artists. Based on his own knowledge, his aesthetic stance, his experience, he wel- comes this movement, these new exper- iments—or not. In so doing, it does not mean that he a priori approves or sup- ports them. Or is apologetic toward them, His responsibility and commitments are above all in the field, rather, to his epoch, whereas those of the criticare above all to the artist. The critic battles or promotes, at the doors of studios; the director experiments, stimulates, or ignores until further notice. Undermy direction, the Museude Arte Opening ofthe 196 So Paulo Bi Moderna de Sio Paulo and its Bienal—cre- Pinole Biealdesio me "5" ated by the generous, far-reaching vision of our president Ciccillo Matarazzo—will bea laboratory for living experiments and a house of study and education, destined to assimilate whatever may be authentic and vital in these experiments. Originally published as “O ertico eo diretor.” Jornal do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro), November 22,1960. On the Stuffed Pig; or, Criteria for Criticism As a result of successive new schools, styles, and movements, the contemporary age hasbeen particularly fertile in changes of critical criteria, in changes of values. Behold: many of our masters and most distinguished fellows—such as, for instance, a Lionello Venturi or a Paul Fierens (the first president of our AICA [International Association of Art Critics)), both of whom are deceased, and others, still, in the principal European countries—were initiated in the “science,” the “art,” or the “technique” of criticism during the Post-Impressionist period and, without stopping for breath, found them- selves facing the “scandal” of Expressionism or the “challenge” of Fauvism. Yet they were soon made to come to grips with Cubism, Futurism, and Construetivism. The general public—general? nonsense!—the distinguished public had only just begun to digest the very earliest Impressionism (that of Manet: no longer Impressionist even to today’s sensibilities) and, after it, that of [Pierre-Auguste] Renoir with his beautiful ladies and beautiful children wearing beautiful dresses in beautiful parks, and that of (Edgar Degas and his ballerinas, [Paul | Cézanne was still a hermit debated, feared, or ridiculed, while (Edouard) Manet wasn't really brought out of the shadows until the mid-century. Tachism discovered in him the first of the abstractionists. In order to properly assess the artistic kaleidoscope that was sweeping across Europe— indeed, throughout Paris, then the center of the art world—it would sut- fice to consider the fact that [Georges] Seurat and [Paul] Gauguin (or Cézanne) were not yet accepted, and art lovers and critics alike kept bumping into the group that was soon to be baptized as the beasts (Les Fauves) at the Salon d’Automne in 1905, where Manet was still afforded the honors of an important retrospective. Ln the room of “beasts,” there were [ Henri] Matisse, [André | Derain (who used to get a new tube of paint and empty it onto his canvas like a cartridge), and [Maurice 2B\ Digitalizado com CamScannerde] Vlaminck, the kindly lummox whose landscapes reflected his use of copious amounts of paint, Before cinema, one new wave after another flooded the beaches of the Fine Arts, from the beginning of the century to the present day; such waves have tended to crash tumultuously upon us. (It was this aesthetic-historical-sociological verification that led me to speak of a “law of acceleration of isms,” as we advanced toward the last quarter century). Indeed, no sooner had Fauvism become—I shall not say tamed or digested—but merely known and awkwardly defined, the highest wave broke over Paris. With the revelation of African art, it was the arrival of the Cubists—the Revolution’s Jacobins. [Pablo] Picasso rocked the art world with a truly revolution- ary explosion, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. Through the debris produced by the explo- sion, one realized—people were stupefied—how many of the taboo values had fallen to earth: acrial perspective, atmospheric light, optical plays of light. chromatic fusion upon the retina, mortar-paste, figural depth, rich coloring. Impressionism was finally buried. For the proponents of the new waves, it appeared as a petit bourgeois art, in search of not too expensive and innocent sensorial pleasures. ‘Alarmed by Cubism, Paul Valéry wanted to know how he will be able to distinguish one artist from another from here on in—a [Georges] Braque from a Picasso, when everyone is geometricizing their landscape, canceling their perspectives, flattening volumes, “analyzing” portraits, painting everything in earth tones. After the Cubist revolution, the rush of waves did not cease. To the South and the East, the clarions of Futurism and Constructivism had already sounded ot were sounding. Then came the ‘war, and even before it was over the artillery units of Dadaism were exploding against all values hitherto proclaimed. The total, poetic, anti-formal, moral, and political revolt of Surrealism emerged next, negating Cubism; whereas, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Mondrian’s Neo-plasticism leads Cubism to its ultimate formal con- clusions, proposing to surpass it within its own terrain, The critic situates himself within this tumult of movements, as the artist's inevi- table other side; the artist’s involuntary or unrepressed conscience. His increasingly uncomfortable function leads him either to deliberately take on the partisan, active role of an ism or increasingly to become a lacerated soul that, out of a sense of univer- sal duty, an undaunted, living witness of his time, must relate opposites, discover the ‘common structure within which they establish themselves and testify with regard to presence, all of which contain or should contain his criteria for judgment. Each art- ist makes his revolution once, but the critic is a tireless witness of each revolution. Within a single age, one revolutionary episode after another amounts to a process. ‘The critic's role is to define this process—or the process ofa single albeit permanent revolution—in its totality. Through the study and recognition of this process, the critic is the only one who knows that everything is just a revolution. [ndeed, perma nent revolution is the only concept that encompasses our age more generally and pro- foundly. Thus, the critic exists in a state of permanent revolution. Victor Hugo ene defined the poet (or himself) as the one whom God had placed “as adeep echo in the universe's heart." Were it not for Hugo's emphasis, which would render the compar- ison excessively grandiloquent when measured against the modest standard of our functions, | might have used it to define the position of criticism, But then, unstead of being the “sonorous echo" at the center of everything, I should say that it was some sort of annoying cricket that never ceases, in a corner of the urge hall of society, to signal its presence, witnessing nightfall and the permanence of sunumer ‘The revolution moves on, from Russia and Germany respectively; [Vasily] Kandinsky’s anti-object abstractionism and the Blaue Reiter emerge and, with then, ‘mesmo tl 218 Digitalizado com CamScanner aina total simplification that already foreshad- ibility of the absence of the object” gat Suprematism (along with [Vladimir] Tatlin and [Antoine] Pevsner). [Naum] soon proposed kinetic art and [Liszlé] Moholy-Nagy projected light—the ie ructvit nhs! Within this process that involved the whole of Europe, from the Atlante to the Urals, in an incessant flow of isms, the critic must therefore keep hishead above water. Atevery turn, he must accompany | the artist’s investigations, his creative inquietude; additionally, at every moment, he must make an effort not only to know how to capture [these probings] but also how to situate them, Even this fight, foran idea, fora movement, for what is unilateral in the artist—that which is inherent and natural to the artist's personality—cannot be his alone; for in order to explain, defend, situate, and hierarchize, he must be able to see from other perspectives. Woe to the critic who does not recognize the authentic formal values wherever they are found, in any movement; or who is unfamiliar with other values (such as poetic ones, for instance); it shall be said that his range of comprehension lies within a reduced scale; the same will be said of one who passes untouched through documents of more elementary aesthetic values—such as may be found in the simple, unconscious, naive artist of obvious primitiveness—in complete cultural isolation, ‘An eminent French critic was telling me that nowadays an art critic must be ency- clopedic and know not only those subjects directly related to his métier, but be well versed or at least have read any of the human sciences and mathematics, not to men- tion, of course, philosophy. With the multiple ramifications of abstractionism, ever since the coming of age of Concretism, new subjects have been called onto the stage— from semantics to semiotics, from information theory to cybernetics. An avid search for meaning has surpassed the hitherto exclusive search for expressive values. Above all, there was a desire to solve [the question of] what abstractionism was; to decipher its messages. Yet there was one “but” that gathered all the preceding isms within a single structure (if not within the same process). It was the unique, privileged work of the artist, ofthe subject. The supreme value that had to be judged was the work of art in itself. During the course of the century, an extremely exact language had been formed to define, isolate, and extol the supreme formal, expressive, and aesthetic val- ues contained within each work, within each movement. Criticism’s greatest instrument, however, this vocabulary, had been in crisis ever since Concretism, having dissolved itself with the advent of Pop art and Kineticism. ‘The supreme formal values have now been relativized. The work of art in itself loses its uniqueness and pretense to eternity. Nor do the materials with which it comes to be made any longer possess the former nobility of marble or bronze or oil, that Propose to become permanent. The traditional genres of sculpture and painting are Tested. The most precarious materials are used by artists; they do not endure, yet -y are renewable. Pretense to originality is los tic aversion to the copy ioe Geressingy Perfected reproductive techniques are avidly sought after by cvaliea, pathat their work may be within greater reach.) — art of participate nas Mant to leave their earlier social and moral isolation. The DaSsvity on, athen Men fo Want to wrench the spectator from his contemplative aid cae eae rom his multisensory and bodily indifference, from his moral neut ty. What lies beneath the Whole of this anti-art movement is the artists’ sacred nostalgia a in stalgia for a society in which the eC ae Pensable to collective I i eee Primitive cultures; rites and myths, pri integrated — ~as in authentically social communities in the societies of indispensible to their survival, to the preservation of their sacred “cursors of Loday’s marginalized artists, their coopers and hunters, za Digitalizado com CamScanner———T" i oi PTT | wnt. oprccrve pin DE | riences (88159 » 62cm). Pinacoteca «do Bstado deo Paulo coastal dwellers and weavers, potters and tattoo artists, dancers and builders, makers of everyday things, of sacred things. However, nowhere is it said that the game has beenwon by the family of current artists. For the time being, they still find themselves at a stage of cultural and aesthetic demystification, half-unconsciously, marginally begun by the handful of Dadaists at the beginning of the century. Simultaneously, it is no coincidence that today’s avant-garde artists, an actively conscious part of the world’s youth, hits the road in groups of beatniks, hippies, and who knows what else, in acollective—and ultimately parallel—act of moral demystification, It was within this context that a talented young paulista artist who, as a matter of fact, comes from a family of artists, came to question the jury of the Salo de Brasilia, in aletter published ina newspaper, about the criteria that ledit to accepthis “work” Porco empathado (Stuffed pig], which was submitted in a crate with the generic—and some- ‘what scholarly?—designation of “matter and form.” Was [its creator] Nelson Leirner expecting the jury to refuse it? Because it had no formal value? Because it wasn’t “a work of art”? Because it wasn’t “created”? Or possessed no originality? But it is a “stuffed pig.” Someone stuffed it. Stuffing animals is a known and appreciated art called taxidermy. Is Nelson also expert at it? But if he merely purchased the crated, stuffed pig and sent it off to Brasilia, the work would fall into the category of readymades ala Duchamp. Could it be that the young artist wanted the jury to deny validity (albeit rec- ognizing its precedents) to this proposition, one of the richest in consequences to have been invented since Dada, within the same context of cultural and aesthetic demystifi- cation? However, ifthe latent objection speaks to the work's originality, would Leirner not understand what he is doing? So allow me to report something very curious that took place at a solo show by Andy Warhol, in a gallery in ‘Toronto, Canada, in March of 1965. At that stage, Warhol (who is one of the protagonists of Pop) was appropriat- ing series of objects for commercial use, and arranging them for exhibition. When the cardboard boxes and cans with extremely well-known labels of commercial products arrived there, Dr. [Charles] Comfort, director of the ional Gallery of Canada, was consulted regarding the authenticity or value of those “works.” The supreme author- ity of the arts in the workd of Canadian officialdom thus determined that—since those “products” were not original sculptures—Warhol should pay the twenty percent impor- tation tax (they had been brought over from New York, the artist's place of residence) so that they might be exhibited. The gallery owner accepted the decision, Lam unaware whether, according to the laws of our revenue office, that product, the Porco empathado (with sale value inscribed, by the way) should be subject to tax, Also under consider- ation was the fact that none of us (members of the jury) had any official authority to make any decision regarding the fiseal nature of the object, oreven what nature Leirner had mentally bestowed upon the work sent to Brasilia, However, given that, for them, the Poreo empathado had to be the consequence of the whole of theart Crismot rics 221 Digitalizado com CamScannercoral behavior, the jury had full authority to acceptitin the Salo. In postmodern art, it ae 7 " ‘, ft is the idea, the attitude behind the artist that is decisive. “Grgaly published as“Do porco empalhado ou os ertérios da ertien,"Correio da mand (Ro de Jancre), February 1, 1968. uv 1d A.M. Blackmore (Chicago: University of 1. Vietor Hugo, Selected Poems of Vetor Hugo, trans. B, H. an gp a Pres 200), pa = : : aaa er hap ke from Generitve Bonnet, Fran Kup: Précuseur sole” Zet Lettres nouvelles, no, (April 1954): 592-97. The Art Gritic’s Obligations to Society Everyone already knows about the closing of the exhibition organized by the Museu de Arte Moderna do Rio [MAM-Rio], at which, according to a program previously established and divulged by the museum's board of directors, the artists who would be representing Brazil at the sixth edition of the Paris Biennale come September should have been chosen. The public’s perplexity in light of this closing increased when the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself issued a statement in the news outlining the reasons and the origin of the act that determined the show's closing, The gravity of these assertions has forced the Brazilian Association of Art Critics [Associagao Brasileira dos Criticos de Arte, or ABCA] to publicly manifestiits position. in defense of the freedom to practice art criticism in Brazil. Here are the statements: From the Foreign Minister Yesterday, Mr. Magalhdes Pinto (the Minister of Foreign Affairs) guaranteed that Brazil shall not be absent from the sixth edition of the Paris Biennale. It will merely not participate in all of the exhibition’s artistic categories. In reference to the works selected by a committee at the Museu de Arte Moderna, and later canceled, chancellor Magalhaes Pinto declared “an abuse of trust [has taken Place] for, in accepting the commission of selecting the Works of art, the MAM was instructed to reject ideological and political aspects of works in competition.” Censorship Promised ‘The Minister of Foreign Affairs added that the Museu de Arte Moderna had commit- fa to consulting with the Itamaraty [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] before divulging “works, which never happened. The Itamaraty was admonished by the censors egarding the nature of the selected works and found itself forced to adopt the mea- ‘sure known to all, From the President of the ABEA ‘The resolution adopted by insinuation made by som ‘was made “for political boundaries permitted by y the ABCA is self-explanatory: in spite of the malevolent ©, even the typically sneaky accusations that our resolution reasons,” any jurist would be perfectly situated within the “ ted by those currently in charge of the country. Indeed, itis not a eae Tegime,” but of opposing repeated acts by authorities from forced by the rohan nae’ Salons and Bienals in Brazil, Such acts were recently rein- *efusal to send artists to the Paris Youth Biennale, which was publily zai Digitalizado com CamScanner