, 2002.87. According to Leal, “they made something like a pact with us, that was notactually a pact but more like a threat: that we could no longer keep doing thosethings outside.” Interview with the author, Havana, March 18, 2002.88. Navarro, “Unhappy Happening,” 25.89. Glexis Novoa, interview with the author, Miami, December 30, 2002.90. Art-De consisted of an artist (Juan-Sí González), a lawyer specializing inhuman rights (Jorge Crespo Díaz), and a Wlmmaker (Elizeo Váldez).91. The Brigada Hermanos Saiz (the youth wing of UNEAC, the Cuban Artists’and Writers’ Union and therefore an organ of the Communist Party) actually providedsupport and cover for even the most provocative works—so long as they werelegitimated on the grounds of being art. In that case, the Brigada’s role was to managethe situation, and to work with the dynamics of the “adolescent rebellion” toproduce a more positive dynamic. Art-De’s cardinal sin was to position themselvescompletely outside of this ofWcial safety net, seeking neither recognition as art northe support of any arm of the cultural apparatus for the creation or presentation oftheir work.92. Ernesto Leal has also spoken of this safety in numbers: “it was not so palpable(presente) as it is now, the fact that something can happen to you, to your personalintegrity. At that moment it was more softened, more diluted—the idea thatwe were a large group that is, that there were people that, when we were arrested,were in the police station, there would be a group of people outside waiting, andsomehow that gave you strength. Today they take you prisoner and you are alone.”Interview with the author, Havana, March 18, 2002.93. At Wrst these events were held in the Coppelia park in Vedado every Wednesdayafternoon (March 2, 9, 16, 23); permission to use that site was then withdrawn,

156 Rachel Weissand the group moved to the park at the corner of 23 and G, also in Vedado (April 6,13, 20, 27, May 18). The group was then prohibited from working further in public.94. Juan-Sí González notes that “we faced all kinds of publics, we faced theirquestions and their thoughts and on occasion they offended us. Everything thathappened there was part of the work.” Untitled video documentary, 1988.95. Glexis Novoa explains it thus: “They said we were mediocre, they didn’tinclude us in any important exhibitions, we didn’t travel abroad, and when foreigncurators came to Cuba they never took them to see us. That segregated you. That’swhat the Cuban government knew how to use, that implacable silence which separatesyou and dissolves you as an artist.” Interview with the author, Miami, December30, 2002.96. One spectator commented that “to my way of thinking it is more a generationalmovement, a sociological phenomenon, which shows the desire of theyouth to participate in a process of change which the entire country is immersed in. . . As a phenomenon, a movement, it seems to me important: you have to followit, look at it closely and support it, and hopefully it will not be just here in thepark.” Untitled video documentary, 1988.97. “Cronología” of Art-De, unpublished typescript, 2.98. “I got into a very rare contradiction . . . I did not want to use any of thematerials that the school gave me, I didn’t want to take anything, I wanted to breakthat relationship of dependence, of co-dependence with the school, the Party, theRevolution, everything . . . I wanted to have a voice but be ethical in order to havea voice . . . and around then I began to say different things, without resources thatcame from ofWcialdom . . . I began to get into a battle because I felt that in Cubathere was not a state of rights, I began to understand all of that better . . . In thatmoment I was not thinking from a purely aesthetic point of view like other artists. . . We were very naive in the beginning, we believed it was possible, a change fromwithin, we did not believe in any change from the outside, we were against theembargo, it was to create . . . an internal dynamic of renewal, of thinking, to endthat old-fashioned and even bourgeois attitude, including xenophobia and racism . . .We were working with those elements, those were our materials, not color . . . andin general the thinkers we used were not aesthetes, not artists, not cultural ideologues:some were priests, others were santeros, we used Varela, we used Martí a lot,but we were always searching for the contrast between what they had always takenfrom Martí and the other part of Martí that is never mentioned, that game betweenthe two.” Juan-Sí González, interview with the author, Yellow Springs, Ohio, April4, 2003.99. ABTV did not consider itself a “group” until somebody else called them that:Luis Camnitzer’s use of the name “ABTV” for the artists Tanya Angulo, Juan PabloBallester, José Angel Toirac, and Ileana Villazón was, effectively, a collectivizing baptismthat gave a Wrm and conventional form to what was more properly an amorphousrelational dynamic. As Toirac explains it: “The business about the grouparose spontaneously because, more than a worker’s collective, we were friends . . .we had never considered ourselves a group until Camnitzer said, ‘You are a group’ . . .we were a group of friends who shared countless things, we went to parties, we passedbooks and magazines back and forth, we consulted with one another, we helpedeach other out in work and never bothered about authorship.” Interview with theauthor, Havana, December 22, 2002.100. José Angel Toirac, interview with the author, Havana, December 22, 2002.

156 Rachel Weiss

and the group moved to the park at the corner of 23 and G, also in Vedado (April 6,

13, 20, 27, May 18). The group was then prohibited from working further in public.

94. Juan-Sí González notes that “we faced all kinds of publics, we faced their

questions and their thoughts and on occasion they offended us. Everything that

happened there was part of the work.” Untitled video documentary, 1988.

95. Glexis Novoa explains it thus: “They said we were mediocre, they didn’t

include us in any important exhibitions, we didn’t travel abroad, and when foreign

curators came to Cuba they never took them to see us. That segregated you. That’s

what the Cuban government knew how to use, that implacable silence which separates

you and dissolves you as an artist.” Interview with the author, Miami, December

30, 2002.

96. One spectator commented that “to my way of thinking it is more a generational

movement, a sociological phenomenon, which shows the desire of the

youth to participate in a process of change which the entire country is immersed in

. . . As a phenomenon, a movement, it seems to me important: you have to follow

it, look at it closely and support it, and hopefully it will not be just here in the

park.” Untitled video documentary, 1988.

97. “Cronología” of Art-De, unpublished typescript, 2.

98. “I got into a very rare contradiction . . . I did not want to use any of the

materials that the school gave me, I didn’t want to take anything, I wanted to break

that relationship of dependence, of co-dependence with the school, the Party, the

Revolution, everything . . . I wanted to have a voice but be ethical in order to have

a voice . . . and around then I began to say different things, without resources that

came from ofWcialdom . . . I began to get into a battle because I felt that in Cuba

there was not a state of rights, I began to understand all of that better . . . In that

moment I was not thinking from a purely aesthetic point of view like other artists

. . . We were very naive in the beginning, we believed it was possible, a change from

within, we did not believe in any change from the outside, we were against the

embargo, it was to create . . . an internal dynamic of renewal, of thinking, to end

that old-fashioned and even bourgeois attitude, including xenophobia and racism . . .

We were working with those elements, those were our materials, not color . . . and

in general the thinkers we used were not aesthetes, not artists, not cultural ideologues:

some were priests, others were santeros, we used Varela, we used Martí a lot,

but we were always searching for the contrast between what they had always taken

from Martí and the other part of Martí that is never mentioned, that game between

the two.” Juan-Sí González, interview with the author, Yellow Springs, Ohio, April

4, 2003.

99. ABTV did not consider itself a “group” until somebody else called them that:

Luis Camnitzer’s use of the name “ABTV” for the artists Tanya Angulo, Juan Pablo

Ballester, José Angel Toirac, and Ileana Villazón was, effectively, a collectivizing baptism

that gave a Wrm and conventional form to what was more properly an amorphous

relational dynamic. As Toirac explains it: “The business about the group

arose spontaneously because, more than a worker’s collective, we were friends . . .

we had never considered ourselves a group until Camnitzer said, ‘You are a group’ . . .

we were a group of friends who shared countless things, we went to parties, we passed

books and magazines back and forth, we consulted with one another, we helped

each other out in work and never bothered about authorship.” Interview with the

author, Havana, December 22, 2002.

100. José Angel Toirac, interview with the author, Havana, December 22, 2002.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!