Summary Report: August 21 to 22, 2008, Brazil
The Global Turn of Contemporary Art in Brazilian Collections
From August 21 to 22, 2008 the workshop entitled The Global Turn of Contemporary Art in Brazilian Collections took place at the Goethe-Institut São Paulo. It was the first in a series of four workshops initiated by the project GAM. Further workshops are planned in India, Australia and Hong Kong with changing partners. For this workshop the program was conceived together with specialists for Contemporary Brazilian Art: Joachim Bernauer (Goethe-Institut São Paulo), Martin Grossmann (Escola de Comunicações e Artes, University of São Paulo (ECA-USP), CCSP (Centro Cultural São Paulo), and “Forum Permanente for Art Museums, São Paulo), and Laymert Garcia dos Santos (Universidade estadual de campinas (UniCamp)).
Hans Belting during his keynote lecture, August 21, 2008, using a work by Alfredo Jarr to introduce his subject. Photo: Andrea Buddensieg.
After opening presentations by Hans Belting, Andrea Buddensieg, and Martin Grossmann the podium was organized in five panels: Local Refutations against GAM, Art Museums in Brazil, Ambitions and Conflicts, Market and Artist, Actualization, Technology and Use, and Collecting the Contemporary in Brazil. In each section the participants were asked to present short statements in order to provide a basis for the discussion. A publication presenting a selection of the contributions made is intended to be published in 2009 as sequel to two volumes already published by GAM.
Joachim Bernauer (Goethe Institut São Paulo), Laymert Garcia dos Santos (Universidade de São Paulo), Martin Grossmann (Fórum Permanente) – co-hosts of the workshop. Photo: Hans Belting.
The first panel dealt with the question of the project of modernity and Brazil’s answer to the challenge of the globalization of art. The participants in the panel, which was moderated by Joachim Bernauer, were Ivo Mesquita, the curator of the 2008 Bienal Internacional de São Paulo, Laymert Garcia dos Santos, and Jens Baumgarten (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp)). There was unanimity that the project of modern art is still a major issue as well as a problem in today’s Brazil. On the one hand, Brazilian modernism has been canonized while on the other hand it is still controversial. Furthermore, the panel discussed how the terms “local” and “national” are defined in a Brazilian context. In the new world order cultural frontiers become more transparent, even among Latin American countries. But, the concept of modern art as heritage of postwar Brazilian modernism of the 1950s still remains a major barrier. As a consequence ethnic art has not found its place in the cultural memory yet. Brazil, as many other countries, remains in an “inbetween” that is between the West and other countries. This results in schizophrenia, and it also raises the question who is able to participate in today’s art scene. Generally speaking, national characteristics remain a main issue in the debate. The identity question still dominates the discourse. People are searching for ways how to discriminate those belonging and those not belonging to the “Brazilian people”. As a conclusion for some participants in the workshop, psychoanalysis is a symptom of identity problems, as is the never ceasing number of cosmetic operations. It was also stated that the project of modernism is the project of creating a new Brasilia. Other Latin American countries have more national consciousness and pride for their indigenous cultures. As globalization is concerned, it was hoped that it would help to give up the dichotomies being still prevalent in the country.
The role of art museums in the representation of Brazilian modernism was the topic of the second panel, moderated by Ana Leticia Fialho (Forum Permanente for Art Museums), where Ana Maria de Moraes Belluzzo (Faculty of Architecture at USP) and Martin Grossmann discussed with Marcelo Araújo (Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo) as respondent. Globalization, it was said, not only means the inclusion of new territories on the art map, but also implies a collapse of every norm. This also touches on the concept of art museums which can no longer maintain their generalist claim. This is epitomized in the modernist purity of art exhibitions, while popular art is res nullius. Modernism, as the participants confirmed, breaks with local traditions which, in the framework of modernist utopias, can only be conceived as obstacles. Modernism is like reaching the top of the Tower of Babel. It is compelling to recycle modernism and to adapt it to the present. Modernism, finally, is not only freedom but also alienation. Art museums have the mission to define art’s future. The question is which future for which art. It is mandatory to create a critical relation to modernism within Brazilian history. Mario Pedrosa’s – an important art critic from Brazil – remark that “we [the Brazilians] were condemned to be modern” was quoted to support this view. It was agreed on the necessity to rethink Brazilian modernism and to represent it differently in Brazilian art museums. For whom are museums in the country? One can either get rid of the problems with national modernism or redefine it in a critical spirit. Concluding the panel, Ana Belluzzo finally informed about a project initiated at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston in 2002 entitled Documentos da arte latino-americana e latino-norteamericana no século XX. It includes a program of acquisitions, a research program, and access to documents of twentieth century Latino art. At the moment there are still two problems left unsolved: One is the question of how to design the interchange with the International Center for the Arts of the Americas at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. Another question unanswered is of how to define Brazil’s relation with other, but Spanish speaking, countries in Latin America.
The third podium was headed Ambitions and Conflicts: Market and Artists. Laymert Garcia dos Santos moderated the discussion between Ana Leticia Fialho (Fórum Permanente), Ricardo Basbaum (artist from Rio de Janeiro), and Alfonso Luz (Brazilian Ministry of Culture (MinC)) as respondent. The discussants addressed the situation of contemporary Brazilian art on the world market. Reconfiguration of the art scene in today’s Brazilian art was the most argued topic. National art institutions need to be reorganized and Brazilian art needs a stronger presence on the international art market. It was concluded that Brazil must still position itself in the new mapping of the art world. There were lacunas in the years of dictatorship and after. No more than a year ago the situation of Brazilian art began to improve. But the problem goes back further. Important characters like Lygia Clark and Helio Oiticica are represented with exhibitions and catalogues mostly in Europe and not in their native country. In short, recent Brazilian art is still underrepresented in the country. Analysising the dynamics of present day art markets was soon a major topic, given that Brazilian banks and big companies increasingly influence the local art scene. With their works on the international art market artists are in a different situation than in their homeland where their concepts are easier communicable to a native audience. The more their concept matters for the understanding of the art work, the more they are bound to an audience that shares their experience. From the site of the participating artist, the problem of decontextualization of art on the international market was positioned against its recontextualization which only happens in local collections and museums. Finally, the discussion rose the question what it meant that artists today produced concepts rather than objects. In this connection it was demanded that concepts shifted the attention back to Brazil and its internal debates.
The fourth panel discussed topics such as architecture, and new media in the museum. Panelists were David Sperling (architect at the Engineering School de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)), Fernando Oliva (Curator and Critique) and Marcelo Rezende (Curator at MIS, Museum for Image and Sound). Martin Grossmann moderated, and Norval Baitello Jr. (Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC São Paulo)) responded. The debate centered on the definition and the function of museum space, especially taking into account the situation at museums in São Paulo and the need for their reassessment. A new target group has emerged that seeks cultural consumption for another generation. Contemporary art seems to offer a new entrance ticket to the midst of modernism, as a target of nostalgia. Another example is the MIS – Museum of Image and Sound – founded to document the history of modern media. However, today it attempts to shift its emphasis to media art. In the course of the discussion, principal topics were the relation between scenography, on the one hand, and interaction or participation of a larger audience on the other.
The fifth podium addressed the question of how collections of contemporary art in Brazil are structured today and what they could be. Participants were Jochen Volz (Inhotim, Belo Horizonte), Marcelo Araújo and Taisa Palhares (both Pinacoteca), and Felipe Chaimovich (MAM, Museum of Modern Art, São Paulo) as respondents. Jochen Volz presented the private collection Inhotim which was founded by Bernardo Pas in cooperation with the artist Tunga. It was opened in 2004 and has now become one of the most representative sites for contemporary art in Brazil. Afterwards, the discussion centered on the general situation of national artists in local collections. Often, as was said, Brazilian artists are more successful abroad. The Pinacoteca recently acquired a work of Marepe commissioned for the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Museums struggle with the above average growth of the art market. But they remain the obvious answer for critical discussion and visibility of contemporary art. Felipe Chaimovich complained that political arguments in exhibitions of contemporary art are still underrepresented. But there are also other problems: The international market presents more opportunities to artists from Latin America than their countries do. In short, visibility of contemporary art in Brazilian collections needs to be enforced. It is a paradox that many Brazilian artists are more successful abroad while their cultural and political context, as addressed in their work, is only understandable within the context of their native country.
The workshop was a closed seminar with a group of experts who in part only participated in the general discussion. Most participants agreed that such an open discussion had not happened before. They saw the global turn of contemporary art as a stimulus to rethink the discussion about art and art collections in Brazil. The discussion was followed online by 700 users of the Forúm Permanente.
