In looking at photographs of live models, plaster casts of Greek sculptures, and students on the website (figs. 1a and 1b) of the Sir J. J. School of Art (JJ) in Bombay (present-day Mumbai), one notices how the condition of the body and labor in relation to art is a haunting presence in 20th-century photography. Shot between the 1930s and 1990s by three notable photographers—Homai Vyarawalla (1913–2012), Foy Nissen (1931–2018), and Raghubir Singh (1942–1999)—the photographs I’ve chosen to highlight in this essay articulate the interface of art and labor over a long and unwieldy terrain.¹ I also analyze how these images capture the unstable status of student artists and its correspondence to the precarious trajectory of JJ.

This essay marks four phases in twentieth-century Bombay. It touches upon the nationalist heyday of the late colonial period, coinciding with the interwar years and the eventual onset of deindustrialization in the postcolonial city as evidenced by the Great Textile Mill Strike (1982–83). In doing so, it delineates the popularity of the Shiv Sena, the ethno-regionalist, right-wing-organization-turned-political party, from the 1960s to the ushering in of neoliberal reforms and state-sponsored violence in the early 1990s. The photographs discussed showcase the distressing circumstances of the city’s working poor as they came knocking on the doors of the art school. They represent a departure from prior illustrative studies, many of which depict the laborer as inseparable from their craft. These earlier visual renderings not only are rigid caste-based occupational studies, but also commodify and group people and goods for the colonial economy.² While the unnamed subjects of these types of images are categorized as “Santal Mother, Girl, or Man,” “Fishwomen [sic] of Bombay” (the native Koli community), or “Palanquin Bearers, Bombay” (who were mainly Dalit Mahars), the bourgeois photographers who took them are identified and thus accorded authorship (figs. 2 and 3).³

In the 20th century, as live models at JJ were placed in conversation with plaster casts of Greek sculptures, the worn human forms of the models underscored the stark valorization of art over labor. The photographs that capture this dichotomy evoke the continued incongruence between outmoded colonial art instruction and the parlous position of both fine artists and laborers at JJ and beyond.⁴ While nationalist sentiment swept through many aspects of life in the 1930s, the influx of Eurocentric methods extended unevenly to the temporary hiring of live models to proclaim an “authentic” Indian art. These live art sessions disembodied the model by decontextualizing and romanticizing the absented adivasi (tribal) figure or pious, religious woman as the symbolic native type, untainted by the trappings of colonial modernity (figs. 4 and 5).⁵ Anonymized men and women assembled as native types bore witness to the canonization of carving, painting, etching, and setting in stone—that is, to the colonial practice of classifying and essentializing select communities.⁶ While live models and art students were interminably devalued and alienated during deindustrialization, some of them, as seen in photographs by Vyarawalla and Singh, resisted being cast as the marginal figure by returning the subaltern gaze.

JJ was established in 1857 by cotton and opium merchant Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy (1783–1859) to provide relief to and upskill displaced migrant workers in what was a ruthlessly competitive colonial market. However, it eventually cultivated only a preferential, cultured class.⁷ On the one hand, though JJ facilitated commissions for artists to design sculptural forms in city structures, a detachment from and dismissal of Indian artistry steadily grew among the Indian art circuit in the late 19th century for various reasons, including the difficulty in cultivating a sustained patronage.⁸ As artisan and agrarian populations were compelled to migrate in large numbers to Bombay and engage in laborious work in textile mills, construction, shipping, and other manufacturing industries, their lives were upended on an unprecedented scale by colonial expansion.⁹ On the other hand, while opportunities may have been available to some prospective students to apply to JJ, many of those gaining acceptance fell by the wayside as they faced extraordinary difficulties there, with only a handful later succeeding as fine artists.¹⁰ However, with concerted endeavors over time, JJ’s reputation improved, and students from other regions were able to avail of dedicated scholarships and thus to enroll.¹¹

JJ was premised on the bourgeois, individualistic apprenticeship structure that developed in response to industrialization in England and Europe from the mid-19th century onward. As with other colonial art schools in India, JJ exacerbated a sharp divide between traditional, familial, and community-based workshops and the colonial education system, which mandated English as the language of instruction with prerequisite training in geometry and arithmetic at the admissions stage.¹² These “reformist” requirements, along with education fees, systematically disqualified and disbarred poor and lower-caste artisans, thereby separating the field of craft from that of art. Even though craftspeople were considered important practitioners and knowledge-makers, they were viewed as mere copyists and only brought to art schools to exhibit their artistry and wares and assist students (fig. 6).¹³ Subsequently, an exclusive echelon of elite, upper-caste “gentleman” artists burgeoned as “intellectual tastemakers” at the colossal expense of artisans.¹⁴ Despite preliminary efforts to integrate them into the student body, artisans were apprehensive about foregoing their more dependable, albeit paltry agricultural earnings for non-remunerative education.¹⁵ Over time, their absence was transferred, disincarnated, and disseminated by illustrated publications circulated at JJ.¹⁶ Hence, in the photographs taken at JJ by Vyarawalla, Nissen, and Singh, displaced migrant workers make spectral appearances as live objects in art education.

Colonial art schools promoted scientific drawing via human anatomy lessons, and for this purpose, plaster casts of Greek sculptures were favored over live models.¹⁷ In the late 1930s, JJ student and photographer Vyarawalla pictured her contemporaries Rehana Mogul and Mani Turner creating a sculpture exemplifying such principles, including clarity of view and precision of measurement (fig. 7). In this striking photograph, Turner (on the far right), bends forward with calipers in hand to ascertain the proportion of her subject’s upper leg. His waist is also cinched with a measuring tape. For Vyarawalla and her classmates, who came from a host of backgrounds, JJ was extolled as an artistic abode for experimentation in photography and freedom for women.¹⁸ It was also projected as the ground for the reinvention of Indian artists, including women, at a time of soaring nationalism in late colonial Bombay.¹⁹ As a female photographer and student, Vyarawalla cancels the male gaze and gives space to her female subjects, downgrading the male model’s status and labor. 

Returning to the photograph, Mogul looks up, decidedly satisfied with her sculpture of the live, male model. While the work is not life-size, it is strategically located within the composition and thereby rendered the tallest figure. Thus, it is given prominence and a larger-than-life stature in the high-ceilinged JJ studio. Just as he posed for hours for the sculpting session, the model was forced to stand still as a photographed subject; nonetheless, he looks straight at the camera, holding our gaze.²⁰

The live model enacts the queries of renowned British industrial design educator Henry Cole (1808–1882). After the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London, a world’s fair that heralded the colonial empire as the global pioneer in processing and harboring goods from around the world, Cole interrogated the worth of artisans. He questioned whether artisans should be expected to function as automated machines as per their employers’ demands, whether the commercial aspect of their labor could be compromised for skilled creations, and whether manufacturers recognized this and, moreover, were willing to invest money in educating artisans in order to foster a more skilled labor force.²¹ In figure 7, however, there is a split—the live model, who is no longer an artisan and thus deterritorialized, is at the service of Vyarawalla, Mogul, and Turner’s education. Yet, he does not entirely subdue himself to the machinery of sculpture-making and photography.

Vyarawalla directs a twofold production in which the live model has been relegated to a specimen, while Mogul and Turner are enhanced as artists. The deskilled laborer is utilized as raw material for a sculpture and thereby demarcated from the artists, who pay him no heed. Thus, a neat and graded symmetry unravels itself. While both Mogul and the sculpture as a finished product occupy the foreground, the model and Turner are arranged in the background to demonstrate various stages of sculpting. The two female sculptors are on either side, absorbed and tending to their respective props, one artificial but more exalted than the human male model. 

The model is not lionized like a permanent fixture of JJ, such as the plaster casts of Greek sculptures or the students’ sculpted figurines, but instead beckoned to JJ whenever there is a need for his muted and sampled presence. He represents an eerie and curious amalgam of the “native type” and the Greek ideal but still stands out.²² His look, which evinces personhood and a cynical consciousness, defies and pierces the composition, as he does not conform to an anonymized live model. ²³ His gritty stare reflects the long-standing labor networks of caste, kinship, and village through which single male workers, like him, navigated the workplace and neighborhood in a fluctuating economy.²⁴ In this regard, the long stick that he holds—archetypal of idealized “native type” imagery—comes into view in figure 8.²⁵ The man’s encounter at JJ underpins the grave situation of “mobile incarceration,” whereby badli (temporary) workers would have been picked from designated spots in the city and brought to the school to earn an income.²⁶

A formalist and painterly rendition of a sketching session attended by mostly male students, with a few female students scattered across the class, is framed by Vyarawalla in figure 9.²⁷ In this image, a sari-clad woman seated on a raised platform encircled by the students models with her hands clasped on her lap and her body on silent display. Though this is the only photograph of a live, clothed female model discussed here, women often modeled nude at JJ.²⁸

The Postcolonial Moment

Forty years later, three male students engrave busts modeled after a middle-aged man sitting slouched on a raised platform (fig. 10), a scene captured by Foy Nissen, the prolific photographer, writer, and amateur historian of Bombay who was of Danish origin. This oblique composition captures the static disembodiment of the alienated model, who stares vacantly into a clutter of half-open and half-closed window shutters.²⁹ An unaligned and haphazard path of abject unemployment and deindustrialization stretches out before the live model, whose corporeal presence is as bereft and hollow as the sculptures underway.³⁰ He ekes out a living as an expendable live model, a still life always in supply. At the same time, we can discern some changes in the student composition at JJ in the late 20th century.³¹

In 1955, steps were taken to make the art school more inclusive, with 5 percent of seats reserved for candidates from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds (“Backward Classes”) based on an entrance test.³² Following an arduous struggle by the diverse political base of the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti (Unification of Maharashtra Committee), the State of Maharashtra was formed along linguistic lines, with Bombay as its capital in 1960. However, from the late 1960s onward, the Shiv Sena’s regionalist but wide socioeconomic membership, goaded by its middle-class leadership and driven by increasing financial instability in Bombay, violently advocated for and took direct action to secure ethnicity-based job reservations for the local Marathi population.³³ Since 1970, JJ has instituted monthly scholarships and fee exemptions for students, thus attracting a broader pool of applicants.

However, in 1984, the year in which Nissen’s photograph was shot, Bombay was marked by two imbricated major events: The nationwide imposition of the Emergency (1975–77), when emergency powers were applied across the country, paved the way for the brutal sundering of robust labor politics and history in the city.³⁴ This was ramified by the Great Textile Mill Strike, which accelerated neoliberal reforms.³⁵ After this labor stoppage, mills in the city shuttered, driving more than a hundred thousand workers into casual, informal employment. In this atmosphere of economic uncertainty, scores of disenchanted Marathi workers were galvanized and girded by the right-wing, anti-migrant, and anti-Muslim rhetoric of the Shiv Sena.

Color and a Postmodern Critique 

The pall of deindustrialization hangs heavy in the downcast eyes and static body of the elderly live model captured by Raghubir Singh in figure 11.³⁶ A dire juncture at JJ is presented via this photograph of an emaciated, aging man who, seemingly diminished and disenfranchised, is clad in an oversized kurta, dhoti, and turban. His frail and bent frame is at odds with the plaster casts of classical, nude Greek male sculptures symbolizing Eurocentric ideals of the male form that surround him. Moreover, the color photograph offers an incisive reading of the problematic continuation of this “educational” tradition and artisanal and scholastic disempowerment at JJ well into the late 20th century.³⁷

Singh composed this aberrant scene to unsettle notions of colonial grandeur and to foreground its oppressive hangover in the lackluster confines of JJ. The ongoing, ill-fitting presence at JJ in 1991 of casts of Greek nude sculptures tells us of its unrelenting durée in the postcolonial city. Singh has orchestrated a disharmony between these two teaching aids—the live model, an “ethnographic type” (again holding a stick) of which he was critical, and Greek sculpture—and that of art students, who represent a third category. The students are not portrayed as dutifully immersed in a conventional classroom setting; instead, like the model, they stay on, compelled to “wait” and remain on-site.

The young male student pictured with slumped shoulders and his hands on his back evokes restlessness and unease. He is seemingly caught unawares, despite the reassuring hand of a friend on his shoulder. The intrusive photographer draws us in, setting up a trenchant triangular network of gazes as he inhabits the place of student-artist and intervenes as scathing outsider-spectator—in effect, creating a visual critique that extends beyond the male student in the photograph to encompass the general dissent among students and alumni regarding outmoded education at JJ, among other issues. He constructs a postmodern critique, arresting the apparent friction at JJ by transfixing the male student’s consternation and awkward stance within his own field of view.³⁸ Both the institution and its students faced numerous obstacles well into the 20th century—including the unaffordability of art materials, a dearth of faculty, low attendance, outdated teaching methods, a lack of residential facilities for students, and even an attempt to close the school.³⁹ The apparent wariness of the confounded student and the constrictive environment speak to the repeated demands of students and alumni to revise syllabi, upgrade infrastructure, and introduce English-language tutoring. In the course of time, some of these measures were undertaken.⁴⁰

The continued veneration and aegis of objects over labor at JJ tie together labor and education through the disparate gazes and positions held by the photographed subjects whom Vyarawalla, Nissen, and Singh capture and bring to our attention. Their photographs unfold the dynamics and impact of art education and labor beyond the precincts of the art school, highlighting the convergence of social inequities and the scarcity of resources.⁴¹ They infer a narrative of the reverberating consequences of colonial knowledge and the concomitant making and entrenching of hierarchies, in which the resources necessary for artmaking became privileged enclaves unto their own, with hardly any public or private intervention. The indigent labor of the city has continued to serve as live models well into the present day, as demonstrated by photographs on JJ’s website (figs. 1a and 1b).⁴² Disaggregated, disarmed, and appropriated by art schools, artmaking, and the accumulation of capital in the city at large, the below-minimum wages paid to said live models were recently upgraded.⁴³

The JJ studio portraits encapsulate interconnected points of disproportionate modernity in a city teetering on the precipice of chronic unrest. They are distinct traces enunciating the poignant state of affairs within the school’s lofty walls and sunlit, capacious interiors for live models and students. Though monumental scale allows for the bodily autonomy of labor and studenthood in Vyarawalla and Singh’s photos (figs. 7, 8, and 11), in figure 9, by Vyarawalla, they are dwarfed and made a diminutive spectacle of. The photos by Nissen and Singh (figs. 10 and 11) show a consistent decline in both sitters. Together, as apparitions, they carry the burden of coerced historical experience, enduring the industrial capital model upon leaving a stagnant rural economy. Thus, the drawn-out process of mill closures, the protracted affair of deterritorialization and depoliticization of the urban poor, and the hastening of liberalization and right-wing propaganda—enabled by the Emergency—were inextricably coterminous with the pedagogical inertia of JJ. ⁴⁴

The post Laboring and Learning: Live Models and Art Education at the Sir J. J. School of Art, Bombay, in the Long 20th Century appeared first on post.

Taking these representations of the Virgin inscribed in the patriarchal imaginary as a point of departure, it is possible to trace visualities in modern Latin American art that confront the myth of this voiceless, bodiless, holy woman. Among these, the works of artists Norah Borges (Argentine, 1901–1998), María Izquierdo (Mexican, 1902–1955), and Miriam Inez da Silva (Brazilian, 1939–1996) stand out for their construction of alternative visual narratives that not only act as provocations to the canonical imperatives of Marian representation, but also propose a fundamentally different, female approach to the divine. Depending on the image, their approaches vary from personal, affectionate, and sensitive to lively and popularly oriented to corporeal, tactile, and even sexual. By means of what Giorgio Agamben has called “profanation,” all three artists aimed to return the sacred to common and communal use in a way that is neither ironic nor blasphemous—to express religious belief and its creative potential by delineating another form of understanding of religion in modernity. At the same time, they opened a space for aesthetic and ethical experimentation that follows the modernist canon and yet offers original perspectives on the connections between art, politics, and gender.⁴ As the following comparative analysis will show, religious language—against all odds—enabled innovative affective, popular, and corporeal configurations that challenged the ruling sexist and patriarchal order in Latin American social and religious realms as well as in Latin American artistic realms.

Norah Borges’s Quotidian Mysticism

Though she began as a poet, Norah Borges studied wood engraving in 1914 in Europe, where along with her brother, the writer Jorge Luis Borges, she was active in the Spanish Ultraist avant-garde. When she returned to Buenos Aires in the mid-1920s, she brought this experience with her, becoming an active participant in the group of young innovators who came together in the pages of the avant-garde journals Prisma, Proa, and Martín Fierro.⁵ By the end of the 1920s, however, she was married to the Spanish critic Guillermo de Torre, and her interest had shifted away from radical expressionism to the tranquility of more ordered form—to an art aligned with the post–World War I conservative cultural French movement known as the “return to order,” or rappel à l’ordre, which overlapped with her connections to the emerging Catholic intelligentsia attempting to forge ties with modern artists and writers.⁶ Thus, her name appears among those exhibiting in the gallery of the Buenos Aires Courses in Catholic Culture at the same time as she was contributing drawings and woodcuts to contemporary journals of cultural Catholicism such as Criterio and Número.⁷ The drawings Niña vestida de primera comunión [Girl Dressed for Her First Communion] (fig. 1) and Aviñon, both published in Número, when taken together, show that Borges’s religious interest cannot be thought of as outside the classical aesthetic of the return to order and its classical emphasis on balance, harmony, and precision.⁸

If, within the history of art, the return to order marked a shift among artists and writers to classicism in a European sense, Borges brought her own uniqueness to this affiliation. To be sure, as Patricia Artundo has suggested, she enjoyed the freedom that came with not fully belonging to postwar European culture.⁹ This is clear in “Un cuadro sinóptico de la pintura” (A synoptic chart of painting), an unsigned text credited to Borges and published in Martín Fierro in March 1927. In this writing, the watchwords “order,” “proportion,” “sharply defined contours,” and “definite forms” coexist with an expressed need for colors that “give joy to the eyes,” such as pink and lemon, pink and Veronese green, and salmon-pink, together with the “mystic color” equivalent to the “color that things will also have in heaven.”¹⁰ Borges’s choice of a pastel palette that avoids strong chromatic contrast, along with her interest in circuses, toys, children, and cart decoration, led male critics of the time to condescendingly and paternalistically emphasize its spontaneous, childlike, and hence feminine aspect, while ignoring the formal aspects of her work and its expression of harmony and proportionality.¹¹

As Griselda Pollock explains, although femininity is “an oppressive condition” for female cultural producers, analyses of their output should explore both its limitations and the ways in which women have negotiated and transformed them.¹² In Borges’s case, her exploration of affect was as much a consequence of the “good” feminine attributes that a woman of her social class was expected to cultivate as it was the possibility inherent in nonvisual, more haptic forms of perception. A wager, therefore, on the expression of a sensorial experience of the world as a form of resistance that, when distributed in oppressive pictorial spaces, encourages community among some bodies (women, young people, and children, in particular). In this way, while her formal compositional style deviated from the aesthetic of order by combining geometry with feeling, her religious-themed works, by recurrently investigating the daily, affective aspect of faith, deviated from the virile, aggressive primacy of Catholic discourse in those years. Borges innovatively put forward a pastel-colored, joyful, and amicable spirituality that brought the religious figures she represented closer to those viewing them.¹³ In turn, she granted materiality to the representation of the sacred, making the body itself and the contact between bodies recurrent themes.

In The Annunciation (1945; fig. 2), a traditional subject in the history of Western art, Borges presents the encounter between the archangel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary within a modern, formal configuration simultaneously framed within a familial, affective space.¹⁴ Brought together in an intimate setting but in golden tones denoting the sacred, the scene presumes a certain hierarchy between the characters, since Mary is seated and looking upward at the archangel hovering just above her, thereby granting greater importance to the spiritual being and his tidings. However, unlike other artists before her, Borges depicted this meeting without resorting to symbols or other elements usually associated with it. In fact, Gabriel is wingless and dressed no differently than a mortal. His clothes share a certain contemporaneity and style with those worn by the Virgin Mary, who is dressed in green (as opposed to the traditional blue and red), sports a modern hairstyle, and lacks a veil—just like countless modern young women in the first half of the 20th century. In this way, Borges returned a founding myth in the history of Western civilization to daily life, bringing it closer to her audience, who must pay attention to the title to understand that what is happening is not a simple chat between friends—and perhaps and perhaps not even between women friends at that. In fact, gender ambiguity is a characteristic of this work and others by the artist. The scholar Roberta Ann Quance has highlighted the presence of a “female androgyny” in Borges’s paintings through the artist’s depiction of slightly effeminate beings set in pink worlds, as in her images of lovers, newlyweds, and angels.¹⁵ Without calling herself a feminist or pretending to reflect on gender, Borges destabilized sex/gender limits and granted a leading role to affectivity, a quality marginalized by the sexist structure of modern society and that would acquire political relevance decades later.¹⁶

In many of Borges’s images, through a language of love devoid of romantic cliché, the bodies of her subjects touch or caress each other—including in The Annunciation, where the position of the arms could be understood as a precursor to an embrace. Confronting the relationship between emotionalism, weakness, and female inferiority, Borges reaffirmed the female, in contrast to other women of the avant-garde (like Maruja Mallo or Frida Kahlo) who, as Quance suggests, assimilated male styles and activities in order to “pal around” with male artists.¹⁷ For example, in Borges’s painting Holy Week (fig. 3), the Biblical characters are identifiable by the symbols they carry rather than by their features, which do not differ greatly from one another. Veronica, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus all have oval faces, gentle demeanors, big black eyes, and pastel-colored cassocks, and they are composed in an iconic arrangement. However, the staging of the scene and characters is closer to that of modern daily life than to a historicization and sacralization of Catholicism.

In Norah Borges’s pastel-colored universe, the private, mystic, intimate, and affective coexist with a rational harmony guided by a spiritual imprint. In this sense, religiosity is an aesthetic form and motif that brings the supernatural closer to the everyday, contributing strikingly to undo hierarchical binarisms (sacred/profane, reason/heart, modern/primitive, and feminine/masculine, among others), pillars of a modern Western narrative from which women (artists) found themselves excluded.

Divine Mestizaje: María Izquierdo’s Altars

María Cenobia Izquierdo was born in San Juan de los Lagos, Jalisco, a pilgrimage site thronged by the miracle-seeking faithful. She moved to Mexico City with her husband and children in the 1920s. In 1928, she entered the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes, where, in 1929, Diego Rivera was appointed director. Art historian Nancy Deffebach recounts that Rivera praised Izquierdo’s paintings in a student exhibition without knowing who had painted them and was surprised to find out that they had been done by a woman. As a result of this recognition, Izquierdo was invited to show her work in November 1929 in La nueva Galería del Arte Moderno, her first solo exhibition, but then had to abandon her studies when she fell victim to the jealousy and aggression of her classmates.¹⁸ By then separated from her husband, she was sharing a studio and had become romantically linked with the painter Rufino Tamayo; both were connected to the Contemporáneos, a group of young avant-gardists who opposed nationalist discourse and defended the internationalization of Mexican art and literature.¹⁹ Not coincidentally, in the 1930s, Octavio Paz, among other writers, reproduced some of Izquierdo’s paintings in the journal Taller in homage to this “heterodox” whose art, he recalled fifty years later, “was far removed from the muralists’ ideological painting.”²⁰

Along the same lines, the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska has suggested that Izquierdo was more Mexican than Frida Kahlo because she was not “folkloric but essential.”²¹ Depicting soup tureens, mermaids, peasants, dollhouses, self-portraits, and tablecloths, in her words, she painted “a still life with huachinango [red snapper].”²² Along these elements, the women in Izquierdo’s paintings (for example, the nudes or ballerinas, tightrope walkers, trapeze artists, and trainers of the circus universe) have active roles. Notably, as Jean Franco suggests, they stand in contrast to the representations of women by the famed Mexican muralists, who usually relegated their female subjects to a passive, secondary role.²³

Izquierdo’s series of altars to the Virgen de Dolores (Virgin of Sorrows), which she worked on at the end of her life, from 1943 to 1948, channeled her interest in 19th-century popular and religious art by means of female representations that have physical characteristics like her own. As Poniatowska notes, these Virgins have Izquierdo’s face as well as the curve of her lips, which evokes harshness and controlled internal rage—perhaps the result of having to create within an artistic field dominated by male muralists.²⁴ Izquierdo’s self-representation may also be connected to her own childhood memories, to the religious universe of Jalisco, to popular beliefs, and to mestizaje as a representation of Mexican national identity.

The Altar of Sorrows emerged as a tradition among Franciscan friars in Mexico in the 16th century, when it was installed only in temples; but upon growing in popularity, it was set up in squares, gardens, and within homes on the Friday of the sixth week of Lent, known as “Viernes de Dolores” (Friday of Sorrows). Although its purpose was to recall the Virgin Mary’s suffering over the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ, over time, it assumed festival characteristics, including an association with music and dance, that gave it a popular appeal. Among the objects common to traditional celebrations were paper tablecloths, white-and-purple curtains and garlands conveying purity and mourning; shiny ornaments and jars and glasses of flavored water representing the tears of the Virgin; fruits, such as oranges, symbolizing grief and bitterness; flags as symbols of hope and triumph through the Resurrection; and sprouted seeds as a metaphor for the life cycle but also associated with agriculture, flowers, and candles. For her part, the Virgin was dressed in mourning, sometimes with a heart pierced by daggers, and she had tears in her eyes and on her cheeks.²⁵

Izquierdo respected the traditional altar elements, which she incorporated in her paintings, and yet she included more personal, popular objects, such as decorated ceramic incense burners, among them. But perhaps the most distinctive characteristic is that, in contrast to the sorrowful Virgins of New Spain, Izquierdo’s Virgins are neither white nor alone. Moreover, they are not depicted in a sacred, timeless setting, but rather in a modern space that seems local, secular, and quotidian by comparison.²⁶ By painting an altar installation in a more contemporary way, Izquierdo evoked the domestic intimacy of a religious practice. In her Altar de Dolores (fig. 4), the transparency of the curtains indicates a religiosity that continues into daily life, suggesting a connection with the “beyond” that may be found in the “nearby” of Mexican popular culture. These transparent fabrics do not separate the two realms—rather, they integrate the sacred into everyday life in an intimate way, making clear that it belongs to a reality socially inscribed in the working class, as suggested by the austere frame of the painting and the image itself. According to some scholars, this painting is based on a series of inexpensive reproductions of an Italian Baroque painting that circulated widely in Mexico at the time.²⁷

Unlike Norah Borges, Izquierdo did not present herself as a believer—or even as someone interested in Catholic thought. Her altars instead responded to a popular religiosity practiced outside of the Church, one that, as anthropologist Renée de la Torre has indicated, was neither institutional nor individual, but rather social-communal. Moreover, as de la Torre points out, this popular religiosity unfolded between colonial syncretism and postcolonial hybridism. Within this context, it is not strange that Izquierdo’s Virgin has moved away from colonial, white-centered representation and is, instead, a sacred mestiza with Indigenous characteristics. This shift can be seen in Altar de Dolores and in Ofrenda del Viernes de Dolores (1943), in the Virgin’s dark skin, black eyes, and heavy features.²⁸In turn, the political gesture is explicit: As Deffebach has indicated, the images of the altar are an affirmation of popular customs that emphasizes gender, since in a time when a large part of the Mexican school, associated with the government, affirmed the nation’s virility, Izquierdo insisted that the national patrimony was also profoundly connected to Mexican women.²⁹ Izquierdo never tired of depicting Mexican women—whether sacred or profane—in her paintings and, at the same time, asserted in her own life the daring of a woman artist who transgressed the feminine codes of her age.

Miriam Inez da Silva’s Pop Sacrality

In line with conventional readings of the work of women artists, Miriam Inez da Silva’s paintings, like those of Norah Borges and María Izquierdo, have been characterized as “primitive,” “naïve,” “ingenuous,” and/or “folkloric” because they are associated with the simplicity, purity, and traditions of the state of Goiás in central Brazil. However, as curator Bernardo Mosqueira has noted, da Silva’s work is nonetheless also characterized by impurity, complexity, intention, slyness, and transgression.³⁰ In aesthetic terms, the seeming contradictions may be explained by the convergence of artists who inspired her: the Concretist Ivan Serpa, who was her teacher at the Museo de Arte Moderno (MAM) in Río de Janeiro, where she lived from the 1970s onward, and the votive painters whose works hang on the walls of the Hall of Miracles in the Igreja Matriz in Trindade, where da Silva was born and raised.³¹ There are several versions of the origin story of this small city located in the interior of Goiás. According to one, it was established in the mid-19th century by garimpeiros (miners) Constantino Rosa and Ana Xavier, a married couple who, while working there, found a medallion depicting the Holy Trinity crowning the Virgin Mary; another holds that Rosa made the medallion to justify building a chapel on his property. Whatever the case, the object attracted both the faithful and pilgrims, who prayed and gave thanks for the miracles associated with it, and it inspired the construction of a church that to this day houses one of the finest collections of Latin American votive art.³²

Steeped in this popular culture of devotion, da Silva changed its sign. She did not give thanks for miracles that occurred in the past but rather recast them in modern-day renditions on canvas. From this perspective, I analyze da Silva’s Marian representation Nossa Senhora dos Anjos (Our Lady of the Angels; fig. 5), in which the Virgin and Child are surrounded by angels playing musical instruments. In this festive scene set in a bright field of white, there is something surprising: Da Silva has depicted Mary as a modern young woman wearing red lipstick, blue eye shadow, and blush on her cheeks (as are the angels and the Baby Jesus). In turn, while in traditional images of the Virgin, she is fully robed from head to toe, da Silva’s Mary wears a dress that accentuates her slim waist and provocatively reveals her cleavage. Furthermore, with its shimmering blue fabric, puff sleeves, and sweetheart neckline, this garment corresponds to the fashion of the 1980s—as do her high heels. Nor is da Silva’s Virgin veiled; though her hair is down, it is partially pulled back in a contemporary style that distances her from traditional Marian representations. Finally, the Brazilian artist carried out a subtle inversion by clothing her central subject in a blue dress and red cloak—instead of the opposite as is traditional in the visual history of Catholicism. In this way, by transgressing and profaning the codes of Marian representation, the Virgin recovers her feminine condition, evoking the sensuality and body lost in the Christian myth of the conception, without ceasing to be a devotional symbol.

Da Silva’s Virgin makes sense within the artist’s imaginative universe, in which religious figures coexist with figures from popular culture and other forms of belief or worlds—for example, the tarot or extraterrestrials—in joyful, celebratory scenes. In this regard, da Silva’s Mary is inscribed within the chronicle of female characters—from traditional (like brides) to literary (such as Jorge Amado’s female protagonists) or legendary (like in pop culture, the Brazilian singer and songwriter Rita Lee)—that offers a more liberated version of female subjectivity, establishing what curator Kiki Mazzucchelli calls a “microsubversion of the dominant morality of the provincial middle class that rejects the manifestation of women’s sexual desire.”³³ Additionally, the artist has called into question the ideals of maternity; indeed, in da Silva’s paintings, the Virgin often appears exhausted, letting the angels help her to care for the Baby Jesus.³⁴

Da Silva’s “milagros,” or miracles, therefore, serve to dismantle the dichotomies separating the sacred and the profane, sin and holiness, purity and impurity, fantasy and reality, and of course, popular or mass culture and high culture. Regarding the latter, Mazzucchelli proposes considering da Silva’s work within the context of a Pop art all its own, that is, as a form of Pop that is “neither the Pop of postwar US consumer society, nor the politicized manifestations of Pop art that emerged in the Rio–São Paulo axis during the 1960s, but rather the ‘Pop’ of the visual culture of a largely rural country.”³⁵ In adopting this language, da Silva carried out diversions, inversions, and exaggerations that approach a camp sensibility. Through this aesthetic of irony, artifice, and exaggeration, she shaped her political commitment—as in her Seven Deadly Sins series. For example, in Calumny (fig. 6), a woman being slandered for expressing her sexuality and desire resembles the Virgin depicted in Nossa Senhora dos Anjos (see fig. 5) in not only her features and makeup but also in the neckline of her dress, while in Wrath (fig. 7), a femicide is taking place. Without moralizing or conservatism, da Silva placed religiosity at the service of a critique of gender bias and a denunciation of the forms of patriarchy in Brazilian society.

In his text on exvotos, the philosopher and art historian Georges Didi-Huberman declares that votive images seem not to exist for the art historian, since they generate unease and place the aesthetic model of history as a continuous narrative chain and a family romance of “influences” in crisis.³⁶ In a way, Miriam Inez da Silva’s interest in religious materiality has also placed her at the margins of the grand narratives of modern Latin American art—even though she knew how to combine the lessons of the avant-garde with manifestations of popular culture, rupturing the conventions of religious art, impugning the social customs and rules of the sexist behavior of her time, and creating innovations in the Brazilian artistic field, which thankfully has, in recent years, given her work greater visibility.

* * * *

In our contemporary era, room has been made for the sacred aspect of modernity, which has not died out amid secularization. But in addition, and more importantly, modern art has concerned itself with the intersections of religion, politics, and gender, allowing for emancipatory narratives and gestures outside the institutionality of the divine and thereby coming closer to daily realities. I propose that the work of Norah Borges, María Izquierdo, and Miriam Inez da Silva constitutes a vital contribution to this reflection, since all three, in different ways, used religious material as a means of artistic experimentation and a disputable narrative that they appropriated to imagine feminist ways of inhabiting the world—even when their personal positions did not coincide with this ideology. On the other hand, if one attends to the “activism of their works,” as Andrea Giunta proposes, the representations of the Virgin and the Biblical universe encountered in their paintings crack open the secular, rational agenda of modern art that, as art historian Erika Doss states, was defined by art historians and critics as “anti-religion” and “anti-religious.”³⁷ At the same time, they make it possible to call into question the patriarchal system that supports gender discrimination in both religious discourse and the field of art.

Translated from Spanish by Christopher Winks.

Spanish

“María es el mito de una mujer sin vagina”, sentencia Marcella Althaus-Reid en La teología indecente. Perversiones teológicas en el sexo, el género y la política.³⁸Con un tono polémico, pero no por eso menos certero, la teóloga queer afirma que la adoración de la Virgen en América Latina en el siglo XX no provocó una sensación de empoderamiento para las mujeres, ya que siempre requirió que se negara su cuerpo a través del misterio de su virginidad.³⁹También que se negara su voz, puesto que en sus múltiples apariciones en América Latina, y a diferencia de Europa, ella no hablaba, sino que aparecía ante sus elegidos y elegidas como una mujer de tez clara, envuelta por tela de alta factura y adornada con metales y piedras preciosas. Así, sin voz, pero con un poderoso discurso visual, su imagen cumplió dos roles que, en apariencia, resultaban contradictorios. Por un lado, fue un elemento central del dominio militar y espiritual desde la conquista hasta las recientes dictaduras militares latinoamericanas (patrocinio que se sintetizó en el apodo que asumió a partir del siglo XIX: la “Virgen Generala”).⁴⁰Por el otro, se la representó como madre y esposa ejemplar consolidando dentro del catolicismo un modelo de feminidad obediente, sin agencia ni deseo que, lejos de intervenir en el espacio público, debía recluirse en la “seguridad” del hogar ejerciendo tareas domésticas y maternales. Entre ambos extremos, la imagen de una Virgen María autoritaria se utilizaba en contra del Otro diferente o en contra de la igualdad de sus compañeras de género. La devoción mariana, de este modo, al sostener los valores de pureza, de heterosexualidad (y asexualidad), de eurocentrismo y de la maternidad como destino manifiesto, reprodujo y contribuyó a las desigualdades de clase, género y raza sobre las que se erigieron las sociedades moderno-coloniales y cristianas en Latinoamérica.

Tomando en cuenta estas representaciones de la Virgen inscriptas en un imaginario patriarcal como punto de partida, es posible rastrear otras visualidades en el arte moderno latinoamericano del siglo XX que enfrentaron el mito de una mujer sacra sin cuerpo ni voz. Entre otras, se destacan las obras de las artistas Norah Borges (Argentina, 1901-1998), María Izquierdo (México, 1902-1955) y Miriam Inez da Silva (Brasil, 1939-1996) al componer otras narrativas visuales, o contranarrativas, que no solo provocan los imperativos canónicos de representación mariana, sino que, fundamentalmente, imponen un modo alternativo y femenino de acercamiento a lo divino. Dependiendo del caso, sus aproximaciones se vuelven cercanas, afectuosas y sensibles; vivaces y populares; o corpóreas, táctiles e incluso sexuales. Sin ironía ni blasfemia pero siguiendo un impulso profanador que devuelve lo sagrado al uso común y comunitario, estas tres artistas se interesaron por la creencia religiosa y su potencialidad creativa que delinea otra forma de entender la religión en la modernidad y, al mismo tiempo, abre un espacio de experimentación estética y ética que si bien siguen el canon modernista, proponen miradas originales sobre el vínculo entre arte, política y género.⁴¹Como mostrará el análisis comparativo propuesto, el lenguaje religioso –contra todo pronóstico– habilita novedosas configuraciones afectivas, populares y corporales, que desafían el orden sexista y patriarcal vigente tanto en el campo social y religioso como en el campo artístico latinoamericano.

El misticismo cotidiano de Norah Borges

Primero poeta, luego artista, Norah Borges estudió grabado en Europa, en 1914 con el artista belga Frans Masereel, convirtiéndose –junto con su hermano Jorge Luis– en una participante activa de la vanguardia española ultraísta. Al regresar a Buenos Aires en los años veinte, esta experiencia vanguardista la acompañó y fue una participante activa del grupo de jóvenes renovadores que confluyeron en las páginas de las revistas Prisma, Proa y Martin Fierro.⁴²No obstante, a fines de esa misma década, ya casada con el crítico español Guillermo de Torre, Borges comenzó a interesarse por un arte alineado a la tendencia parisina conocida como el retorno al orden, que abogaba por la tranquilidad de las formas y contrastaba con las expresiones radicales del expresionismo; y esto coincide con su acercamiento a una incipiente intelectualidad católica que intentaba trazar lazos con escritores y artistas modernos.⁴³Por eso, su nombre aparece entre quienes exhibieron por esos años en la sala de los Cursos de Cultura Católica de Buenos Aires, al mismo tiempo que enviaba contribuciones visuales –dibujos y xilografías– a las revistas modernas del catolicismo cultural, Criterio y Número.⁴⁴En esta última publicación, aparecen “Niña vestida de primera comunión” y “Aviñón” (fig. 1), dos dibujos que, vistos en conjunto, muestran que el interés religioso de Borges no puede pensarse por fuera de la estética del retorno al orden y su vuelta a los valores clásicos, metafísicos y armónicos.⁴⁵

Si, dentro de la historiografía del arte, el retorno al orden permitió a artistas y escritores volver su mirada al pasado premoderno, a la figuración y a la búsqueda de los valores clásicos, Borges le aportó su singularidad ya que, como sugiere Patricia Artundo, su filiación contaba con la libertad de no pertenecer estrictamente a la cultura europea de posguerra.⁴⁶Esto es evidente en “Un cuadro sinóptico de la pintura”, texto publicado en la revista Martín Fierro (marzo de 1927) sin firma pero adjudicado a Borges. En este texto, los lemas de orden, proporción, contornos nítidos y formas definidas conviven con la necesidad de colores que, según la artista, “den alegría a los ojos”, como el rosa y limón, el rosa y verde veronés y el rosa salmón, junto con el llamado “color místico” que equivaldría al “color que las cosas tendrán también en el cielo”.⁴⁷Esta tendencia al pastel, que evita los contrastes cromáticos violentos, junto con su interés por los circos, los juguetes, los niños y los decoradores de carros, hicieron que los críticos varones, contemporáneos a su obra, enfatizaran el aspecto espontáneo e infantil y, por tanto femenino, de un modo condescendiente y un tanto paternalista, dejando de lado el aspecto constructivo de sus obras, guiado por las premisas de armonía y proporcionalidad.⁴⁸

Aunque la feminidad sea “una condición opresiva” para las productoras culturales, explica Griselda Pollock, los análisis de las obras deberían no solo explorar los límites sino también las maneras en que las mujeres negociaron y transformaron esa condición.⁴⁹En el caso de Borges, el trabajo con el afecto en sus obras es tanto consecuencia de los “buenos” atributos femeninos que debería cultivar una mujer de su clase social como posibilidad de una percepción, ya no visual, sino háptica. Una apuesta, de este modo, por la sensorialidad como experiencia de mundo y como forma de resistencia para algunos cuerpos (mujeres, jóvenes y niños, especialmente), los cuales, distribuidos en espacios pictóricos opresivos, forman comunidad a partir del contacto entre ellos. De esta manera, mientras que su modo de composición formal ofreció un desvío en la estética del orden al conjugar sin conflicto geometría con sentimiento, sus trabajos de impronta religiosa también se desviaron de la primacía viril y agresiva que tomó el discurso católico en esos años, al investigar recurrentemente el costado cotidiano y afectivo de la fe. De forma novedosa, Borges propone una espiritualidad apastelada, alegre y amistosa que acerque los personajes religiosos a quienes ven sus lienzos.⁵⁰A su vez, le otorga materialidad a la representación de lo sacro haciendo del cuerpo, y del contacto entre los cuerpos, un motivo recurrente.

En su escena de La anunciación (1945) (fig.3), tópico recurrente en la historia del arte occidental, Borges presenta el encuentro entre el arcángel Gabriel y la Virgen María dentro de una configuración formal moderna que, al mismo tiempo, está enmarcada dentro de un espacio familiar y afectivo.⁵¹Reunidos en un espacio íntimo, pero con tonos dorados que denotan sacralidad, la escena supone cierta jerarquía entre los personajes, ya que María está sentada y mira hacia arriba otorgándole mayor importancia al arcángel y su noticia. Sin embargo, a diferencia de otras composiciones, Borges representa esta escena sin necesidad de recurrir a símbolos o elementos que remitan a ese episodio bíblico; el arcángel Gabriel ni siquiera tiene alas ni viste de manera distinta a un mortal. De hecho, su vestimenta comparte cierta contemporaneidad con la de la Virgen María, que no solo no está representada con los tradicionales colores azul y rojo, sino que porta un peinado moderno y no utiliza velo, tal como lo haría una joven en la primera mitad del siglo XX. De esta manera, Borges vuelve cotidiano un mito fundante de la historia de la civilización occidental, acercándolo a los espectadores, quienes deben prestar atención al título para entender que no se trata simplemente de una charla entre amigos, ¿o amigas? La ambigüedad genérica es un rasgo presente en esta y otras de sus obras. La investigadora Roberta Quance ha señalado la presencia de una “androginia femenina” en sus pinturas a través de seres vagamente afeminados insertos dentro de un mundo rosa, como sucede con los amantes o los novios, o con sus ángeles.⁵²Sin proclamarse feminista y sin pretender hacer una reflexión de género, Borges desestabiliza los límites sexo-genéricos y, en sintonía, otorga protagonismo a la afectividad, esa cualidad marginalizada por la estructura sexista de la sociedad moderna que cobrará relevancia política décadas más tarde.⁵³

A través de una gramática del amor que no le teme al cliché romántico, los cuerpos representados se tocan o acarician en muchas de sus imágenes –incluso en el caso de La anunciación, la disposición de los brazos podría entenderse como el signo de un potencial abrazo. Enfrentando la relación entre emocionalidad, debilidad e inferioridad femenina, Borges reafirmó lo femenino en sus cuadros, en contraste con otras mujeres de la vanguardia que, como sugiere Quance, se asimilaban a los modos y actividades masculinas para “hombrearse” con los demás artistas (como Maruja Mallo o Frida Kahlo).⁵⁴Por ejemplo, en su obra titulada Holy Week (Semana Santa) (fig.4), una pintura en la que los personajes bíblicos se vuelven identificables por los símbolos que cargan, sus rasgos no se diferencian mucho entre sí. La Verónica, José de Arimatea y Nicodemo poseen rostros ovales, facciones suaves, ojos negros y grandes, sotanas de colores pasteles y una misma disposición icónica. Sin embargo, la representación de la escena y los personajes está más cercana de un contexto moderno-cotidiano, que a la historización y sacralización del catolicismo.

El universo apastelado de lo privado, lo místico, lo íntimo y afectivo de Borges convivió con la armonía racional de sus composiciones también guiada por una impronta espiritual. Lo religioso, en este sentido, es forma y motivo estético que acercan lo sobrenatural a las prácticas cotidianas, contribuyendo llamativamente a desbaratar los binarismos jerárquicos (sacro/profano, razón/corazón, moderno/primitivo, femenino/masculino, entre otros), pilares de un relato moderno occidental en el que las (artistas) mujeres se vieron excluidas.

Mestizar lo divino: los altares de María Izquierdo

María Cenobia Izquierdo nació en San Juan de los Lagos, Jalisco, un lugar de peregrinaje que se llenaba de devotos en busca de milagros. Se mudó a la Ciudad de México en la década de los veinte, con su marido e hijos. Ingresó a la Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes en 1928, donde tiempo después Diego Rivera fue nombrado director. Cuenta la historiadora de arte Nancy Deffebach, que Rivera elogió los cuadros de Izquierdo en una exposición de estudiantes sin saber que ella los había pintado y que se sorprendió al enterarse de que era una mujer. Como consecuencia de este reconocimiento, pudo organizar su primera exposición individual en la Galería de Arte Moderno en noviembre de 1929, pero debió abandonar sus estudios ya que fue víctima de los celos y agresiones de sus compañeros que no entendían por qué ella era considerada la única estudiante con talento.⁵⁵Separada, compartió atelier y estableció un vínculo amoroso con Rufino Tamayo; ambos se relacionaron con los jóvenes de vanguardia conocidos como los Contemporáneos, quienes se oponían al discurso nacionalista y defendían la internacionalización del arte y la literatura mexicanos.⁵⁶No por casualidad Octavio Paz, entre otros escritores, reprodujeron, en la década del treinta, algunas imágenes de Izquierdo en la revista Taller como una forma de homenaje a esa pintora “heterodoxa”, cuyo arte, recuerda Paz cincuenta años más tarde, “estaba muy lejos de la pintura ideológica de los muralistas”.⁵⁷

Siguiendo la misma línea, la autora mexicana Elena Poniatowska sugiere que Izquierdo resultaba más mexicana que Frida Kahlo porque no era “folklórica sino esencial”, ya que pintaba naturalezas muertas, soperas, sirenas, campesinos, casas infantiles, manteles, autorretratos, en sus palabras, “una naturaleza viva con huachinango.”⁵⁸Junto con estos elementos, los personajes femeninos que tienen una presencia recurrente en sus cuadros (como bailarinas, equilibristas, trapecistas y domadoras del universo circense o desnudos femeninos) tienen roles activos y, como sugiere Jean Franco, contrastaban con las representaciones femeninas de los afamados muralistas mexicanos que usualmente otorgaban a la figura femenina un papel secundario y pasivo.⁵⁹

   Su serie de altares para la Virgen de Dolores en la que trabajó desde 1943 hasta 1948 –casi al final de su vida– canaliza su interés por el arte popular y religioso del siglo XIX a través de representaciones femeninas que toman características físicas de la propia artista. Según apunta Poniatowska, estas vírgenes portan el rostro de Izquierdo y la curvatura de sus labios, expresando una dureza y una rabia interior contenida, posiblemente un producto de crear en un campo artístico dominado por los varones del muralismo.⁶⁰También su autofiguración puede relacionarse con la vuelta a la infancia, al universo religioso de Jalisco, a las creencias populares y al mestizaje como representación de la identidad nacional mexicana.

Surgido como tradición en México en el siglo XVI con los frailes franciscanos, el Altar de Dolores pasa de colocarse solamente en templos a hacerlo en plazas, jardines y dentro de los hogares el sexto viernes de cuaresma, conocido como el “Viernes de Dolores”. Si bien su función era recordar el sufrimiento de la Virgen María por la pasión y muerte de su hijo Jesucristo, con el paso del tiempo comienza a tomar características festivas que lo popularizan y lo acompañan de música y bailes. Se utilizaban manteles de papel, cortinas y guirnaldas en blanco y morado que traían las ideas de pureza y luto; adornos brillantes, jarras y vasos de agua de diferentes sabores que representaban las lágrimas de la Virgen; frutas, como la naranja que remitía a la amargura y el dolor; banderas como símbolos de esperanza y triunfo por la Resurrección; y semillas germinadas como metáfora del ciclo de la vida, pero también en asociación con la agricultura, flores y velas. Por su parte, la Virgen viste de luto, a veces con un corazón clavado con dagas, siempre con lágrimas en sus ojos y mejillas.⁶¹

Izquierdo respeta los elementos tradicionales de los altares, los cuales aparecen en sus pinturas, e incluye dentro de estos también objetos de artesanía popular como apuesta personal –por ejemplo, sahumadores de cerámica decorados. Pero quizá el rasgo más distintivo es que, a diferencia de las vírgenes dolorosas novohispánicas, las vírgenes de Izquierdo no son blancas ni están solas. Tampoco están en un ambiente ni sacro ni atemporal, sino en uno cercano, secular y cotidiano.⁶²Al recrear la instalación de un altar a través de la pintura siguiendo cánones modernos, Izquierdo opta por concentrarse en la intimidad doméstica de esa práctica religiosa. En su altar de Dolores, la transparencia de las cortinas marca una religiosidad que continúa en la vida cotidiana, permitiendo una conexión con el “más allá” que, en realidad, se encuentra en un “más acá” de la cultura popular mexicana. Las telas transparentes no separan, sino que integran lo sagrado a la vida íntima, de modo que es evidente que corresponde a una realidad inscrita socialmente en la clase trabajadora sugerido por el marco austero del cuadro de la Virgen y la misma imagen que, según algunos estudiosos, está basada en la reproducción de una pintura barroca italiana que circuló masivamente en ediciones baratas en México.⁶³

A diferencia de Norah Borges, Izquierdo no se presenta como creyente ni está interesada en el pensamiento católico. Sus altares responden a una religiosidad popular que se practica por fuera de la Iglesia y que, por tanto, como ha señalado la antropóloga Renée de la Torre, no es ni institucional ni individual, sino social-comunitaria. Asimismo, de la Torre puntualiza que esta religiosidad popular se desenvuelve entre los sincretismos coloniales y los hibridismos poscoloniales, y no es extraño entonces que la Virgen que pinta Izquierdo se aleje de la representación colonial y blancocéntrica, proponiendo una imagen sacra-mestiza que recupera rasgos indígenas, como se ve en Altar de Dolores y también en Ofrenda del Viernes de Dolores (1943), a través de la piel morena, los ojos negros y las facciones gruesas.⁶⁴A su vez, el gesto político es explícito: como ha señalado Defferach, las imágenes de los altares son una afirmación de las costumbres populares que hace hincapié en el género, ya que en una época en la que gran parte de la escuela mexicana, asociada con el gobierno, afirmaba la virilidad de la nación, Izquierdo insistía en que el patrimonio nacional también estaba profundamente vinculado a las mujeres mexicanas.⁶⁵Profanas o sacras, no se cansó de representarlas en sus cuadros, asumiendo al mismo tiempo en su propia vida la osadía de una artista mujer que transgrede los códigos femeninos de su época.

La sacralidad pop de Miriam Inez da Silva

Siguiendo las convenciones de lectura impuestas a las artistas, la obra de Miriam Inez da Silva, al igual que la de Norah Borges y María Izquierdo, fue categorizada como “primitiva”, “naif” e “ingenua” y/o “popular”, porque apelaba a la simplicidad, la pureza y la tradición del interior del estado brasileño de Goiás, en el centro del país. Sin embargo, según el curador Bernardo Mosqueira, hay impureza, complejidad, intención, malicia y transgresión en su trabajo.⁶⁶En términos estéticos, las contradicciones que crea su proyecto artístico en el sistema de categorización del arte podría explicarse por la convergencia de dos artistas que la inspiraron, según ella misma afirma: por un lado, el concretista Ivan Serpa, que fue su profesor en el Museo de Arte Moderno (MAM) de Río de Janeiro, ciudad en la que vive desde los años sesenta; por el otro, los artistas votivos, cuyas obras colgaban en las paredes de la Sala de los Milagros de la Iglesia Matriz en la ciudad de Trindade, donde nació y creció.⁶⁷Hay varias versiones sobre el origen de esta pequeña ciudad del interior de Goiás. Una cuenta que fue fundada a mediados del siglo XIX por una pareja de garimpeiros (mineros), Constantino Rosa y Ana Xavier, quienes encontraron una medalla de la Santísima Trinidad coronando a la Virgen María; otra versión sostiene que fue Rosa quien fabricó la pieza para justificar su deseo de construir una capilla en su propiedad. En cualquiera de los dos casos, la medalla atrajo devotos y romerías, que rezaban y agradecían los milagros, y también condujo a la construcción de una iglesia que, aún hoy, alberga una de las mayores colecciones de arte votivo latinoamericano.⁶⁸

Impregnada de esta devoción popular, da Silva le cambia el signo: no agradece a milagros ya sucedidos, sino que los crea en su tela para que sucedan efectivamente en la realidad. Desde esta óptica se podría analizar la singular representación mariana que da Silva realiza de Nuestra Señora de los Ángeles (fig. 6). Recortándose dentro de un fondo claro limitado por una moldura propia, se ve, como es de esperar, a la Virgen rodeada de ángeles. Estos la festejan, le cantan y tocan música con diferentes instrumentos. Pero dentro de esa escena festiva, algo llama la atención: da Silva representa a la Virgen como una mujer joven maquillada con labial rojo, sombra azul en sus ojos y rubor en sus mejillas (al igual que los ángeles y el niño Jesús). A su vez, si tradicionalmente las vírgenes suelen ser representadas completamente cubiertas, del cuello a los pies, la virgen de da Silva porta un vestido azul que marca la figura de su cuerpo y un escote que muestra provocativamente el borde superior de sus pechos. Además, ese vestido corresponde a la moda de los años ochenta, de tela azul tornasolado, las mangas abullonadas, el escote corazón y los tacones altos. La virgen de da Silva no porta velo; su cabello está semirrecogido, simulando asimismo una tendencia contemporánea, y alejándose de la convencionalidad de la representación mariana. Finalmente, la artista brasileña realiza una sutil inversión al pintarla con vestido azul y manto rojo, en lugar de mantener la iconografía utilizada en la historia visual del catolicismo. De esta manera, al transgredir y profanar los códigos de representación mariana, la virgen recupera su condición femenina, representadas por el cuerpo y la sensualidad, perdidos en el mito cristiano de la concepción sin por ello dejar de ser un símbolo de devoción.

Sin dudas, la virgen cobra sentido dentro del universo imaginario de da Silva en el que los personajes religiosos conviven con los de la cultura popular y con otras formas de creencia –como el tarot o los extraterrestres–, siempre dispuestos en escenas festivas, celebratorias y gozosas. En este sentido, esta imagen mariana se inscribe en una serie de personajes femeninos, tradicionales –como las novias– y populares –como las protagonistas de las novela de Jorge Amado– o masivas –como Rita Lee–, que ofrece una versión más liberada de la subjetividad femenina, estableciendo una “microsubversión del moralismo vigente en la clase media provinciana que repudia la manifestación del deseo sexual en la mujer.”⁶⁹Incluso también se pone en disputa la propia idea de maternidad, ya que muchas veces la virgen se muestra exhausta, dejando que los ángeles ayuden en la tarea de cuidar al niño Jesús.⁷⁰

Los “milagros” que pinta Miriam da Silva, entonces, apuestan por desarmar las dicotomías que separan lo sagrado de lo profano, el pecado de la santidad, la pureza de la impureza, la fantasía de lo real, y, por supuesto, lo popular y masivo de la alta cultura. Sobre esto último, la curadora Kiki Mazzucchelli propone pensar la obra de da Silva dentro del diseño de un arte “pop” singular, y lo distingue de otras corrientes al aclarar: “no el pop de la sociedad de consumo estadounidense de posguerra, ni tampoco las manifestaciones politizadas del arte pop que surgieron en el eje Río-San Pablo en la década de 1960, sino el ‘pop’ de la cultura visual de un país en su mayoría rural.” Adoptando este lenguaje, la artista brasileña realiza desvíos, inversiones y exageraciones que la acercarán a la sensibilidad camp.⁷¹A través de esta estética de la ironía, el artificio y la exageración, da Silva moldea su compromiso político, como se pone en evidencia en su serie de los pecados capitales. Mientras que, por ejemplo, en la imagen sobre la calumnia (fig.6), un personaje femenino es víctima de la difamación por su pose sexual de mujer deseante y sexual –que se asemeja a la figura de la virgen en sus rasgos, maquillaje y escote –; en la imagen sobre la ira (fig.7) se presenta directamente un caso de femicidio. Sin moralismo ni conservadurismo, la religiosidad se pone al servicio de la crítica de género y la denuncia de las formas del patriarcado en la sociedad brasileña.

En su texto sobre los exvotos, el historiador del arte y filósofo Georges Didi-Huberman afirma que las imágenes votivas parecen no existir ya que generan malestar y una puesta en crisis del modelo estético que piensa la historia como una cadena narrativa continua y una novela familiar de “influencias”.⁷²De alguna manera, este interés de Miriam Inez da Silva por la materialidad religiosa también la colocó al margen de los grandes relatos de la historia del arte moderno latinoamericano, aun cuando supo combinar las enseñanzas del arte de vanguardia con las manifestaciones de la cultura popular generando rupturas a las convenciones del arte religioso, impugnaciones a las costumbres sociales y reglas de conducta sexista de su época e innovaciones en el campo artístico brasileño que, gratamente, en los últimos años ha dado mayor visibilidad a su trabajo.

* * * *

Nuestra contemporaneidad ha sabido darle un lugar al costado sagrado de lo moderno, que no se extinguió pese a las teorías fatalistas de la secularización. Pero, además, y más importante, el arte moderno se ha interesado por el cruce entre religiosidades, política y género, permitiendo narrativas y gestos emancipadores por fuera de la institucionalidad de lo divino, y acercándose así a las realidades de la cotidianidad. Propongo entonces que la obra de Norah Borges, María Izquierdo y Miriam Inez da Silva constituye un aporte imprescindible a esa reflexión, ya que las tres, de diferentes maneras, eligieron el material religioso como una vía de experimentación artística y como un relato que podía ponerse en disputa, del cual se apropiaron para imaginar modos feministas de habitar el mundo, más allá de que sus posicionamientos personales no coincidieran con ese ideario. Si se atiende, en cambio, al “activismo de sus obras”, como propone Andrea Giunta, las representaciones de la virgen y del universo bíblico que se encuentran en sus cuadros agrietan la agenda secular y racional del arte moderno que, como sostiene la historiadora de arte Erika Doss, fue definido por críticos e historiadores del arte como “antirreligión” y “antirreligioso”.⁷³ Y, al mismo tiempo, hacen posible la puesta en cuestión del sistema patriarcal que sostiene la discriminación de género tanto en el discurso religioso como en el campo de las artes.

The post Female Approaches to the Divine: The Marian Representations of Norah Borges, María Izquierdo, and Miriam Inez da Silva / Acercamientos femeninos a lo divino. Las representaciones marianas de Norah Borges, María Izquierdo y Miriam Inez da Silva appeared first on post.

The following essay by art historian Talita Trizoli reveals the influence of a Catholic and spiritual pathos in the work of influential though relatively unknown Brazilian critic Maria Eugênia Franco. Taking as case studies Franco’s writings on artists such as Samson Flexor, Henri Michaux, and Mestre Nosa and artworks attributed to unrecognized Baroque artisans, Trizoli establishes a direct relationship between Catholic motifs and the development of modernity in Brazilian art and identities.

Religion is eminently social. Religious representations are collective representations which express collective realities; the rites are a manner of acting which take rise in the midst of the assembled groups and which are destined to excite, maintain, or recreate certain mental states in those groups. —Emile Durkheim¹

Between 1948 and 1954, Brazilian art critic and curator Maria Eugênia Franco (1915–1999) had a regular column in O Estado de São Paulo, a real achievement given this newspaper, and several others, was marked by misogyny and conservative values.²Over the course of seven years, Franco offered commentary and analyses, predominantly about the art circuit in São Paulo, in addition to lucid criticism of the systemic aspect of the milieu and formal observations on the work of specific artists, most of whom were contemporary.³

Still relatively unfamiliar to the general public, Franco’s critical writings allow us to understand miscellaneous efforts in the modern Latin American context to reconcile form and content—a conflict inherent to aesthetic programs in their various versions and a recurring theme in Brazilian art criticism.⁴

A large part of Franco’s critical work deals with artists and artistic events on the so-called Rio–São Paulo axis, raising structural issues surrounding the organization of the Brazilian art circuit, mainly as it relates to audience formation and cultural institutions.⁵ In terms of the selection of articles commented upon here, the content concerns sacred themes explored by Brazilian artists not only as an object of formal exercise but also as a representation of an affective memory linked to the construction of national identity, since figures dear to popular culture and religious festivals, in this case saints and passages from the life of Christ, have been chosen to allegorize reality in Brazil. 

Embedded in the constitution of Brazilian national identity, the mystical narratives of Catholicism, a fundamental element of Portuguese colonization, formed a set of folkloric entities in the collective imagination that mixed with the mythologies of the various original Indigenous peoples and the shamanic practices of the African subjects exiled by the slave regime. Although the poetic and violent encounter between these cultures generated a rich symbolic ensemble, the Catholic-Apostolic-Roman structure remained the organizing imperative of Brazilian culture.⁶

Coming from a Catholic family, like most of the Brazilian population at the time, Franco was familiar with Christian religious “mysteries” even though she was not a practicing Catholic.⁷Indeed, from the Barroco Mineiro, or Baroque of Minas Gerais, chosen as the first artistic manifestation of the Brazilian spirit, to the religious calendar of collective festivals and the obvious predominance of biblical passages in the history of art, some knowledge of Christian mysticism was almost inevitable.⁸

For Franco, the mystery of the Catholic religious experience emerged as a theme already widely recognized in the artistic sphere rather than as an element of amazement or one of discovery. This aspect can also be seen in the artistic production of her sister, painter Maria Leontina (1917–1984), especially in a series of abstracted representations of Saint Anne (figs. 1, 2) and in banners she presented as objects of scrutiny for the application of chromatic nuance and composition inspired by Giorgio Morandi.⁹

Committed to remaining professionally impartial, Franco did not write frequently about the work of her sister or brother-in-law, Milton Dacosta (1915–1988), who was also a painter. (Rather, her exchanges with both frequently took place in person or through letters). She dedicated some of her columns, however, to the work of partner artists in which the sacred theme is manifested alongside formal investigation and dramatic Christian narratives (the mystical pathos), which are mobilized for the sentimental education of the spectator.¹⁰Of these texts, an analysis of artist Samson Flexor (1907–1971) and his work in the article “Flexor e a arte religiosa” (“Flexor and Religious Art”) is significant.¹¹

Flexor was born in Moldova, in the city of Soroca, but after traveling through Brussels and Paris, he settled permanently in Brazil in 1948. Having earned a degree in painting from the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts in Paris and studying art history at the Sorbonne—in addition to holding a degree in chemistry, which he had previously earned in Brussels—Flexor was an artist who was intellectual about his own work.¹²He is considered among the pioneers of abstraction in Brazil, mainly after critical contact with Belgian art critic Léon Degand (1907–1958), first director of the Museu de Arte Moderna de São Paulo (MAM) and an advocate of abstraction. It is important to highlight that Flexor was in no way a defender of a dogmatic and protocol-based artistic practice; indeed, he believed in the affective and dramatic dimensions of art—as can be seen in his clashes with members of the Concrete art movement, whom he nicknamed “Concretinos” (a mixture of “concrete” and “cretins” in Portuguese).¹³

It is from this sense of religious pathos that Franco approached Flexor’s work. In her article about the artist, Maria Eugênia highlights two solo exhibitions on display in São Paulo, one at Galeria Domus, the other at MAM. She foregrounds Flexor’s technical dexterity and emphasizes his character as a “subject painter,” highlighting the eleven paintings in the series Composições sobre temas da Paixão (Compositions on Themes of the Passion) at MAM. These canvases, with their Cubo-Expressionist treatment of forms and their icy hues, warm blues, and earth tones, represent passages from Christ’s martyrdom, evoking the most moving moments of his suffering and cathartic self-denial (figs. 3–5). 

It is noteworthy that Flexor was born into a Jewish family but converted to Catholicism in France. After the death of his first wife, Tatiana Yablokof, during childbirth, the painter received spiritual guidance and professional support from local priests, who commissioned the grieving artist to produce several frescoes based on biblical events. From then on, biblical passages, with an emphasis on Christ’s crucifixion at Calvary, would be a recurring theme in his work, even in later life, when his artistic focus became more personal (though nonetheless tragic).¹⁴Maria Eugênia comments in her article on the artist: 

Catholic culture has been predominant in Brazil since the territory was colonized, even determining its later structure as an empire and democracy—despite the modern premise of a secular state within the Enlightenment model.¹⁶As far as the artistic world is concerned, the use of mystical drama in sacred art is both a means of catalyzing attention and a strong empathic device in the narrative of suffering and sacrifice in the name of transcendence—not for nothing, the choice of certain passages and figures from the Bible to consolidate values or reformulate contingencies is recurrent in representations. I consider this condition an example of the intense presence in Brazilian culture of variants of Our Lady—widely used as a resource for appeasing and welcoming the suffering of the population—but also the symbolic correlation of Christ martyred on the cross with the figure of Brazilian national hero Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, known as Tiradentes, who in 1792, became the only member of the revolutionary Inconfidência Mineira to be arrested, tried for treason, and publicly dismembered.¹⁷

The search for a dramatic dimension to the Christian mystery is a problem inherent to Maria Eugênia Franco’s critical analyses of artists other than Flexor, but without the loss of focus on the formal and systemic structuring aspect of the milieu. These dramatic, almost passionate elements identified by not only Franco but also fellow writers such as Geraldo Ferraz (1905–1979) and Clarival do Prado Valladares (1918–1983) are reminiscent of the expressionist influence of immigrant artists established in Brazil and their pupils.¹⁸ Moreover, they are applied to the thematic treatment of scenes typical of the country, as is the case in works by Lasar Segall (1889–1957), Cândido Portinari (1903–1962), and Oswaldo Goeldi (1895–1961), among others. Its use by Flexor, but also by painter and poet Henri Michaux (1899–1984), as we will see later through Franco’s perspective, is linked to the experience of collective human suffering during World War II. 

In Franco’s article about Henri Michaux’s watercolors, written during her French stay, one can see by the use of adjectives and a certain psychologizing analysis, her effort to narrate the dimension of anguish and fascinating displacement in the artist’s images, with their washes and autonomist drawing techniques (figs. 6, 7).¹⁹Michaux, of Belgian origin and naturalized French, is still known today for his dramatic forms and investigations of human suffering, which are poetically enhanced by manifestations of the unconscious in the form of dreams and numbing delusions. Portraits and self-portraits made with watercolor stains and thin, tense lines of ink that overlap, forming a suspended plot on the white of the paper, indicate the artist’s proximity to Surrealism or even Dadaism. However, the artist distanced himself from the uncontrolled aspects of these isms, as he was interested in the fissure of human subjectivity, the feeling of lack of belonging intensified by the experience of war.²⁰
Franco describes the paintings on display at the gallery as follows: 

It is interesting that in her articles on Flexor and Michaux, Franco emphasizes the relationship between studies of form and those of composition as they pertain to the dramatic and psychic demands of subject matter. This theme was already present in 1944 in her article²²on the statuary ensemble in Ouro Preto by Antônio Francisco Lisboa (popularly known as Aleijadinho, 1738–1814), her first aesthetic essay, and it is repeated in later articles on the mythical artist and the importance of the Baroque in the constitution of Brazil’s colonial artistic fortune.²³  

Referencing the studies of Mário de Andrade (1893–1945), pioneer in identifying the Baroque of Minas Gerais as the first sui generis Brazilian artistic style, Franco points out the artistic and historical importance of the figure of the crippled craftsman, who suffered like Christ, and calls for a greater presence of his work and state support for its circulation.²⁴In a typed manuscript now in the personal archive of her nephew Alexandre Dacosta, Franco describes an unofficial tour of the Minas Gerais museum complex in 1944.²⁵She writes:

Franco continues her essay with an emotional and qualitative description of the oratorio in question, but what is striking about this youthful text is the description of the scourging of Jesus on the Way of the Cross. As a dramatic, political, and formal exercise, this theme is an exhaustive one for artists, and Franco addressed it repeatedly in her criticism.²⁷The passages of suffering, violence, commotion, and welcome, consisting of fourteen stations, provide a narrative of emotional purging for the faithful, whereby the aim is both to grow closer to the divine through mystical experience and to obtain indulgence for moral failings—in this sense, the formal solution of the unknown artist of the oratory, of begging, of carving the small polychrome figures on a blue background in a narrative of ascendancy through the sacrifice of the son of God, reinforces the idea of ascension and transcendence through the experience of violence.

In 1969, Franco undertook her last public analysis of a sacred and popular representation of Christ’s Calvary, this time not in a newspaper column but rather in an essay published in a limited edition of woodcuts by Mestre Nosa.²⁸The artist from Ceará, whose baptismal name was Inocêncio Miguel da Costa Nick (1897–1983), had recently arrived in São Paulo and was a prominent figure in the movement for the marketing and appreciation of popular culture. His set of fifteen prints, first commissioned by artist Sérvulo Esmeraldo (1929–2017) and then published in two limited editions—the first in France in 1965 by editor Robert Morel through Esmeraldo, and the second in 1969 by editor Julio Pacello—fueled that frisson of the “primitive,” “innocent,” and “pure” of so-called popular art. Franco’s text reinforces these notions of vernacular artistic production but adds her own set of aesthetic predicates referring to the sacred and formal sphere:

It is interesting that in her critical analysis of the oratorio and of Nosa’s woodcuts, Franco emphasizes the ingenuity of the formal solutions in the face of so-called simplistic representations of a classic and consecrated religious theme in the Christian context. The Way of the Cross and the suffering endured by Jesus have historically been mobilized as moralizing devices for the masses, among whom material self-denial and physical submission constitute an imperative condition for the ascension of the spirit—especially amid economic fragility and political turmoil, as was the case during Franco’s time as an arts professional in the critical and curatorial sectors. Whether under the dictatorial New State (Estado Novo; 1937–45) during the rule of Getúlio Vargas or under later military dictatorship (1964–85), artistic productions of a religious nature had, dubiously, the public function of cultural familiarity and of creating critical metaphors for social causes.

However, with regard to this set of articles by Maria Eugênia Franco, religious themes in Brazilian modern art are a bastion of the constitution of national identity, an aspect of obsession in the late modern generation of the Return to Order. Franco seems to have made a circle of eternal return, albeit indirectly and tangentially, to the mystical Christian realm amid her own struggles to construct the artistic environment and the aesthetic-educational formation of the public³⁰ (synthesis of form with content, synthesis of artistic investigative practice, and the dramatization of affections), even though today she is barely remembered by her peers.

Portuguese

O seguinte ensaio da historiadora da arte Talita Trizoli revela a influência de um pathos católico e espiritual na obra da influente, embora relativamente desconhecida, crítica brasileira Maria Eugênia Franco. Tomando como estudos de caso os escritos de Franco sobre artistas como Samson Flexor, Henri Michaux e Mestre Nosa e obras atribuídas a artesãos barrocos não reconhecidos, Trizoli estabelece uma relação direta entre motivos católicos e o desenvolvimento da modernidade na arte e identidades brasileiras.

[…] la religion est une chose éminemment sociale. Les représentations religieuses sont des représentations collectives qui expriment des réalités collectives; les rites sont des manières d’agir qui ne prennent naissance qu’au sein des groupes assemblés et qui sont destinés à susciter, à entretenir ou à refaire certains états mentaux de ces groupes³¹ ― Émile Durkeim 

Entre 1948 e 1954, a crítica de arte, gestora e curadora brasileira Maria Eugênia Franco (1915–1999) teve uma coluna regular de crítica de arte no jornal O Estado de São Paulo, um verdadeiro feito, considerando que este jornal, assim como vários outros, era marcado pela misoginia e pelos valores conservadores.³²Ao longo de sete anos, Franco teceu comentários e análises predominantemente sobre o circuito artístico de artes na capital paulista, além de apresentar críticas lúcidas no aspecto sistêmico do meio e observações formais sobre a produção artística, em sua maioria, contemporânea.³³

Ainda pouco conhecida do grande público, a produção crítica de Franco possibilita compreender os esforços de miscelânea entre forma e conteúdo no âmbito moderno latino-americano, um conflito inerente aos programas estéticos em suas diversas versões e um tema recorrente na crítica de arte brasileira.³⁴

Grande parte da obra crítica de Franco aborda artistas e eventos artísticos do chamado eixo Rio-São Paulo, levantando questões estruturais em torno da organização do circuito artístico brasileiro, principalmente no que se refere à formação de público e às instituições culturais.³⁵Em termos da seleção dos artigos aqui comentados, o conteúdo diz respeito a temas sagrados explorados pelos artistas brasileiros não apenas como objeto de exercício formal, mas também como representação de uma memória afetiva vinculada à construção da identidade nacional, uma vez que figuras caras à cultura popular e às festas religiosas, no caso santos e passagens da vida de Cristo, foram escolhidas para alegorizar a realidade brasileira.³⁶

Incrustadas na constituição da identidade nacional brasileira, as narrativas místicas do catolicismo, elemento fundamental da colonização portuguesa, formaram um conjunto de entidades folclóricas no imaginário coletivo que se misturam às mitologias dos diversos povos indígenas originários e às práticas xamânicas dos súditos africanos exilados pelo regime escravista. Embora o encontro poético e violento entre essas culturas tenha gerado um rico conjunto simbólico, a estrutura católico-apostólico-romana permaneceu como o imperativo organizador da cultura brasileira.

Vinda de uma família católica, como a maioria da população brasileira da época, Franco estava familiarizada com os “mistérios” religiosos cristãos, embora não fosse católica praticante.³⁷De fato, do Barroco Mineiro, ou Barroco de Minas Gerais, escolhido como a primeira manifestação artística do espírito brasileiro, ao calendário religioso de festas coletivas e à óbvia predominância de passagens bíblicas na história da arte, algum conhecimento do misticismo cristão era quase inevitável.³⁸

Para Franco, o mistério da experiência religiosa católica surgiu como um tema já amplamente reconhecido na esfera artística, em vez de um elemento de espanto ou descoberta. Esse aspecto também pode ser visto na produção artística de sua irmã, a pintora Maria Leontina (1917–1984), especialmente em uma série de representações abstratas de Santa Ana (figs. 1, 2) e em faixas que ela apresentou como objetos de escrutínio para a aplicação de nuance cromática e composição inspiradas por Giorgio Morandi.³⁹

Comprometida em permanecer profissionalmente imparcial, Franco não escrevia frequentemente sobre o trabalho de sua irmã ou cunhado, Milton Dacosta (1915–1988), que também era pintor. (Em vez disso, suas trocas com ambos frequentemente ocorriam pessoalmente ou por meio de cartas). Ela dedicou algumas de suas colunas, no entanto, ao trabalho de artistas parceiros nos quais o tema sagrado se manifesta ao lado da investigação formal e das narrativas cristãs dramáticas (o pathos místico), que são mobilizadas para a educação sentimental do espectador.⁴⁰Destes textos, destaca-se a análise do artista Samson Flexor (1907–1971) e sua obra no artigo “Flexor e a arte religiosa”.⁴¹

Flexor nasceu na Moldávia, na cidade de Soroca, e após trânsito por Bruxelas e Paris, estabeleceu-se em definitivo no Brasil em 1948. Com formação em pintura pela Belas Artes de Paris, mas também com passagens pela Sorbonne na área de história, e uma formação prévia em Química em Bruxelas, Flexor foi um artista intelectualizado sobre a própria obra.⁴²Ele é considerado um dos percursores da abstração no Brasil, principalmente após contato crítico com o primeiro diretor do Museu de Arte Moderna de São Paulo, o belga Léon Degan (1907-1958), partidário da abstração. É Importante frisar que o artista não era de modo algum defensor de uma prática artística dogmática e protocolar, pois acreditava na dimensão afetiva e dramática da obra de arte – como se pode ver nos seus confrontos com os membros do movimento da arte concreta, a quem apelidou de “Concretinos”.⁴³

É a partir desse dispositivo dramático que Franco se aproxima da obra de Flexor. No referido artigo de 25 de abril de 1940, Maria Eugênia nomeia duas mostras individuais do artista em cartaz na cidade, uma na galeria Domus, outra no Museu de Arte Moderna de São Paulo. Ela coloca em primeiro plano sua destreza técnica e pontuar seu caráter de “pintor de assunto”, mas dando destaque ao conjunto presente no MAM, “Composições sobre temas da Paixão”. Essas telas, com seu tratamento cubo-expressionista das formas e seus tons gelados, azuis quentes e tons de terra, representam passagens do martírio de Cristo, evocando os momentos mais comoventes de seu sofrimento e autonegação catártica (figs. 3–5).

Vale notar que, Flexor nasceu em uma família judia, mas converteu-se ao catolicismo na França após a morte de sua 1ª esposa no parto, Tatiana Yablokof, e o respectivo acolhimento espiritual e profissional de padres, os quais encomendaram diversos afrescos sobre eventos bíblicos para o artista em luto. As passagens bíblicas de Cristo, com ênfase em seu calvário, seriam então um tema recorrente para Flexor, mesmo quando o artista adentra a uma produção tardia mais pessoal, mas também trágica.⁴⁴ Maria Eugênia comenta que:

A predominância imperativa da cultura católica no Brasil ocorre desde a colonização do território, determinando inclusive sua posterior estruturação como império e democracia — apesar da premissa moderna de um Estado laico dentro do modelo iluminista.⁴⁶No que se refere ao mundo artístico, o uso do drama místico na arte sacra é ao mesmo tempo um meio de catalisar a atenção e um forte recurso empático na narrativa do sofrimento e do sacrifício em nome da transcendência — não à toa, a escolha de certas passagens e figuras da Bíblia para consolidar valores ou reformular contingências é recorrente nas representações. Podemos considerar como exemplo dessa condição a intensa presença na cultura brasileira de variantes de Nossa Senhora — amplamente utilizadas como recurso para apaziguar e acolher o sofrimento da população —, mas também da correlação simbólica de Cristo martirizado na cruz com a figura do herói nacional brasileiro Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, conhecido como Tiradentes, que, em 1792, tornou-se o único integrante da revolucionária Inconfidência Mineira a ser preso, julgado por traição e esquartejado publicamente.⁴⁷

A busca por uma dimensão dramática no mistério cristão é objeto que tangencia as analises críticas de Maria Eugênia Franco em alguns artistas para além de Flexor, mas sem a perda de foco do aspecto estruturante formal e sistêmico do meio. Esses elementos dramáticos, quase apaixonados, identificados não apenas por Franco, mas também por outros escritores como Geraldo Ferraz (1905–1979) e Clarival do Prado Valladares (1918–1983) lembram a influência expressionista de artistas imigrantes estabelecidos no Brasil e seus alunos.⁴⁸Além disso, são aplicadas ao tratamento temático de cenas típicas do país, como é o caso de obras de Lasar Segall (1889–1957), Cândido Portinari (1903–1962) e Oswaldo Goeldi (1895–1961), entre outros. Seu uso por Flexor, mas também pelo pintor e poeta Henri Michaux (1899–1984), como veremos mais adiante pela perspectiva de Franco, está ligado à experiência do sofrimento humano coletivo durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial.

No artigo de Franco sobre as aquarelas de Henri Michaux, escrito durante sua estadia na França, percebe-se, pelo uso de adjetivos e uma certa análise psicologizante, seu esforço em narrar a dimensão de angústia e deslocamento fascinante nas imagens da artista, com suas aguadas e técnicas de desenho autonomistas (figs. 6, 7).⁴⁹Michaux, de origem belga e naturalizado francês, é conhecido até hoje por suas formas dramáticas e investigações sobre o sofrimento humano, poeticamente potencializadas por manifestações do inconsciente em forma de sonhos e delírios entorpecentes. Retratos e autorretratos feitos com manchas de aquarela e linhas finas e tensas de tinta que se sobrepõem, formando uma trama suspensa sobre o branco do papel, indicam a proximidade do artista com o surrealismo ou mesmo com o dadaísmo. No entanto, o artista se distanciou dos aspectos descontrolados desses ismos, pois se interessava pela fissura da subjetividade humana, o sentimento de falta de pertencimento intensificado pela experiência da guerra.⁵⁰Franco descreve as pinturas em exposição na galeria da seguinte forma:

É pertinente notar que em ambos os artigos sobre Flexor e Michaux, Franco coloca ênfase na interlocução entre os estudos de forma e composição em relação a demanda dramática e psíquica do tema dos artistas. Esse aspecto já se encontra presente no primeiro ensaio estético da autora em 1944⁵² sobre o conjunto estatuário na cidade de Ouro Preto de Antonio Francisco Lisboa (1738-1814), popularmente conhecido como o Aleijadinho de Vila Rica, e que se repetirá nos artigos posteriores sobre o mítico artista e a importância do barroco brasileiro na constituição da fortuna artística colonial no Brasil.⁵³

Tendo como referência nomeada os estudos de Mario de Andrade (1893-1945), precursor do indicativo do barroco mineiro como a primeira manifestação artística brasileira sui generis, Franco aponta tanto a importância artística e histórica da figura do artesão aleijado, sofredor como cristo, clamando juntamente por uma maior presença e apoio estatal para a circulação de suas obras.⁵⁴Em texto datilografado presente no acervo pessoal de seu sobrinho, há o seguinte material produzido dentro de uma excursão extraoficial de averiguação do complexo mineiro de museus⁵⁵ em 1944: 

Franco segue com um descritivo afetivo e qualitativo do oratório em questão, mas o que chama atenção nesse texto de juventude é a repetição do episódio dos flagelos de Jesus na Via Sacra. Como exercício dramático, político e formal, este tema é exaustivo para os artistas, e Franco abordou-o repetidamente na sua crítica.⁵⁷As passagens de sofrimento, violência, comoção e boas-vindas, compostas por quatorze estações, fornecem uma narrativa de purificação emocional para os fiéis, cujo objetivo é tanto aproximar-se do divino por meio da experiência mística quanto obter indulgência por falhas morais — nesse sentido, a solução formal do artista desconhecido do oratório, da mendicância, da escultura de pequenas figuras policromadas sobre fundo azul em uma narrativa de ascendência por meio do sacrifício do filho de Deus, reforça a ideia de ascensão e transcendência por meio da experiência da violência.

Em 1969, Franco empreendeu sua última análise pública de uma representação sagrada e popular do Calvário de Cristo, desta vez não em uma coluna de jornal, mas sim em um ensaio publicado em uma edição limitada de xilogravuras de Mestre Nosa⁵⁸ (ou Noza, variando a grafia). O artista cearense recém chegado a São Paulo, cujo nome de batismo era Inocêncio Miguel da Costa Nick (1897-1983), foi figura de destaque no movimento de valorização mercadológica da cultura popular, e seu conjunto de 15 imagens primeiramente encomendas pelo artista Sérvulo Esmeraldo, e depois editadas limitadamente em duas ocasiões – a 1ª na França pelo editor Robert Morel em 1965 por intermédio de Esmeraldo, a segunda em 1969 pelo editor Julio Pacello – alimentou esse frison do “primitivo”, “inocente” e “puro” da arte dita popular. 

É interessante que em sua análise crítica do oratório e das xilogravuras de Nosa, Franco enfatize a engenhosidade das soluções formais diante das chamadas representações simplistas de um tema religioso clássico e consagrado no contexto cristão. A Via Sacra e o sofrimento suportado por Jesus foram historicamente mobilizados como dispositivos moralizantes para as massas, entre as quais a abnegação material e a submissão física constituem uma condição imperativa para a ascensão do espírito — especialmente em meio à fragilidade econômica e à turbulência política, como foi o caso durante o tempo de Franco como profissional das artes nos setores crítico e curatorial. Seja sob o ditatorial Estado Novo (1937–45) durante o governo de Getúlio Vargas ou sob a ditadura militar posterior (1964–85), as produções artísticas de natureza religiosa tinham, duvidosamente, a função pública de familiaridade cultural e de criar metáforas críticas para causas sociais.

No entanto, no que se refere a esse conjunto de artigos de Maria Eugênia Franco, os temas religiosos na arte moderna brasileira são um bastião da constituição da identidade nacional, um aspecto de obsessão na geração tardo-moderna do Retorno à Ordem. Franco parece ter feito um círculo de eterno retorno, ainda que indireta e tangencialmente, ao reino místico cristão em meio às suas próprias lutas para construir o ambiente artístico e a formação estético-educacional do público⁶⁰(síntese da forma com o conteúdo, síntese da prática artística investigativa e dramatização dos afetos), ainda que hoje ela seja pouco lembrada por seus pares.

The post Catholic and Popular Mysticism in Brazilian Modern Art: The Quest for Maria Eugênia Franco’s Critique of Sacred Representations / Misticismo católico e popular na arte moderna brasileira: a busca da crítica de Maria Eugênia Franco às representações sacras appeared first on post.

Read the first part of the series here.

Anthropologist Gregory Bateson believed that a systematic understanding of other cultures was important for a peaceful postwar world order. He also believed that the museum, particularly The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), was the ideal institution to undertake this work. In MoMA’s press release for the exhibition Bali, Background for War: The Human Problem of Reoccupation (1943), Bateson notes that “there is one common ground between the scientific world of the anthropologist and the world of art: the idea that in some sense the artist expresses himself. The exhibition is based on that idea which, in time of war, may become as grim as a mathematical equation in ballistics.”¹

Bali, Background for War captured the social science and art networks that were brought together during World War II by the war effort and an institution of modern art. In turn, the exhibition became an important constellation of global history. At MoMA, Bateson’s notion of the museum as a common ground for science, art, and social engineering dovetailed with Bauhaus thought on the shaping of visual culture and perception, leading to a historical confluence of proto-cybernetics, regional thinking, and the New Bauhaus within the modern art museum in the service of military goals and postwar rebuilding. The influence of Bali, Background for War resounded in the postwar years, possibly contributing to the formation and intellectual history of Southeast Asian modern art networks in terms of how the exhibition foreshadows but is also informative in reading the postwar rehabilitation of the US cultural Cold War in Southeast Asia.

During World War II, the Museum executed 38 contracts for various government agencies. Among these contracts and programs, Bateson found work in the Film Library developing cultural intelligence studies of Axis countries through film.² While Bateson was not a film specialist per se, it was his work in Bali and his use of still and motion photography in analyzing cultures that attracted the attention of Iris Barry, first curator of MoMA’s Film Library (now the Department of Film), and led to his employment.³ Prior to joining the Museum, Bateson believed that MoMA had a specific and important role in the war effort, particularly in producing wartime subjectivities through exhibitions. This resonates with how scholar Fred Turner has described the exhibition-form’s compilation of material and the vistas from which viewers could freely discern cultural patterns and navigate the exhibition as a “democratic surround.”⁴ This experience of moving from image to text, of observation, inference, and deduction, could lead the audience to become more psychologically flexible and democratic in nature.⁵ In this regard, Bali, Background for War was an occasion for viewers “to exercise democratic choice.”⁶ This was an exhibitionary logic that provided a counterpoint to Nazi Germany’s instrumentalized modes of communication and power associated with fascist propaganda. Turner notes that Mead and other members of the Committee for National Morale, of which Bateson was secretary (while still at MoMA), envisioned the museum as the proper setting for a new kind of propaganda that could nurture both the individual democratic personality and a collective sense of national purpose.⁷

As an institution, MoMA was committed to these same ideas. In addition, some of the emigrant Bauhaus artists who had made their way to the United States after the closing of the Bauhaus by the Nazis in 1933 were committed to ideas of producing psychological agency through vision. Bauhaus artist Alexander Schawinsky was invited by the Museum (as opposed to Bateson personally) to design Bali, Background for War. Turner has noted that the museum was an important wartime node, one that mobilized Bauhaus methods. Victor D’Amico (founding director of MoMA’s Department of Education), for example, mobilized László Moholy-Nagy’s ideas for treating and resocializing veterans through the Museum’s War Veterans’ Art Center, which opened in 1944.⁸ MoMA likewise employed Bauhaus artist and designer Herbert Bayer’s techniques for extending field of vision by hanging photographs below and above eye level to give viewers of wartime exhibitions a field of visual choices.⁹ Bayer designed MoMA exhibitions Road to Victory, which was curated by photographer Edward Steichen in 1942, and Airways to Peace: An Exhibition of Geography for the Future, which was planned and directed by Monroe Wheeler in 1943.¹⁰

Schawinsky attended the Bauhaus and studied with Moholy-Nagy, Vasily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Walter Gropius, and Oskar Schlemmer. At the invitation of Josef Albers, he taught from 1936 to 1938 at Black Mountain College, where he developed the “Spectodrama,” a multimedia stage design. In response to MoMA’s interest in Bauhaus ideas of how vision might inform subjectivity, on October 28, 1943, Monroe Wheeler, then director of Exhibitions at MoMA as well as the Museum’s first director of Publications, wrote to Schawinsky to solicit a proposal for an exhibition based on the artist’s notion of “perspective,” which Schawinsky explained in terms of the “changes in visual conceptions with the climax of today’s formation of new visual experience in the making.”¹¹

Bateson’s correspondence with Schawinsky in May 1943 indicates a highly collaborative exhibition-making process, wherein Bateson sent detailed notes, expanded the list of artwork to be included, and solicited feedback.¹² However, in July 1943, Bateson wrote to Wheeler and James Thrall Soby, then director of the Museum’s Armed Services Program, to request that Schawinsky be removed from the project. Bateson complained that Schawinsky lacked “respect for the material” and that he was “trimming . . . photographs to fit in with his scheme of rectangles regardless of the internal composition of the pictures.”¹³ Ultimately, Schawinsky was kept on, and in the press release for the exhibition, he is credited as designing the exhibition.¹⁴ Despite their differences, Schawinsky’s Bauhaus training was evident in the exhibition. His design employed Bayer’s extended field of vision techniques—with images placed at different proximities to eye level—and performatively staged modern Balinese art against linear fields in a way that recalled the Spectodrama.¹⁵

These affinities between Schawinsky’s Bauhaus ideas and Bateson’s interest in social engineering subjectivities through vision and aesthetic experience would take on an expanded and international vision through Bali, Background for War and Bateson’s work at MoMA. As part of his job at the Museum, Bateson attended a conference that, held in Chicago in March 1943 by the army’s Military Government Division, brought together faculty from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and universities in Wisconsin and Michigan to develop training for the Army Specialized Training Program. Upon returning to New York, he and MoMA Film Library founding director, John Abbott, drafted a proposal to set up a Wartime Regional Materials Unit within MoMA that would be responsible for circulating artworks, cultural objects, graphic materials, photographs, and films to college campuses hosting the army program and eventually to nongovernmental agencies involved in postwar reconstruction. Bali, Background for War was an exhibition that attempted to put these ideas into operation. In his letter to Mortimer Graves, then executive director of the American Council of Learned Societies in Washington, DC, Bateson identifies the exhibition as a basis for setting up a Wartime Regional Materials Unit at MoMA.

Bateson’s papers include notes regarding who would be part of the unit and how it would be constituted through MoMA’s infrastructure. Bateson focused on the diversity of artistic and cultural material at the Museum, including graphic design and film, as well as on its public programs.¹⁶ He considered the Museum an ideal institution to host the unit because it dealt “both with the Arts and with the Sciences.”¹⁷ The notes draw defined lines from Abbot, founding director of the Film Library, to Alfred Barr, founding director of the Museum, and Elodie Courter, who would organize circulating exhibitions, which were seen as fundamental to this unit. The unit was imagined to mobilize the different departments of the Museum, with dotted lines drawing different divisions across the institution into the unit. The inclusion of Barr in Bateson’s notes and Bateson’s supposed attempt at writing a Balinese modern art history point in turn to the transmutation of the currency of modern art history to military value. Bateson’s exhibition expanded the visions of modern art history that Barr had mapped out in his diagrams on the development of abstract art.¹⁸ The anthropologist’s vision for MoMA was that the Museum would be an apparatus that produced intelligence derived from exhibitionary experience and the visual analysis of art. This intelligence during the war represented a convergence of the anthropological and the art historical as these were mobilized toward militaristic ends. Ultimately, however, Bateson’s proposal to develop a Wartime Regional Materials Unit within MoMA was not realized.¹⁹

At first glance, Bali, Background for War was not a particularly successful venture. Yet, it can still be considered an important exhibition of its time and one that is significant in a Southeast Asian modern art history. At the close of the exhibition in 1943, Bateson joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), an American wartime intelligence agency. This was an unusual achievement given Bateson was a British national. Created in 1942, the OSS was the first centralized intelligence agency in the United States. It was the institutional predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).²⁰ David Price, an American anthropologist who has spent his career studying the historical and contemporary military uses of anthropology, has noted in his archival research on Bateson’s wartime work that the OSS was interested in the techniques of visual anthropology.²¹

An OSS memo Bateson authored in November 1944 suggests strategies for maintaining the long-term interests of the United States in South Asia.²² Bateson’s position paper envisions the postwar period as an extension of the prewar colonial system. His memo posits a moderation of the dynamic of “exhibitionism” and “spectatorship” to manage possible rebellion from independence movements—concepts that Bateson had first deployed in explaining child-rearing norms in different cultures. In the memo, Bateson elaborates:

The most significant experiment which has yet been conducted in the adjustment of relations between “superior” and “inferior” peoples is the Russian handling of their Asiatic tribes in Siberia. The findings of this experiment support very strongly the conclusion that it is very important to foster spectatorship among the superiors and exhibitionism among the inferiors. In outline, what the Russians have done is to stimulate the native peoples to undertake a native revival while they themselves admire the resulting dance festivals and other exhibitions of native culture, literature, poetry, music and so on. And the same attitude of spectatorship is then naturally extended to native achievements in production or organization. In contrast to this, where the white man thinks of himself as a model and encourages the native people to watch him in order to find out how things should be done, we find that in the end nativistic cults spring up among the native people. The system gets overweighed until some compensatory machinery is developed and then the revival of native arts, literature, etc., becomes a weapon for use against the white man. . . . If, on the other hand, the dominant people themselves stimulate native revivalism, then the system as a whole is much more stable, and the nativism cannot be used against the dominant people.²³

Bateson suggests that if Indigenous peoples are encouraged to exhibit and celebrate their culture, as opposed to being encouraged to model themselves on Western culture, then “nativism cannot be used against the dominant people.”²⁴ Taken at face value, Bateson’s comments read as patronizing prescriptions for how to manage the postwar decolonizing process. Yet at the same time, an inverse relationship of cultural relations of “occupation” was being brought to the fore. In Bali, Background for War, Bali defined the region that the American soldier was to reoccupy. In this framework, the exhibition established an exhibitionism-spectatorship dynamic in which American soldiers were the spectators celebrating the culture of a region that they were liberating. In theory, American soldiers were placed in an exhibitionism-spectatorship dynamic that prepared them for the more benign reoccupation and postwar worldbuilding that they would have to enact in the Pacific.

Price detailed that when he declassified Bateson’s documents under the Freedom of Information Act in the 1990s, Bateson’s memo from November 1944 was found in the CIA archive and not the OSS archive. This suggests that Bateson’s advice for intelligence gathering was influential beyond World War II and perhaps formative to the CIA. Indeed, in 1951, only four short years after its founding, the CIA outlined a policy on Cold War weapons. The classified report considers culture a “Cold War Front” and advocates for private foundations to patronize and issue commissions to artists “who could create works of art symbolical of the struggle against tyranny in their native lands.”²⁵ The CIA would also infamously fund cultural organizations around the world, including the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Asia Foundation.²⁶ Both organizations contributed to the advancement of modern art internationally in the postwar years. From 1951, the CIA put into effect a program code-named DTPillar to influence the development of nationbuilding in Asia as a means to limit the growth of communism. Stirred by a public exposé in Ramparts magazine (in circulation from 1962 to 1975), the CIA ceased funding of cultural organizations in 1967.²⁷

Bateson was also strategic in targeting individuals who should see Bali, Background for War. He wrote personal invitations to the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University and to individuals at the OSS.²⁸ Particularly telling is a loose list that includes Cora Du Bois (OSS, 1942–45). Du Bois was chief of research and analysis for the Southeast Asia Command by 1944 and, after World War II, influenced the framing of Southeast Asia through her positions as chief of the Southeast Asia Branch of the US State Department’s Office of Intelligence Research (from 1945 to 1949) and as an academic at Harvard University. The list also includes Charles Fahs (OSS, 1941–45), who became chief of the Research and Analysis Division (Far East) of the OSS in 1942 and director of the Humanities Division of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1950, where he was directly involved in allocating Rockefeller grants and providing critical support to individual artists and intellectuals as well as to museums and art spaces in Southeast Asia.²⁹ In 1947, as if telegraphing Bateson’s comment about regions as a sane orchestration of the world, Du Bois, having returned from her service in the OSS and been asked to speak about cultural anthropology and Southeast Asia, stated at Smith College: “Regions and areas, like fields of academic learning, are artificial boundaries which we erect around our curiosity. They do not represent limits of integrated reality, but defenses built to encompass the frailties of human comprehension.”³⁰ This correlation and the constellated network of Bali, Background for War raises complex questions about US postwar and postimperial worldbuilding and intelligence, as well as about Southeast Asian modern art.

After the war, Bateson would advance his ideas on visual anthropology in other fields. In 1947, he addressed the United Nations, giving a speech titled “Atoms, Nations and Cultures” to argue for the urgency of social engineering based on the cultural analysis derived from visual anthropology.³¹

Twenty-four years after Bali, Background for War opened, in 1967, Bateson published the essay “Style, Grace, and Information in Primitive Art.”³² In this text, he performs an analysis of Balinese art as information coded in style, material, composition, and skill. He emphasizes the profundity of art in terms of its relational quality. Thus, he argues, Balinese paintings, under the influence of traditional and Western art forms, encapsulate the communication process between these societies. Furthermore, the text resonates with Bateson’s interest in addressing differences in international relations, which could also be read as laying out the framework for data to remake the world.³³ In this sense, Bali, Background for War in many ways foreshadowed Bateson’s work on cybernetics in the 1960s and throughout the Cold War.³⁴

The cross-cultural relations based on aesthetic experiences with modern art that defined Bali, Background for War were echoed in MoMA’s contributions to the postwar construction of modern art in Bali. In 1953, the foundation Puri Lukisan was set up to establish a museum of modern Balinese art in Ubud. Tjokorda Gee Agung was its founding chairman while Rudolf Bonnet was its curator. The museum sought support from patrons of Balinese art in Holland, the United States, and England. Monroe Wheeler answered the call. Beyond sending a book on the care of artworks, he supported the development of the museum by soliciting donations from American foundations. The first organization he approached was the Asia Foundation, which would contribute to the building in 1956 of Museum Puri Lukisan, the oldest museum in Bali. Wheeler might not have known at the time that the Asia Foundation received funds from the CIA. Nevertheless, the networked triangulation of capital flows from the CIA as well as the belief in aesthetic experience being able to mold subjectivities is important in the intelligence-making project of modern art in the Cold War.³⁵ In his letter to the Asia Foundation, dated July 10, 1955, Wheeler notes that a financial contribution to the Indonesian government to complete the building of the museum would be an admirable “token of American concern with the fine arts, which is too little understood in Asia,” extending MoMA’s wartime concern for Balinese modern art and Southeast Asia into the postwar period.³⁶

Bali, Background for War, when read against its possible influences on the cultural Cold War in the region and Bateson’s postwar accomplishments, anticipates exhibitions of Southeast Asian modern art as forms of intelligence-making, marrying the regional as a method in structuring the world with “modern art” and as a product of international exchange. Thus, Bali, Background for War offers a vista onto early cybernetic entanglements between Southeast Asia and modern art. It is important to keep in mind that MoMA did not set out to make a regional art exhibition with Bali, Background for War. Neither did the Museum set out to influence the policies of the cultural Cold War in Southeast Asia that Southeast Asian modern artists (like the Balinese modernists) would later navigate in seeking support for their own development through the Asia Foundation and other CIA-funded organizations. As an exhibition that predates Southeast Asia as a field of area studies, Bali, Background for War is an exhibitionary method: it is at once a field of relations, a feedback loop, and an open-ended imaginary produced from comparatively looking at modern art. Bali, Background for War foreshadowed future articulations of the relations that have come to define cybernetics as a field. As this essay argues, the exhibition also expands our understanding of MoMA’s influence as a museum and center for a global history of modern art, a critical part of the construction of a postwar world order.

*This essay has been adapted from and expands on an unpublished chapter from the author’s dissertation titled “Exhibiting Southeast Asia in the Cultural Cold War: Geopolitics of Regional Art Exhibitions (1940s–1980s),” Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2023.

**With special thanks to Ana Marie of the Archives, Library, and Research Collections Department and Ottilie Lighte from the Imaging and Visual Resources Department of The Museum of Modern Art.

The post Bali, Background for War (1943), Part II: A Proposal for Wartime Regional Materials Unit at MoMA; A Proposal for the Cultural Cold War appeared first on post.

The whites of eyes and the glint of teeth, the only discernible features in the otherwise dark shape of the Balinese shadow puppet of the witch Rangda in her supernatural form, were probably the first things visitors encountered when they entered the 1943 exhibition Bali, Background for War: The Human Problem of Reoccupation. With its fiery head and tendril fingers, the shadow puppet is a totem for a ferocious “other.” Encapsulating the anxieties that contextualized this exhibition, which coincided with World War II, the shadow puppet embodied the sensibility of the exhibition-form—an elusive sensemaking of a culture oceans away.

A wartime exhibition curated by anthropologist and cybernetics pioneer Gregory Bateson, Bali, Background for War opened at The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in late summer 1943 and then traveled to universities and museums across North America.¹ Unlike MoMA’s other wartime exhibitions of the early 1940s, such as Road to Victory (1942) and Airways to Peace (1943), Bali, Background for War did not visually represent the efforts of the Allied Forces. Instead, it presented Balinese sculpture, paintings, puppets, and idols—Balinese modern art—collected by Bateson and Margaret Mead, his wife and collaborator at the time, as well as a selection of photographs from the more than 25,000 images taken during their joint anthropological expedition to Bali in 1936–39.²

Designed by Bauhaus artist and designer Xanti Schawinsky to be portable, the exhibition’s display system relied on wooden structures composed of thin vertical poles on which artworks and cultural objects were hung or otherwise installed in a variety of ways and at different heights. Balinese cultural objects were installed to facilitate distinct sight lines, which Bateson referred to as “vistas,”³ with the individual pieces appearing to float relative to one another. The exhibition presented works and objects on the same ground, alluding to how the artist and their making of the artwork were the material products of a society in which they lived and worked.

Bali, Background for War was an anthropological exhibition of Balinese modern art and culture conceived as a technology for producing a necessary subjectivity in the American infantry and civilian administrators who would oversee the “reoccupation” of Japanese-captured territories, such as Bali. The exhibition sought to cultivate the ability to recognize cultural patterns so as to foster understanding of “those habits of thought and behavior” characteristic of a particular people.⁴ In turn, it represented a weaponization of the then emerging methods of visual anthropology. Bali, Background for War was, in this respect, an exceptional exhibition. Bateson’s only curatorial effort while he was employed at MoMA (from 1942 to 1943), it encapsulated aspects of Bateson and Mead’s most influential work in visual anthropology—at the time, a new subfield of anthropology that would, in part, lead to a break from the racial codification informing exhibitions of Balinese culture in Western museums in the 1930s, wherein biological markers identified race as a defining paradigm of a people’s identity.⁵ Mead and Bateson’s use of film and photography in their fieldwork in Bali has been interpreted by scholars such as Urmila Mohan as a move away from such racialized logic.⁶

After their fieldwork in Bali, Mead and Bateson developed this inquiry into a method that became a “leading social-scientific strategy in World War II” through what Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan has described as “a new alliance of federal and foundation sponsorship with university and industrial partners.”⁷ This included the Committee for National Morale, which the couple joined in 1939, and the Council on Intercultural Relations, which they co-established in 1942 to coordinate research projects among an interdisciplinary group of anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists interested in analyzing contemporary cultures to benefit the war effort.⁸

Mead and Bateson cowrote Balinese Character: A Photographic Analysis (1942) based on their findings from their fieldwork in Bali. In this book, they lay out their new methodology of visual anthropology.⁹ Photographs capture “behaviors” that are seen as logics or patterns that were registered across a society and found in individual actions or objects. The book explores the social relations that form the basis of larger social patterns. However, this study of Bali by visually surveying the cultural other has been critiqued by scholars such as Geoghegan as indebted to a Dutch colonial policy of turning Bali into a “living museum,” that is, of looking upon it as an idyllic “primitive” society—the assumption being that Balinese culture remained unchanged and thus could be essentialized and understood through visual codes. To be sure, Mead and Bateson’s lack of analysis of the Dutch administration renders their documentation and analysis problematic.¹⁰

Bali, Background for War (1943) was, in essence, the physical manifestation of the method of visual anthropology fleshed out in Balinese Character. Indeed, the exhibition itself became a space in which anthropological methods produced a sense of knowing and relating through the visual encounter with art and cultural artifacts; yet, at the same time, it did not end up being solely an ethnographic representation. In one of Bateson’s many drafts of a press release, he explained that the exhibition would promote “[a] greater realistic understanding of the differences between peoples, of the ways in which each people has developed its own customs and its view of life” and that “if different people are to work together . . . and appreciate each other, some of these special peculiarities must be recognized” and “labelled and pointed out partly so that we may avoid stepping on each other’s toes but also so that each people may have opportunity to make its own special contribution to an organized world.”¹¹ These ideas formed the groundwork for an exhibitionary logic in which the artwork is understood as indexical of a culture and people. Furthermore, it anticipates the belief in postwar art exhibitions as visual arguments for cultural affinities and thus the basis of a shared identity and political consciousness.

Bali, Background for War was the first “regional” exhibition of art from Southeast Asia. In 1943, the imagination of Southeast Asia as a region was a product of World War II. An offshoot of the India Command and formed in response to the Japanese conquest of the region, the South East Asia Command was created by the Allied Forces in August 1943, the same month that Bali, Background for War opened at MoMA.¹² Southeast Asia is referenced in MoMA’s exhibition press release as the “conquered countries” of the Japanese.¹³ The Japanese occupation during World War II had been articulated as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, an economic, military, and cultural bloc of occupied countries in East and Southeast Asia that supported the Japanese war effort. In wartime propaganda, the Co-Prosperity Sphere was framed as part of a larger historic aim of resisting Western colonization and manipulation. Seeding a regional identity through a cultural program that included the establishment of “modern” arts education, it championed the revitalization of local, traditional, and Asian aesthetics across the region.¹⁴

As a regional exhibition, Bali, Background for War was less a geographic understanding of the region as a proof of concept of Bateson’s theorization of a world order based on regions of cultures. While he does not explicitly point to it, Bateson’s presentation of modern artworks alongside anthropological materials advanced an aesthetic argument about the role of art in navigating cultural differences. It reflected an understanding of the region that was sensitive to the effects of war, one that offered an alternative visual logic to “Asian” aesthetics advanced by Japanese wartime propaganda.

Bateson’s notes about the exhibition indicate “Southeast Asia” alongside other themes such as “Problems of Overseas Administration,” “Problems of National Character,” “Intercultural Relations and Propaganda,” and “Problems of Visual Presentation.”¹⁵ His conceptualization of the region was a framework for organizing and ordering the world—one based on visual identification of “cultural patterns.” In memos regarding the exhibition, he commented that “in the organization and orchestration of the postwar world [,] many different types of technical insight will be required—political, geographic, economic and cultural.”¹⁶ Furthermore, he highlighted that a key failure of the Treaty of Versailles was the lack of regional knowledge and warned that in the postwar epoch, there was a real risk that the cultural aspects of the various regions would “be ignored or imperfectly understood.”¹⁷ Bateson believed that this would lead to conflict. In a letter to Mortimer Graves of the American Council of Learned Societies in Washington, DC, sent in April 1943, four months before the opening of Bali, Background for War, Bateson explained that he and Mead were “trying to arrange in the museum an exhibition of Balinese material (native paintings, carvings, observational films, and observational photographs of native behavior) as an example of what a single culture would look like when worked out in this way.”¹⁸ He concluded by claiming the exhibition was part of a larger framework that was “the next logical step towards a sane orchestration of the world’s regional culture.”¹⁹ If regions were a framework for organizing the world and integral to international relations and building a peaceful world, then the ability to read the cultural patterns found in art and its relationship to a society was crucial.

Bali, Background for War sought to represent “the patterns of thought and behavior” of the Balinese people through “works of art and [Bateson’s] photographs of daily life on the island.”²⁰ Developed with MoMA in mind, the exhibition set out a methodology of viewing that made the exhibition-form a generative site for producing “intelligence.” Intelligence in this regard took multiple forms, including the conversion of anthropological information on Balinese culture into “military intelligence,” wherein the viewer learning to read Balinese culture through the exhibition develops a skill necessary for the successful American “reoccupation” of Bali. The exhibition was firstly a collection of material and anthropological information that in the context of World War II had military value. Secondly, it was mobilized to cultivate skills and subjectivities for military application. In turn, the exhibition as a historical object points to an emergent “cultural” military industrial complex centered on modern art and anthropology.

In this context, the “regional” exhibition was a technology that converted anthropological intelligence into military intelligence, both in terms of apprehending a cultural other but also as a way of organizing the world through cultural regions. How was modern art integral to this convergence? How was the production of a modern subjectivity and exhibitionary logic of Southeast Asia entangled with the writing of modern art at MoMA, and how was it distinct from the colonial aesthetics of the census that scholars have pointed out in discussing Balinese Character?²¹

The artworks that Bateson and Mead presented in Bali, Background for War were procured from three main painting centers in Bali: Ubud, where most foreign artists in Bali had settled from the 1920s onward; Sanur, where some foreign artists lived and most vacationed; and Batuan, which tourists rarely visited. Bateson and Mead seemed to have been most interested in Batuan, where most of the paintings in Bali, Background for War were sourced from.²² By the time Mead and Bateson were in Bali, there was a thriving business of Balinese artists making tourist paintings for a Western audience. As products of transnational exchange, these works of art were quintessentially modern.

Hildred Geertz, in her study of Bateson and Mead’s collection of Balinese paintings and, more generally, of Batuan paintings, describes the paintings produced in Batuan as “bicultural” and “bound up in the meaning systems and aesthetic ideas of several cultures at once.”²³ She notes that only a few of the Batuan painters were directly taught by German artist Walter Spies and Dutch artist Rudolf Bonnet, both of whom lived in Ubud. For the most part, Batuan or Balinese painters at the time encountered Western images in textbooks, in foreign magazines, and in the form of small commercial images distributed within the Dutch colony.

Prior to Bateson and Mead’s arrival in Bali, there were already precedents of exchange and modernism on the island. The year 1928 is marked as the first time Western observers recorded art in Bali as consisting of new forms of representation. These observers went on to cultivate a tourist economy for such images.²⁴ The Pita Maha, an artist society committed to modern art in Bali, was established in 1936 and active until 1940. It became associated with modern art of Bali, with Bonnet, a member of the society, organizing exhibitions of Balinese modernists in Indonesia and in Europe, including exhibitions in 1937 and 1938 in Amsterdam and London²⁵

The modern style that emerged from this period in the 1930s and which defined the artworks that Bateson presented in Bali, Background for War was thus informed by engagement with Western art. As Adrian Vickers has noted, Balinese modern art in the 1930s was seen as exotically primitive and distinctly different from Western modernism. And yet, art dealers such as Dutch gallerist Carel van Lier sold Balinese modern art in Europe alongside European modern art.²⁶

Walter Spies housed Bateson and Mead upon their arrival in Bali in 1936 and provided their first introduction to Balinese paintings, influencing Bateson’s perspective on Balinese modern art.²⁷ For MoMA’s installation of the exhibition, Bateson considered an additional section devoted to Balinese modern art.²⁸ In the anthropologist’s personal papers, there is a memo to Xanti Schawinsky about the wall text alongside instructions regarding which photographs and artworks were to be installed. In addition, Bateson scribbled down several possible configurations for the works. A section called “History of Modern Balinese Art,” for example, was to be arranged in a straight row, suggesting a linear historical narrative. The selection of works would include one or two paintings by Spies and about ten artworks from Bateson and Mead’s collection. The wall text focused on the genealogy of the making of the artwork and described how artists made their works as part of a loose art history of modern Balinese art development, information that was then interspersed with short stories and mythical accounts such as how Spies gave paper and black ink to Balinese artist Sorbet and a whole school was born. The genealogy privileged Spies and his position in Balinese modern art at the expense of other influences, implicitly reflecting Bateson’s own perspective of Balinese art.

Bateson claims in the written guide that accompanied the traveling exhibition that all the artworks were of the artists’ “spontaneous invention,” with the exception of a painting by Ida Bagus Made Togog, who was asked to make pictures of his dreams.²⁹ In this regard, Bateson’s mobilization of artworks might seem to speak to how Balinese artists authentically represented their inner lives and society. This was not necessarily the case, however. In her study of Bateson and Mead’s collection, Geertz found that the two anthropologists deeply influenced the Balinese artists. Throughout their fieldwork, the couple was in contact with Balinese painters who would not only travel to see them but also made art specifically to sell to them.³⁰

While Bateson intended the artworks to be seen as sources of information about the inner lives of the peoples they represented, their makers were aware of the Western anthropological gaze of Bateson and Mead, which informed their process and, in particular, their subject matter. Thus, the Balinese society that Bali, Background for War pictured was one already in dialogue with an international world order and a modern art history.In this sense, Balinese modern art in the exhibition was relational, not just representative of a faraway culture. The photographed Balinese man and more generally the people whose gaze met those visiting the exhibition was thus returning a gaze that was part of a cultural exchange that spanned back to the 1930s and was a critical part of the definition of Balinese modern art. The regional imagination captured in Bali, Background for War was, in turn, an emergent international order framed by an encounter with modern art. This nexus of the anthropological and militaristic sensemaking that took shape as an exhibitionary technology of worldmaking during the Cold War will be unpacked in the second part of this essay.

With special thanks to Ana Marie of the Archives, Library, and Research Collections Department and Ottilie Lighte from the Imaging and Visual Resources Department of The Museum of Modern Art.

The post Bali, Background for War (1943), Part I: A Regional Exhibition of Balinese Modern Art as a Military Technology of Worldmaking appeared first on post.

Jean-Michel Atlan (1913–1960)—who signed simply as Atlan in his works—¹is most often considered a representative of lyrical abstraction, an art movement that took root in Paris after World War II. Born in the Casbah of Constantine to a Jewish Berber family (a fact he often emphasized),² his Algerian childhood lent specific forms and colors to his uniquely creative imagination. Atlan’s parents combined tradition and modernity, enrolling their children in both a Talmudic school and a French secular school. Steeped in the mystic readings of sacred texts, his father transmitted knowledge of the Kabbalah to his son, a legacy that would remain important to the artist throughout his life.

In 1930, Atlan left home to study philosophy at the Sorbonne. He became involved in political circles as soon as he arrived in Paris, publishing in Trotskyist journals like La Vérité (The Truth) and attending anti-colonial protests. Concurrently, he began writing poetry, drawing closer to the literary circle surrounding Georges Bataille (1897–1962) and the revolutionary Surrealist movement. He started teaching philosophy but was dismissed when the Vichy regime began to collaborate with Nazi Germany and implemented anti-Jewish laws. Within this extremist context, in 1940, Atlan started to make visual art. Imprisoned under the pretext of “Communist activities,”³ then committed to the Sainte-Anne psychiatric hospital from January 1943 to August 1944, he executed his first paintings on boards and makeshift canvases provided by friends and hospital staff.⁴

Once Paris was liberated, Atlan dedicated himself entirely to painting, declaring: “I’ve made the leap from poetry to painting, like a dancer who has discovered that dance is better than verbal incantations for his self-expression.”⁵ He made his breakthrough in the art scene in December 1944, right after the war, at a time when artists had to reinvent themselves to rebuild their relationship with the public.⁶ Nonetheless, his career and distinctive work have posed a challenge to critics. Atlan was perceived both within the School of Paris and on its fringes, engaging in every pictorial trend—from “Art Informel” to lyrical abstraction—so as to better disassociate himself from all of them.⁷ 

After the war, Atlan was hailed as an innovator by new gallery owners such as Denise René and Aimé Maeght as well as by art critics and historians, including Jean Cassou, Charles Estienne, and Michel Ragon (who would become one of the artist’s closest friends). Like French writers Jean Paulhan, Jean Duvignaud, and Clara Malraux, American writer Gertrude Stein was among his first supporters, purchasing several of his works. As a philosopher, Atlan was comfortable taking stances on issues rocking the art world and in 1945, published a manifesto in the second issue of the French journal Continuity.⁸ In this text, he questioned the concept of reality, and, further, the conception of realism—which, according to him, resulted in paintings that were too literal.⁹ Atlan felt a profound sense of freedom and broke his contract with Galerie Maeght in 1947. After making that decision, which was praised by the French artist Pierre Soulages (1919–2022),¹⁰ Atlan experienced a slower period in his career. However, he continued to paint and exhibit. In 1957, his career gained momentum again with a mature body of work that received international recognition in Europe, Japan, and the United States. He would not attend the April 1960 opening of his solo exhibition at The Contemporaries Gallery in New York, because he died in Paris on February 12 in his studio on rue de la Grande Chaumière. By tracing the trajectory of his unconventional career, from his homeland to his premature passing, one can gain a deeper understanding of this self-taught artist’s distinctive impact on art, transcending predefined categories and movements.

A Gestural Painting Focused on the Sign

The works by Atlan in The Museum of Modern Art’s collection represent both periods of the artist’s activity (which were separated by a reclusive time of low visibility for Atlan from 1947 to 1957, although he was still working): lithographs and line blocks created by Atlan in 1945 for Description of a Struggle (Description d’un combat) by Franz Kafka, an illustrated book published in 1946, and Realm (Royaume), a pastel on colored paper made by the artist in 1957. Despite being created ten years apart, the sign is present in both works.¹¹ While the 1945 prints foreground the plastic potential of the sign, his later pastel establishes its use as a means for the artist to relate to the world around him. 

Atlan progressively developed images incorporating biomorphic forms and strange signs. What were his sources of inspiration? Perhaps Arabic calligraphy, which he had encountered in many forms, including in the epigraphic decors of mosques and Islamic monuments in Constantine, such as in the famous madrassa on rue Nationale by his parent’s house? Maybe Hebrew calligraphy, with its graphic and esoteric dimensions? Or Berber motifs used in the decorative arts and symbols to ward off evil? Indeed, Atlan recalled seeing “Berbers tracing geometric signs, making little triangles or zigzags on pottery.”¹² Or ideograms from Japanese culture, with which Atlan felt a close affinity? In Atlan’s visual world, everything is sign and can truly be grasped only through understanding a mysterious language all his own. Atlan constructed his work over a fifteen-year period under the reign of the sign, using lines that are sometimes sharp but more often supple and cursive—signs that, like language, have endless variations. Everything feels connected, both surprisingly open and yet equally mysterious: black forms emerge as abstract signs, or as stylized silhouettes of humans, birds, and trees, or a combination of all these morphing together in metamorphosis—a process central to the artist’s magical universe. Some of his works evoke the Maghreb,¹³ but the majority make no reference to it, leaving the viewer unconstrained in their visual experience and the enigma preserved.

Movement and gesture are embedded in his work. From his earliest ink drawings to his collection of pastels, Les Miroirs du Roi Salomon (King Solomon’s Mirrors), which was published posthumously, calligraphy proved to be consistently significant for the artist. In his illustrations for Kafka’s Description of a Struggle, Atlan transmuted this calligraphy into his own writing. As part of his first contract with Galerie Maeght, at the suggestion of Georges Le Breton and Clara Malraux (who translated Kafka’s text into French), Atlan created a series of lithographs to illustrate the edition for its September 1946 publication.¹⁴ Working with lithographer Fernand Mourlot proved vital to his work: “My contract with Maeght led me to Mourlot’s lithograph studio, where I worked with stones for a year. This time was incredibly enriching for my painting—the black and white taught me about color. In black-and-white work, I discovered light and matter.”¹⁵

He persistently pursued material investigation, driven by a desire to find the best way to bring his forms to life.¹⁶ He explained his choice of materials as follows: “I needed a medium like fresco or oil paint, which led to my absorbent preparations using sackcloth canvas and to mixing powders, oils, and pastels.”¹⁷ Just as a line cuts across to create a symbol, the direct application of pastels—which cannot be covered or redone—contributes to the expressivity of his gestural painting. Atlan’s large oil canvases from this period owe their sumptuous nature in part to the work he was doing on paper at the same time, including in distemper and pastels. His research on color, such as silver, white and ivory black, as well as the absorbent abilities of his mediums, led to his becoming “a modest yet incredible craftsman,” as Michel Ragon put it.¹⁸ He dedicated himself to pastels when the technique was considered outdated and had become largely obsolete in contemporary art. But Atlan was not swayed by fashion, and he worked in that medium (among others) because of its mineral aspects, which evoked earth colors and the ocher of rock. This was undoubtedly inspired by memories, such as of the magnificent, towering plateau upon which Constantine is built.

Conjuring a mental image of his home city, by then far away, he said of the sketches he made in his notebook, “I have Judeo-Berber origins, like almost everyone there in the old city . . . which was built with stone, gullies, eyries, and cactus.”¹⁹ With his propensity for these techniques, his soot-black lines, his symbols from another age, and his ocher colors, Atlan offered the viewer glimpses of the cultural substrate that inspired him and created a staunchly modern work that nonetheless maintained a firm grip on its cultural references. His friend, the artist and poet André Verdet (1913–2004), used these audacious words when speaking of Atlan: “This undercurrent of Afro-Mediterranean civilizations . . . Jean Atlan bathes in the very humus of eras archaic, beyond neolithic.”²⁰ Therewith related, it is noteworthy that from November 1957 to January 1958, the Musée des arts décoratifs in Paris was showing explorer Henri Lhote’s exhibition on cave paintings discovered in Tassili n’Ajjer, Algeria—an exhibition that resonated with several modern artists. In the case of Atlan, the artist told Pierre Alechinsky (born 1927) that the cave metaphor ran through his work. He admitted that, according to him, art and beauty are to be found deep within it.²¹

While not discounting the primordial role of migration in sparking and intensifying memory, everything points to the fact that for Atlan, these recollections and legacies were more than fixed and inert backdrops; instead, he saw them as pliable material for an inventive imagination, freed by gesture to enter the work, reactivated endlessly in creations in which signs and colors combine to give profound coherence and constant renewal.

Atlan seemed to play with materials and mediums to construct his pictorial space: juxtapositions and superpositions reveal the intense vibrations of his colors. He used the expressive potential of vivid hues to their greatest effect, contrasting them with the black forms that structure and invigorate the space. Indeed, Clara Malraux remarked on how the colors and signs were in tension, bringing a rhythm to the heart of his works.²² In the same period, Atlan himself discussed rhythms in dance and painting as a symbol of life, such as in “Letter to Japanese Friends,” which he wrote shortly before his death.²³ In this text, he calls painting an “adventure that confronts man with the formidable forces within and outside of him: destiny and nature.” The rhythm, tension, and violent expressivity in his works add a tragic dimension that reflects his internal suffering and the impact of the conflicting worlds he had lived through. 

Realm (1957) is among the works he produced in his later period of intense creative activity and public exposure. As with other paintings and pastels from this time, the space has been refined, and the composition focuses on fewer, more majestic signs. The artist stages polysemantic forms that appear to be contemporary and personal interpretations of arabesque decoration. Likewise, the presence of rhythm is felt: The forms dance within the painted field, and the viewer can picture them continuing beyond the frame despite the black line that borders it. These shapes seem backlit in a mysterious procession, connected through an entanglement that evokes the idea of metamorphosis. Ocher, red, chalk white, and a few blue highlights lend a strange and uncertain luminosity contrasting with the foreground’s dark scrim. This tension between light and dark, line and color, is accentuated by the texture and shade of the paper, deliberately left exposed akin to the strokes of a pen.

Characterizing Atlan’s Works: Decentering the Gaze, Moving beyond Categories

The two works by Atlan in MoMA’s collection, along with others that are emblematic of his style, such as the large paintings he created from the mid-1950s until his death, reinforce the idea that his art cannot be confined within the artistic categories of Europe at that time. Although mainstream formal logic opposes figuration and abstraction, this binary thinking does not apply to Atlan’s paintings. Today, this fluidity would easily be accepted, but it was a source of debate in the postwar period.

The terms “lyrical abstraction” and “abstract expressionism,” more suited to postwar tastes, likewise did not satisfy the painter, as he did not embrace either one. Michel Ragon put forth the notion of “other figuration” to describe Atlan’s work after his early Art Informel period. In a discussion, Atlan told him that he preferred the term “other art,” suggesting that he didn’t want to be confined to a trend or to be boxed in stylistically.²⁴ For Ragon, this so-called otherness stemmed largely from the artist’s embeddedness in North African culture and history.

Ragon and other critics then began to use the term “barbarism”—often associated with the idea of rhythm—to characterize his art. This word, as well as “primitivism,” were used to describe Atlan’s output, but each has its own level of ambiguity: the former oversimplified his approach, while the latter decontextualized his original anchoring, placing it within a different cultural arena. Beginning in the 20th century, many European artists attempted to tackle the non-Western universe of signs, seeking to emphasize the notion of primitivism. This idea, embraced by artists such as those associated with CoBrA, including Asger Jorn (1914–1973) and Corneille (Guillaume van Beverloo; 1922–2010)—with whom Atlan exhibited in 1951—does not align with his intentions.²⁵ Similarly, among the practitioners of lyrical abstraction, his approach bore no similarities to that of Georges Mathieu (1921–2012), for example, who was becoming famous in Paris around the same time for extolling a type of gestural painting inspired by the calligraphic arts of the Far East. Without a doubt, the postwar context was a suitable one in which to challenge the supremacy of European art. Still, unlike European artists, who were decentralizing their views to understand the world better, Atlan’s evolution was in colonized Algeria, where he had constructed his visual universe; furthermore, he could speak from within the subjugated societies resisting that domination in their own ways. He was not coming from the outside; he was no stranger to the universe of forms other artists would appropriate and use. He claimed to belong within it, first through his political engagement during his youth and then solely through his aesthetic after the war.

In this decentring of the gaze, the question arises whether Atlan’s works relate in form to the Algerian painters who were also in Paris during the 1950s. Those from the generation born in the 1930s took an interest in Atlan’s work upon arriving in Paris. Among the Maghreb painters in the modern era, there is formal proximity with the so-called painters of the sign (“les peintres du signe”), such as Moroccan artist Ahmed Cherkaoui (1934–1967) and Algerian artists Mohammed Khadda (1930–1991), Choukri Mesli (1931–2017), and Abdallah Benanteur (1931–2017), for whom Atlan was a predecessor. The concept of sign painting, coined by Algerian poet Jean Sénac (1926–1973), was an important aesthetic trend amid Algeria’s decolonization and post-independence period. It was historically aligned with a desire for cultural reappropriation through the spotlighting of Arabic and Berber writing, as well as ancestral geometric signs like those used for basket-weaving, pottery, rug-making, and tattoos.²⁶ In his essay “Elements for New Art,” Khadda stated: “Atlan, the prematurely deceased Constantinian, is a pioneer of modern Algerian painting.”²⁷ We should not interpret this statement as assigning a label or identity but rather as expressing both interest in a new aesthetic and gratitude for Atlan’s work—Atlan paved the way for those artists in that moment in history and helped to legitimize their artistic research. 

The Postcolonial Context: Atlan (and Us)

Once idolized, then overshadowed, Atlan is particularly interesting in the postcolonial context: it is necessary to rediscover the vivid work of this precursor, one who used the power of the sign to claim his place in the world at the beginning of decolonization and who underscored the presence of plural modernities within modern art. Critics in his time spoke of the syncretism of his work. By instead referring to the work of Édouard Glissant on creolization, we can go beyond this syncretic vision and reconnect Atlan’s work to other aesthetic experiences that are the result of the creolization of art in the 20th century, a significant source of renewal and a shared universe, recognizing the contributions of each of these actors without having to resort to the idea of hierarchy or centralization.

Translated from the French by Allison M. Charette and Beya Othmani. Click here to read the French version.

The post Jean-Michel Atlan: An Algerian Imprint on Postwar Modernity appeared first on post.

Jean-Michel Atlan (1913-1960) – qui signait simplement Atlan –¹ est le plus souvent considéré comme l’un des représentants de l’abstraction lyrique, mouvement qui marqua la scène parisienne dans l’après-guerre. Né dans la casbah de Constantine, au sein d’une famille juive berbère, comme il aimait à le rappeler,² son enfance algérienne a contribué à donner formes et couleurs à son imaginaire singulier de peintre. Les parents d’Atlan concilient tradition et modernité, inscrivent leurs enfants à l’école talmudique mais également à l’école laïque française. Imprégné de la lecture mystique des textes sacrés, son père lui transmet aussi la connaissance de la kabbale, sujet qui accompagnera l’artiste tout au long de sa vie. 

En 1930, Atlan part étudier la philosophie à la Sorbonne. Dès son arrivée à Paris, il marque son engagement politique en publiant dans des revues trotskistes comme La Vérité et en participant à des manifestations anticolonialistes. En parallèle, il poursuit une activité de poète qui le rapproche du cercle littéraire formé autour de Georges Bataille ainsi que du mouvement surréaliste révolutionnaire. Il enseigne la philosophie, mais il est révoqué suite aux lois antijuives instaurées par le régime de Vichy qui collabore avec l’Allemagne nazie. C’est dans ce contexte extrême qu’Atlan commence le dessin dès 1940. Emprisonné sous prétexte de « menées communistes »,³  puis interné à l’hôpital psychiatrique Sainte-Anne de janvier 1943 à août 1944, il réalise ses premières peintures sur des matériaux de fortune grâce à la complicité de ses proches et du personnel soignant.⁴ 

Au moment de la libération de Paris, Atlan décide de se consacrer pleinement à la peinture et déclare : « Je suis passé de la poésie à la peinture comme un danseur qui découvrirait que la danse le révèle mieux que les incantations verbales ».⁵ Il émerge sur la scène artistique dès décembre 1944 dans un immédiat après-guerre qui pousse les artistes à chercher un nouveau langage pour renouer avec le public.⁶ Le parcours et les travaux de cet artiste singulier interrogent les critiques. Atlan se situe à la fois dans et en marge de l’école de Paris dont il traverse les tendances picturales, de « l’informel » à l’abstraction lyrique, pour mieux s’en extraire.⁷

Après-guerre, de nouveaux galeristes comme Denise René, Aimé Maeght, de même que certains critiques et historiens de l’art comme Jean Cassou, Charles Estienne ou encore Michel Ragon, qui sera un ami proche, voient en Atlan un novateur. À l’instar des écrivains comme Jean Paulhan, Jean Duvignaud, Clara Malraux, l’Américaine Gertrude Stein installée à Paris compte parmi ses premiers soutiens en lui achetant plusieurs œuvres. Théoricien, Atlan prend position avec aisance sur les questions qui agitent le monde de l’art et publie un manifeste dans le numéro 2 de la revue Continuity en 1945 par lequel il remet en cause le concept de réalité et par là même la conception du réalisme qui produit, selon lui, une peinture par trop littérale.⁸Profondément libre, Atlan rompt son contrat avec la galerie Maeght dès 1947. Survivant tant bien que mal à une période difficile à la suite de cette prise de position saluée à l’époque par Pierre Soulages,⁹ Atlan continue de peindre et d’exposer, puis revient en 1957 avec un travail confirmé qui trouve alors un écho international en Europe, au Japon et aux États-Unis. Il ne verra pas l’ouverture de l’exposition que lui consacre The Contemporaries Gallery à New-York en avril 1960, car il décède prématurément des suites d’une longue maladie, le 12 février, dans son atelier, rue de la Grande Chaumière à Paris. Suivre son parcours atypique et complexe, du pays natal jusqu’à son décès précoce, est une manière de rendre à cet artiste autodidacte, et à son art, toute leur singularité, et de sortir des catégories englobantes.

Une peinture gestuelle qui privilégie le signe 

Ainsi, les deux œuvres présentes dans le fonds du MoMA sont-elles représentatives de chacune de ces deux périodes, séparées par une éclipse au cours de laquelle Atlan est peu visible même s’il continue à travailler : lithographies de ses débuts, créées en 1945 pour illustrer la publication Description d’un combat de Franz Kafka, et Royaume, un pastel de 1957, réalisé après le tournant du milieu des années 1950. Dans les deux œuvres, distantes pourtant de plus de 10 ans, le signe est là, avec l’intuition précoce de son potentiel plastique dès 1945, puis avec une place affirmée comme marque d’une présence au monde. 

En effet, Atlan développe progressivement des peintures dont les formes sont chargées de biomorphisme et de signes étranges. Quelles sont ses sources d’inspiration ? La calligraphie arabe, qui lui fut familière, entre autres, sous sa forme épigraphique, ornant les monuments musulmans de Constantine, les mosquées ou la célèbre médersa proche de la maison de ses parents rue Nationale ? La calligraphie hébraïque, avec ses dimensions graphiques et ésotériques ? Les motifs berbères, à la fois décor ancestral et symboles prophylactiques ? Atlan évoquait lui-même qu’il avait vu des « Berbères tracer des signes géométriques, faire de petits triangles, des zigzags sur des poteries».¹⁰ Les idéogrammes de la langue japonaise, culture avec laquelle Atlan avait des affinités intimes ? Dans le monde peint d’Atlan, tout est signe et ne se laisse saisir qu’au travers d’une langue mystérieuse qui est, somme toute, sa propre empreinte sur le réel. Sur une quinzaine d’années, Atlan construit son œuvre en affirmant, par des lignes parfois acérées, mais le plus souvent souples et cursives, le règne du signe, porteur, comme un langage, d’infinies variations. Tout semble lié, étonnamment ouvert et mystérieux à la fois ; les formes noires apparaissent comme des signes relevant de l’abstraction, mais pourraient tout aussi bien être la stylisation de silhouettes humaines, d’oiseaux, d’arbres ou de tous ces éléments confondus dans une métamorphose qui semble l’une des clés de l’univers magique de l’artiste. De nombreux titres de ses réalisations évoquent le Maghreb,¹¹ mais la majorité n’y fait pas référence, laissant le récepteur libre et l’énigme préservée.

La question du mouvement et du geste va donc être centrale dans son œuvre. Depuis ses premiers dessins à l’encre de Chine jusqu’au recueil illustré de ses pastels, Les Miroirs du Roi Salomon, qui paraît à titre posthume, la calligraphie se révèle une écriture particulièrement importante pour l’artiste tout au long de sa carrière. Les illustrations de l’ouvrage Description d’un combat de Franz Kafka conservées par le MoMA constituent un exemple de la transmutation de cette calligraphie vers la propre écriture de l’artiste. Dans le cadre de son premier contrat avec la galerie Maeght, et sur une suggestion de Georges Le Breton et de Clara Malraux qui traduit le texte de Kafka,¹² Atlan va concevoir une série de lithographies pour illustrer cette édition d’art qui sera publiée en septembre 1946. Il va trouver chez le lithographe Fernand Mourlot un enseignement capital pour son œuvre : « Mon contrat chez Maeght m’a conduit vers les ateliers du lithographe Mourlot, où j’ai travaillé pendant un an sur les pierres. Ce séjour m’a terriblement enrichi sur le plan de la peinture elle-même ; le noir et le blanc m’ont appris la couleur. Dans le travail du noir et du blanc, j’ai fait la découverte de la lumière et de la matière ».¹³ 

Il poursuit obstinément ses recherches matiéristes, motivé par l’impératif du type de rendu qui pourra le mieux faire vivre ses formes.¹⁴ Il expliquait ainsi le choix des matériaux utilisés dans ses œuvres : « […] j’ai besoin d’une matière proche de la fresque et de l’huile à la fois, d’où mes préparations absorbantes, l’utilisation de grosse toile de sac, le mélange de poudres, d’huiles, de pastels. »¹⁵ De même que le trait incisif créant le signe, l’application directe du pastel sur lequel on ne peut revenir contribue à l’expressivité de sa peinture gestuelle. Les huiles sur toile de grand format qui datent de ce moment doivent pour une part leur somptuosité au travail sur papier que mène en parallèle Atlan au moyen d’autres techniques qu’il affectionne, telles que la détrempe et le pastel. Ses recherches sur les couleurs, comme le blanc d’argent ou le noir d’ivoire, ainsi que sur le pouvoir absorbant des supports, concourent à faire de lui un simple mais fabuleux artisan, selon Michel Ragon.¹⁶ Il s’adonne ainsi au pastel à une époque où la technique, considérée comme datée, est largement tombée en désuétude dans l’art contemporain. Mais Atlan n’est pas sensible aux phénomènes de mode et travaille ce médium, entre autres, pour son aspect minéral qui évoque les couleurs de la terre et les ocres des rochers. Ceci fait sans doute écho à ses souvenirs, comme le fantastique rocher surplombant des à-pics vertigineux sur lequel est bâtie Constantine : « […] mes origines sont judéo-berbères, comme un peu tout le monde là-bas dans cette vieille ville […] qui est construite avec des rochers, des ravins, des nids d’aigle et des cactus »,¹⁷ dit-il pour évoquer la présence mentale de sa ville natale, désormais lointaine, dont il dessine le profil dans ses carnets.

Par le goût pour ces techniques, par ses traits charbonneux, ses signes hérités d’un autre âge et ses teintes ocre, Atlan laisse entrevoir quel substrat culturel l’inspire pour créer une œuvre résolument moderne, mais en prise avec ses référents culturels. Son ami l’artiste et poète André Verdet parle d’Atlan en ces termes audacieux : « Ce souterrain des civilisations afro-méditerranéennes […]  Jean Atlan baigne à même l’humus des âges archaïques, par-delà le néolithique. »¹⁸ Rappelons qu’eut lieu à Paris au musée des Arts décoratifs, de novembre 1957 à janvier 1958 l’exposition d’Henri Lhote sur les découvertes de l’art rupestre en Algérie, dans le Tassili N’Ajjer, exposition qui interpella nombre d’artistes modernes. Évoquons également ici la métaphore de la grotte – qu’Atlan livre un jour à Pierre Alechinsky –,¹⁹ au fond de laquelle se trouvent, selon le peintre, l’art et la beauté. 

Sans oublier le rôle primordial de la migration qui potentialise et magnifie les souvenirs, tout concourt à penser que ces souvenirs et héritages ne sont pas pour Atlan de simples arrière-plans fixes et inertes, mais que ces perceptions passées sont les matériaux ductiles d’une imagination inventive que le geste libère pour les faire advenir dans le présent de l’œuvre, sans cesse réactivées dans des créations où signes et couleurs se combinent et donnent à l’œuvre peinte d’Atlan sa profonde cohérence et son constant renouvellement.

Atlan semble jouer avec les matières, le support, pour construire son espace pictural ; juxtapositions, superpositions révèlent les intenses vibrations de ses couleurs. Il exploite au mieux le potentiel expressif de teintes fortes contrastant avec ses formes noires qui structurent l’espace et le dynamisent. Clara Malraux remarquait dans l’un de ses textes que couleurs et signes étaient en tension, mettant la notion de rythme au cœur des œuvres.²⁰ Atlan lui-même, à la même période, parle du rythme dans la danse ou la peinture comme symbole de la vie, comme il le réaffirme peu avant sa mort dans sa « Lettre aux amis japonais ».²¹ Dans cette lettre, comme dans d’autres textes, il parle de la peinture comme d’une « aventure qui met l’homme aux prises avec les forces redoutables qui sont en lui et hors de lui, le destin, la nature ». Rythme, tension, violente expressivité donnent à ses œuvres – qui apparaissent comme des champs de forces antagoniques – une dimension tragique, échos de ses tourments intérieurs et des mondes que le peintre a traversés et qui l’ont profondément marqué par leur conflictualité même.

Le pastel conservé par le MoMA, Royaume (1957), fait partie des œuvres réalisées dans cette période d’intense activité de création et d’expositions en France et à l’international. Comme dans les autres toiles et pastels de cette dernière période, l’espace s’est épuré, la composition se concentre sur quelques signes à la présence majestueuse, qui emplissent le champ peint de manière expressive. Des formes polysémiques se déploient telles des déclinaisons modernes et très personnelles de l’antique arabesque. L’idée de rythme opère, les formes sont dansantes, et on les imagine se poursuivant aussi hors champ, malgré le trait noir qui délimite la scène. Ces formes paraissent vues comme à contre-jour dans une mystérieuse procession, reliées les unes aux autres dans un entremêlement qui évoque l’idée de métamorphose. Les ocres, les rouges, le blanc crayeux, quelques éclaircies de bleu apportent une luminosité étrange et incertaine qui contraste avec les formes au premier plan. Cette tension entre le clair et l’obscur, la ligne et la couleur est servie par le grain et la teinte du papier que le peintre laisse apparaître comme s’il participait à son écriture. 

Caractériser son œuvre ? Décentrer le regard, s’extraire des catégories

Ces deux œuvres et d’autres devenues emblématiques de son style, comme les grands formats qu’il réalise du milieu des années 1950 jusqu’à sa mort, confirment le sentiment que les catégories de l’art européen ne conviennent pas : si la logique formelle et l’usage opposent la figuration à l’abstraction, pour la peinture d’Atlan, ce schéma de pensée binaire ne s’applique pas. Cela est aujourd’hui accepté, mais était, après-guerre, l’objet de débats esthétiques et polémiques. 

Les vocables d’abstraction lyrique, d’expressionnisme abstrait, plus conformes à l’évolution des sensibilités d’après-guerre, ne semblent pas non plus satisfaire le peintre qui ne s’y reconnaît pas entièrement. Michel Ragon avait avancé la notion d’une « autre figuration », pour les œuvres d’après la première période informelle. Dans un dialogue, Atlan lui répond qu’il préfère le terme « art autre », pour montrer qu’il ne veut être enfermé dans aucun courant.²² Pour Ragon, cette altérité tient beaucoup au rôle matriciel joué par son histoire et sa culture nord-africaine. 

Michel Ragon ainsi que d’autres critiques utilisent alors l’adjectif « barbare », souvent associé à l’idée de rythme, pour caractériser son art. Ce terme et celui de « primitivisme », qui fut aussi mobilisé pour parler d’Atlan, ont leur part d’ambiguïté : le premier, pour essentialiser sa démarche, le second, pour décontextualiser son ancrage originel dans une aire culturelle autre. En effet, depuis le début du xx^e siècle, nombre d’artistes européens ont cherché à se confronter aux univers des formes non occidentales, ce que cherche à mettre en évidence la notion de primitivisme. Cette notion, utilisée par exemple pour les artistes du groupe CoBrA, tels Asger Jorn ou Corneille, avec qui Atlan a exposé en 1951 sans faire partie du groupe, ne semble pas convenir à son propos.²³ De même, parmi les tenants de l’abstraction lyrique, sa démarche n’est pas similaire à celle d’un Georges Mathieu qui devint célèbre à Paris au même moment en prônant une peinture gestuelle qui s’inspirait des arts calligraphiques d’Extrême-Orient. Certes, le contexte qui suit la Seconde Guerre mondiale est propice à remettre en cause la suprématie de l’art européen, mais contrairement aux artistes européens qui ont décentré leur regard pour mieux saisir le monde, Atlan a évolué dans l’Algérie colonisée, il y a construit son imaginaire et il parle de l’intérieur de ces sociétés assujetties qui résistent à leur manière à cette domination. Il ne vient pas de l’extérieur, il n’est pas étranger à l’univers des formes que d’autres vont utiliser et s’approprier. Il y affirme son inscription, d’abord, par son engagement politique durant ses années de jeunesse, et après-guerre, uniquement par son esthétique.

En décentrant le regard, se pose la question de savoir si les œuvres d’Atlan ont une proximité formelle avec celles des peintres algériens présents à Paris dans ces années 1950. Les peintres avec qui le rapprochement prend tout son sens sont issus de la génération née dans les années 1930. Et l’intérêt qu’ils ont porté dès leur arrivée à Paris au travail d’Atlan est déjà un indice. Parmi les peintres maghrébins de l’époque moderne, la proximité formelle se situe avec la mouvance des peintres du signe, comme le Marocain Ahmed Cherkaoui, les Algériens Mohammed Khadda, Choukri Mesli, Abdallah Benanteur, pour qui Atlan est un précurseur. Selon la notion forgée au début de l’indépendance par le poète algérien Jean Sénac, cet important courant esthétique, en mettant en avant l’écriture arabe et berbère ainsi que les signes géométriques ancestraux comme ceux utilisés pour la vannerie, la poterie, les tapis, le tatouage,²⁴ s’est inscrit historiquement dans une volonté de réappropriation au moment de la décolonisation et après les indépendances. Le peintre Khadda affirme dans son essai Éléments pour un art nouveau : « Atlan, le Constantinois prématurément disparu, est un pionnier de la peinture algérienne moderne. »²⁵ Il ne faut pas voir là l’assignation à une identité, mais plutôt l’intérêt pour une nouvelle esthétique et la reconnaissance du travail d’Atlan, qui, à ce moment de l’histoire, leur a ouvert voie et a contribué à légitimer leurs propres recherches.

Atlan et nous dans le contexte postcolonial 

Adulé puis éclipsé, Atlan revêt un intérêt tout particulier dans contexte postcolonial : nécessité de redécouvrir l’œuvre intense d’un précurseur qui affirme par le règne du signe, au début de la décolonisation, une présence au monde qui peut être saisie, en termes de modernités plurielles, comme l’un des rameaux de l’art moderne. Les critiques ont parlé en leur temps du syncrétisme de son œuvre. En se référant aux travaux d’Édouard Glissant, on peut aller au-delà de cette vision syncrétique et rapprocher cette œuvre d’autres expériences esthétiques qui sont le fruit d’une créolisation de l’art du xx^e siècle, source majeure de renouvellement et d’un universel partagé, en reconnaissant l’apport de tous ses acteurs sans recourir à l’idée de hiérarchie ou de centralité.

Cliquez ici pour lire la version anglaise.

The post Le peintre Jean-Michel Atlan, une empreinte algérienne dans la modernité d’après-guerre appeared first on post.

The somewhat offhand archive called Track Changes nests in the permanent, and therefore more premeditated, display of the art collection of the Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center at the University of the Philippines in Manila. The items in this collection are organized according to a loose art-historical diachrony and within broadly conceived tropes of light, province, unease, and passage. Layered around this nucleus of privileged objects are select contemporary artworks and archival materials. The latter comprise Track Changes, which aims to introduce the public to the archives of the Vargas Museum and the University of the Philippines. The clusters of things are rendered equivalent to and contemporaneous with the encounter of the art through a paracuratorial supplement that exists adjacently to the collection; this arrangement enhances a porous scenography that pursues the interdisciplinarity research inscribed in the word “Filipiniana,” which may mean anything, and so everything, or at the very least, something Philippine. And because Track Changes reminds the public that the museum is the custodian of more than just art as validated by an elite and an expert class, it alerts them to the redistribution of the values of the motley “stuff” of which the museum is steward.

In certain ways, the initiation is an insertion into the stable canon of the collection, thus alluding to a “distraction,” to drag or to pull in different directions in Latin and late Middle English, but not altogether a disruption. It is a practical diversion, so to speak, a delay of expectation consisting of vitrines resting on the spindly legs of wooden tables that may easily be moved or stored. The room housing the collection is surrounded by glass, the panes of which are framed by aluminum, and dappled by various illuminations at different times of the day from the outside. Not a typical white cube, it situates the viewer amid art and nature in a kind of wraparound transparency that instills the feeling of being in a museum and, at the same time, experiencing a kind of continuum with external happenstance, be it rain or a riot. Track Changes is both implicit and complicit, receding and advancing within the institution but not seeking a center; in fact, it is at the sides, flush to the glass wall and so invites oblique reading in the way of an annotation or an aside. While sufficiently present, it is neither ubiquitous nor conspicuous: rather, it is intermingled and intermittent though delicately indented.

The initiation into this endeavor is titled The Native Strain: Guillermo Tolentino and Aurelio Alvero. It focuses on the relationship between Jorge B. Vargas (1890–1980), collector and donor of the collection; artist-professor Guillermo Tolentino (1890–1976); and curator-critic Aurelio Alvero (1913–1958). These three figures are related at certain nodes. Vargas collected the stalwart academic sculptor Tolentino, and Alvero helped Vargas set up his collection. Furthermore, the archives of Tolentino are in the University of the Philippines, which administers the Vargas collection and where Vargas was a student in its first law class and later a regent. Relating Tolentino and Alvero to Vargas is particularly intriguing as it gives us a glimpse into the aesthetic and political implications of making art, making nationalisms, and making museums in the interwar, war, and postwar years in the Philippines.

Jorge Vargas aspired to a postwar national culture through an art collection, as stated in the founding papers of the collection. The latter yield references to cultural heritage being vital for a “young Republic” and the logic of art being a kind of “accumulation” that serves as a gauge of a “level of culture.” According to a 1948 document that conceptually forms the basis of the Vargas collection, the pieces are viewed as “representative of a national art.” The first catalogue, published in 1943, spells out the aims of the collection: “‘encouraging Filipino artists and assisting in the presentation of their works’ . . . helping ‘Filipinos to know and treasure our cultural heritage’. . . and . . . contributing ‘to the proper presentation of Philippine art.’”¹ Vargas commissioned modernist painter Victorio Edades (1895–1985), who studied architecture and mural-making at the University of Washington in Seattle and worked in a salmon cannery in Alaska, to write the first catalogue of his collection; and Alvero completed a catalogue of his own collection titled Art in Tagala (1942/1944).² These efforts may well be the earliest anthologies of art criticism and curatorial writing in the Philippines to the degree that they attempted close readings of works in a collection.

Alvero and Tolentino were nativists who exalted the pre-Hispanic Philippine lifeworld; at the same time, they were decisively (other)worldly, advocates of abstraction and builders of monuments. The term “nativist” is deployed here as a provocation and pertains to the range of articulations that may be considered not-yet or never-to-become colonial (and therefore potentially national or nationalist) or, perhaps, the basis of the exemplary folklore that is the nation, or its afterlife via a new folkloristics in the contemporary. Tolentino was a sculptor of the classical tradition, of the heroic and allegorical kind, and a spiritist who convened séances. He also proffered claims on the Philippine primeval such as its writing system or script, spinning some esoteric codes and wildly transhistorical comparisons.

Jorge Vargas was born into a family that had significant interests in sugar in the central Philippine islands of the Visayas. He was a political figure in the Philippines, its first executive secretary, who served the governments of the United States and Japan from 1935 to 1945. Apart from playing a vital role in American bureaucracy with various portfolios including defense and agriculture, Vargas was invested in the scouting movement, international sports, and the collecting of a gamut of things that, from art to ashtrays, included stamps, coins, photographs, books, and documents, inter alia. He was accused of conniving with the Japanese and later convicted, only to be absolved by the postwar government. He donated his collection to the University of the Philippines, which opened the museum in his name in 1987.

Kept in the vitrines of Track Changes are important texts that tend to inflect the trope of the Philippine bildung. Tolentino’s excursus references a deep past, an ancient ethnic and racial community lying beyond the strictly colonial and imperialist civilization. For instance, in Ang Wika at Baybaying Tagalog (The Language and Script of Tagalog, 1937), he unfolds an almost encyclopedic account of the Philippines through the different systems of knowledge, describing flora, fauna, and people in lofty and idiosyncratic Tagalog, an ethnolinguistic marker of communities around the capital of Manila.³ Tolentino illustrated some of the pages, including the one imagining how the Tower of Babel might have looked from an interplanetary perspective and in the context of the birth of Tagalog as one of the world’s languages.

Alvero, who opened his collection to the public in 1942, was born to intellectuals. His father was the painter and interior decorator Emilio Alvero (1886–1955), and his mother was Rosa Sevilla (1879–1954), founder of the Instituto de Mujeres (1900), the first Filipino-run lay Catholic school for women. He was an accomplished orator and took up law and education simultaneously. He was a poet and taught English, history, and the Tagalog language. He was tried as a Japanese collaborator and imprisoned from 1945 to 1947 and from 1950 to 1952. He cofounded the Young Philippines, a fringe nationalist party of the 1930s advocating that “The Political Salvation of the World Lies in Dictatorship Rather than Democracy.” Alvero founded a “quasi-fascist, blue-shirted” organization that was modeled on groups in Germany, Italy, and Spain.⁴ He went by the name of Magtanggul Asa, which in the local language means “Defending Hope,” and wrote prodigiously on Philippine culture. A case deserving closer study is the monograph titled The First Exhibition of Non-Objective Art in Tagala written in 1954 in Manila, in which he theorizes the rubric of the “non-objective” based on the First Non-Objective Art Exhibition in the Philippines, which opened in 1953 at the modernist nerve center in postwar Manila, the Philippine Art Gallery. Here, he would realign the idiom of western abstraction twice: first through the term “non-objective” and second through “Tagala,” a reference to the dominant ethnic society in the country that is appropriated presumably as an alternative to the colonial appellation of the archipelago, which is the Philippines, the genealogy of Filipiniana. With Alvero and Tolentino looming in the mindset of Vargas, the absolute and the occult alternate with the self-conscious and the internationalist to conjure the fantasy of the modern. 

Alongside documents related to Vargas, Alvero, and Tolentino, the vitrines also contain visual material from the Japanese occupying forces that portray the Americans as murderous, while promising social stability and prosperity through the banking system, health service, and a market economy under their auspices. Curiously, in their illustrations, which are veritable wartime propaganda, the template is American comics and editorial cartoons, thus indicating a persistence of American popular visuality across colonial cultures.

To discuss Vargas, Tolentino, and Alvero as an ensemble is to anticipate a theoretical and historiographic framework of the Philippine modern that considers the aesthetic, artifactual, and discursive implications of the archival material inscribed in or ornamenting the collection. What might be offered here concomitantly is a method that contemplates the postcolonial modern through a paracuratorial visibility. In this regard, the modern is not singularly intuited as a mode of progress or criticality; like the vitrines in Track Changes, this modern is, as alluded to earlier, offhand. For the ethos of Vargas insisted on a certain pleasure in appreciating the distracting collectible, perhaps an elaboration of the desire to belong to an abstract collective.

The term “kawilihan” is key. Kawilihan was the name of Vargas’s residential complex and the site of the collection before its transfer to the university. It roughly translates as fascination, distraction, or absorption. It shapes the time and pursuit of leisure, even of reverie. The complex was imagined as Pleasantville and was part of the development of the suburbs of Manila. It had a garden where Vargas raised vegetables, chickens, and pigs, and ample spaces where he hosted costume parties. Besides being a concept-work, kawilihan was also real estate, the land that bought and preserved the art.

The care and thoughtfulness that sustained fascination and the longing for culture would not have found its distinct institutional framework had Vargas not settled on an intellectual scheme that braided culture and nation, not to mention art and garden. It was a scheme seen within the context of fondness for materials in a collection thriving on heterogeneity and later subjected to analysis in a university museum. Across these interactions, the collection would feed into a life of ferment, speculation, and scholarship. These three impulses of fascination, culture, and university animate the collecting instinct of Vargas and the collection. The phrase “university museum” holds two of modernity’s most consummate bureaucracies: the university and the museum, from which stem the prospects of enlightenment and radical epistemology through knowing and sensing. The alternation between homegrown joy and critical institution is instructive.

The joy derives from kawilihan. It is at once residence, collection, museum. Its root “wili” is also attentiveness, interest, penchant, liking, pleasure, enjoyment. In the early lexicon, it straddles between afección (in Juan de Noceda and Pedro San Lucar), a profound, deep-seated affection on the one hand, and afición (in Pedro San Buenaventura), a habit, inclination, talent, or an enthusiasm on the other. These words gravitate toward “love”; in one Filipino translation of “wili,” it is considered “mataos na pagmamahal,” or a lofty devotion to a beloved.⁵ If kawilihan as a structure of feeling hangs over a particular sensitivity to a precious belonging, then it is a cognate of the ethos of care and inevitably of curation in the sense of a possession being under the care or in the custody of, or of curiosity, the inquisitiveness about things. Because the state of kawilihan or the condition of wili is absorption, love becomes a discursive articulation of the word: the collector, or lover, loses the self, which is absorbed in the collection.

In the Pedro Serrano Laktaw dictionary, the absorbed subject is an “aficionado, apegado, encariñado,” that is, generally attached, and a connoisseur. Such cultivated attachment and connoisseurship are mediated by an object of desire. The example of the lexicographer is intriguingly allegorical and potentially moral: “Hindi mawiwili ang aso, / kundi binibigyan nang buto.”⁶ The dog will not be engaged if not given a bone. Wili, therefore, hinges the subject to the object for it to be distracted.

Criticality informs the second aspect, specifically how the conceptualization of culture and the state, or how the state represents the polity through culture, or the ethical necessity of representativeness for a common image of an ethical community that professes the symbolic birthright of a tradition.⁷ To be more concrete in the Philippine historical context, the trope of the American Commonwealth and the Japanese Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere speaks to a collective and expansionist imaginary rooted in colonial history. And the sui generis Vargas was right at the center of these projects and at the same time the collector of the evolving Filipiniana of the Philippines. No other figure in Philippine history rivals his acumen and dexterity in terms of the country’s political and aesthetic education. The historian Teodoro Agoncillo, who wrote a detailed account of the Vargas collaboration case, opines that the “collaboration question was . . . the brainchild of the Americans who, acting under the pressure of the prevailing war psychosis, dictated to the hapless Filipinos what they should and should not do or think in relation to the incidents and accidents of the war.”⁸

What Track Changes does is to create a relationality between the historiography, which is also the museology, of colonial and modern art and the curatorial supplement that is not programmatic or thematic, but rather contingent and tropic. It insinuates itself from within the institution and beside, or within reach of, the displayed collection to hopefully choreograph, or subtly incite, the frisson of “situated knowledge” across the varia or corpora in the room. In other words, the paracuratorial in this instance coordinates, hints at, a cognitive mapping of things in a tentative totality without lapsing into ideological iconography or art-historical repetition. The “para-” turns out to also be “proto-” in that it reveals symptoms of the museological unconscious of Vargas as well as the apparatus that enabled the collection to cohere and then ramify across temporalities through curatorial activation. The native, the national, and the non-objective suffuse this utterance of the modern—all caught up in contradictions but also pointing to a third moment beyond the dualisms that underlie all stylizations of coloniality and its attendant class-, gender-, race-continuous discriminations. Track Changes proves to be a viable intersectional site that cannot be quickly co-opted by narrow specialization and the positivisms it attracts.

The native, the national, and the non-objective initiate a relay between expressions of the subjectivity that is the Philippine, construed as a figurine and not an identity. The latter dilates across the said three registers in which various imaginaries coalesce to generate particular phases, and plasticities, of modernity: the supposed authenticity of the indigenous (the native), the idealized cultural character of postcolonial autonomy (the national), and the eccentric entitlement to a transcultural and international abstraction (the non-objective) in which all empirical and rational references are banished as if to perform the purity of the native and the melancholic hubris of the national. In a certain way, the Philippine is all of these, condensing in the acquisitive personas of Vargas, Tolentino, and Alvero, who communed with the archaic, the multitude, and the dead—all taken by liberal sympathies, cabinets of curiosity of their own. In this sequence of categories, the notion of the modern becomes exceptionally complex, interpellated by the difficult desires of belonging, and not belonging, to the aesthetic polity of the colonial western by sketching out a cognate genealogy of the Kantian sensus communis: the bodies of willful subjects, which include the collector, the collection, and the culture. This can only be the very groundwork of the museum, its curatorial substrate, when it renders the art ambiguously present in its space, “derived from distractive experience” and turned into an “abstraction of bits of the world.”⁹ Modern art critic Richard Shiff brings distraction, abstraction, and the (non)objective together rhythmically: as the art is grasped so does it “draw away” and “draw apart” from how it is sensed as actually existing and how its becoming real is not only poignantly, but also punctually prefigured.¹⁰

To end with another distraction: In 2022, the Philippine government asked the Vargas Museum to temporarily keep and curate the collection of about five hundred pieces from the collection of Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the country from 1965 to 1986, at a time when the couple’s son Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had become president. The items in the collection comprise paintings on canvas, glass, and wood. They are crafted from the tradition of lacquer, egg tempera and copper, and the ornament of gold leaf, among other mediums. These objects are paintings from the late Gothic and Rococo periods in Italy, reverse glass paintings from former Yugoslavia of folk-fantastic style and called “naif” in Southeast Europe, and lacquer vanity cases and religious icons from Russia. The Marcos government was hailed as developmentalist and cosmopolitan but was deposed by a popular uprising in the wake of autocracy and allegedly massive thieving.

While not cohabiting with the display of the collection and Track Changes, the Marcos collection finds its place alongside the Vargas Collection guided by a kindred paracuratorial sensibility. The task of a university museum is to invite a mindful and urgent study of these objects as well as the tricky lives of Vargas and Ferdinand Marcos, both of whom were enmeshed in the history of colonialism, the formation of nation-states, the accumulation of wealth, and the status itself of objects in collections. With their contentious imbrication as the ecology, essential questions may be revisited: What is an object? How does it become property or patrimony? Why is it in the world, why are we around it, and what do we as subjects do about it?

When the initiatory and coincidental Track Changes asks these same questions, digressively and not aggressively or even transgressively, it drags and pulls the museum in different directions, paracuratorially. As the title “Track Changes” suggests, it traces the indicia of amendments to the text, the writing itself of difference—or the difference finally of curatorial writing.

The post Beginning with Distraction appeared first on post.

This edition of post Presents was part of the 2023 C-MAP Seminar: Transversal Orientations III. The 2023 C-MAP Seminar was organized by Nancy Dantas, C-MAP Africa Fellow, Inga Lāce, C-MAP Central and Eastern Europe Fellow, Wong Binghao,
C-MAP Asia Fellow, Julián Sánchez González, Cisneros Institute Research Fellow,
Elena Pérez-Ardá López, C-MAP Coordinator, and Rattanamol Singh Johal, Assistant Director, International Program, with support from Marta Dansie, Department Coordinator, International Program, and Jay Levenson, Director, International Program. It was presented in collaboration with the Patricia Phelps de Cisneros Research Institute for the Study of Art from Latin America at MoMA.

The post post Presents: Unsettled Dust—Archives, Epistemologies, Images appeared first on post.

In this text, curator and writer Nina Mdivani revisits the lives and work of Tamar Abakelia (1905–1953) and her student Natela Iankoshvili (1918–2007). She emphasizes how these two Georgian women artists navigated between undertaking state commissions and finding windows of opportunity to oppose the regime and, in the process, creates a genealogy of Georgian artistic practices.

History of Georgian art in the twentieth century reflects two dynamics influenced by the larger history of Soviet occupation.¹ On the one hand, official art followed formalist norms of Socialist Realism by submitting to the fiction of a bright Communist future. On the other, this official directive inspired artists to find unique ways of subverting the artistic dictates established by the regime and defiantly pursuing their individual ideas. The work of women artists Tamar Abakelia (1905–1953) and her student Natela Iankoshvili (1918­–2007) illustrate these concurrent tendencies.

Abakelia, considered one of the most intriguing Georgian artists of the 1930s and ’40s, worked as a sculptor, illustrator, and costume designer for theater and film. She was made an Honored Artist of the Georgian Socialist Republic in 1942 and is remembered as one of the most authentic Soviet masters of her time. Her family background is integral to an understanding of her life and work. Her father, Grigol Abakelia (1880–1938), was a member of the Highest Court Commission of the Georgian Socialist Republic and, accused of being a member of the Polish secret service and of working for the Polish government, was executed during Stalin’s Great Purge.² Her uncle, Ioseb Abakelia (1882–1938), was a notable professor and founder of the Georgian Institute for the Study of Tuberculosis in 1930. Like his brother, Ioseb was executed after he was accused of being a spy and plotting an act of terrorism against the Soviet regime.³

Although Tamar Abakelia’s oeuvre is vast and multifaceted, one project in particular exemplifies her aesthetics while also evoking complex developments in Georgian history.⁴ In 1936–37, she completed five friezes for the Institute of Marxism-Leninism on Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi’s central thoroughfare: Batumi Demonstration under the Leadership of Comrade Stalin in 1902, The Meeting of Partisans with the Red Army, Georgian Agriculture, Industry in Georgia, and Happy Life. Leading artist of the day Iakob Nikoladze (1876–1951), who was Abakelia’s teacher and mentor at the Academy of the Arts and himself a student of Auguste Rodin (1840–1917), had been commissioned to design sculptural details for this important building and invited Abakelia to work with him. The Institute was a special project of Lavrentiy Beria (1899–1953), then leader of the Communist Party of Georgia and a close comrade of Josef Stalin. Figures 3 and 4 reproduce archival documentation of two of the friezes. Figure 5 reproduces an archival photo of the Institute in 1941, when it opened. Figure 6 depicts an archival photo of Tamar Abakelia, Beria, and Nikoladze in front of the Institute building at the time it was erected.

As can be seen in figures 3 and 4, Abakelia truthfully adhered to visual formulas associated with Socialist Realism in her depictions of the social progress and triumph of Communism in Georgia. Friezes were widely regarded as marking the revival of the Georgian bas-relief tradition—and were important examples of Georgian monumental-decorative sculpture of the twentieth century. What is visible here is a form of monumentalism that is characteristic of Abakelia’s visual style throughout her career. This return to Renaissance aesthetics is not out of line with the Soviet “promotion” of the physical, emotional, and intellectual well-being of the individual. As postulated in 1934 during the First Congress of Soviet Writers formulated by Andrei Zhdanov (1896–1948) and Maxim Gorky (1868–1936), Socialist Realism represented the single “artistic method” requiring “a true, historically concrete depiction of reality in its revolutionary development . . . [reflecting] the new world, the new person, and a new style.”⁵

Abakelia’s friezes depict chains of soldiers and laboring farmworkers symbolically ready to give up their youth and life force for the glory of the Motherland. One important aspect observable here as well as more evident in other works by the artist is that the women stand by the men in equal positions. Women representing strength and power look stern and capable of action; they are not playing secondary roles, but rather are agents of force and change.

Again and again in a diary that she kept from 1918 to 1940, Abakelia emphasizes: “People and their characters interest me the most. First and foremost, I want to know how they look and what they feel.”⁶

Idealized naturalism, a term coined by Georgian art historian Giorgi Khoshtaria, aptly describes the Soviet art of this time.⁷ In fact, idealized naturalism was a cornerstone of Socialist Realism as it helped to distill the normative and prescriptive ideology of Communism into digestible, optimistic, life-affirming symbols and imagery. One could argue that the ideology of the totalitarian conveyer was not vastly different from that of Ancient Egypt or Greece, both of which were slave-owning societies that produced strong visual imagery to support their ideologic stances. Sociological aesthetics, a term first used by Georg Simmel in 1896, theorizes that aesthetic forms and sociological organization are linked to produce one final, total reality.⁸

Bulgarian philosopher Vladislav Todorov has further elaborated on this point, suggesting that “society is a poetic work, which reproduces metaphors, not capital.”⁹ This fairy tale of a healthy new race was one that Abakelia, as an artist within the system, had no choice but to illustrate. We can only surmise how she felt when members of her own family were persecuted by the creators of this gruesome delusion and the Empire that promoted it, but in order to be able to live and work as an artist, she had to produce works that adhered to the Soviet regime’s strict artistic guidelines.

The history of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, originally called the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute, reflects the larger context of subsequent Georgian history. Construction of the building took place in 1934–38 and cost fourteen million Soviet rubles. Three years later, in 1941, the architect, Alexei Shchusev (1873–1949), was awarded the Stalin Prize, first degree, for his design. During Khrushchev’s Thaw in the mid-1950s to mid-1960s and the dismantling of Stalin’s cult, the Institute removed Stalin from its name. Its rich library became a public library in 1990 but, soon after, was in disarray. During the civil war in Tbilisi in 1991–92, vandals damaged Abakelia’s friezes.¹⁰

In portraying women as figures of equal strength, Abakelia effectively fought the patriarchy and age-old values in traditional Georgia that insisted upon positioning the male figure at the center of the visual culture produced by Socialist Realism and its male artists.¹¹ She showed women as equal to if not stronger than their male comrades, a stance in contrast to the traditional sentimentalization of women as gentle mothers and caretakers—and a torch her student at the Tbilisi Academy of the Arts, Natela Iankoshvili, would continue to carry.

The landscapes and cultural landmarks of the Kakheti region in eastern Georgia, where Natela Iankoshvili was born and raised, influenced her work throughout her life. Her parents, Archil Iankoshvili and Mariam Zardiashvili, both teachers from Gurjaani, a town in Kakheti, instilled a love of nature and literature in their three daughters. Iankoshvili started drawing and painting as a child and, in 1937, enrolled in the Academy of Arts in Tbilisi, where she studied with renowned Georgian artists David Kakabadze (1889–1952), Tamar Abakelia (1905–1953), and Sergo Kobuladze (1909–1978). After graduation from the Academy, Iankoshvili actively pursued painting, initially accepting the dictates of Socialist Realism, and from 1930 into the 1950s, building up a substantial body of work. She started to travel around the country, painting her favorite locations. Over time, she drastically changed her style, and at one point, burned over two hundred of her earlier, more traditional works.

A solo exhibition of Iankoshvili’s work opened at the Tbilisi State (Blue) Gallery in 1960, and she became the first woman painter to have such a showing in this official space. With its more than 250 starkly different, dynamic, progressive, fresh, and emotionally raw works, the exhibition stirred many voices in the Soviet art community. Contemporary art critics aptly compared Iankoshvili’s paintings to compositions by Alexander Scriabin (1872–1915), Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750), and Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) in their sophisticated yet poetic structure and approach. As important Georgian-French art critic Gaston Bouatchidzè wrote, “One does find subdued colors and smiling softness, tenderness in her works, but it is above all in these profound, dark depths where the essence of her paintings is rooted.”¹²

Autumn in Kiziki from 1976 (fig. 7) underlines her independence and strength of will, especially when seen in comparison to the docile landscapes of her contemporaries. The expressionist landscape of Kiziki is likewise portrayed with uncommon freedom and exuberance. The silhouettes of trees blend with the black background, connecting the work to that of two Georgian masters: Niko Pirosmani (1862–1918), a self-taught artist and iconic presence in Georgian art history who used a dramatic black background for his still lives and genre scenes, enlivening them with vibrant splashes of color, and Elene Akhvlediani (1901–1975) who, like Iankoshvili, painted landscapes, albeit in much more traditional style, and also used trees as compositional devices.¹³ The connection of Iankoshvili to her Georgian roots rather than to Soviet ones is noteworthy. As one contemporary writer noted, she consciously rose against the notion of the artist as chronicler of “nature’s tireless reconstructor and transformer,” as was expected in landscape painting of the time.¹⁴ The work’s abstract elements and rich lushness of color intensify the uncanny emptiness of the landscape, which is devoid of figures. To be sure, Iankoshvili seems to have eliminated the surrounding Soviet compatriots, instead focusing on a spiritual communion with the Unknown. The fact that Iankoshvili created her works during the Thaw, a time of relative liberalization and de-Stalinization initiated by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971), made this form of abstraction and her highly individualized method of portraiture not only possible, but also celebrated. In 1976, Iankoshvili became the People’s Artist of Georgia; in 1987, she had an exhibition at the House of Literature in Moscow; in 1996, she received the Georgian Medal of Honor; and in 2000, the Natela Iankoshvili House Museum was founded in Tbilisi, and the artist left all her works to the museum.

Though both Abakelia and Iankoshvili lived and worked in the Soviet period, they were nonetheless able to realize their visions. Neither of them was a dissident in the traditional artistic sense of producing so-called unofficial or underground art, and yet both fought the demands and restrictions of the authoritarian machine. Abakelia was able to produce fundamentally new sculptural representations of women fully equal to their male comrades and to engage in building the country’s artistic future. Iankoshvili continued this line of representation by creating distinct and bold portraits of her contemporaries and then went on to produce even more controversial, abstract, spiritual renderings of the surrounding landscapes. Although neither was a dissident, both held nonconformism as a personal value. Their positions as artists paved the way for underground artists of later decades.

The post Fighting the Authoritarian Machine from the Inside: Tamar Abakelia and Natela Iankoshvili appeared first on post.