[press release]

 

The exhibition Art Brut CUBA takes us back to Cuba four decades after Art lnventíf a Cuba was held at the Collection de l'Art Brut in 1983. The earlier show was curated by Samuel Feijóo (1914-1992), a leading figure of Cuban cultural life - he was a writer, poet, publisher, ethnologist, painter, self-taught draughtsman and adviser to Cuba's Ministry of Culture.

 

The 1983 exhibition stemmed from Jean Dubuffet's wish to show, at the Collection de l'Art Brut, works by self-taught Cuban artists in the collection of his friend, Feijóo. lt featured pieces by more than 30 artists from Villa Clara, all of whom were members of Signos, the group founded by Feijóo in the late "1960s to showcase popular Cuban art and literature.

 

But why is this particular country deserving of our interest once again? Because its insular nature, its history and its territory - long isolated from the rest of the world for political and economic reasons - make this island a fertile environment for the production of creations unaffected by outside influences. For those same reasons, it is also much more difficult in Cuba than elsewhere to depart from collective norms and establish artistic individuality.

 

Now, 41 years later, Art Brut CUBA brings together a selection of drawings and paintings by the artists who appeared in the original exhibition. lt also features works by contemporary Cuban outsider artists promoted by Riera Studio in Havana and shown for the first time at the Collection de l'Art Brut. In all, the new exhibition contains 266 works of different kinds: drawings, paintings, collages, assemblages, finery and photographs.

 

The practice of recycling or repurposing materials and ordinary objects for creative purposes, which is a characteristic feature of Art Brut, is particularly evident in Cuba, where the artists featured here lack almost everything. Nonetheless, their endless imagination, ingenuity and creative drive allow them to exploit, transform and repurpose these assorted materials to create remarkable and incredibly expressive works. The themes they reflect echo their own experiences, the economic, social and political realities of their country, their personal worlds, and their obsessions. And what makes these creations so surprising is that they all present a facet far removed from standard conceptions of Cuba, which is still essentially controlled by the state.

 

EXCERPTS FROM ART BRUT CUBA PUBLICATION

 

Art Brut CUBA: Revisiting Cuba at the Colfection de l'Art Brut, or la imaginación gráfica cubana ¡triunfa en Suiza!

By Sarah Lombardi, director of the Collection de l'Art Brut

 

[...]

Dubuffet and Feijóo admired one another greatly; their many letters showed that they were also very close friends. Writing in "1959, Feijóo described Dubuffet thus: "My dear surprising friend, devourer of Art Brut, king of the lrish camels." In 1961, he wrote: "I would like to see the monster Dubuffet, whom l love as an artistic brother, an incredible warrior of imagination and farce." And in a 1981 letter, Feijóo addressed the Frenchman as: "MY DEAR MAD BROTHER; THE ONE AND ONLY DUBUFFET!", concluding this same letter with these words: "The two of us have a brutally abnormal sense of humour. When it disappears, we no longer exist. I hug you like a LOBSTER." Dubuffet, meanwhile, often began his letters with "Dear friend Feijóo" or, more warmly, with "Muy bonito hermanito Feijóo!" Feijóo's perspective on artistic creation also echoed Dubuffet's in more ways than one. For example, when Feijóo wrote, "I have always insisted that creative fantasy should emanate in an original form, replete with wisdom, far removed from imitations and 'confining' conventions", this could easily have been Dubuffet talking about Art Brut. In the brochure for the 1983 exhibition, Thévoz about Feijóo recalled that "[Feijóo's] friendship with Jean Dubuffet sealed a deeply shared vision of the possibility of an art freed from the institutional rut". They were both looking for self-taught creators among "the people", a term that Feijóo used in all his texts, which equates to the expression "the common man" used by Dubuffet. Both were opposed to professional art schools, which, in their eyes, formatted and limited thought.

[...]

There were, however, significant differences between the two, in particular with regard to the works they collected, as well as to their motivations and intentions. On this subject, Thévoz pointed out in the 1983 exhibition brochure that "the diversity of the artists presented here gives spectacular testimony to their freedom of invention, even if they come close in varying degrees to what we mean by the term 'Art Brut' - but it would have been inappropriate to limit this choice by overly dogmatic criteria". lt is true that the works by members of the Signos Group shared many stylistic similarities. They were all very meticulous and refined and were almost always done in India ink on small sheets of paper. When he received the small publication produced by the museum in 1983, Dubuffet was prompted by these characteristics to remark: "The subjects reproduced are interesting, but it seems to me that Feijóo's choice was for very elaborate things, whereas I was thinking of more rudimentary works, more in the spirit of art brut, like the ones 1 have seen so often reproduced in the issues of Signos." He stated that he would have liked to see a greater number of works that were "wilder, more primitive". lt was for this very reason that Thévoz avoided any direct reference to Art Brut in the title of the exhibition.

[...]

In sum, although both Dubuffet and Feijóo defended art "without allegiance to conservative models", their intentions diverged. Dubuffet saw Art Brut and its representatives as an anti-establishment force - a lever for overturning the official culture that he considered "asphyxiating", a word he used in the title of one of his books. Moreover, he conducted his project without any help from the French state, which, in the late 1960s, refused to recognize his collection as being of public interest ...

Feijóo, on the other hand, was above all "concerned with the question of identity and focused all his attention on Cuban heritage, its nature, its myths, its folk legends, its rural customs". In this respect, his motivations were in some way rooted in a proletarian political programme with the goal of glorifying the people. And his activities were financed by the Cuban government: he worked for the Department of Folklore Research, an organisation that he ran. This organisation was, in turn, attached to the Department of Hispanic Studies, itself accountable to the School of Philosophy and Literature at the Universidad Central de Las Villas. Of course, Dubuffet considered "this Department of Folklore Research [to be] extraordinary", adding that "in short, if I understand correctly, it's something like the Fondation de l'Art Brut, which has been set up in Santa Clara under your guidance. Until now, nowhere in the world has there been an organisation similar [to the Compagnie de l'Art Brut]". However, the two bodies did not have the same purposes.

 

Art Brut Project Cuba: The First Project to Support and Promote Art Brut in Cuba

By Derbis Campos, co-director of Riera Studio, Cuba

[...]

Since 1959, the political regime has exercised centralised control over all aspects of social life, including artistic practices, by decreeing the methodologies and guidelines that should govern each stage of the creative process, from the initial idea to public presentation, both nationally and internationally. These procedures, which continued to be extremely rigid until the start of the 1990s, are replete with flawed conceptions and imported notions that are entirely alien to our socio-cultural substratum, on account of the subjective bond that for decades made us a satellite state of the Soviet Union.

[...]

Given that it is a studio-gallery within our own home, Riera Studio is an atypical space where art takes on a new dimension as a result of the curatorial activity carried out in this living and working environment. Of the three exhibition rooms, one is normally devoted to the Art Brut Project Cuba collection, the presentation of which is periodically altered, and the other two to temporary or experimental projects. The studio also offers a workspace for a few selected artists.

[...]

Once these creators have been discovered, we have to establish a channel of communication with them and their family based on openness, trust, and transparency, while also respecting their individual personalities and visions of the world. Next, we need to understand and study their artistic practice, working methods, and habits. Most of them do not even imagine that their output might be considered art. What is of greatest importance to them is the emotional and expressive value it has to them personally. They do not realise at all that it might be viewed and appreciated by others. And it is precisely here that the most important part of our work takes place: thinking about how to show the works and talk about them and their authors while ensuring we do not over­pathologise the artists' biographies, and while also recognising the considerable influence these details exert on the artists' creation and the importance of the link between their lives and work.

[...]

Art Brut Project Cuba operates entirely independently. We receive neither subsidies from any Cuban cultural institution, nor regular grants from any foreign institution, public or private. Our work is largely financed by our own funds, to which is added the support provided by numerous friends and associates, along with funding arising from invitations, one-time grants, and joint projects with diplomatic bodies or international institutions with representations in Cuba.

 

Cuban Art Brut: T owards a Feeling of National Cultural ldentity

By Edward M. Gómez

 

[...]

Today, in Mexico in particular, but also more generally throughout Latin America, the concept of Art Brut, and the related exercises of research and classification, are still new and emerging phenomena. There is no equivalent term that is easily understood in either Spanish or Portuguese, the two major languages in the region, to translate "Art Brut" - Jean Dubuffet's distinctive term which, in the local contexts of art history, can only be fully compared and contrasted with existing forms of art by way of a comprehensive explanation.

[...]

In Cuba, the idea of recognising the works of certain self-taught creators as Art Brut has recently gained traction. The history of the development of Cuban modern art - which went hand in hand with Cuba's emergence as a newly independent state in the early twentieth century following its breakaway from Spanish rule - is better documented and explored. This segment of art history well exemplifies the assimilation by Cuban artists of trends in modern European and North American art, resulting in the association of subjects and influences from their African and European roots with their multi-layered culture. During the decades preceding the Cuban Revolution, which began in the early '1950s, Cuba's modern artists, who were in contact with their counterparts in Europe, North America, and other parts of Latin America, developed their own avant-garde movements. The work of the Mexican muralists, for example, became one of their main references.

[...]

Right now, it is probably too early to say whether the still-developing appreciation of the works of contemporary Cuban Art Brut artists will eventually lead to their recognition as a distinct form of artistic expression representative of the country's changing national cultural identity. In Cuba, Art Brut is still emerging and gaining recognition in the context of the historical trends summarised here. However, given the fiercely independent spirit that has long characterised Cuba's music, visual arts, politics, and social conscience, it will be exciting to watch the country's Art Brut evolve and establish itself on the international art scene in the years to come. ¡Adelante!