THE ARGENTINE ARTIST COLLECTIVE ETCÉTERA… TAKES ART TO THE STREETS: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE CO-FOUNDER LORETO GARÍN GUZMÁN TO UNDERSTAND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH PUBLIC SPACES, FREEDOMS, EXPERIENCES AND LIMITATIONS.
Blog entry by Tessa Prati
In the streets, among people
The Buenos Aires-based artist Collective Etcétera… was founded by Loreto Garín Guzmán and Federico Zukerfeld at the end of 1997, as a result to the socio-political situation in Argentina after the dictatorship (1976-1983).[1] As you can read on their website, the Collective consists of young people who express themselves through poetry, theatre, visual arts and music. These artists share a desire to be part of a movement with the aim to interact with various social backgrounds. In particular, through art they wish to reach contexts characterised by social conflict. From the description they give on their website of their intention, you can draw up two core goals. Firstly, the Collective’s members want to show disapproval of the dictatorial state of terrorism and overcome the still-present social problems. Secondly, they fight against the continuing injustices and inequalities, which are due not only to the dictatorship but also to the subsequent governments adopting a neo-liberal and neo-extractionist economical approach.[2]
I was immediately moved by their work because of their concern for human rights and the well-being of the people expressed through direct actions. In fact, Etcétera… works mostly on the streets with surrealistic and theatrical artistic interventions and installations that include whoever is willing to participate. Their work fascinated me even more because I recognised a deep connection to the Marxist ideology, expressed through both their topics and the way they communicate.
The Etcétera… Collective’s art
To better understand the work this Collective has done, I invite you to take a look at one of their first interventions in the Argentine capital: A comer!, Buenos Aires, 1998.
For this intervention, the members of the Collective were dressed as warriors carrying forks, spoons and giant knives as weapons, while shouting „¡A Comer!“ (to eat). During their march on the street, whenever they encountered businesses belonging to multinational corporations they staged attacks. McDonald’s or Shell. Symbols of neoliberal politics. But at some point, they stopped and put on a battle between them. The rage staged toward corporations is triggered by the indignation over the inconsistencies in the country: the massive presence of wealth on the one hand, and a precarious economic situation on the other. In some places, the population itself had to fight to ensure basic needs. Throughout their march, people stopped. Had a look. Joined them. Encouraged them. Laughed at them. Judged them. Anyhow, participated.
Their projects are not limited to expressions organised by them. They are also very often involved with other associations and projects. For example, the installation done on the occasion of Stadtkuratorin Hamburg 2015: Neo-Extractivism, Chilehaus Hamburg, 2015 (more information on this website). The title of this work already sets out its aim. The choice of location was made to further emphasize the concept expressed by the installation: Chilehaus is used as a symbol of European imperialist enrichment accumulated at the expense of Latin America. However, it is only a matter of attaching more importance to the concept. The installation would have worked elsewhere as well. The Collective not only denounces the actions taken in the past, that Europe still partially denies. They also want to remember that even today the neo-extractivist politic is still taking place.
A brief interview
This keen interest of mine has led me not only to discover more about them, their history and their works, but I also decided to contact one of the two founders, Loreto Garín Guzman, asking her to answer some questions. The three questions I asked Loreto involve the Collective’s goals and the topic of public space as realm for artistic expression:
- What are your goals when it comes to the active interaction of people you encounter in your interventions?
- Taking into account installations such as the one in Hamburg (Neo-Extractivism, Chilehaus Hamburg, 2015), would it be possible to exhibit them in the institutional context of the museum? With what differences?
- What does „public space“ mean to you and where do you find its limits?
After the brief interview in Spanish* with the co-founder of the Etcétera… Collective, you will find a contextualisation of her assertions along with my conclusions about the way these artists relate to the space they work in, which I based on her answers.
Integral interview in Spanish:
¿Cuáles son sus objetivos cuando se trata de la interacción activa de las personas que encuentra en sus intervenciones?
La mayoría de nuestras intervenciones buscan generar una reacción dialéctica o critica en la gente. Por lo general están dirigidas a una crítica a los aparatos represivos o a los grupos económicos en el poder, por lo que son acciones grotescas y que no necesariamente buscan o esperan la aprobación del público que las ve o que se cruza con ellas.
Son obras muy surrealistas en las que utilizamos el humor y el sarcasmo como una herramienta, cuando se trata de las performances y obras teatrales eso ayuda a que los espectadores salgan de ese rol pasivo y se conviertan en sujetos activos: espect-actores, ya sea por el enojo o por la simpatía que le producen nuestras incorrectas obras. En el caso de las instalaciones en espacios del arte o instituciones, hay una mezcla de critica institucional, la desacralización del arte contemporáneo y la ironía, que nos ayudan a acceder desde varios canales, y por lo general son obras donde el público pude participar, puede habitar, sentarse, utilizar los recursos o convertirse en el protagonista. Especialmente utilizamos un lenguaje que no es elitista pero que tampoco cree que las clases populares son carentes de intelectualidad, sino todo lo contrario. Por ello, por lo general, el público es muy reciproco y responde de maneras insólitas, no así el público endogámico del mundo del arte contemporáneo. Es lógico ya que en los espacios de la cultura mainstream, especialmente el de las artes visuales, la fuerza de trabajo del artista no depende el público, depende de un mediador ya sea este un curador, galerista, coleccionista o critico; los artistas visuales se han convertido en unos cínicos despreocupados por lo que producen sus obras afuera de la burbuja del sistema de arte.
Esto sucede mucho menos en otras artes, en donde tu fuerza de trabajo depende del público que paga las entradas para ir a verte actuar o compra tus publicaciones.
¿Teniendo en cuenta instalaciones como la de Hamburgo, sería posible exhibirlos en el contexto institucional del museo? ¿Con qué diferencias?
Creemos que la instalación de Hamburgo podría funcionar tanto en un museo como en la calle. Por ejemplo, la intervención en Hamburgo fue removida por los organizadores del festival luego de unas semanas, ya que fue vandalizada rápidamente, lo que estaba previsto y es lógico en una obra en el espacio público. Pero esa obra fue pensada específicamente para hablar del significado de ese edificio el “Chile Haus”, en la composición de la urbanidad de esa ciudad, como una marcación de esas huellas coloniales de las cuales Alemania reniega y de la memoria de las minería del salitre en Chile, en definitiva era un señalamiento de la relación colonial que siguió existiendo durante la modernidad y que aún existe entre Europa y América Latina, y esta instalación es parte de una extensa investigación acerca del modelo neo-extractivista actual que aún no ha finalizado. En ese sentido nuestras obras no son Site Specific, lo cual consideramos una mirada absolutamente neoliberal del arte y de la intervención artística, sino más bien, tal como lo decía nuestro querido amigo y artista Bert Theis (1952-2016), son “Fight Specific” ya que esas instalaciones y acciones, tanto como la investigación militante, son en sí hablar de una lucha situada, una lucha especifica.
El museo es otro espacio, que tiene otras leyes, en vez de policías tiene guardias y guía de salas, ambos espacios tienen cámaras de seguridad y niveles de control, sin embargo, lo que cambia es el público y el comportamiento de los cuerpos en ese espacio, y que finalmente todo lo que se exhibe ahí se convierte en arte. Pero nosotros hace mucho tiempo dejamos atrás esa dicotomía adentro –afuera, sino que utilizamos estrategias de intervención en ambos espacios y muchas veces con el mismo lenguaje. La verdad es que no dotamos de mucha sacralidad al museo, no le tememos, ni tampoco lo encontramos un espacio sagrado. Es un espacio más en el cual intervenir, decir lo mismo y pensar en cómo hacer que el público sienta interés en los temas socio políticos y en la poética de nuestras acciones. Inclusive hemos actuado de curadores en varias oportunidades cuando ese formato nos sirvió para narrar a través de las obras y proyectos de otros artistas y activistas.
¿Que significa para su trabajo el espacio público y dónde se encuentran sus límites?
Nosotros entendemos claramente que cuando se habla de espacio público, se asocia directamente como espacio callejero o urbano. Pero para nosotros el espacio público son las calles, las universidades, hospitales e instituciones como los museos, teatros que dependen del dinero público, e inclusive las áreas rurales que están legisladas como zonas públicas y no privadas. Nos interesa el espacio público en toda esa dimensión, intervenir ahí es siempre una manera de develar cuan presente o ausente está el estado, en qué espacios pone el control y en cuales pone o resta recursos. Creemos que el espacio público cada vez es más limitado y controlado.
Pero por lo general nuestras acciones se encuentran en esos espacios usurpados, ganados, ocupados, como las manifestaciones, por ejemplo, en donde hay un cuidado común una apuesta por la toma de ese espacio público desde la rebeldía y la experimentación, principalmente porque son espacios en donde los cuerpos están a la misma escala y donde todo puede concluir de maneras que jamás puedes prever.
Además que es ahí en donde el escenario social demuestra sus fuerzas, su capacidad de organización, su tolerancia, sus formas vanguardistas y sus modos más conservadores, y para nuestras acciones tan incorrectas siempre es un espacio de adrenalina y catarsis. Diríamos que ese espacio es donde nos interesa intervenir, es nuestro espacio de experimentación y de laboratorio por excelencia. Es lógico, que sea nuestro lugar preferido ya que es ahí en donde nuestras obras llegan a miles de personas, y tenemos un feedback directo. También porque nuestras acciones muchas veces tienen una interacción con los medios de comunicación, y no necesariamente en las páginas culturales o los canales de arte, sino en segmentos de política o de debate social. Ese es el espacio que defendemos, el espacio de confrontación, de expresión y de experimentación política que es la manifestación y la calle.
Nosotros creemos en toda libertad en arte, y creemos que los limites lógicamente los pone el contexto. En nuestro caso la experiencia de veinte años nos ha llevado por diversas maneras de comprender los límites y limitaciones, hemos sufrido escarmientos de diverso tipo, desde caer vestidos de payasos en medio de alguna acción en frente de la casa de un genocida el año 1998, hasta pasar por la censura explicita o encubierta en exhibiciones; o como sucedió el año pasado en el que vivimos un escarmiento público a partir de un Fake News construido por los medios de comunicación masiva, en la cual se criminalizo durante meses la imagen de una de nuestras acciones e incluso tuvimos policías custodiando nuestro taller, fuimos el hashtag trending topic y salimos en todos los programas de debate político, como las peores personas de este país. Ahora lo vivimos con mucho humor porque es ridículo, absurdo, pero sabemos el poder del arte. Es ahí cuando tomamos conciencia que los limites están más delineados de lo que pensamos.
Here you find my considerations based on the interview of the Etcétera… Collective co-founder.
How do they define public space?
The Buenos Aires based Collective works in public space. Since institutions like universities, hospitals, museums or theatres depend on public funds and are regulated as public areas, the artists consider them public space such as streets. You might think “well, they have many options!” No, not when the art industry is hierarchic, and artists struggle even to get the slightest attention. Especially, when the artwork is unusual or sometimes irritating, as with the Collective’s examples that I am discussing here. Added to this, Loreto describes public space not as free, but as limited and controlled. In such occasion, you have to fight and take it over through rebellion and experimental art. This is what the Etcétera… Collective has been doing since 1997.
How do they live it?
The Etcétera… Collective usually expresses criticism of repressive systems and ruling economic factions. They communicate through installations or theatrical interventions taking place in the street, among people, to generate a critical reaction or a dialogical response in their observers. With their grotesque and unusual actions, they do not expect to find approval in anyone who meets them. What they do seek is to turn their public into protagonists, to make them leave their passive roles and become active subjects, what they call espect-actores. The language they use is based on humour and sarcasm, generally arousing either anger or fondness towards the staged topics. It never becomes elitist, preferring instead direct communication, which is more understandable to the masses without ever suggesting popular classes’ intellectual inferiority.
Loreto writes that they consider both the streets and the museums (the ones funded with public money) as public spaces. In fact, the Etcétera… Collective expresses itself in both spaces using the same languages, because they go beyond the widespread dichotomy that differentiates between art in the public sphere vs. art inside a museum. So, when they exhibit in traditional art spaces or institutional spaces, such as museums, they intend to engage in institutional criticism, desecrating and ironizing the role given to art usually exhibited in museums. By doing so, they refuse to sanctify the institutional role of the museum and its implicit hierarchy, but intend to put it at the same level of other spaces of artistic expression. Loreto also points out that actual distinctions between a street and a museum are much less than you might imagine: both have laws, cameras, security agents. What really sets these two spaces apart is that a museum has the ability to do to people and objects: in the museum visitors are calm and interested, and this institution can transform everything into art. The street has no such power.
What does the street have more and what is different?
Despite the variety of public spaces and the denial of the inside-outside institutional dichotomy, the artists frequently end up working and expressing themselves in the streets, which can be seen as positive, given their goals. With their interventions and installations, they mean to bring people closer to problems, especially socio-political ones. They want people to express their views on these problems and to participate. For such a goal there is no better place than the street: It is where the social scene shows its strengths. Organizational skills, tolerance, avant-garde forms but also more conservative ones. It’s a place of confrontation and political experimentation. It’s unpredictable. Everything could happen, and there is no way to foresee the results. The street is where people are equal. It is where they can interact with mass media interested in the political and social debate and not only with cultural channels. Where they encounter thousands of people, and where they can receive immediate feedback. For all these reasons the street is the perfect place to experiment the Collective’s way of expression.
Yet, the place where people should not be judged and where expression seems to have no limits, is still subject to some kind of limitations. During their long experience, the Collective has met these restrictions repeatedly because of the themes they deal with in their works: from public censorship to media humiliation caused by fake news. Thankfully, despite all this, the group of artists has remained committed to the freedom of artistic expression, and they think that limits are set by context. In this case, their actions are instruments of blame and catharsis: the emerging messages seem too powerful and perhaps accusatory of their geographical, social and political context. In this sense, we must understand, and I appreciated this thanks to Loreto’s words, that the art of the Collective is not Site-Specific. These guys have a goal, a problem to solve, something to improve or at least to denounce. It is „Fight-Specific art“, a self-explanatory term by the artist Bert Theis (1952-2016) who was very close to the Collective.
What do I think about all this?
Loreto Garín Guzmán talked a lot about their goal of triggering interest in people on specific topics and their relationship with the observers, which, thanks to their way of communicating, is interactive and made of the most varied and exceptional ways. She naturally explains how they intentionally criticise the social context in which we live. From this, I conclude that if an action is contrasted by a massive media response and negative criticism, we are witnessing how strong art expressed in the street and in uncontrolled public space can be. The considerations made by Loreto highlight the social function of this art within public space, but despite the humiliations and the doors closed in the face it is necessary to hold fast. Artistic expression must not be restricted, and even less so when it comes to artistic expression in public space.
This article, as opposed to the rest of the blog, has been written in English not only as an exercise but also to generally allow a broader discussion.
*The reason for not translating the interview into English was to maintain the original words and prevent any misunderstandings. For those who cannot read it, the content is almost completely reported in the author’s considerations.
[1] Flores Sternad, Jennifer: The Rhythm of Capital and the Theatre of Terror: The Errorist International, Etcétera…, in: De Caut, Lieven: Art and activism in the age of globalisation, Rotterdam 2011, S. 216.
[2] Halperin Donghi, Tulio u. a.: Argentina, in: Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 16.
EVENT TIP
Errorist Laboratory: Methodology No Work / No Shop with Federico Zukerfeld and Loreto Garín Guzmán. Gessnerallee Zürich, Gessnerallee 8, Ch-8001 Zürich.
Program:
Friday 7 June / 19.00 – 20:00 Introduction
Saturday 8 June / 13.00 – 17.30 Workshop Session 1
Sunday 9 June / 13.00 – 17.30 Workshop Session 2
If you want to participate do it in time! Write the following info by June 7 to dringlichkeit@systemausfall.org:
- Name, age & occupation
- Why you are participating in the workshop
- A suggestion or idea you would like to contribute
- Bring with you any material you consider important: video, sound, object, costume, mask, etc.