Décio  Vieira:  Geometric  Investigations  Centro  Universitário  Maria  Antônia,  São  Paulo    Sérgio  Bruno  Martins      

In   the   words   of   art   historian   Michael   Asbury,  Neoconcretism   ‘has   gained   international   notoriety  while   remaining   contextually   obscure.’1  The   first   part  of   this   statement   points   to   the   late   and   uneven  international   reception   of   the   Brazilian   avant-­‐garde,  with  its  emphasis  on  Lygia  Clark  and  Hélio  Oiticica.  The  problem  is  less  that  Clark  and  Oiticica  have  been  given  precedence   over   other   artists   than   that   the  widespread  understanding  of  their  own  trajectory  has  also   proven   to   be   uneven   (to   say   the   least).   So,   for  example,   it   becomes   much   easier   (and   more  seductive)   to   reclaim   Oiticica’s   thoughts   on  participation   or   his   forays   into   the   culture   of   the  Brazilian   favelas   than   to   painstakingly   track,   for  example,   his   rigorous   visual   dialogue  with  Mondrian,  

                                                                                                               1  Michael  Asbury,  ‘Neonconcretism  and  Minimalism:  Cosmopolitanism  at  a  Local.  Level  and  a  Canonical  Provincialism,'  in  Kobena  Mercer  (ed.),  Cosmopolitan  Modernisms  (Cambridge,  MA  :  MIT  Press,  2005),  p.  174.  

Malevich   or   Klee   (alongside   the   reception   of   these  artists   within   the   context   of   Neoconcretism).   It   is  ironic   that  our  historical   armature   seems  much  more  at   ease   with   recuperating   the   former   –   especially   in  the   aftermath   of   relational   aesthetics,   for   instance   –  than   with   incorporating   the   latter   –   which   might  suggest   a   somewhat   unpleasant   re-­‐evaluation   of   the  limits   usually   ascribed   to   whatever   we   call  ‘modernism’.   In   this   context,   the   name  ‘Neoconcretism’   acquires   a   rather   magical   effect:   by  simply  noting  that  Clark  and  Oiticica  originate  from  it,  one   can   duly   acknowledge   their   engagement   with  constructive-­‐oriented   geometric   abstraction   without  really   having   to   consider   the   more   profound  consequences   of   the   fact   that,   say,   Mondrian   and  Mangueira   (the   most   famous   favela   in   Rio,   and   the  one   Oiticica   frequented)   belonged   to   the   vocabulary  of  one  and  the  same  artist.  It  turns  out,  then,  that  the  second   part   of   Asbury’s   statement   –   contextual  obscurity   –   does   serve   a   purpose:   that   of   turning  Neoconcretism  into  a  mere  ad  hoc  reference.  

 What  if  we  graded  the  ‘contextual  awareness’  of  a  

writer   by   the   number   of   Neoconcretist   artists   he   or  she   is  able  to   invoke?  A  beginner  would  remain  stuck  with   Clark   and   Oiticica   (and   perhaps   Lygia   Pape   as  well),   whereas   an   initiate   might   be   able   to   mention  Amilcar   de   Castro   or   Franz   Weissmann.   The   mere  mention   of   Décio   Vieira   (1922-­‐1988)   –   alongside   the  likes  of  Rubem  Ludolf  or  Osmar  Dillon  –  would  then  be  a   sure   sign   of   expertise,   well   bound   within   the  language  barrier   that   surrounds  Brazilian   scholarship.  Things   are   not   so   simple,   of   course,   and   the   truth   is  that  here  there  are  no  Brazilian  ‘subjects  supposed  to  know’  –  to  use  a  well-­‐known  Lacanian  formula.  Vieira’s  position   in   Brazil   is   perhaps   more   problematic   than  that   of  Neoconcretism   abroad:   his   notoriety   is   highly  local,   and   mostly   superficial.   This   is   why   the   recent  exhibition   ‘Décio   Vieira:   Geometric   Investigations’,  curated  by  Brazilian  art  historian  Felipe  Scovino  –  the  first  solo  show  of  the  artist  since  his  death  in  1988  and  the   first   ever   in   São   Paulo   –   is   genuinely   path-­‐breaking.  

 By   foraging   through   private   collections,   Scovino  

managed   to   assemble   an   impressively   representative  set  of  works,   ranging   from  Vieira’s  early  participation  in  the  Frente  Group  (the  highly  unorthodox  core  of  Rio  de  Janeiro  Concretism  in  the  early  1950s)  through  his  Neoconcrete   period   and   beyond,   up   to   the   artist’s  final   years   in   the   1980s.   And   it   becomes   quite   clear  that  Vieira  deserves  a  better  critical  fate  than  that  of  a  name   to   be   dropped   every   now   and   then   (which  makes   one   dearly   regret   the   fact   that   there   is   no  catalogue  for  the  exhibition).  His  use  of  colours  alone  demands   reflection,   pointing   to   some   idiosyncratic  (but   also   crucial)   aspects   of   Brazilian   Concretism.    Many   paintings   rely   on   a   skilfully   enacted   and  somewhat   contradictory   balance:   well-­‐defined  geometric   divisions   seem   hardly   able   to   keep   smoky  areas  of  colour  to   insinuate  smoother,  more  nuanced  transitions.   The   ‘smokiness’   comes   from   Vieira’s  recurrent  use  of  egg  tempera,  a  technique  he  adopted  in   the   wake   of   his   friend   Alfredo   Volpi,   an   Italian-­‐Brazilian   painter   of   an   earlier   generation   who  temporarily  flirted  with  Concretism  in  the  1950s.  

 

One  may  also  remember  the  indictment  of  Rio  de  Janeiro   Concretism   by   the   shocked   leader   of   its  orthodox  São  Paulo  counterpart,  Waldemar  Cordeiro:  ‘There   is   even   brown   in   these   paintings’.2  In   1956,  both   groups   finally   managed   to   show   together,   but  instead   of   celebrating   the   formation   of   a   unified,  national   front,   the   event   became   a   huge   case   of  mutual  misrecognition  –  or  of  the  recognition  of  their  irreconcilable   approaches.  Of   course,   it  was   precisely  in   having   to   defend   against   accusations   such   as  Cordeiro’s   that   the   poet   Ferreira   Gullar   ended   up  theorizing   Neoconcretism   (one   just   wonders   how  Cordeiro   would   react   to   Gullar’s   relatively   recent  branding  of  Vieira’s  pastel  drawing  technique  as  a  kind  of   ‘sfumato’).3  As   a   group,  Neoconcretism  was  hardly  coherent   (a   point   Scovino   is   keen   on   stressing).   It  makes  sense:  after  all,  one  may  think  of  it  as  radically  pushing   the   category   of   ‘concrete   art’   to   its   limits  (which  were,  in  turn,  theoretically  redefined).    

 One  particularly  brilliant  example   in   this  case   is  a  

1959   monochromatic   drawing   by   Vieira,   where  different   geometric   sections   are   uniformly   filled  with  blue  pastel   (Sem  Título,   pictured).   The  differentiation  of  the  areas  is  minimal,  but  eloquent:  it  relies  solely  on  directionality   and   on   the   varied   intensity   with   which  Vieira   pressed   the   pastel   against   the   highly   textured  paper.   The   dominant   centre   of   the   composition   is   a  blank  lozenge,  whose  whiteness  suddenly  coheres  into  a  colour  of   its  own,   in  contrast   to   the  whiteness   that  grounds  the  coloured  areas,  visible   in  the  deep  paper  recesses   that   remain   unmarked.   Animated   by   tonal  transitions   and   by   the   direction   of   the   marks,   the  drawing  enacts  a  circular  movement  around  the  blank  centre  –   like  an  abstract  windmill.  The  bottom  half   is  lighter   and   expansive,   suggesting   a   cool,   gaseous  ascent;  the  darker  patches  in  the  top  become  compact  and   weighty   in   contrast,   leading   one’s   gaze   back  downwards   –   an   unexpected   sense   of   gravity   instils  itself.  All  areas  in  the  drawing  are  materially  the  same,  but   phenomenologically   distinct;   their   juxtaposition  testifies  to  the  subtle,  but  often  dazzling  achievements  of   Neoconcretism,   which   supported   Gullar’s  enthusiastic  readings  of  Merleau-­‐Ponty.  The  latter,  an  integral  part  of   the  movement’s  cultural  atmosphere,  can  hardly  be  said  to  stand  as  programmatic.  Despite  (or   maybe   because   of)   its   rich   diversity,  Neoconcretism   lasted   only   two   years.   Such   fleeting  complexity  grows  richer  the  more  we  are  able  to  look  and   study  works   by  Vieira   and  others   –   and   is   by   far  more   challenging   than   a   stable,   empty   and   merely  convenient  signifier.        Sérgio  Bruno  Martins  is  completing  a  PhD  in  History  of  Art  at  University  College  London,  entitled  'An  Avant-­‐

                                                                                                               2  Waldemar  Cordeiro,  ‘Teoria  e  Prática  do  Concretismo  Carioca’,  in  Aracy  Amaral  (ed.),  Projeto  Construtivo  Brasileiro  na  Arte  (Rio  de  Janeiro  :  Funarte,  1977),  p.  135.  3  Ferreira  Gullar,  ‘Frente  Group  and  the  Neo-­‐Concrete  Reaction’,  in  Aracy  Amaral  (org.),  Arte  Construtiva  no  Brasil:  Coleção  Adolpho  Leirner,  (São  Paulo  :  Melhoramentos,  1998),  p.  152.

Garde  and  its  (Non-­‐)Objects:  Constitutive  Negativity  in  Contemporary  Brazilian  Art'.  Décio  Vieira:  Geometric  Investigations  was  on  show  at  Centro  Universitário  Maria  Antônia,  São  Paulo,  23  March  –  25  May  2010.      

   Décio  Vieira:  Untitled,  1959,  pastel  on  paper.  100  x  70cm.  Private  Collection.  Photo:  Sérgio  Guerini.        Neoconcretism  Sérgio  Bruno  Martins    Neoconcretism  (1959-­‐1961)  was  a  loosely  organized  movement  comprised  of  artists  and  poets  mainly  resident  in  Rio  de  Janeiro.  The  group  originated  from  the  failure  of  the  1956-­‐1957  National  Exhibition  of  Concrete  Art,  which  exposed  the  irreconcilable  differences  between  artistic  groups  based  in  São  Paulo  and  Rio  de  Janeiro.  The  latter,  led  by  the  poet  Ferreira  Gullar,  enlisted  the  ideas  of  Merleau-­‐Ponty  and  Suzanne  Langer  in  order  to  criticize  the  perceived  orthodoxy  of  the  former  and  their  strict  adherence  to  Gestalt  Theory.  These  positions  were  developed  in  Gullar’s  prolific  writings,  most  notably  in  the  Neoconcrete  Manifesto  and  the  Theory  of  the  Non-­‐Object.  Artists  who  were  eventually  associated  with  the  group  include  Amilcar  de  Castro,  Franz  Weissmann,  Willys  de  Castro,  Hércules  Barsotti,  Hélio  Oiticica,  Lygia  Clark,  Lygia  Pape  and  Décio  Vieira.        Text  copyright:  Sérgio  Bruno  Martins.  First  published  in  Enclave  Review,  Issue  1,  Summer  2010,  pp.4-­‐5.