[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib
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.
- Page 124 and 125: The Collective Camcorder in Art and
- Page 126 and 127: The Collective Camcorder in Art and
- Page 128 and 129: The Collective Camcorder in Art and
- Page 130 and 131: The Collective Camcorder in Art and
- Page 132 and 133: The Collective Camcorder in Art and
- Page 134 and 135: 5. Performing Revolution: Arte Call
- Page 136 and 137: Performing Revolution 117developing
- Page 138 and 139: Performing Revolution 119strictures
- Page 140 and 141: Performing Revolution 121group, and
- Page 142 and 143: Performing Revolution 123lies in Gr
- Page 144 and 145: Performing Revolution 125problems i
- Page 146 and 147: Performing Revolution 127Grupo Prov
- Page 148 and 149: Performing Revolution 129from withi
- Page 150 and 151: FIGURE 5.3. Art-De (Juan-Sí Gonzá
- Page 152 and 153: Performing Revolution 133the museum
- Page 154 and 155: Performing Revolution 135distribute
- Page 156 and 157: Performing Revolution 137reason for
- Page 158 and 159: Performing Revolution 139which cons
- Page 160 and 161: Performing Revolution 141in which t
- Page 162 and 163: Performing Revolution 143perhaps be
- Page 164 and 165: Performing Revolution 145These priv
- Page 166 and 167: Performing Revolution 1478. Gerardo
- Page 168 and 169: Performing Revolution 14926. In 199
- Page 170 and 171: Performing Revolution 151which appr
- Page 172 and 173: Performing Revolution 153marginal z
- Page 176 and 177: Performing Revolution 157101. They
- Page 178 and 179: Performing Revolution 159And I beli
- Page 180 and 181: Performing Revolution 161structures
- Page 182 and 183: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 184 and 185: 6. The Mexican Pentagon: Adventures
- Page 186 and 187: The Mexican Pentagon 167grupos (the
- Page 188 and 189: The Mexican Pentagon 169It was agai
- Page 190 and 191: The Mexican Pentagon 171Bellas Arte
- Page 192 and 193: The Mexican Pentagon 1735 million i
- Page 194 and 195: The Mexican Pentagon 175Wlled it wi
- Page 196 and 197: The Mexican Pentagon 177Ehrenberg a
- Page 198 and 199: The Mexican Pentagon 179of a campai
- Page 200 and 201: The Mexican Pentagon 181(including
- Page 202 and 203: The Mexican Pentagon 183contributed
- Page 204 and 205: The Mexican Pentagon 185criticisms,
- Page 206 and 207: The Mexican Pentagon 187material fo
- Page 208 and 209: The Mexican Pentagon 18911. The gro
- Page 210 and 211: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 212 and 213: 7. Artists’ Collectives: Focus on
- Page 214 and 215: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 216 and 217: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 218 and 219: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 220 and 221: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
- Page 222 and 223: Artists’ Collectives Mostly in Ne
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.