Jorge Mañach´s Indagación del Choteo¹ has rightly emerged as one of the
founding writings of Cuban culture. This fundamental Cuban —heir to the most
incisive and perceptive elements of the island´s sociology— has immersed
himself in the symbolic reconstruction of a vague, lateral, oblique and,
mostly, “reyoya” ² communicative strategy. I still
wonder if this innate tendency to mockery, irony and even sarcasm has propelled
our cultural assets or undermined our credibility in the eyes of the other.
This leaning towards
irreverence without stepping on sacrilege, the ability to disagree without
arousing suspicions, the ingenuity to reveal truths that are half-absurd and to
expose absurdities that are half-truth, have placed us in a comfort zone of
continuous simulation where “say” and “stay” are synonymous and what can´t be
cured must always be endured. The current exhibition, Choteo de la indagación3, is obviously inspired by Mañach´s text. It
aims, however, to emancipate that “choteo” 4 from certain reductionist strings to grant it the benefit of the doubt,
even if it entails the exposure of sensitive issues.
The term “artivism” has
been used in contemporary art theory and criticism to refer to the merger of
art and social activism, and to recognize art projects loaded with powerful
social content that overshadow the traditional aesthetic function of art.
Despite the efforts of artists, art critics, and curators in taking this kind
of action seriously, the sublime aura of art strives to weaken the spirit,
minimize the significance, eliminate the traces of every possibility of
transformation; as if everyone knew that art —to be art— can never be harmless;
as if every inquiry arising in the fields of art always led to the mockery of
inquiry itself.
That said, it appears
that a swaggering stigma threatens to seize the very nature of art, leaving no
other choice, but resignation, to erase the endless differences between art and
life. The intention, however, has remained for over 50 years now. In 1965,
Beuys attempted to explain art to a dead hare, while Kosuth “redefined” it
through a chair. Both actions contributed to a seemingly reduced gap between
art and life, and to an apparent recovery of a missing stage during the process
of defining art. Still, it was no more than a simulation, a utopia. Art has never
been reality; art is not life —not yet—, and not all roads have led to that Rome.
Today, public opinion is
manipulated and dismissed with the same cynicism that indolence and lassitude
soak through human sensibility and emotions are stimulated with resorts that
harden the threshold of human perception. When humans accept their role as
their own predator, and sorrow and cruelty permeate our daily “food” intake;
there is no room for wonderment, emotion and shudder… neither is there will to
change the world for a piece of art. Choteo de la Indagación presents
works of art that got rid of pointless metaphors to reveal an explicit
discourse… and still, they are works of art.
Personally, I´d rather
believe that someday, Beuys’s and many others’ ideas will come down from the
stiff pedestals where they are exhibited, will blur the boundaries between art
and life, and will succeed in lifting the curse of mockery off artistic
inquiry.
Teresa Bustillo Martínez
Translated by: Odeiny Gavira Tejeda
¹Inquiry into mockery.
²Spanish term to refer to a true Cuban, someone born in Cuba.
³Mockery of inquiry.
