Parangolés: Hélio Oiticica\'s Borderless Spaces

Parangolés: Hélio Oiticica’s Borderless Spaces EMILY CITINO

University of Houston, Class of 2017

ABSTRACT The dominant narratives of art history are often told from a Eurocentric and North American stand-point, and usually involves the traditional form of passive viewership. The shift to the beginnings of postmodernism can be signified by the Brazilian artist Hélio Oiticica’s performative series Parangolés. Parangolés rejects the conventions of the western art world by transforming the spectator into a participant whose movement activates the art experience. This paper argues that Oiticica’s version of “anti-art” eradicates a number of boundaries, such as class, geographical, and those imposed by the mainstream art world, by containing within itself the ability to exist in any given environment, regardless of people or place.

“I am not here representing Brazil, or representing anything else”, Hélio Oiticica declared at the MoMA exhibition Information in 19701. Oiticica’s statement resonated strongly with artists of his native Brazil, who felt their works were dismissed simply as “Brazilian Art” or, even more 1

Paulo Herkenhoff, “Brasil(es)/Brazil(s),” Lápiz (1997): 27.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

2 generally as “Latin American Art”, and thus not given the same critical attention and study with which North American and European artists had been treated. The criticism against the act of identifying works according to nations is wholly justified; many problems arise when museums, exhibitions, and curators allow “the meaning behind one artist’s work to speak for an entire culture”2. In the postmodern and increasingly nomadic society in which we live, artists are no longer restrained within the confines of a nation’s border, and the powerful handlers of art institutions must begin to recognize this migratory way of living. Cultures are composed of intricate mazes concerning their multiple, layered histories, and it is a disservice for everyone if a culture’s complexity is disregarded. Yes, knowing where an artist grew up and cultivated his or her aesthetic practice is an important element when studying their works, but it could also be argued that the generic labeling according to their place of origins is detrimental to their work. How could a singular artist, or even a group, emanate the social, political, or aesthetic predicaments that all transpire underneath one geographical region? Hélio Oiticica’s body of work has not been treated with the critical observation it deserves (such as a permanent spot in the art historical canon), yet he is able to deftly and thoroughly repudiate his assigned label as a “Brazilian” or “Latin American” artist through the occurrences of color, space, and human interaction found within his Parangolés, a series of performative works which are able to transcend the boundaries of any nation. The whole of the 20th century can be interpreted as a persistence of experimentation on art forms; yet it was during the 1960s and 1970s that the questioning of the art object itself emerged. In North America and Europe, Fluxus was born out of the desire to instill the democracy of the everyday 2

Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art,” Studies in Art Education 47 (2006): 113.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

3 into the art world. In Brazil, the Neo-Concrete group of Rio de Janeiro consisted of artists (like Oiticica and Lygia Clark) who believed that the experience the spectator had of the art was essential to the meaning that the work was meant to propose. With his body of work, and specifically Parangolés, Oiticica wished to take art away from the wealthy and socially elite, leading him instead to a larger and more diverse group of people3. Oiticica firmly adhered to an anti-elitist philosophy when creating his work, in line with the phrase that “art against the current is better”4. This antagonistic-towards-the-wealthy attitude Oiticica adopted seems to fall more under the scope of postmodernism than modernism; his oeuvre is contextually placed within the ambiguous moments of modernism ending its strict reign and the schizophrenic beginnings of postmodernism.5 Oiticica deemed art to be revolutionary, a forum for anarchy against the overpowering traits of both the military regime of Brazil6 (put into power in 1964) and of the international art world, with the latter seeming to ignore the real work and truths being produced by artists from Brazil7. Art critic Frederico Morais introduced Oiticica to the theory of marginality, giving Oiticica the tools to step outside the “acceptable limits of society” and “blur the division of art and life”, which thoroughly impacted the theoretical

3 Paulo Herkenhoff, “Brazil: Breakthroughs of Contemporary Art,” Art from Brazil in New York (1995): 4 4 Herkenhoff, “Brasil(es)/Brazil(s),” 30. 5 The modernist narrative of the individual artist-as-genius, who is the only one able to convey true, universal messages was erased by the decentering and layering of postmodernism, which produced platforms for voices, once from the periphery, to be brought to the forefront. In the October 1979 issue of Arts magazine, Kim Levin declared the end of modernism (which was based on the configuration of a grid) and considered the symbol of postmodernism to be a map that “indicates territories beyond the surface of the artwork”. See Kim Levin, “Farewell to Modernism,” Arts Magazine (October 1979), 92. 6 In order to keep critical art production alive under military dictatorships, artists often enact a selfcensorship in their work; art that contains the ability to disappear, as if it never physically existed, or is only composed of fleeting moments, takes away the fear of persecution for the artist(s) responsible. See Claudia Calirman, Brazilian Art Under Dictatorship (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2012). 7 Mari Carmen Ramirez, Hélio Oiticica: The Body of Color (London: Tate Publishing, 2007), 17.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

4 background of Parangolés8. In accordance with Oiticica’s line of thinking, art is meant to include the everyday and be packed with lived experiences, not to remain in a museum where only a select number of people will momentarily glance at it9. The “world is the museum”; where daily actions cannot be bought or sold by the capitalist art market, allowing for an immeasurable amount of freedom of creativity10. The social or political connections formed from this injection of liberated experience into the conceptual and physical framework of art can be found in several texts written by Oiticica himself.11 In Aparecimento do suprasensorial na arte brasileira (The Appearance of the Suprasensorial in Brazilian Art) (1968), Oiticica articulates his newfound concept of what he calls the moment of experiencing the “super-sensory”.12 Focusing less on the tangible characteristics of a traditional artwork (most typically thought of as a painting or a sculpture), perceptions made by the usually compliant observer are enhanced through the sensorial effects of the art piece. For Oiticica, in his unwavering evolution, “the object was a passage for experiences increasingly committed to the individual behavior of each participant”.13 Oiticica, as well as other Neo-Concrete artists, decentered the attention, or even the notion that there could be one concentrated point of focus, from the physicality of the art object, and transferred it onto the 8

Ramirez, The Body of Color, 17. Ramirez, The Body of Color, 321. 10 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 321. 11 The artist was fond of describing in his own words the impact he wanted his body of work to leave on the spectator. Many of these texts (and the ones used for this paper) can be researched online at the International Center for the Arts of the Americas, a digital database, containing thousands of critical 20th century Latin American and Latino American documents, within the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. 12 Oiticica, Hélio. “Aparecimento do suprasensorial na arte brasileira”, GAM: Galeria de Arte Moderna, Rio de Janeiro, n.13, 1968. 1. 13 Originally published in Portuguese in “Aparecimento do suprasensorial”: “Para mim, na minha evolução, o objeto foi uma passagem para experiências cada vez mais comprometidas com o comportamento individual de cada participador”. Translated by Emily Citino. 1. 9

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

5 whirlwind of lived experience, where there is much to take in. The participant is able to gain consciousness over his or her own behavioral conduct when they are dropped into the middle of an unfamiliar situation. The esteemed Brazilian art and cultural critic, Mário Pedrosa, is mentioned by his seminal idea of the “experimental exercise of freedom”14; wherein this awareness, of one’s own body in an intensified experience, engenders a sense of freedom in the mind and body of the viewer. Oiticica writes that becoming an engaged spectator (rather than a mere submissive one) “overthrows all conditioning for the pursuit of individual freedom”15; bringing it back to the iconoclastic theme of anti-elitism that is imbued within his body of work. Another pioneering text that will unravel the theoretical underpinnings of the Parangolés series revolves around Oiticica’s groundbreaking concept of the “open work”.16 A obra aperta (The open work) (1969) details the removal of any and all physicalities surrounding a piece, meaning that once the work is stripped bare of materiality, all that is left is the art-to-viewer relationship. Rather than a concrete thing (once again, painting, sculpture, or even a photograph), the artwork must be experienced and lived in order for its potential and meaning to be fully realized. The ephemeral nature that is required of this type of art is “open” in a sense; open for the audience to leave behind their unassertive role in the field of art and acquire a more active and involved persona. The openness in which the art exists contradicts a conventional thought that art must be finished before it is seen by anyone other than the artist. This lack of completion paradoxically fulfills the artwork of Oiticica; his pieces emanate

14

Oiticica. “Aparecimento do suprasensorial”. 1. Originally published in Portuguese in “Aparecimento do suprasensorial”: “A derrubada de todo condicionamento para a procura da liberdade individual”. Translated by Emily Citino. 1. 16 Oiticica, Hélio. “A obra aberta”. Cadernos Brasileiros, Rio de Janeiro, Volume 11, (1969) 69-70. 15

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

6 a “non-repressive nature”17 that is crucial to his previous elaboration on Pedrosa’s conception of the “experimental exercise of freedom”. The urgency felt by Oiticica to create spaces that exuded a “non-repressive nature” is surely due to the harsh military dictatorship of Brazil in the 1960s and 1970s18, as well as any North American and European actions that disregarded citizens of Latin American countries (perceiving the multitude of Latin American cultures as derivative of Eurocentric practices perhaps, or the exoticization of Latin America, which informs many cultural stereotypes19). Oiticica’s conviction of art refuses to exclude any class or racial group, specifically those who have been historically disenfranchised and culturally ignored. Aparecimento do suprasensorial na arte brasileira and A obra aperta were published several years after Oiticica began Parangolés, and they are vital in grasping the complexities that are alive within the performative series. Oiticica’s wildly popular series Parangolés fuses space and color together to form a neutral, politically safe, and democratic environment. Parangolés, a slang word spoken commonly in Rio de Janeiro (roughly translating to a state of agitation or confusion) were made by Oiticica and friends from approximately 1964 to 1979, with the bulk of production being in the 1960s20. The inception of Parangolés began when Oiticica, who traveled throughout the Mangueira favela of Rio de Janeiro, became

17

Oiticica, “A obra aberta”. 70. The military dictatorship in Brazil began on March 31, 1964, after a coup d'état that overthrew president João Goulart. The regime lasted from that day in 1964 to March 15, 1985; however the intensely brutal and most repressive years of the dictatorship were 1968-1975. See Claudia Calirman, Brazilian Art Under Dictatorship (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2012), 2. 19 An example of this fetishization of Brazilian culture can best be seen in the career of Carmen Miranda, a Hollywood actress, famous during the 1930s to the 1950s. Her colorful outfits, fruit hats, and stereotypical portrayal of a Latin woman mirrors the ignorance in which North Americans viewed Latin Americans. See Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art,” Studies in Art Education 47 (2006). 104. 20 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 20. 18

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

7 inspired by the neighborhood’s Samba School.21 Oiticica and his fellow collaborators fashioned a variety of multicolored textiles (“flags, banners, and tents”22), manipulating an assortment of fabrics and plastics, but the cynosure of fabrication are the painted, wearable capes. No two of these “habitable paintings”, as they were conceived to be, looked alike23. They all were tailored in contrasting ways, with varying shapes, lengths, and colors. They were meant to be worn and danced in (with accompanying samba music) by anyone, though Oiticica (as noticed through photographic documentation) reserved this right for his fellow artist colleagues and denizens of the Mangueira Favela. Parangolés could not lie rigidly on the walls of a quiet, austere gallery; they had to be activated by use. Parangolés was first introduced to the world in 1965 at Rio de Janeiro’s Museum of Modern Art, during an opening night party for an exhibition24. The curators and directors were not amused by the parade of people dancing while wearing these capes and promptly kicked them out, where they continued to dance to the rhythms and sounds of samba in the street25. Not a rare event, Parangolés were still agitating museum officials, most notably at the 1994 São Paulo Biennial26, even after Oiticica had gained a significant following at both national and international levels (posthumously as well; Oiticica died at the young age of 42 in 1980). Parangolés highlights the “limitations of museums that are meant to be spaces for art” and the “restrictions and expectations” about what art wholly entails, by rejecting the traditional wall

21 22

Ramirez, The Body of Color, 65. Ramirez, The Body of Color, 65.

23 “Hélio Oiticica: Exhibition Guide, Room 9,” Tate Modern, http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tatemodern/exhibition/helio-oiticica/helio-oiticica-exhibition-guide/helio-oiticica-5 24

Ramirez, The Body of Color, 112. Ramirez, The Body of Color, 112. 26 The curator of the 1994 São Paulo Biennial, Wim Beeren, shouted at the Parangolés performers, who were dancing throughout the galleries, for allegedly disrupting the show, and called for their speedy removal from the institution. See Karl Posso, “An Ethics of Displaying Affection: Oiticica’s Expressions of Joy and Togetherness,” Modern Humanities Research Association (2013): 60. 25

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

8 spaces27. The democracy of Parangolés, perhaps what perturbs institutional figures the most, permits the work and its performers to exist in any location, at any given time. The orientation around lively, homemade capes and flags invigorates the usually-passive viewer to join the movement, regardless of their social status. There is no reliance on the museum or the art gallery; the commercial, capitalist world is left behind when a person dons a cape and begins to dance. Parangolés compels the spectator to leave their own position of impartial viewership behind and become entangled within the art, alluding to Oiticica’s theory that human connection is the essential key to unlocking the true intention of art. Oiticica, during his revolution against formulaic art, felt that color had been “subordinated to the pictorial plane” for much too long in history, and became tenacious in his fight to “liberate color into space”28. By taking color off of a customary pictorial plane, they could grow and become “bodies” in and of themselves, forming their own structure in genuine space without the aid of a flat canvas29. The Parangolés capes flow into the somatic world we inhabit by being placed on real bodies that are set in motion. This agile sensation enables the colors to leave the materiality of the capes behind, and enter into a sphere of “pure sensory-stimuli”30. The spatial element of Parangolés contains an “organic quality”, where movements and activity can grow within the “structure” of the series31. This pertains to Oiticica’s thoughts about the energy a work can contain, so long as the work is never deemed to be finished.32 The exhilarating effects felt by the participators of Parangolés is in accordance with the radical tone Oiticica takes on in a dominant portion of his written works that particularize the emergence of 27

Posso, “An Ethics of Displaying Affection,” 60. Ramirez, The Body of Color, 20. 29 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 20. 30 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 20. 31 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 297. 32 Oiticica, “A obra aberta”. 70. 28

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

9 the suprasensorial33 in an open work34. The “art” aspect of Parangolés is not necessarily the painted, wearable items themselves, but the encounter the individual has with them. Uncontaminated by institutional or national restrictions, the Parangolés inhabitant traverses through the world in synchrony to samba music, ultimately finding within themselves a unique, inner creativity. Parangolés become “habitable” and “active” environmental pieces through human involvement, thus creating the “fleeting illusion of color-in-action”35. The distinctions between watching and wearing are disestablished as more and more people throw the capes onto themselves and join the samba-esque dances. The capes become “flexible, unpredictable” forms of “light interacting with color, texture, and sheen”, which reinforces the indispensable component of human contribution36. If agitation does ensue among those who refuse to participate, it would seem that Oiticica has successfully and slyly revealed what so-called progressive art world workers really want to survey in their museums. The “stereotyped opinions” of Brazil that run rampant in the northern hemisphere are overthrown by Parangolés, as are the “uncreative concepts” that can be found in the conservative art world37. Parangolés rejects the assumptions made on Brazilian artists, that their works and ideologies are secondhand to prominent Western discourse, by being one of the most distinguished breaks from art history standards. Parangolés forms color structures and new environments that are derived from the act of participation. The series evokes a spirit of optimism, allowing Oiticica to inject “new vitality in the human creative experience” while giving the public the opportunity to

33

Oiticica. “Aparecimento do suprasensorial”. Oiticica, “A obra aberta”. 35 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 20. 36 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 101. 37 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 321. 34

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

10 become one with the “collective expression” for once, rather than forcing them to be passive viewers38. The ethics of Parangolés heed to the “performative politics of inclusion”, as two socially distinct groups meet; the people of the favelas and the people of the art world39. The varied groups of people inhabit one area and experience the color motions of Parangolés at the same time. The invisible borders between the rich neighborhoods and favelas are stripped away. The exhibition catalog for Hélio Oiticica: The Body of Color, a retrospective of the artist at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, provides an extensive amount of photographic documentation of the Parangolés performances40. Oiticica centered his production in the Mangueira favela of Rio de Janeiro, largely because of their well-known samba school, and many of the participators were from the favela itself, partnered with Oiticica’s musician, dancer, and artist confidants. As with most urban areas, the poorer sections of a city and its residents are looked at with disdain by those from the well-to-do upper classes. Museums and other cultural establishments are built within the perimeters of wealthy neighborhoods, subsequently shutting out the lower classes. Parangolés guides art production back into the favelas, by involving the residents in the work itself, which in turn allows them to effectively assert themselves into the cultural narrative. As they shift from dancing in the urban landscape of Rio de Janeiro to dancing within elite institutions, they disrupt the rigidness of the immutable society as well as the routine expectations of art. Looking at it from a sociological perspective, the performers of Parangolés are conducting themselves in a manner that distorts the norm. The invisibility put upon them by the rest of society becomes torn. The accustomed 38

Ramirez, The Body of Color, 322. Posso, “An Ethics of Displaying Affection,” 56. 40 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 299-318. 39

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

11 understanding of art being encircled by hushed tones and four white walls41 is dismantled by the crowds of people who wear colorful capes accompanied by booming samba music. It can be further speculated that this refusal to be repressed by societal hierarchies was also meant to address the growing tyrannical government in 1960s Brazil. To show that citizens of Brazil will not let themselves be forgotten, and they will do so by shattering the cultural standard produced by those in power. In addition to being globally rife with persistent artistic experimentation, the 20th century was furthermore an investigation into the mechanisms of nationalism. Often, the intention of nationalism is to gather pride either before, during, or after long stretches of wartime. During the first half of the 20th century, the modernist movement in Brazil strove to transform itself into a utopia42. To have utopian aspirations is to ultimately believe in contradictions, as such perfection is unattainable in our humanly world. Sociologist Manoel Bomfim warned against this “superficial unity”43 in the context of Latin America as early as 1925, but it is applicable to individual nations in contemporary society. The rise of the military dictatorship in the 1960s and its repressive tactics gave way to the demise of modernism in Brazil. The loss of faith in modernism reflected itself in art by projecting a return to organic, simplistic forms. A new concentration 41

The white cube theory conceives the site of art viewing as being stripped of all the noise and context of the outside world; where the spectator can solely observe the art in front of their eyes. However, this is problematic; the intersectionality of people in the outside world (race, gender, sexual orientation) are inherently brought into the art world, but with a layer of invisibility put over them. Art cannot be shielded from the outside world. The site of display can be a place for artists to pose questions to the real-world issues that collide with them everyday. Institutional critique (and its junction with site specificity) of the 1960s and 1970s was formed as a direct opposition to the white cube theory, see Miwon Kwon, One Place After Another: Site Specific Art and Locational Identity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004), 11-31. For a more recent example, see Oscar Tuazon’s My Pipeline (2016) which was installed briefly at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles, CA. https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2016/hammer-projects-oscar-tuazon/ 42 Sônia Salzstein, “Problemas atuais da arte brasileira: o moderno e o contemporâneo”, in Cultura brasileira: figuras da alteridade. (São Paulo, 1996), Synopsis. 43 Manoel Bomfim, O Brasil na América: Caracterização da Formação Brasileira: Introdução (Rio de Janeiro, 1929, 2nd ed. São Paulo: Topbooks, 1997), Synopsis.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

12 emerged in the format of phenomenology44, which concentrated its studies around naturalism and the direct encounters one experiences in a regular interval. Post-war philosopher Luis Alberto Sánchez argued for a “visionary future”45 to be had in Latin America, and this is exemplified by Parangolés. The series revives the consciousness that is within all of us, through these immediate meetings of color and rhythm. Oiticica bases his art theory around phenomenology, as well as the agency of group behavior.46 This focus around human behavior in group settings, with origins in poet Ferreira Gullar’s highly influential Theories of the Non-Object (1959), surfaces to this very day in contemporary art, with curators and scholars attempting to find the balance between unvarnished democracy and fake relationships47. Legitimate democracy allows for conflict and battles (though they are presumably solved through nonviolent strategies); Parangolés supports this “agitation” as a way for Brazilian society to make progress in the destabilization of class boundaries. Oiticica fostered radical experimentation as the only way forward for Brazilian art. Inculcating styles and modes of art that have an innate permanent nature only leads towards “stagnation”48; but through art practices that are informed by universal themes that are tied to regional problems, the authentic revolutionary actions will not be “diluted”49. Modernism had an innovative and reformist genesis, but as it gradually became institutionalized, it grew to be static. Therefore, continuous experimentation is the only way to ensure the proliferation of artistic culture. Oiticica’s orchestration of color movements, 44

Salzstein, “Problemas atuais da arte brasileira: o moderno e o contemporâneo”, Synopsis. Luis Alberto Sanchez, ¿Existe América Latina? (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1945), 276. 46 Hélio Oiticica, “Situação da vanguarda no Brasil”, in Propostas 66, Tema 4. (São Paulo, 1966), Synopsis. 47 Mónica Amor, “Of Adversity We Live!”, in Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present, ed. Alexander Dumbadze and Suzanne Hudson (New Jersey: Blackwell, 2012), 52. See also Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics (1998). 48 Hélio Oiticica, “Brasil Diarréia”, in Arte brasileira hoje (Rio de Janeiro: Paz e terra, 1973), 148. 49 Oiticica, “Brasil Diarréia”, 152. 45

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

13 within borderless spaces, that hinge around human interaction (with its negative and positive components), catapulted Brazilian art forward by declining the modernist visions of a utopia where conflict is nowhere to be found. Much of the literature produced in Latin America during the 20th century explored what it truly means to call oneself a Latin American. Esteemed literary critic and essayist, Afrânio Coutinho, in the late 1960s, rigorously questioned the term “Latin America” and examined all that the marker encompasses50. Coutinho believed it to be “at odds with historical, social, cultural, and artistic facts” that these countries are grouped together as Latin America simply because they are situated next to one another51. Though he is correct with this assumption, the title “Latin America” is often applied as a geographic tool, and it operates well within this category. The inherent problem of the naming of this cluster of countries is the brutal history of European colonization behind it. By merely saying “Latin America” out loud, violent memories are evoked everyday among the ancestors of each country. Although geographically this designation functions in a productive way, the remembrance of colonization will remain steadfastly in the minds of those who continue to struggle with the everlasting remnants of it. In regards to the formation and progresses of Brazil, Coutinho believes it is not the result of Portuguese efforts but that Brazil “is the product of Brazilians”52. Though the colonizers were Portuguese, once they stepped foot on what would flourish into Brazil, they instantaneously developed new ideologies and ways of thinking, subsequently “giving birth

50

Afrânio Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?” Mundo Nuevo 36 (1969): 19-20. Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?”, Synopsis. 52 Originally published in Spanish in “¿Qué es América Latina?”: “verificamos que la formación Brasileña fue obra de los Brasileños”. Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?”, 19. Translated by Emily Citino. 51

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

14 to a new man”53. This national demarcation is central to the molding of Brazilian identity. Brazil’s heterogenous population is comparable to the diversity in the United States and Europe; though national discourse (of any nation) communicates otherwise (by forwarding conservative rather than progressive values). Like many other nations, Brazilian identity has been shaped by the multiplicity of cultures that meet within the nation’s borders. Coutinho outlines two prominent groups in Brazilian society: first are the “Westernists” who believe Brazil is an “extension of Europe and subordinate to Western culture” and second are the “Brazilianists”, whose philosophy is centered around the “racial melting pot” which holds up the framework of Brazil54. The Brazilianists reinforce the democracy of Parangolés (surmising that this association includes Oiticica); identities and voices that have been shut out from the accepted public arena are able to claim the very space they had been formerly shunned from. Coutinho argues for the “individuality” and the right to complexity each country contains within itself55. Although they are stereotyped as having similar backgrounds and problems, each country that is judged to be Latin American has gone through “different historical evolutions” that separate them from one another56. When comparing Oiticica’s theories with the ideology of Coutinho, it appears that these two men strove for the right of individuality in numerous ways, generating new practices and thoughts while simultaneously eliminating their association with the forced term, “Latin America”. The art historical canon swims in problems of racism, sexism, and a variety of other prejudices. However, many artists consider the canon as a

53

Originally published in Spanish in “¿Qué es América Latina?”: “haciendo nacer un hombre nuevo”. “Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?”, 19. Translated by Emily Citino. 54 Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?”, Synopsis. 55 Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?”, 20. 56 Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?”, 20.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

15 challenge that must be “defied, emulated, or questioned”57, therefore it cannot and should not be discarded. The guidelines that form the canon rarely come across opposition; for example, the role and influence a particular nation has when encouraging the makeup of the canon, or the capitalism that propels the canon forward58. When much of globalization has catapulted forwards in part due to the expansion of Western capitalism, it is no surprise that those in the canon are often of European or American descent. Art is optimistically thought to be a representation of culture as a whole, yet when Western ideology has a hegemony on the arts, it ends up being a mirror of the powerful. In his essay A Rigorous Study of Art, Walter Benjamin displays his “contempt for tradition” and urges artists to “dismiss comfortable identities as organizing matrixes”, such as being labeled by their region or nation59. If multiple canons are generated, such as the “feminist canon, gay/lesbian canon, Marxist canon, etc”, in resistance to the main, well-known canon, it will just reinforce and perpetuate the “hierarchical relations” found within the art world and the culture at large60. The popular culture will promote these alternative practices and theories as long term solutions, when in reality they are short term, and in the meanwhile grow indifferent to the prevailing troubles of institutions. However, in the spirit of Benjamin’s beliefs, there can be a start to get rid of the regional or national descriptions of artists, usually considered to be a convenient way of cataloging artists who are not from the United States or Europe. Postmodernism61 allows for a new comprehension of a person’s 57

Mónica Amor, “On the Contingency of Modernity and the Persistence of Canons,” in Antinomies of Art and Culture, ed by Okwui Enwezor et. al. (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2008): 89. 58 Amor, “Persistence of Canons,” 88. 59 Amor, “Persistence of Canons,” 83. 60 Amor, “Persistence of Canons,” 89. 61 The term postmodernism was coined by political theorist Frederic Jameson in his groundbreaking book Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Duke University Press, 1991). Jameson argues that postmodernism is not a new “style” of art or culture to be

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

16 environment; rather than delimiting oneself to an overly familiar area, an individual’s location can adopt a “permanent redefinition of boundaries” method.62 The concept of being a tenant of one home forever is not the only option available as it once was. Instead of a singular place, the trajectory of countless lived-sites in a lifetime is a “conceptual deterritorialization” of “postnational dispersion”, where the lines mapping out a country’s borders are invisible63. It can be concluded that Oiticica would have been a supporter of this remapping, as it would inevitably bring disparate sections of the world together (the body of his art production places high value on the intimate connections formed by participators). Oiticica’s Parangolés takes on the challenge of tackling the popular art historical canon by existing in a new, experimental environment that is able to overshadow national or regional boundaries, thus asking what is even constituted as “Brazilian art”. There are two exhibitions of the past 15 years that are worth noting as properly evaluating and displaying what is generally labeled “Brazilian” or “Latin American” art. From 1999 to 200064, the MOCA Los Angeles held a show titled The Experimental Exercise of Freedom, named after a quote by Mário Pedrosa65. The purpose of the exhibition was to “remap the configuration of art, post-World War II, to include artists outside of Europe and the US”, by putting together a small sampling of artists; Oiticica, Lygia Clark, Gego, Mathias Goeritz, and Mira Schendel.66 Many of the “subjects” in the works by these artists are meant to be liberated through “creative

reproduced, but rather a cultural dominant in which “aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production”, and the true means of production (military action and deregulation of trade agreements in underdeveloped countries) are obscured from the public eye. (Postmodernism, 57) 62 Amor, “Persistence of Canons,” 95. 63 Amor, “Persistence of Canons,” 95. 64 The Experimental Exercise of Freedom, curated by Alma Ruiz and Rina Carvajal, ran from October 17th, 1999 to January 23rd, 2000 at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. 65 John Alan Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” Art Journal 59 (2000): 23. 66 Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 23.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

17 experience” and initiated by the viewer-turned-participant67. Without the role of the individual, art is an “unfinished product” and remains an “open proposition”68. While Oiticica refuted the notion of a “finished” work, his theory, according to his texts, proposed that his artwork is always “unfinished”; meaning that with or without the viewer, the work will never achieve completion. This lack of an “end”, however, is what facilitates the transformation of an individual’s creativity. This discrepancy is minor, especially when looked at through the lens of Roland Barthes, a French literary theorist who believed that the artist’s word and subsequent message of the work could evolve over time rather than stay culturally stagnant.69 This practice of emancipating the viewer from their standard functions services the artists well, for they are trying to break themselves free from the stereotyped opinions that have engulfed their own countries. The conception of space as a “living entity in constant flux” reveals the “open and dynamic field of action”70, creating a flexible arena for the possibility of chance. These ideas prevail against the rigidness of the institutional rules concocted by the art world. As with Oiticica’s Parangolés, many of the pieces in the exhibition were not made with the institution in mind but instead with democratic purposes, so attendees were allowed to touch and handle the majority of the works71. The show, for perhaps curatorial or management reasons, did not include Parangolés; instead they chose Oiticica’s installations, Eden (1969) and Tropicália (1967)72. Both are displayed as immersive atmospheres and framed with penetrables (enclosed areas for the wanderer to enter). One of the penetrables in Eden maintains a mattress space inside, inviting the 67

Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 24. Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 24. 69 See Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author”, originally published in English in Aspen no. 5 (1967) 70 Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 24. 71 Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 24. 72 Alma Ruiz, “Open Up: An Introduction,” in The Experimental Exercise of Freedom, (Los Angeles, CA: The Museum of Contemporary Art, 1999), 27. 68

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

18 viewer to lay down, forget their daily stress, and “free their imagination...and feel like themselves”.73 Tropicália, on the other hand, overwhelms the individual by sending them on a winding path overflowing with stereotypical Brazilian imagery.74 An overload of stimuli, birds can be heard in the background as the spectator walks barefoot on a sandy path filled with regional plants, rocks, and scented herbs.75 As the path continues, the sand gradually diminishes, and the spectator finds themselves inside a narrow corridor where a television greets them at the end of this “shell” (a name appointed by Oiticica).76 Working under the methodology of anthropophagy77, the penetrables of Eden and Tropicália, though they too can exist on their own spatial circumstances and are only activated through participatory actions, are more likely to be seen in the context of a museum. The analogy could be made that these structures are like galleries or museums, where the individual is emboldened to step inside and bring their own perspectives to what they see. Possibly a reason for exclusion of the Parangolés would be the anti-art attitude that Oiticica adopted for the series, which was a stab at cultural institutions such as museums. Or it could have come down to the decision of, should Parangolés be exhibited in an elevated “art” status (i.e. hanging on a blank wall) or should visitors be allowed to wear them? On a practical level, the threat of capes being torn 73

Guy Brett, Hélio Oiticica “Helio Oiticica Retrospective at the Whitechapel Gallery, until April 6: Oiticica talks to Guy Brett”, in Studio International Vol. 177, No. 909 (London, 1969), 134. 74 Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art”, 108-109. 75 Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art”, 108. 76 Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art”, 108. 77 Anthropophagy [Antropofagia] was a Brazilian movement of the 1920s organized by poet Oswald de Andrade. By taking “cannibalism as a metaphor for the process of cultural assimilation”, Brazilian artists could consume the ideologies and concepts of European artists, and morph it into a purely Brazilian style. The penetrables swallow the viewer into the stereotypes promoted by the Portuguese colonizers while simultaneously “deconstructing the myth of a Brazilian tropical paradise”. Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art”, 102, 109.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

19 because of human error is real; although Oiticica labeled his work “anti-art”, it is difficult to bring this ideology into a museum. These sensible questions will pop up anytime the Parangolés series are being considered for an exhibition. Ultimately, the exhibition was able to successfully “disrupt” preconceived notions about Latin America, unlike common survey exhibitions which show the same one to two artists who are thought to be sole representatives of their nation78. Survey exhibitions have grown stale due to institutional checks and prejudices. A “constructed reality” is presented by these seemingly all-encompassing exhibitions, ones that barely scratch the surface of that nation’s reality79. The curators behind The Experimental Exercise of Freedom placed these five artists as not only being important in their regions, but also as prime candidates who “belong in the art-historical context and canon”80. They triumphantly reframe the “conventional canon of modernist abstraction” by including these artists, and in the process, fresh, new art practices and ways of thinking are uncovered81. Addressing the pragmatic issues of institutionally exhibiting Parangolés, the Museum of Fine Art, Houston’s 2006 retrospective of Hélio Oiticica accepted the challenge with a curatorial twist. Hélio Oiticica: The Body of Color82 held over 220 works, from his early work with Grupo Frente, a progressive arts organization in Rio de Janeiro, to his association with Neo-Concrete artists, who advocated for the very creative freedom that Oiticica would later develop in his Parangolés83. In a new take on the display of Parangolés, they were hung on both the walls, as art that must be 78

Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 24. Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 28. 80 Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 30. 81 Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” 30. 82 Hélio Oiticica: The Body of Color, curated by Mari Carmen Ramirez, ran from December 9th, 2006 to March 31st, 2007 at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. 83 Johannes Birringer, “Bodies of Color Review,” A Journal of Performance and Art (2007): 38. 79

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

20 looked at but not touched, and on mannequins, which allowed for people to handle and wear them84. There was samba music in an accompanying ballroom and visitors were encouraged to dance in the colorfully painted capes85. The material inventions of Parangolés were elevated to high art status by being placed on the wall, but the curators were able to also retain its fundamental democracy by having it be accessible to the audience. This fragmentary statement of splitting up the Parangolés, relegating some to the status of fine art and others to the levels of democracy, is the best scenario for them to be viewed within an institution (and if revolutionary times come, the dancing can continue throughout the rest of the museum, rather than the designated ballroom). It is not immediately clear how Oiticica would feel about having a retrospective at a major, cultural institution, as he saw art as having de-evolved into a “fetish of the museum”86. However, this survey of his life’s work was a step in the right direction for properly showing off his meticulous skill and research over color theories and philosophy. His work can be seen as on par with the Fluxus movement that swept over North America and Europe during roughly the same period, the 1960s87. Fluxus artists underlined the worth of performances and democracy in ways similar to Oiticica. The emphasis Oiticica placed on the lived experience in art was a strong presence felt throughout the retrospective. With Parangolés, Oiticica sought to “transcend precarious social conditions” of the real world by ways of “collective” collaboration from the audience88. Oiticica’s life’s works are not seen as a form of Minimalism and Modernism as dictated by Europe and

84

Birringer, “Review,” 38. Birringer, “Review,” 38. 86 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 321. 87 Birringer, “Review,” 38. 88 Birringer, “Review,” 39. 85

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

21 the United States, but as how he witnessed those movements and let them flourish from his own personal artistic methods89. Oiticica contemplated and searched for an “anti-art”, on the basis that there is “no one way to define art”90. This artistic journey culminated in the production of Parangolés. His work signifies the “postmodern aesthetic shift” that was ongoing in the art world at the time, and still is to this day91. He took attention away from the substances of art (i.e. a flat painting) and accentuated the universal themes of the human encounter. In these lived experiences, the viewer leaves the role of a docile observer, and enters into the realm of active participator, whose bodily presence initiates the art. Many of the Neo-Concrete artists dealt with narratives of the body and the soul, and yet they are still known for being Latin American artists. Their late 20th century works are at the same level (or higher) as the happenings of the 1960s and 1970s in America and Europe (Fluxus, performance art, body art, etc.), but they are not as widely taught or given the same amount of exhibition opportunities as American or European artists. Despite the international ranking given to Brazil because of the country’s economic power and oil reserves, only small-scale changes have been enacted on the local level. The absence of effective policies concerning cultural production on a local level leads to the very stagnancy in art Oiticica warned against92. Brazil never displayed Oiticica until after his death in 1980, instead they chose to showcase well-known European artists from Van Gogh to Cézanne, ignoring what was being created in their own cities and neighborhoods93. 89

Herkenhoff, “Brasil(es)/Brazil(s),” 30. Hélio Oiticica, “Parangolé: da anti-arte as apropriações ambientais de Oiticica,” Galeria de Arte Moderna (1967), Synopsis. 91 Ramirez, The Body of Color, 64. 92 Salzstein, “Problemas atuais da arte brasileira: o moderno e o contemporâneo”, Synopsis. 93 Brazil has a history of “forgetting itself”; the separation Brazil feels from the United States and Europe is equivalent to the neglect in which it treats its own cultural production. Even when Brazil remembers itself, it chooses to recall Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo rather than the bucolic countryside as sites of culture. Herkenhoff, “Brasil(es)/Brazil(s),” 30. 90

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

22 Oiticica was able to communicate directly with the crowd, by actively implicating them into his works. His art erases the dividing lines of social classes, as well as those that are imposed by the art world’s fixed traditions. This eradication should be celebrated, yet the handlers of the canon treat these artistic happenings dismissively, as if they do not deserve to be remembered. It must be accepted that art is heavily “contaminated with life”, and by ignoring the artistic content presented by an entire country, valuable knowledge and enlightenment will remain undiscovered94. If art is unable to shed light on the human condition and fails to awaken a consciousness in the spectator or participant, then what is its purpose? Hélio Oiticica rejected the “Brazilian” or “Latin American” labels assigned to him as an artist from the mainstream canon by the journey of his series Parangolés, where he transcends those restrictions by constructing new environments that are not bound by the border limits of any nation, and where color is unleashed into the physical realm through required human involvement.

94

Herkenhoff, “Breakthroughs of Contemporary Art,” 4.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

23

Images

Hélio Oiticica with P 04 Parangolé capa 01. 1964, Stills from HO, a film by Ivan Cardoso, 1979. Photos by Ivan Cardoso, Collection of Ivan Cardoso, Rio de Janeiro. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 2007.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

24

Group of people in Mangueira Hill with Parangolés P 25 Cape 21 “Xoxoba” (1968), P 008 Cape 05 “Mangueira” (1965), P 05 Cape 02 (1965), P 04 Cape 01 (1964). During the shooting of the film HO by Ivan Cardoso, 1979. Photo by Andreas Valentim. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 2007.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

25

Singer and composer Caetano Veloso wearing P 04 Parangolé Cape 01 (1964), 1968.

Jerônimo de Mangueira wearing P 05 Parangolé capa 02 [P 05 Parangolé Cape 02] (1964), c. 1965. AHO/PHO, RJ. Photo by Claudio Oiticica. Projeto Hélio Oiticica. ________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

26

Bibliography Mónica Amor, “Of Adversity We Live!”, in Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present, ed. Alexander Dumbadze and Suzanne Hudson (New Jersey: Blackwell, 2012). Mónica Amor, “On the Contingency of Modernity and the Persistence of Canons,” in Antinomies of Art and Culture, ed by Okwui Enwezor et. al. (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2008) Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author”, originally published in English in Aspen no. 5 (1967) Flavia M. C. Bastos, “Tupy or not Tupy? Examining Hybridity in Contemporary Brazilian Art,” Studies in Art Education 47 (2006) Johannes Birringer, “Bodies of Color Review,” A Journal of Performance and Art (2007) Manoel Bomfim, O Brasil na América: Caracterização da Formação Brasileira: Introdução (Rio de Janeiro, 1929, 2nd ed. São Paulo: Topbooks, 1997) Guy Brett, Hélio Oiticica “Helio Oiticica Retrospective at the Whitechapel Gallery, until April 6: Oiticica talks to Guy Brett”, in Studio International Vol. 177, No. 909 (London, 1969) Afrânio Coutinho, “¿Qué es América Latina?” Mundo Nuevo 36 (1969) ________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

27

John Alan Farmer, “Experimental Exercise of Freedom,” Art Journal 59 (2000) Paulo Herkenhoff, “Brasil(es)/Brazil(s),” Lápiz (1997) Paulo Herkenhoff, “Brazil: Breakthroughs of Contemporary Art,” Art from Brazil in New York (1995) Hélio Oiticica. “A obra aberta”. Cadernos Brasileiros, Rio de Janeiro, Volume 11, (1969) Hélio Oiticica. “Aparecimento do suprasensorial na arte brasileira”, GAM: Galeria de Arte Moderna, Rio de Janeiro, n.13, 1968. Hélio Oiticica, “Parangolé: da anti-arte as apropriações ambientais de Oiticica,” Galeria de Arte Moderna (1967). Hélio Oiticica, “Brasil Diarréia”, in Arte brasileira hoje (Rio de Janeiro: Paz e terra, 1973) Hélio Oiticica, “Situação da vanguarda no Brasil”, in Propostas 66, Tema 4. (São Paulo, 1966). Karl Posso, “An Ethics of Displaying Affection: Oiticica’s Expressions of Joy and Togetherness,” Modern Humanities Research Association (2013). Mari Carmen Ramirez, Hélio Oiticica: The Body of Color (London: Tate Publishing, 2007). ________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017

28

Alma Ruiz, “Open Up: An Introduction,” in The Experimental Exercise of Freedom, (Los Angeles, CA: The Museum of Contemporary Art, 1999). Sônia Salzstein, “Problemas atuais da arte brasileira: o moderno e o contemporâneo”, in Cultura brasileira: figuras da alteridade. (São Paulo, 1996). Luis Alberto Sanchez, ¿Existe América Latina? (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1945), 276.

________________________________________________________ BOWDOIN JOURNAL OF ART, 2017