An interview with Francisco Alambert

Francisco Alambert¹ came to Recife in November 2009, at the invitation of Cadif – Coordenação Geral de Capacitação e Difusão Científico-Cultural (General Coordination for Vocational Education and Cultural-Scientific Promotion) of the Fundação Joaquim Nabuco, and took the opportunity to comment on his reflections on the biennial of São Paulo, recently published in the book Bienais de São Paulo: da era dos Museus à era dos curadores (Boitempo). The book was written in partnership with Polyana Canhête. Keen to explore other aspects of his research, Tatuí invited him to talk about art in Brazil, the institutions, the market, the “independent” initiatives and the possibility of revolution. Historians Andréa Bandeira, Joana d´Arc and Natália Barros also took part in the debate and we would like to thank all of them for their participation.

Tatuí What kind of spaces and intermediations do you think are now present in Brazil in what the São Paulo Art Biennial used to represent in terms of the construction of a modernity project? Where can we diagnose a similar project that is not totally connected to the logic of fairs and the market (or at least being able to escape from it in the best way possible)?

Francisco Alambert That´s interesting, because it´s a global issue. This doesn’t only occur in Brazil or at the São Paulo Art Biennial but all over the the world: the return of art fairs – which can only be understood as part of the current dominant capitalism – which is now undergoing a crisis; we still don’t know if it will remain dominant but it has prevailed until now –, financial speculation, in other words, the appreciation of unreality over the concept of ownership, the unreal, the virtual, etc. Somewhat like in the 19^th century, art has once again become a commodity in the market whose behavior fits into the system of appreciation and transit as merchandise. Contemporary art forms are great for the reason they can formally and fully adapt to this system through “dematerialization” or projects with no need for the materiality of “business”, as was the case with modern art. It (art)has almost become a perfect commodity, almost a complex reflection of reality itself. It’s no coincidence that the art market – in the USA, for example – has boomed in the way it did in the 1980s, coinciding with the rise of yuppy–like figures, instant millionaires, people who made millions on the stock market overnight and invested in art. What is interesting is that at that time (the 1980s), they invested in the most concrete and “real” type of art: they invested in art as an object. They bought and bought again, making the market go wild. Prices went through the roof! In the 1980s, Japanese banks (that later all went bankrupt) bought Van Gogh paintings for 80 million dollars! Paradoxically, art represented materialized money – “real money” like Marx used to say. These prices became incompatible with the market itself, became totally unreal and unreasonable – although, of course, there are no objective economical parameters for art.

But, they sent prices of the first modernism into the stratosphere. Buying contemporary art became the rage in the late 80s and early 90s due to low prices and the air of flexibility… the contemporary art market was created, and not by chance coincides with the general expansion of world exhibitions, mega-expositions…

(…) That was what happened to Hélio Oiticica’s work. It’s a rage in this new market but here we have an interesting paradox: the new super-contemporary (international) market has found some kind of self-revitalization in Brazilian artists from the 1960s. They saw thei own art in Oiticica, Lygia Clark, the performances, Cildo Meireles, but 20 years on…! They just can´t understand that 20 years ago, here in the land of the Botocudos art was produced that to them was super-modern. We could spend another 30 explaining it and they still wouldn’t understand. But the whole thing became a fascinating attraction and that explains all the appreciation – and I’m not discussing quality, because in this we are talking about a really exceptional artist – slightly unreal – in the market.

(…) Now, with the system in general collapse, we don’t know for sure how things stand or where they are heading… last night, for example, I saw Obama on television alerting the world which supports him: “it’s starting all over again”, “it´s coming again soon”, things that not so long ago a handful of Marxist thinkers were called “morons”, “irresponsible”, “conservative” and “anachronistic” for saying… Arrighi, Wallenstein´s people have been writing about this for 30 years. Mandel talked about this in the 60s… in other words… it’s more than a foretold death, right? The sad thing for the Marxists is that there is no social movement taking advantage of this. There is a crisis inside the capitalist system with no pressure on it. That’s the biggest contradiction in our contemporary society: the system becomes “rotten” and no social power is ready to take its place. In this sense, Marxism is deranged.

(…) Waltércio Caldas says that curatorism is the last ideology created in the 20^th century. He is completely right. It’s an ideology indeed: this thing about the individual obtruding the artist or poetry from outside the work of art dictating an order… Although this ideology has played its role, it will also suffer the consequences of the economic crisis. That’s because the fair is against curatorism, which is ideal for mega-expositions and biennials; it was developed as a way of working directly with the artist, similar to a former prominent social figure, who recently passed away, of the critic. But the fairs are an opposite form. They demand a kind of handling different to that of the curators in the mega-expositions, because the fairs are almost like a return to the pre-capitalist instance of immediate relation to definite business. That thing about art: modern art is an object from the modern world, thus from capitalism. And the fairs are an outdated form – like keep shouting “oh, come and see, my artist is more beautiful!”, throwing cocktail parties, seducing people, selling a little bit more expensive… it is all so outdated. The way curators act is related to the global mega-market, overvalued, be it in biennials or museums, of the big and mega- collectors… but the fairs are different. They are a place for the big, small or neophyte ones, for the rising bourgeoisie … just like the 19^th century. Even the figure of the critic may come back, because in his origins – Adorno explains this very well – he catered to the tastes of the bourgeoisie. The critic used to take the bourgeoisie to the market and say: “you need to read that, have that, dress like that, go to that place and act like this…” in order to become an aristocrat and have social bonds. Then the critic started specializing: one for art, another for literature, another for etiquette… and with the industry of culture they are in the newspapers! That’s when another circuit starts being formed. In the early 20^th century the anti-critic appears: the critical “critics”, modern, who think negatively and went nuts in the contemporary world. But maybe they will return along with the big worldwide fairs systems… it’s already a little bit like that. Many museum directors are patronage guiders: “buy that, do that, take that boy because he´s going to be successful and if he isn’t, I’ll make it happen because I know where to publish, I know what to do and how to make the most of things…”.

Tatuí It’s not like that… the place occupied by the fair isn´t part of this direct relation, because there are countless phases and networks behind it… Like the Ministry of Culture sponsoring the Brazilian participation at Arco. Furthermore, the place occupied by the art market in Brazil is different to Germany, for example – here a young artist has 3 individual exhibitions in museums and then gets a good gallery; what usually happens abroad is that everyone gets the gallery first and then gets institutional status. Thus, in a certain way, the market role is substituted by the institutional one…

Francisco Alambert One of the most common examples refers to the global emergency of artistic collectives. A part of them is stimulated by the crisis present in these mega-systems. An interesting space is created whose originality consists of thinking articulately. The product is a collective production… but let me be the devil’s advocate: frequently – and I think the 27^th São Paulo Biennial is the best example – collective actions tend to be engulfed by others. I’m referring to this specific semipublic organization type: third sector, NGO… art collectives are often articulated in a similar way to the NGOs. They have their function. In some places they play a relevant role and frequently in a pleasant way – it’s hard to oppose, for example, groups which are teaching people to read and write, feeding those who are hungry, protecting native Indians and the rainforest… Generally, if you’re not an idiot, you are sympathetic to these causes. However, their actions may result in perversities such as the sacking of the State, taking away the responsibility of society, of the rich, regarding a lot of things… The NGOs also tend to work fragmentarily: going around and building things in the shantytowns; the action may yield good results, but only there and not in other places. What is being targeted is not poverty, but a localized part of it. Look at what is happening in Africa, a continent where human life is disappearing be it due to the poverty, exclusion, AIDS… There is no place in the world with more NGOs! Every rich country suffering from a guilty conscience or needing to justify charitable actions to the World Bank; companies that need to carry out marketing of sustainability or social responsibility, set up 3 NGOs in Botswana, Sudan, wherever… And that does absolutely nothing to change all the barbarity. The small group or local action logic in the contemporary form tends to go the same way as the NGOs – because NGOs, as you know, are given money, global financing… A lot of people make a living from this. It’s almost like a binding agreement with misery: “if the starving disappear, I disappear too”. What a bizarre situation!

Tatuí Edgar Morin talks about an ethical conviction to the detriment of ethical responsibilities. Conviction would mean refusing compromises and not necessarily accepting all responsibilities. Do you believe in revolution?

Francisco Alambert Oh! yes I do, for sure! There is no chance of a revolution, nowhere, no chance at all for the time being. And that only strengthens the idea that it’s become a possibility again.

Tatuí But there are revolutionaries with no revolution.

Francisco Alambert Yes, there are! That’s what we´re talking about and doing here. There isn´t the slightest problem with all of this happening. History teaches us every day, ever since the the Berlin wall came down, that the system is put in check due to its contradictions! The system breaks down due to its own logic and for having no opponents… There is no opposition at all! Not even institutional! Nobody here thinks that China is not capitalist and that North Korea or Cuba has any relevance on the world…None! There is no opposition at all for the first time in the history of mankind! A productive and culturally dominant system: everywhere, everywhere at the same time! Entirely and totally present – like they say in the shantytowns: “we´ve all been taken over!” – It’s a fantastic possibility and totally new per se. I repeat: it´s never happened before… Not in the history of capitalism nor in any other pre-capitalist form. Totalitarian unification right now when the postmodern people are saying that “there is no totality”, “there are only fragments”… no way! Now everything is totalized! Everything has been taken over and occupied. There is only one form of logic, present everywhere and only different to some degree. Maybe never – and here I am pretending to be a utopian – the possibility of the total denial of the system has arisen so integrally, because it´s been fully presented. A very likely consequence of this may be revolution itself… but not a class revolution, the revolution of the 19^th century…