Rubén Gallo, “The Mexican Pentagon: Adventures in Collectivism during the 1970s,” in Collectivism After Modernism: The Art of Social Imagination After 1945, ed. Blake Stimson and Gregory Sholette, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 165-188.
The selection from Collectivism After Modernism is interesting because it deals with issues still being debated today. For example, Diego Rivera’s murals were actually made by a large team, but all the credit goes to him. We discussed this in relation to Jeff Koons last week in our class, and I do believe that work fabricated by others or ready-made objects can be considered a work of art by a single artist. The work would have never came to light if it weren’t for the idea by the artist in the first place. It puzzles me how this is such a hot debate when people can say they like Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan films when so many of the signatures of their films depend on different people. George Lucas wrote the Indiana Jones films, John William’s scores, Nolan’s amazing cinematographer Wally Pfister who has defined his look, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s most interesting about the group Proceso Pentagono is their approach to art. They valued aesthetics, but they were very conceptual with their process. They utilized collectivism intellectually as a way to disseminate information to the public. They “illustrated the vast disconnect between cultural institutions and everyday life in the city” (170). I especially liked the metaphor of the museum as a mausoleum. Proceso Pentagono is adept at infiltrating these institutions and causing spectacles from within. They engaged people on the street with actions and installations to open their eyes and make them aware of their surroundings. Pentagono’s process was very information based and less object orientated.
One of the most compelling parts of the reading is how modern landscaping and architecture brought about alienation to Mexico City’s citizens. “The students were in fact standing in a modernist panopticon, where they could be surveyed from almost any point in the complex” (174). Panopticon is a fascinating theory involving power, behavior and knowledge. Through the panopticon-esque architecture of the housing projects, soldiers were able to see and target every person. This is pivotal because it changes the behavior of the one being watched. Power is given to the military because now the people know they are in constant watch and will adjust their behavior accordingly, like one does when a camera is on them (whether it is on or off). Is it possible that collectivism can counteract this? I wonder if this ever came up to any of the collective groups at the time. Also, how has the panopticon evolved contemporarily with the internet and the shadow of “big brother”?
Proceso Pentagono sought to increase social interaction and decrease this feeling of alienation. I wonder though, if perhaps museums saw this as a way to lure visitors into the museum. Collectivism in this context was launched to critique the institution, but how can it help it? Or maybe it only works as a cultural informant or “worker” as Proceso Pentagono referred to themselves as. How has collectivism altered the gap between art and activism? Even though Proceso Pentagono didn’t make art objects, they clearly valued aesthetics. Why couldn’t they infiltrate other institutions besides museums and biennials? Is this automatically considered art and not activism because it was done in these venues then?
Massacre. Violence. War. All significant words that have influenced the works of the “grupos.” The Grupos emerged in the 1970s and seemed to disabondon in the 1980s. However, their voices were heard, and their actions are not forgotten.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, “grupo” was not only a foreign word to us English-speakers, but it was also foreign to Spanish-speakers in Mexico. In the text by Ruben Gallano, he states that the concept of collective groups was, “one of the worlds most revolutionary achievements in the field of visual arts.” Though murals had been commissioned, and many worked assisting and painting it was signed and accredited to one artist (i.e. Diego River). The grupos changed this. They disarmed the theories that had been instilled in them, stating that “our finding eroded concepts that were drilled on us in childhood (a powerful individualist outlook, solitary work habits, a cult to alienation).” Starting a movement of their own.
The massacre. Tlatelolco was not simply a modern architectural marvel for Mexico. It was a death trap. The Mexican army opened fire on a group of students who were peacefully protesting and demonstrating against the government, and its political actions. The structure provided no escape route for the victims and made them clear targets--bloodiest, post-revolutionary. Tlatelolco embodied the political atmosphere of the grupos.
The violence. Tlatelolco wasn’t the only event that ignited the grupos. In June of 1971 Los Halcones (The Falcons) brutally fired on students again in the downtown district of Mexico. The 1970s branded Mexico’s police brutality and corruption.
The war. All these factors led to the “dirty war,” Gallano states, “radicals were arrested, tortured,imprisoned, and hundreds “disappeared” after being detained for questioning. The details of this “dirty war”remained esoteric, and became public in 2000 under President Vincente Fox.
Which leads to the actions of El Grupos, their agenda was to “communicate with the people on the streets” and to “expose criminal actions of the Mexican regime.” Which leads me back to our last discussion in class. The cross between activism and art. The groups came to be due to their political activism, and their quest to enlighten the citizens of Mexico. But, not only did they voice their dismay for the corrupt government they provided solutions; they created a voice, through the people and their various reactions from “mock accidents,”and, “mock acts of violence.” I think the Proceso Pentagono, displays their political activism with a louder message when you juxtapose Regina Jose Galindo; her work regardless of how drastic it is raises a awareness in a more subtle way as opposed to the grupo Proceso Pentagono. But, does that mean one is lesser than the other? Just because they give us solutions does that mean their art is more significant? These are the questions this text raised within me. Yet, it also provided me with a sense of proof that art their always has been a sense of politics inlayed, and weaved within art. Art isn’t always for art’s sake.
The reading by Ruben Gallo in Collectivism After Modernism portrays the setting from which the grupos in Mexico stemmed from, illustrating the revolutionary history of Mexico and its battles between individualism versus collectivism. The grupos were Mexican artist collectives emerging in the 1970s, who like Emiliano Zapata, valued a socialist system as opposed to one controlled by the elite. The article points out ironies in the history of Mexico's patronage of art, as seen in the case of commissions and individuals like Rivera, Siqueiros and Orozco taking the credit for works that were essentially created by a group and not the artists themselves. There was a feeling among them that "in contrast to the muralists, who were largely financed by state institutions (and used their work to further the ruling party's vision of Mexican history), these groups operated not only outside but also against most state institutions" (167). These groups, especially the group Proceso Pentagono, who is highlighted throughout the article, chose to carry their messages outside the walls of the museums and institutions and in turn also attacked these museums and institutions from within once they did accept to be part of their shows. A perfect example of this was when the group was invited to participate at the 1977 Paris Biennale. It seemed almost naive that the group would be invited to participate in such a prestigious, institutionalized event when clearly the group was against this type of environment. The group was innocently let in by art professionals who missed their message and saw them as merely artists whose work they would display because they were recommended by someone as having merit and popularity. Little did they know what letting the Proceso Pentagono group into the Biennal would bring. I wonder if this group of artists who were clearly against these type of institutions would have been allowed to participate had the institution and the professionals within had done their research about them.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, The Mexican Pentagon: Adventures in Collectivism during the 1970s, Ruben Gallo outlined the collectivism movement in the 20th century in Mexico and wrote in depth about the "longest-lived" group, Proceso Pentagono. The collective was "less interested in making art than in conveying information," (171) and instead of rejecting government affiliated invitations to showcase artwork in museums or galleries, they showcase to expose the violent bureaucracy, "attack from within [the institution]," and "lure visitors away from the museum and into the street." (185; 175)
ReplyDeleteIn the event leading up to the 1977 Paris Biennale, the correspondent between Angel Kalenberg and Felipe Ehrenberg regarding his politic agenda in becoming the selector of Latin American art for the Paris Biennale was very fascinating. Ehrenberg circulated a letter among the selected collectives to question his origin, then wrote a letter directly to Kalenberg to question his 'moral authority and political vision to make representative selection of Latin American artists." (177) After hearing about Kalenberg's plan to select anti-Cuban, right-wing conspiracy, to write the catalog for the biennial, Pentagono wrote a letter to the Biennial organizer to remove Kalenberg from the committee and replace authors of their choosing to write about the activist art. Their protest was not successful and both parties published their own catalog. The result of both catalogs did not offer insightful analysis into the project. It was obvious that Kalenberg's selection of writers would not write about sensitive topics regarding to the government. However, why did Presco Pentagono demanded the catalog be written by authors who couldn't offer in-depth description into the collectives' projects, which was "extremely provocative and politically charged works"? (180)
Regarding the invitations to showcase Presco Pentagono's work in museum institutions, why would the institution allow such art work to be displayed in the museum for the public to see if they are so sensitive towards politically charged work? Wouldn't there be a approval board review of the type of the work being proposed for the biennial, to avoid political embarrassment, knowing that this collective's work is centered around political issues?