Alma Soraya Arango Ruíz Luz Marina Jiménez Botero Liliana ...
Jean Charlot and Luz Jiménez John ChaRlot
Transcript of Jean Charlot and Luz Jiménez John ChaRlot
Jean Charlot and Luz JiménezJohn ChaRlot
�
Summary
When JeanCharlot discovered Luz Jiménez among the Indianmodels attheartschoolofCoyoacán,shebecameforhimthewomanhesawinallthewomenofMexico.StudyingherbodyenabledhimtodevelopatrulyMexicanesthetic.Followingherintoherdailylifeallowedhimtoparticipatein the age-old activities of theAztec household, child rearing, pilgrimage,andprayer.The languageof thoseprayersbroughthim into livingcontactwiththecondiceshehadstudiedasayouthandrevealedthecontinuityofMexicanIndianculturethatwastheultimateandheroicachievementofLuzandherpeople.
JeanCharlot(18981979)andLuzJiménez(18971965)eachhadanindependentcareer;heasanartistandwriter,andsheasamodel,informant,and author.They also had a long relationship thatwas important for thehistoryofartandculture.Theyfirstmetinlate1921orearly1922,whenCharlotwaseither twenty threeor twenty fouryearsoldandLuzwasayearolder.1Luzbecamehismodelandvisual inspiration.ShealsobecamehisteacherofNáhuatlandAztecculture,bringinghimintoherfamilyintheirvillageofMilpaAltaandtakinghimontheirpilgrimagetoChalma.Eventu-ally,LuzaskedCharlottobethegodfatherofherdaughterConcha,whichplacedhiminacompadrerelationtothefamily,withimportantobligationsforitsspiritualandmaterialwelfare.2CharlotandLuzmaintainedthatspecialconnectionthroughouttheirlives,andtheirrespectivedescendantsremainclosetoday.
The relationship of Charlot and Luz was, therefore, not the normal,unequalonebetweenartist andmodelor researcher and informant. LuzwasCharlot’smodel,butalsohisteacher.Attimes,Charlotemployedher;atothers,sheandherfamilyreceivedhimasaguest.CharlotwasalwaysawareofwhatheowedLuz:3
She’sbeenagreatinfluenceonmyart.She’sbeenagreatinfluenceinintroduc-ingmetowhatIcouldcallmyancestors,that is,theAztecIndians,becauseIampartIndian.
BeyondhisowndebttoLuz,Charlotwaswellawareofherbroadcul-turalcontribution,whichisbeingincreasinglyrecognized.4
shewasapersonofimportanceinherIndianworld,certainly,andthisseepedout,Iwouldsay,totheothercirclesinMexico,andshewasconsideredlikequiteanimportantperson.Ithinkthatwhenshediedtherewas,byAnitaBrenner,asortofsummaryofherlifeinMexico This Weekthatsuggeststhatshehadputoverthatqualityasapersonthatshehadthatwasoutstanding...Shehadcertainthingsthatwereobviously importantthings,oneofthemthemasteryoftheNáhuatllanguage,sothatshewasconsideredbytheethnologistsandarcheolo-gistsasanimportant,wecouldsay,“livinglink”withtheIndianpast.Andasapersonshewasagrandperson.That’stheonlythingonecansay.
1March5,1922, isCharlot’sfirstnonshorthanddiaryentrythatmentionsLuz.
2Karttunen1994:197.Later,Fernando Leal, another closefriend of the family, would be-comethegodfatherofLuz’sfirstgrandson, Alfonso (VillanuevaHernández 2004). Charlot didhis best, within his own strait-enedcircumstances,tohelpLuzand her family financially.Theirneedswerereal.MaryandRubyMcKibbin wrote the Charlotson September 9. 1948: “onedaywhenshe[CorneliusRuht-enberg]waswithRicardoMar-tinez and they were discussingLuzandwhoshouldtheyseeatthesamemomentbutLuzsell-ingembroideriestothetouristsaroundtheGeneve”.
I call Luz Jiménez by herfirstnameinthisarticlebecauseshe used it as her professionalname.Concha’s full name afterher marriage was ConcepciónHernándezdeVillanueva.
Charlot’s letters to AnitaBrennerareintheHarryRansomHumanities Research Center attheUniversityofTexasatAustin.Iamgratefulforaccesstothoseletters.Undatedlettersarecitedby incipit.All other unpublishedmaterials are in the Jean Char-lot Collection, Hamilton Library,University of Hawaii; includingcopies of the Charlot Jiménezcorrespondence, being editedby Jesús Hernández Villanueva,Luz’sgrandsonandConcha’sson.Charlot1970-1978willbecitedas“interview”anddate.Charlot1970-1979willbecitedas‘Table-talk”anddate.Charlotn.d.willbecited as“checklist”withnumber.I have not corrected Charlot’smistakesinSpanish.
I am grateful for the com-ments,criticisms,andinformationofFrancesKarttunenandSusan-nahGlusker,daughterandbiog-rapher of Anita Brenner. JesúsHernándezVillanueva provided
�
Luzmostobviouslytranscendedtheroleofartist’smodelinherexten-siveworkinlanguageandculture:
ShespokebeautifulAztec.Infact,lateron,whenshewasolder,shewaswhatiscalledaninformantonAzteclanguagesintheSchoolofEthnology.
Luzworkedasan informant,amongothers, forBenjaminLeeWhorf,RobertBarlow,andFernandoHorcasitas.5Luzwasimportantalsoasatrans-mitteroftraditionalNáhuatlstoriesandasawriteroforiginalnarrativesinthatlanguage.6AscensiónH.deLeónPortillawrites:“Posiblementehasidolapersonaquemáshacontribuidoconsupalabraalrescatederelatosennáhuatl”.ShehaspossiblybeenthepersonwhohascontributedmostwithherlanguagetotherescueoftalesinNáhuatl.7CharlotfollowedLuz’slin-guisticworkthroughoutherlifeandafterherdeath,rememberinghisstudieswithherandBarlowinthe1940s:8
Horcasitasmemandóellibronahualteco,losrecuerdosdeLuzenMilpaAlta;ymediogustovertusbellosdibujos,recordándomenuestrostiemposenEtno-grafia,tratandodeaprender—enmicasoenvano—elnáhuatl.HorcasitassentmetheNáhuatlbook,thememoirsofLuzinMilpaAlta;andI was pleased to see your beautiful drawings, remembering our time in theSchoolofEthnography,tryingtolearnNáhuatlinmycase,invain.
Charlotappreciatedalsohercompositions“The last taleswrittenbyLuzareverybeautiful”andaskedBrennertosendhimtheNáhuatltextofherpoem.9
CharlotworkedwithLuzandAnitaBrenneronapublicationofhertalesinEnglish,The Boy Who Could Do Anything.10Discussions“onLuzbook”fillCharlot’sletterstoBrennerbesidethoseonherconcurrentprojectIdols Behind Altars.11CharlotconsideredLuzatruecollaborator:12
1 am very desirous myself to publish the story book, specially because Luzwritesmethatshebadlyneedsthemoney.IaboutarrangedwithSheedandWard,635thAveforit.Theyhavethedrawings.YoucouldgoorwritetheretoMiss.M.Huntwhoknowsaboutit.Myonlychangefromtheoriginalplanwouldbetoincludeafewstoriesthatyouhadexcluded,becauseIamveryfondofmydrawingsforthem(thechoiceofdrawingsthatSheedhasismychoiceforthestories).Alsotosplitwhatevermoneywouldbecomingin3parts,soastosendsometoLuz.Iwouldlikealsotohaveahandindesigningthebook,havingdoneprettywellwiththeAmeliadelRiobook.Ultimately, beyondher accomplishments, Luz impressedCharlot as ahumanbeing,“agrandperson”.ImyselfknewLuzwhenmyfatherwasinMexicofrom1945 to 1947, working on his book The Mexican Mural Renaissance: 1920-1925(1963).LuzandsometimesConchalivedwithus,helpingwiththefamily,
mewithvaluablefamilyandvil-lage information and revealedhislatestresearchdiscoveriesinhisemailtomeofDecember19,2004.1amgrateful forhisper-mission to use them and awaittheirpublicationinthearticleheis preparing.Tatiana Flores pro-videdhelpfulcriticisms.
3Charlot1972.Tabletalk,July89,1971.Unusualrelationshipsofmanykindsbetweencollabo-rators of different cultures canbefoundinKarttunen1994.
4Interview August 7, 1971.Karttunen 1994: 192 214. Luz Jiménez, símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000.
5A. de León Portilla 1988:178f,200,237.Karttunen,2000.
6Horcasitas 1968. Horcasi-tasandFord1979.
7A.H.deLeónPortilla1988:213. See also M. de León Por-tilla,2000.
8Carta a Alberto Beltrán,17deabril,1969.Tabletalk,De-cember6,1978:CharlotstudiedwithBarlowwhileLuzwasoneoftheinformants.
9“Yourlastlettersaresome-thing sad”. Poem: “Received agood letter”;“Mehizomucho lanoticiamuerteAmado”:“Muy im-portante:MandametextoaztecadelpoemaLuz,eldelcomal”.
10Brenner,1952.LaterChar-iotandBrennercollaboratedonBrenner1966.
11Brenner, 1970. Mentionsof Luz´s cuentos project inCharlot’s letters: e.g.,“I didnotwriteyouforalittlewhile”;“Justawordaboutthesize”;“Comoquenuncaescribes”;March29,1925;April8,1925;May8,1925.InBrenner1970,illustration188on page 359, is a drawing byCharlotdescribedonpage351as“toillustratenativetale.”
12Charlot to Brenner“I amvery desirous myself.” CharlottoldmehethoughtLuzshouldhavebeenlistedasanauthorofthebook.
�
especiallywithuschildren.Luzhadunusuallylargeeyes,brightandactive.Herfacewasexpressiveandanimated,andinthekitchenwithherfriends,shewasconstantly,talkingandlaughing.Herbodywasstocky,andstrong,whiskingoneormoreofus childrenup inherarms tomoveusaround.She radiatedanimpressivesenseofphysicalandpersonalstrength.
Intheircorrespondence,Luzisalwaysrespectfulandformal;Charlotismorefamiliar,butnotpatronizing.InhislettertoherofJune18,1962,sheistreatedasacolleagueoftheartists:
Quebuenoquetúestésdandopláticasenlatelevisión.Esciertoqueyamuchosestáninteresadosenestosdíasdenuestrajuventud,yenloquedecíanyhacíanDiegoyClementeynosotrosentonces.Contantosañospasados,yaparecequeloquehacíamosentonceserabueno.Aunquelagentenosedabacuenta.
Howgoodthatyouaregivingtalksontelevision.CertainlymanyareinterestednowinthosedaysofouryouthandinwhatDiegoandClementeandweoth-ersweresayinganddoingthen.Nowthatsomanyyearshavepassed,itappearsthatwhatweweredoingthenwasgood.Althoughpeopledidn’trealizeit.
CharlotgreatlyadmiredLuz’sstrengthofcharacter,whichhefoundinherwholefamily.WhenConchawastroubledbyarelative’sgivingbirthtoanille-gitimatechild,CharlotrecalledLuz’sproblemswithConcha’sownillegitimacy:
Estristeperonotangrandetragediaestasituación.Tumamá,lacualeragrandeyfuertepersona,encontrótalsituaciónycuandofuimosallevartealbautismo,nadamasdospersonasfueron,túmamáyyoyelsacerdotetuvoqueponer‘nombredesconocido’adondedebíadeescribirelnombredetupapá.YavesquetumamáIlegóaserpersonasumamenterespetadayapreciadaportodoslosquelaconocieronycongrandedificultadmanejoeducartesiendotupersonabuenayfuerteycontodatufamiliaeducadaydisfrutandoempleosinteresantes.
Jean Charlot, 1926, plata sobre gelatina, Colección Familia Charlot. Foto: Edward Weston.
�
Heconocidocincogeneracionesdetufamiliaysequeencadageneraciónhayproblemasqueresolver.
Thissituationissadbutnotsuchagreattragedy.Yourmama,whowasagreatand strongperson,met sucha situation, andwhenwewent to takeyou toyourbaptism,nomorethantwopeoplewerethere,yourmamaandI,andthepriesthadtoput“nameunknown”wherethenameofyourpapashouldhavebeenwritten.Nowyouseethatyourmothersucceededinbecomingapersonmosthighlyrespectedandappreciatedbyallthosewhoknewherandwithgreatdifficultymanagedtoeducateyou,youbeingagoodandstrongpersonandwithallyourfamilyeducatedandenjoyinginterestingemployment.Ihaveknownfivegenerationsofyourfamilyandknowthatineachgenerationthereareproblemstosolve.13
Charlot always spokeof Luz as anequal friendwith a special familyrelationship.Shewassomeonewithwhomhecouldtalk:14
Estoyenmisdíasdetristezaetc...Yesterdaythewholeafternoonhemoshabla-dodetiwithLuz.Sheseemstheonlyone(entrelosqueyoconozco)toreallylikeyouandtheonlyone,porconsequencia,conquienpuedohablardeti.
Iaminmydaysofsadness,etc...YesterdaythewholeafternoonIspokeaboutyouwithLuz.Sheseemstheonlyone(amongthoseIknow)toreallylikeyouandtheonlyone,inconsequence,withwhomIcanspeakaboutyou.
EvenwhenLuzwasworking inour family in the1940s,Charlotdidnotthinkofherasanemployee.WhenIaskedhimhowshehappenedtocomeandlivewithus,hetoldmethatwhensheheardwewerearrivinginMexico,she“cametohelp”.Thatis,heemphasizedhergivingaidasafriend.Indeed,Charlot’smemoriesofLuzfromthattimewerefamiliar.InalettertoAlfonsoVillanueva(February9,1965),hedescribedhowhissonMartinrememberedLuz:
CuandodechiquitoenMéxicoluz[sic]siempreleponíaanocheadentrodesurebozoyleponíaadurmircantando.Esunrecuerdodelosprimerosquetienedesuvida.
WhenhewasalittleboyinMexico,Luzwasalwaysputtinghimatnightinsideherrebozoandputtinghimtosleepbysinging.It’soneofthefirstmemorieshehasofhislife.15
Later, Luz lulled her grandchildren to sleepwith French songs shehadlearnedinourfamily(VillanuevaHernández2000:33).Finally,CharlotidentifiedwithLuzindeath,writingConcha:“Lamuertedetumamámeayudaadarmecuentadequeyasoybastantecercadelfindemivida”.ThedeathofyourmotherhelpsmerealizethatIamnowcloseenoughtotheendofmylife.15
Asanartist,CharlotcouldthinkofLuzandportrayher“asasortofearthmother”(Morse1976:44).Shecouldbe“thewomanofdeep,compel-
13February 20, 1972. Char-lot’sownfatherHenriwasillegit-imate.ContrarytoCharlot’slet-ter,Concha’sbaptismalcertificatedoes contain the father’s name,Manuel Hernández Chaparro.According to her son, Conchaandherfamilyknewtheidentityofherfatherbutkeptitasafam-ilysecret.ThatAnitaBrenner,thegodmother,knewwhothefatherwas,isprovenbyalettertoherfromLuzofAugust30,1928, inwhich he is named (VillanuevaHernández 2004). Charlot alsomust have known the name ofthe father, but kept the fam-ily secret. When I questionedhim, he said that most peoplethought it was Fernando Leal.Tomyknowledge,heneversaiddefinitelythatLealwasthefather.That Charlot would evade myquestionbyveryuncharacteristi-callyrepeatinggossiprevealsthelengthstowhichhewouldgotokeep the family confidence, notbetraying iteventomymother.Charlot’s inaccuracy inhis letterof February 20, 1972, could bedueto faultymemoryor tohisuncertaintyaboutwhetherCon-chaknewthesecret.
Forsomereason,whenIwasvery young and probably won-deringabouttheunusualclose-
10
lingmystery”(Karttunen1994:202)andthe“arquetipodelamujerindígenamexicana”.ArchetypeofthenativeMexicanwoman(VillanuevaHernández2000: 27). But first and foremost, Luz was for Charlot“a grand person”,whichisthekeytotheirrelationshipandtotheartsheinspired.Thatis,forCharlot, relationshipshadtobetrulyhumanandarthadtobebasedonreality.BydeepeninghisrelationshipwithLuz,Charlotwasachievingatrueunderstanding,oftheMexicanwayofbeinghuman.Byportraying,herinhermanfacets,hewasexpressingthatunderstanding.
Thespecialinspirationanartistcanreceivefromamodelorcolleaguehasbeenstudied,forinstance,inPicassoandGeorgeBalanchine;periodsoftheirworkcanbedefinedbythepersontheywereworking,with.DiegoRivera’s portraits clearly reveal which subjects excited his brush. CharlotworkedwithseveralmodelsattheEscueladePinturaalAireLibreatCoyo-acán,butrecognizedLuzimmediatelyasspecial.BrennerwritesthatCharlot“discoveredanIndianmodelwholargelybecauseofhispaintingsbecamea‘classic’nativefemaleinmodernMexicanpainting”(1970[1929]:304).Char-lotrememberedthat“shehadbeenalreadythemodel,aspecialmodelwecouldsay,ofFernandoLeal,andshecertainlywasmyfavoritemodel”:16
There is awhole image there that sheprojected.Nowmanyof theothergirlscouldputtheirvillageclothesonandposewithapotontheirshoulders,buttheydidn’tdoit,sotospeak,tothemannerborn.AndLuzhadonethingthatwasimportant:shecoulddoitbothnaturally,astheIndiangirlthatshewas,andknowenoughsothatshecouldimaginefromtheoutside,sotospeak,whatthepaintersorthewriterssawinher,andshehelpedbothseethingsbecauseofthatsortofdoubleoutlookshecouldhaveonherselfandhertradition.Ithinkthatnotonlyinartbut,asIsaid,inethnology,shehasbeenaveryimportantlinkbetweenpastMexicoandpresentMexico.
Charlot’sdescriptionofLuz’sactiveroleinmodelingparallelsthatofherwork as a linguistic informant; Karttunenwrites (2000: 152):“Theprocessrequired the same sort of intuitive interaction between two people thatmodelingandpaintingrequires”.Bothasamodelandaninformant,Luzhadtobeaninsideranauthenticmemberofhercultureandanoutsidercapableofemergingfromherownculturalenvironmentandapproachingapersonofadifferentculture.Shewasamodelwhocouldmovetowardsanartist’svi-sioncouldcollaborateinhiscreationjustasagooddancercanmovetowardsthestyleofachoreographerandsuggestitsfurtherdevelopments.
This“doubleoutlook”ofLuzemergesfromherverypersonality:shewas reared traditionally inMilpaAltabutmostunusually fromher child-hood,madeanintenseefforttoreceiveaWesterneducationinordertopracticethenontraditionalprofessionofschoolteacher.Herrespect forandappreciationofhermainstreamandWesterncolleaguescamefromherlongingtobeconnectedtotheirworld.HerunderstandingoftheirneedscamepartlyfromherlimitedformalWesterneducationwhichincludedartbutprobablymorefromhercontinuallearningexperienceofworkingwiththem.17Sincehercolleaguesweresomeofthegreatmindsofthetwentieth
nessofourtwofamiliesIaskedmymotherifConchacouldhavebeenmyfather’schild.Mymoth-erdeniedstronglythattherehadeverbeenanyromanticfeelingsbetweenJeanandLuz.Shealsoemphasized that ifConchahadbeenhischild,my fatherwouldhaverecognizedherandfulfilledall his duties towards her.Thedevout Catholicism of Charlotand Luz certainly was a factorintheirfriendship.Consequently,no sexuality intruded on theirrelationship;Charlotwasalwaysperfectly respectful. This is animportant reason, I believe, forLuz’s consenting to pose nudeforCharlot.
Whenlaterobjectionswereraised to the baptism of thesicklychilddiscussed inthe let-terofFebruary20,1972,Char-lot wrote Concha very practi-cally(n.d.):
En cuanto a la cuestióndel bautizo, acuérdate de que,en caso de enfermedad grave,puedes tú misma bautizar, po-niendoelaguasobre lacabezade la enfermita y diciendo,“TebautizoennombredelPadre,ydelHijo,ydelEspirituSanto.”Estanvalidoesebautizocome[sic]elhechoporunPadre.Siemprecuando se alivia la niña, puedepedirbautizoenlaIglesia.
“Astothequestionofbap-tism, remember that in caseofgraveillness,youcanbaptizethechildyourself,puttingthewaterontheheadofthelittlesickoneandsaying,‘Ibaptizeyou inthenameoftheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit’.Thisbaptism isasvalidastheonedonebythe
11
century,thiswasarichcompensationfortheschoolingshehadmissed.Ontheotherhand,Luzdidnotrejecthertraditionalculture inorderto jointhemodemworld;rathersheworkedasanexperttoenableforeignerstounderstandandappreciateit.
IbelievethatonereasonCharlotandLuzunderstoodeachothersowellwasthattheywerebothinsideroutsiders.AmemberofaFrancoAztecMexicanfamily,CharlothadbeenrearedinFrancesurroundedbyrichcol-lectionsofhisfamily’sdiverscultures.InFrance,hewasneverwhollyFrench;inMexico,hewasneverwhollyMexican.LuzandCharlotcouldmeetasfewpeoplecanbeyondtheirculturalborders.
TounderstandhowCharlotlearnedfromLuzasamodel,Idividethesub-jectverygenerallyintothreeapproaches.Anartistcandoarealportraitofamodel,thatis,emphasizingtheindividualperson.Themodelcanalsobetreatedasarepresentativeorembodimentofaparticularculture.Finally,themodelcanbeusedforanexerciseinartisticstyleperhapsaninnovationoranexplorationofaparticularartisticelementthatthemodelbringstotheartist’smind.AllthreeapproacheswereimportantinCharlot’sworkandareultimatelyinsepa-rable;thatis,theyareallpresentinvaryingdegreesineachindividualworkofart.Charlotwasneverunawareoftherealpersonhewasportraying,ofthatperson’sculturalbackground,orofthefactthathehimselfwascreatingaworkofart.Hecould,however,emphasizeoneormoreaspect.
Charlot’smethodsand interestscanbestudied inhisFrenchperiod,fromhis childhoodworks to his departure forMexico in 1921.Workingfromthemodelwasan importantpartofacademicarteducation,whichCharlotexperiencedwithhisearlytutorsandasanadolescentattheEcoleNationaledesBeauxArts.Charlotwasalsointerestedearlyinportraiture,whichheconsideredaparticularstrengthofFrenchart.HecontrastedPierodellaFrancescatoHenrideToulouse-Lautrec.TheItalianwasprimarilyinter-estedinthemodelforstyle,turningtheheadasmuchaspossibleintothegeometricshapeofanegg.TheFrenchmanneverallowedhisrecognizablestyletooverpowerhisinterestintheparticularcharacteristicsofthemodel.ToulouseLautrec“savedthesubject”,Charlotargued,becausehelikedthemodelasaperson.Asaresult,muchofToulouseLautrec’sartisticinterestwasinsearchingouthismodel’sindividuality.Insayingthis,Ibelieve,Charlot,asdescribinghisownattitude.Portraitswerehiswayofunderstanding apersonandasituation,boththemodel’sandhisown.
Charlot’sportraitsofhismaternalgrandfather,LouisGoupil,illustratetheapproachesdescribedabove.Charlotstarteddrawingcareful,realisticportraitsofLouisin1914,theyearCharlot’sfather,Henri,sufferedabreak-downandenteredintothedeclinetowardshisdeathin1915.Charlotwasseeking,Ibelieve,toconnecthimselfmorecloselytohisfamily,toseekhisfamily roots. In1920,Charlot returnedhome fromhis service inWorldWarIandtheOccupationoftheRhineland.Hewastryingtofindhim-selfagaininhishomesettingandturnedoncemoretoLouisasamodel.InCharlot’smonumentalgouacheportraitof1920,Louis isdefinitelyan
Priest.Whenthelittlegirlisbet-ter,youcanalwaysrequestbap-tismintheChurch”.
14CharlottoBrenner“Comoque nunca escribes.” See also“Received a good letter”: “MemandoTinaConchitamuyboni-ta.DileaLuzquepiensomuchoen ella y no le escribo porquetendría yo demasiado que de-cirle”.Tina[Modotti]sentme[aphotograph of] Conchita, verycute.TellLuz I thinka lotabouther and don’t write because Iwouldhavetoomuchtotellher.
15June 5, 1965. Also Char-lot to AlfonsoVillanueva, Luz’sgrandson,February9,1965.
16InterviewAugust 7, 1971.Karttunen 1994: 197, 199.AnaLiliaRoura1999:131,statesthatCharlotgaveLuzanothernameby which she became known,Luciana; however, shedoesnotprovide a source. Concha toldVillanueva Hernández (2004,and personal communication)thatLealprovidedthenameLuz and that both Leal and Charlot gave her the name Luciana at the school of Coyoacán.
Compare on the followingquotation Tuñon Pablos 2000:74,“Poseedoradeesaenormefuerza interior, fue capaz deproyectar su imagen comoprototipode lamujer indígena,paradigmapatrióticode lamu-jermexicana...”Possessorofthisenormousinteriorstrength,shewas capable of projecting herimageasaprototypeofthena-tivewoman, patriotic paradigmoftheMexicanwoman.
17Horcasitas, 1968: 37, 87.Karttunen,1994:213.
12
individualdespitethestrongsimplificationandstylizationofhisprofile.ButLouisisobviouslyamanofacertaintimeandculture,bundledupintheindoorclothesandcapofanoldFrenchman.Louisrevealedevenhisracialbackground:thehoodedeyesandlong,squarejawthatremindedCharlotoftheportraitsoftheAztecemperorshehadstudiedinthecollectionofcodicesgivenbyhisgreatuncleEugéneGoupiltotheBibliothéqueNationale.WhenCharlotlookedatLouis,hesawhisfamilyhistoryindepth,hisgenealogicalconnectiontotheirMexicanpast.Finally,start-ing,in1916,CharlotusedsuchportraitsofLouisasthebasisforextremestylisticexperimentations.
Similarly,Charlot’sSelf Portrait, Cubist Style(January21-24,1919)wasdoneaftertheArmistice,whenhewastryingtounder-standhisexperiencesduringtheWar.Inacontemporarypoem,hedescribedthelinesofsufferingthathadbeenengravedinthefacehecontemplatesinthemirror :
etc’estpourquoisurmafacejeune,imberbelesouvenirsculpteurderideshabiteetaunoirdemesprunellesdusanggerbe.
andthatiswhyonmyyoung,beardlessface,memory,sculptoroflines,lives,andintheblackofmypupils,bloodgathers.
CharlotusedthoselinestocreateaCubistlikeanalysisofhisface,ex-ploringatoncestyleandself.
Reared in a multi cultural household amid art works from Europe,theAmericas,andAsia,Charlotwasearlyawareofculturaldifferencesandmeansofexpression.Herememberedthathisfirstdrawingofahumanbe-ingwasacopyofaprintbyHokusai.HischildhoodsketchbookcontainsadrawingofaNativeAmerican,whomhemayhaveseeninBuffaloBill’sWildWestShowwhenitperformedinParis.
Moreover, in Charlot’s youth even more than today, French Culturewasnotmonolithic.Classesandregionsmaintaineddifferentwaysofspeak-ing,dressing,andacting.ThevillageofPoissy,wheretheCharlot’shadtheirsummerhouse,hadlongbeenfamousforthestrengthofitspeasantculture.Charlotexperiencedthatculture intimately inhisownhomewiththe lo-calpeasantwomenemployedas servants. In fact, this relationshipstartedshortlyafterhisbirthwhenhismotheremployedasawetnurseMadameLeNohan,apeasantfromtheneighborhoodofPoissy.Charlotrememberedhervividly(interviewOctober31,1970):
shewasclosetotheearth,closetothesoil,certainlymorethanthepeoplewhoweremoreateaseinasalonatthetime.Therewasspeciallysomething
Louis Cyriaque Goupil, (1883-1926), Plata sobre gelatina, 20.5 x 20 cm, Archivo Museo Estudio Diego Rivera, Original Familia Charlot.
13
terrificallyartificial in thewomenofacertain,well,economicstatusorclass,andtheyweresoheavilydressedandcorsetedandperfumedandsoonthatIthinkIenjoyedthegoodearthsmellofmywetnurse,whichIdorememberindeed, as a contrast to themore exquisite perfumes that the ladieswoulddrenchthemselvesin.
CharlotremainedclosetotheLeNohanfamily,stayingwiththeminJuly1916beforegoingintothearmy,anddoingrealisticportraitsofMadameandherhusband.Ibelievehewantedanaccurateremembranceofthemtokeepduring,theturmoiloftheWar.
Charlotstartedearlytodepictpeasantsasculturalrepresentatives.In1905,whentheCharlotsvacationedat thewateringplaceRoyat,Charlotdrewthelocalpeasants intheirtraditionalclothing:awomanmaking, laceandabathattendant in folkcostumeandhat, reading,anewspaper.Evenearlier,inoneofhisfirstwatercolors,Charlotdepictedthefamily’scookinPoissywalkingtothemarketwithalarge,colorfulbasketforherpurchases(interviewOctober31,1970):
thecookwouldgotomarketinPoissywithabasket,verymuchthewaytheMexican cooks go tomarketwith their baskets.Andmyfirst color paintingwithoutpreparatorydrawingthatgavemethatnewsensuousapproachtoartwasofthecookandherbasket.
Charlot thus saw a basic connection between his French andMexi-cansubjects.InlargehouseholdsinFrance,thechildrenwouldgravitatetothekitchen,where thewomenwereengaged in their interesting talkandactivities.Similarly,inMexicoasachild,IwouldloiterinthekitchenwhereLuz,Concha,andtheirrelativesandfriendswerecarryingonananimatedsociallife.Moreover,inFranceasopposedtoEngland,womenparticipatedinallthesocialactivitiesofthehome.Francehadlongrecognizedwomenascreativewritersandartists.Charlot’sownmotherwasapainter,andhejoked that he spread his first colors on the floor of her studio. Charlotconsequentlyfeltthat“women’swork”wasimportantandworthyofbeingportrayed.WhenhemovedtoMexico,thelifeofwomenprovidedsomeofhismajorthemes.
TwoportraitsoneearlyandonelatecanservetosummarizeCharlot’sworkinFrance.Mathilde,probablyof1911whenCharlotwasthirteenyearsoldisaportraitofthefamilycookatPoissy.Shewasworkinginthekitchen—sheseemstobesewing—andCharlotusedthequietmomenttopainther.Thiswashisfirstoil,hisfirstessayatexploitingthepeculiarstrengthsofthatmedium:theglutinousqualityofthepaintandtheeffectsproducedbyaddingthinlayersofdifferentcolors.HeisfascinatedbyMathilde’speasantcapandcarefullysculptsitwiththepaint.Buttheviewerisstruckmostbythestrongpersonalcharacterofthesubject;theartist’srespectandaffec-tionforherareevident.Allthreeapproachestothemodelaresynthesizedinthisjuvenilework.
1�
ThesamesynthesiscanbefoundinCharlot’sfirstmatureportraitofanonEuropean,hisorderlyintheMoroccanDivisionduringtheOccupa-tion:BihainofFebruary13,1920.Bihainisanoldermaninuniform,whohasseenmanybattles,buthasnotbeentraumatizedbythem.Heissettledandmature;hisfaceisstrong.Bihainissmokingapipe,andthesmoketurnsintoarabesquesbehindhim,suggestinghisculturalbackground.Butastronglinebetween Bihain’s profile and the pipe relegates such iconography to thebackgroundaway fromthe face.Charlot isacknowledgingBihain’sculture,butheisemphasizinghimasanindividualhumanbeing.
Althoughyoung,Charlotarrived inMexicowithmuchexperience inportraitureandinworkingfrommodels.HehadalsostudiedMexicancul-tureandhistoryandwasfamiliarwithawidevarietyofMexicanartworks.Hementionedoften the little nineteenth century figurines displayed in alargeglasscaseintheirhomeinParis(interviewSeptember28,1970):
QuiteanumberofthoserepresentationsareofIndiansattheirwork,andthoseIndiansattheirworkaretheverysamepeoplethatIfoundattheirworkwhenIwenttoMexicoandtheverysamepeoplethatIpaintedattheirworkwiththesamegesturesthatthosewaxfigureswereusing.Themostobviousthingswerethewomenworking,attheirmetateswiththeirchildrenontheirback,wrappedinarebozo.Wehavethatinthatcollection...
Nonetheless,livinginMexicoforcedCharlottoreevaluatehisideasandtobeginamoreintenseexplorationoftheculture,aboutwhichhestillhadmuchtolearn.
Luzwasakeypersoninthisprocess.CharlotfirstencounteredLuzinherroleasaculturalrepresentative(interviewAugust7,1971):Well,theopenairschool,ofcourse,existed,wasnearlyasurvivaloftheImpres-sionisttimesoftheAcademyofArt,andRamosMartinezhadworkedoutthatideaof having themodels pose inwhat they call natural Surroundings, verydifferentfromtheAcademy,ofcourse,whichhadeverythingwithastandandamodelposingSohehadthepeopleinMexican,moreorlessregularpeas-antclothesorSundayclothes,perhaps,withalittlemoreembroideryandsoonthaneverydaythings,posing,themenwiththeirserapesandsombrerosandthewomenintheirvillageclothes,andtheyposedusuallywithasortofsemiaestheticarrangement.Thewomencouldperhapsholdapotontheirshouldersandsoon.Ihadratherlittlerelationswithmostofthem.TheoneIknewbestwasLuz,LucianaJiménez.
Inthatrole,sheremindedCharlotofthefigurineshehadseenasachild(interviewSeptember28,1970):
AndsomeofthosewomenweredressedupactuallyinthesamehandwovenandhanddyedcostumesoftheregionofMilpaAltawhereLuciana,Luz,whohadbeenmymodelforalltheIndianwomenthatIpainted,camefrom.AndLuz
15
herselfwasdressedupinthatbeautifulskirt,whichiswrappedupinaratherelaboratewaywithfolds,thatisaverydarkblue,indigoblue,withblacklinesatthebottomandatthetopcreamywhite,andallthefoldsaregatheredtogetherintoahandwovenandembroideredbelt,whichisaratherstiffbeltofwhiteandpurplered.NowthosecolorsbeforeIsawthemonher,beforeIsawthemonhermother,andsoon,whenIvisitedthevillage,Ihadseenalreadyinthoseminiaturewaxfigures.Andthewaythefoldsfolded,thewaythearmsinactionworked,eithergivingthebreasttothechildorworkingwiththestone,handonthestonemetatewiththemaizeflour,IwasreadyforallthatbecauseIhadseenitalreadyinthoselittletableaux.
VillanuevaHernándezwrites(2004):“Luzseconviertenosóloenunamusasinoenalgomás,enunresurgimientodelpasadohechorealidadenelpresente”‘Luzturnsherselfnotonlyintoamusebutintosomethingmore:intoaresurgenceofthepastmaderealityinthepresent.
Luz with Toy Parrot(1922)wasCharlot’sfirstpaintingattheschoolatCoyoacán,doneinLeal’sstudio.18TheyoungLuzisportrayedinthegold-enmorninglight,dressedinherlovelyvillagecostumeandholdingaworkoffolkart.CharlothasalreadystartedhisstylisticexplorationindepictingMexicanIndians:theheadhasthehardsolidityheadmiredinAztecsculpture(interviewMay18,1971):
18Luz with Parrot,oil,33-1/2”X24”,checklistno.2.
Jean Charlot, Luz sentada, 1924, óleo sobre tela, 36 x 28 cm. Colección Andrés Blaisten. Foto. José Martín Sulaimán.
1�
lookingatthosepeople,Ididn’tthinkofthemasfleshbutashardmatter,hardobsidianandsoon.Thatis,afacetingthattheFrenchhadusedwith-outanysenseofweightortexture, Iwouldsay, inearlyCubism,withmebecameawayofchangingthefleshintohardstone.AndIthinkthatalreadyisMexican.
Buttheaccoutrementsarefolkloristicinaccordancewiththeestheticof the School.Charlot saidof hisTrinidad, done shortly thereafter, that itrevealed(interviewMay18,1971):
acertainuncertaintyaboutthenewaccessories,paraphernalia.Forexample,theserapethat themanwiththecigarettehason isnotsomethingthat Iwouldchooselateronbecauseit’ssomethingwhichisalittlebittouristicbythestandardsacquiredwhenIknewmoreaboutserapes.Actually,thelargehatoftheman,thesombrero,alsoissomethingthatlateronIusedlessandlessasIlookedatIndiansintheirdailylife,intheirhomeandsoon.Sothereisacertainuncertaintyorsurpriseaboutthesubjectmatterthatdisappearslateron...
CharlotwantedtoseethenormallifeoftheIndian(interviewSeptem-ber28,1970):
Iwouldn’tsaythatIwasagainstpicturesqueness,butIwouldacceptonlywhatpicturesquenesswaspartofthemakeupoftheeveryday lifeofthepeople,andI’veneverbeenawfullyfondoftheunusualnessoffiestadays,thatis,whenallthetouristsgointoseetheIndiansdancingandsingingandwhatnot.That’snotfalse,ifyouwant,butit’sunusual,liketheKermessofFlanders,whichisnottypical certainlyof theeveryday lifeof theFlemishpeasant.So Iused thingsthat Iconsideredonlydeeplyengrained.Someofthem,forexample,arethekitchenchores.
Charlot’ssecondoilportrait,Luz en buste,1924,illustratesthedevelop-mentofhisview.Luzisnotinherfiestagarbbutinhereverydayclothes,ablouseandarebozo(similartothosepaintedbyRamónAlvadelaCanalin1919).19CharlotisnolongerusingthebrightcolorsusuallyassociatedwithMexico;hedescribesthepaintinginhischecklistas“Verydark.”Thefaceisstrongerandmore individual.Charlotwould followthat face through theyears,notingthechangeslifemadeinit.Hewoulddothesamewiththefaceofhiswife,Zohmah.Theyareportraitsofrealpeople,whomCharlotknewwell,astheymovedthroughtheirdistinctiveexperiences.
LearningtoknowLuzmeantlearningaboutherworld.Charlotrecog-nizedLuzbothasarepresentativeofandauthorityontheAztecculturehehadlong,beenstudying.InFrance,Charlothadstudiedthelanguagefromthecodices;nowhecouldactuallyconversewithLuzintheunusuallyclassicaldialectofMilpaAlta(Whorf1971:368).PabloO’Higginsprovidesastrikingpictureoftheartiststudentwiththemodelteacherin1924(1974):
19Luz en buste,VeryDark,oil,16”X13”,1924,checklistnum-ber26.LuzJiménez,simbolodeunPueblomilenario2000:67.
1�
whenIfirstknewJean,Diegosaid,“YououghttogetintouchwithJeanCharlot”“GodowntoseeJean.Jeanisaveryfinepersonandcantellyoumanythings.Andhe’sdoing,importantwork”.AndsoIsaid,“Well,I’mhappytoknowhim.Givemehisaddress”.SoIrangthefrontdoorbell,andJeanwasshaving[Laughs]Itwas about nine in themorning, I guess.Andhe said,“Comeback at fouro’clock”.Atthesameplace.“BecauseIhavetogoout”or“Ihavetodosome-thing”.SoIsaid,“Fine”,andwhenIcamebackheinvitedmein.AndyouknowLuciana?Well,LucianaisanIndianwoman,averybeautifulwomanthatDiegopaintedinChapingo.AndLucianawassittingonapetate,completelynude,verybeautiful,andJeanwaspaintingherAndtheyweretalkingNáhuatl.
Inamostimportantcontributiontothenewnationalistmovement,LuztookCharlotandotherartistsandwriterstoMilpaAlta,whichasaresultbecameknowninartisticandintellectualcirclesasaplacenearMexicoCitywhere theycouldexperience thenativeculture still verymuchalive.Theinhabitantsmaintained:20
muchasdesuscostumbres:lamedicinatracional,losbañosdetemazcal,lavidadoméstica,laorganizaciónfamiliar,laconfeccióndeprendascontelardecintura,lavestimentayprincipalmentesuidioma,elnáhuatl...
manyofitscustoms:traditionalmedicine,sweatbaths,domesticlife,familyor-ganization,themanufactureofclothingwithaloomattachedtothewaist,tradi-tionalclothingandespeciallyitslanguage,Náhuatl...
Jean Charlot, Desnudo de Chalma, 1925, óleo sobre tela, 129 x 90.5 cm, Colección Galería Tobeu C. Moss. Foto: Jose Martín Sulaimán.
20VillanuevaHernández,2000:19;seealso28.
1�
Thesocialorganizationofthevillagewasprobablyestablishedinclas-sical times.Certainly, theoldreligionwith itsoral traditionswaspracticedalongwithfolkChristianity,resultinginsyncretisms.21Luzherselfperformedreligiousceremoniesandpracticedherbalmedicineandwas thusable toinstructtheartistsinmanyaspectsofvillagelife(VillanuevaHernández2000:31). Charlot was particularly impressed by Luz’s mother, Juana ManuelaGonzález,whotoldhimagreatdealaboutAztecreligion(Tabletalk,March17, 1977). Luz’smotherwas oneof several olderwomenwhoprovidedCharlot with religious instruction, like the Christian mystic MademoiselleMarchaisinParisandtheclassicalhuladancerAuntJennieWilsoninHawaii.AdevoutCatholichimself,he felt thatreligionwasbasic toacultureandunderstandingitwasessentialtoenteringintothatculture’swaysofthink-ing and acting.VillanuevaHernández holds that Luz andCharlot’s sharedCatholicdevotioncreated“unarelaciónaúnmásprofunda”,anevendeeperrelationship (2004):“Luzeramuycatólica yCharlot también,esabondadquemanifiestanlosfielescatólicoslamostrabanmutuamente”LuzwasveryCatholicandCharlotaswell;thatgoodnessthattheCatholicfaithfulmani-fest,theyshowedtoeachother.
The artists were very impressed by MilpaAlta. Leal’s first mural, La Fiesta de Nuestro Señor de Chalmaof1922-1923,isbasedonhisexperiencesthere.22FermínRevueltasreturnedtothevillagemanytimes,eventuallymar-ryingtheschoolteacherthere,MariaIgnaciaEstrada,andteachingarttherehimself.HeorganizedexcursionstothevillagealongwiththepoetManuelMaplesArce(Zurián2002:23).
CharlotwasoneoftheartiststobeinvitedearlytoMilpaAlta:23
Lasnoticiasdetumamánotanbuenas,perodebedeseryamuyanciana.MeacuerdodeellayadeancianaenmiprimeravisitaaMilpaAlta,¡queeraenelaño1921!
Thenewsofyourmother’shealthisnotverygood,butshemustbeveryan-cientbynow.IrememberheralreadybeingoldatmyfirstvisittoMilpaAlta,whichwasin1921!
Charlot spokeoften about the impact of this experience (interviewMay14,1971):
ThecontactorthedirectcontactwithIndianscamelateron,andmuchofitreallywasfunneledthroughtheonepersonofLuciana,orLuz,whichstarted,Ofcourse,justasapictorialthing,becauseshewasoneoftheIndianmodelsattheAcademy,butlateron,going,tohervillage,meeting,hermotherespecially,andherfamily,itbecamesomethingmoreimportantandmorehuman.(Charlot’sinterviewonAugust7,1971):1didalotofdrawingsfromher,andthensoonafter Iwenttothevillagethatshewasbornin,that isMilpaltaorMilpaAlta,andmethermother,sisters,family,andsoon.AndformethatwasabigexperienceofgettingclosetotheIndiansoftheplateauofMexico,thatis,ofAztecstock…
21Horcasitas, 1968: 22 29(old religionand teachings);75,81, 123, 125 (folk Christianity);61, 63, 71, 75,133 (syncretism).Luzhadtorefusesomeelders’requesttoofferConchaasahu-mansacrifice.SheexplainedthesituationandaskedCharlotandBrennerforadvice;theyadvisedagainst it; Tabletalk March 17,1977;Brenner,1970[1929]:140;VillanuevaHernández, personalcommunication.CompareKart-tunen, 1994: 212 f VillanuevaHernández2004holds this re-questwasafamilypretexttoridthemselves of an embarrassingchild; Luz’s asking Charlot andBrennertohelpwiththechild’sbaptismmarkedherdecisiontosaveandrearConcha.
22Charlot, 1963: 168. Kart-tunen,1994:196.
23Charlot to Luz, n.d. Luz’smother,JuanaManuelaGonzález,diedonAugust28,1958.Char-lot’sdateismostprobablyearly.
1�
So, it’s simply, I would say, as far as is possible with the differences of race,perhaps, to an extent, and background, being part of the family.That was atremendousthingforme.Itgavemeaninkling,aninsideview,ofIndianMexicothatIwouldcertainlyneverhavehadwithevenallthestudiesIcouldmakeofarcheology,ethnology,orlanguage,whichIdidattheMuseumofEthnology.AcceptanceinMilpaAltahadtobeearned(VillanuevaHernández,2004):
Losextrañossonrecibidosamablementeperosonestudiadosmeticulosamente.Lagentenoabresuscorazoneshastaquelosextrañoshanmostradoserdeconfianza.AladistanciapareceserqueCharlotseganóelcariñoyrespetodelafamiliadeLuzprincipalmenteporseramistaddeLuz,pintor,católico,ayudareconómicamenteysobretodoporhablarlalenguanáhuatl.AsíCharlottuvounarecepciónmásqueamistosayconviviócontodoslosmiembrosdelafamiliadeLuzincluyendoalgunosparientesquevivíanenpuebloscercanosaMilpaAlta.
Strangersarereceivedamicablybutarestudiedmeticulously.Thepeopledonotopentheirheartsuntilthestrangershaveshownthemselvesworthyofcon-fidence.Atthisdistance,itappearsthatCharlotwonforhimselftheaffection
andrespectofLuz’sfamilyprincipallybecausehewasinarelationshipoffriendshipwithLuz,apainter,Catholic,aidedeconomically,andaboveallbecausehespokethenáhuatllanguage.ThusCharlotwasgivenarecep-tionmorethanfriendlyandlivedwithallthemembersofLuz’sfamily,includingsomerelativeswholivedinvillagesnearMilpaAlta.
Charlot does seem to have been accepted more closelythananyoneelseinto“lacalidezdelhogarazteca”‘thewarmthof theAztechearth (VillanuevaHernández2004). Significantly,hedidnotignorethedifferencesofraceandbackground,andIsuspectthatthishelpedtoestablishtherelationship.Inmyownexperience,Hawaiiansdonotenjoyhavingnon-HawaiiansclaimtheirCultural identity,anotuncommonoccurrence.Thewordho’ohawai’idesignatespejorativelyanon-HawaiianwhomimicsHawaiians or even thinks he isHawaiian.Hawaiians aremorecomfortablewithpeoplewhoareateasewiththeirownculturalidentity.TheNáhuatlscholar,FrancesKarttunen,assuresmethatmostNativeAmericansfeelthesameway.Charlotwasalwaysverymuchhimselfandcouldappreciatepeopleofothercultureswithoutimpingingonthem.Hecouldcertainlyseethedifferencebetweenhispart-AztecancestryandthenativesofMilpaAlta.
Charlotpainted a familyportrait, basedon aphotograph(Luz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000:103)andpor-trayedLuz’ssisterseveraltimes.Moregenerally,healsousedhisobservationoffamily lifetodevelophismajorthemes,suchas
Mexican Kitchen, Tortilla Makers, Learning to walk, Temascal, Tying Child to a Chair,andSunday Dress.JesúsHernándezVil-lanueva,Luz’sgrandson,identifiesMilpaAltaasthebasisforCharlot’sthemeLavanderas,Washer-Women(2004):
Luz con canasta, 1924, óleo sobre tela, 36 x 28, Colección Familia Charlot.
20
Recuerdotodavíaenmiinfanciaverlalargafilademujereslavandoalaorilladelríoquecruzaalpueblo.Estetambiénesunmomentodondesecombinaeltrabajoylapláticaentrelasmujeres.Istillrememberseeinginmychildhoodthelong,lineofwomenwashingclothesonthebanksoftheriverthatrunsthroughthevillage.Thisalsoisamomentthatcombinesworkandconversationamongthewomen.
TheviewerseestheinnerlifeoftheAztechome,notasatouristsightorfolklore,butasarevelationofbasichumanrelationshipsastheyareex-pressedbeautifullyinaparticulartraditionalculture.CharlotsawAztecprac-tices as translucentwith universal values. Seeing theAztecmother batheherchildinthetemascal,sweatbath,inspiresasenseofkinshipinallthosewhohavebathedchildreninwhateverwayshavebeendevelopedbytheirownculture.CharlotportrayedasWork and ResttheAztecmotherkneel-ingonthefloorandsimultaneouslygrindingcornandrocking,tosleepthechildboundtoherback.Aztecculturehadprovidedaparticularlycompactrepresentationoftherelationofparentandchild:theparent’slaborprovidesthechild’speace.StudyingtheAztecwayofbeinghumanhelpstheviewerunderstandhisown.
InFrance,Charlothadappreciatedthekitchenasa familycenter ;herecognized its special importance inMexico.Asothernativecultures,Az-teclifehadlongbeenthreatenedbythemainstreamculture,economy,andsociety.Insuchsituations,Iwouldargue,thepublicmalerolesareattackedfirst:warrior,chief,doctor,nativepriest,andsoon.Astraditionalmalerolesarediminishedorevendestroyed,theCultureretreatsintothehomeandespecially into theworldofwomen.Notonlydo theybear andnurture
Autor desconocido, Luz y familiares después de un entierro en la Iglesia de la Asunción, Milpa Alta, Distrito Federal, ca. 1929, plata sobre gelatina, Colección Familia Charlot.
21
thechildren,theytransmittothemtheirCulture.Thelifeofthewomeninthehome—centeredonthekitchen—wasthestrongestrefugeofAzteccultureandthebasisofitssurvival.
In Charlot’s depiction of tortilla-making, a child imitates her motherwhoglancesdownunobtrusivelyatherdaughter.CharlothadseenaneventImyselfwitnessed intheNáhuatlvillageofCanoa in1992.The familyre-ceivingourgrouphadmaintaineditsancestralmilpa,cornpatch,thatpro-ducedaparticularlydeliciousandbeautifullybluecornfortortilladough.Fivewomen,twoofwhomwereelderly,werepattingthedoughintotortillasinthekitchen.Thenforthefirsttime,thetwelve-year-olddaughterofthefam-ilystartedhelpingwiththetask.Thewomenbeamedandwatchedthegirlwithoutremarkingonherwork.Thentheyreturnedtotheirown. Iaskedoneofthewomenlaterwhethertheywereteachingthegirl.Shesaid,no;girlsjustwatchedwomenworkingandjoinedinwhentheyfelttheimpulse.Once girls started, however, theywould continuemaking tortillas for therestoftheirlives.
Charlot felt that thepeoplewhoweremaintaining their familiesandtheirculturesundergreatoutsidepressurewereheroicandshouldberec-ognizedandmemorialized.Theywerefitsubjectsformonumentaltreatmentonamuralscale.Moreover,theculturetheyweremaintainingwasatreasurefortheworld,withtheuniquebeautyof its ideas,creations,andpractices.Suchculturesandtheirmembersdeserveourrespect,gratitude,andappre-ciation.Allhislife,Charlotopposedthealltoocommonviewthatmembersofminorityculturesshouldabandonthemandassimilatethemselvesintothe
Jean Charlot, Peregrinos de Milpa Alta, 1932, óleo sobre tela, 127 x 101, Academia de las Artes de Honolulu, Hawai. Donación del Doctor Robert Browne y señora.
22
mainstream.Anysolutionstotheproblemsofminorities,anyschemes fortheirbetterment,muststartfromabasicrespectfortheirculture.
Luz’s family also took Charlot out of the home on their traditionalpilgrimage to Chalma on January 2-8, 1925:“With Luciana, we went forexample to Indian pilgrimages which were really pagan business and notwhiteman’s business,24 or tourist business. From this experience,CharlotdevelopedsuchthemesasChalmaBathers,theProcessionatChalma,andtherelatedchildren’sdances.Suchworksare informedbyCharlot’sdeepappreciationofIndianreligion.Infact,Charlot’sexperienceofIndianspiritu-alitytransformedhispreviousviewsaswellasthestyleofhisreligiousart.HecontrastedhiswoodblockseriesChemin de Croix(1918-1920)andhisFrenchreligiouspoetrytohisnewviewsandvisualexpression(interviewNovember6,1970):
Therewas,forthem,therewasaspiritualityinelongation,andillthatWay of the Cross,Iamworkingwithinthatworldofthoughtthat,wecouldsay,thinpeoplearemorespiritualthanfatpeople.Sincethen,andIthinkbeforethatandafterthatalso,Ihavehadotherideasaboutspirituality,andIwentbackveryquicklytothestockybodiesIhadlearnedofinlookingatMexicanantiquities.NowadaysIamhorriblyworriedbycertainwaysofthinkingthatcomeoutinthewordsinthosepoems.Ialwaystiespiritualitywith,forexample,whiteness.IspeakofthewhitefingersofourLordandthewhitethisandthewhitethat,anditremindsmeofsomething,thatIfoundinBloy,Ithink,whenhewasveryannoyedatsomebodywhosaidthat“hewasentrancedbythewhitenessoftheHost”.AndthereMusthavebeeninmesomethingthatdisappearedsome-whereonthewayinliving,becausenowadaysIreallythinkthatblack,probably,andcertainlybrownhavemoreofatiewithspiritualitythanwhite.
HefeltsostronglyaboutthesedifferencesthathetendedlaterinlifetodepreciateunjustlymuchofhisFrenchwork.
IfAztecculturecouldhavesuchapositiveimpactonhimacultivatedFrenchmanithadacontributiontomaketoworldculture.Charlotcontin-uedtodevelophisMexicansubjectsincludinghisdepictionsofLuzuntiltheendofhis lifefortworeasons.First,hewasthekindofartistwhoisablecontinuallytoexploreandtodeepenhisthemes.Evenmoreimportant,hisMexicansubjectswerenotjustlocalsightsbutrevealedthefullnessofhu-manlife(interviewSeptember28,1970):
from the beginning up to now, the themes have enlarged around the samethings:theveryfewcostumesandaccessoriesandtheveryfewmotionsofthehousework,forexample,ofthewomen,andthathasbeensufficienttoguidereallymywholeart.Notsomuchperhapsassubjectmatter :asageneralstate-mentaboutmaybenotpleasantlifebutgoodlifeasIunderstanditandsummedupinthelifeoftheIndians.
Mostimportant,hefeltthathisownperceptioncoincidedwiththatoftheIndianartiststhemselves:25
24Charlot 1972. VillanuevaHernández,2000:31.Karttunen1994:196;emailtoJohnCharlotJuly25,2000:“JC,AnitaBrenner,andFrancesToorwenttoMilpaAltaonJanuary2,1925to joinLuz’sfamily,andtheyallsetoutfor Chalma the next morning.Theysleptoutonenightontheway and reached Chalma thenext. The local priest offeredthem a room, and they stayeduntilJanuary8.”Morse,1976:4.Onthepilgrimage,seeHorcasi-tas,1968:54-69.
25InterviewOctober1,1970.Morris, Charlot, and Morris,1931:311ff.
23
Itcertainly is trueof thepainter that therearemanythings thatgetbottledup inhimtocomeout lateron.However, in thecodices,ofcourse,which IlookedatwhenIwasyoung,therearemanyoftheactualpostures,mostlyofthewomen,thatIsawinMexico.Againthere,thatwasadoubleimage.Thatis,whenIwaslookingattheMexicoofmydayandoftheactualpeopledoingthehousechores,Ihadatthebackofmyheadthevisionofthemanuscripts,ofthedrawingsoftheancientAztecpainters,representing,similarmovements,similarmotifs,somefivehundred,sixhundredyearsbefore.IwasveryimpressedwhenIwas inYucatándoingthecopiesof thecolumnsof theTempleof theWar-riors—therewereperhapsthreehundreddrawingsofbasreliefsthere—tofindthatoneofthesignswhich,ofcourse,wasn’tAztec,itwasMayanbuttoillustratetheverbactionortheverbaccomplishment,therewasahandofawoman,justthewristandthehandofthewomanholdingtheroller,thestoneroller,androlling,thedoughonthemetate. It’sofcoursenotexactlyrepre-sentational,itisjustahieroglyph,likeanEgyptianhieroglyph,butitwassuchasummingupofsomanythingsthatIhadstoredinmymindandexteriorizedinmypicturesthatitwasinteresting,theretoseethatinthetemplethatmayhavedatedofthethirteenthcentury.TheAztecsinMexicoinsometemplesandtheMayansinthatparticularTempleoftheWarriorshadcomemoreorlesstothesameconclusionsthatIhadcometowhentheythinkofsummingupinonegesturetheverbactionintermsessentialtoIndianlife.
Basictoacultureisitswayofseeing,whichcanbestudiedinitsvisualexpressions.AsaFrenchartist,Charlotwasalwaysconvincedoftheimpor-tanceofstyleforthetypeofworktobedone,theoccasion,andthesubject.HeandtheothermembersoftheMexicanMuralRenaissancefeltthattheyhadtodevelopanewstyletodepicttheMexicooftheirtime.Thatis,theirinnovationwasnotfindingnewsubjectmatter ;infact,theirsubjectscanbetraced fromPre-Columbian art throughColonial andnineteenth centuryartuntil theirownday.WhatCharlot andhis colleagues criticized inear-lierdepictionswastheiradoptionofforeignstylesthatassimilatedMexicansubjectsintoaEuropeanwayofseeing.AmodernMexicanstylehadtobecreatedtodojusticetoMexico.
Inthissearch,Charlotwasapioneer,bothinhisstudyandinhisvisualart.SeveralartistsmentionCharlot’stakingthemtoseePre-Columbianartat the National Museum, writing on folk art, discovering José GuadalupePosada,andarticulatingtheideasofthegroup.Evenmoreimportant,hewasdemonstratinginhisownvisualarthowsuchstudycouldbeusedtode-velopanappropriatestyle.LuzwasanimportantfactorinCharlot’sesthetic,stylistic search,as seenabove in thequotationabouthisfirstMexicanoilportraitLuz with Toy Parrot(interviewMay19,1971):
Iwas already verywell awareof thepre-Hispanic formsof art, both in themanuscriptsandinthesculptures,terracottasandsoon:thatis,theIndian’sownwayoflookingathimself.Andthereisadefinitesculpturesquequality,facetinginhardmaterial,wecouldsay,inthoseearlyportraits.AndIthinkthereisintherealotofobviousdignitythatIhadlearnedfromthepre-Hispaniccollections.I
2�
alwayscomeback tomyUncleEugeneGoupil,because Iknewthosethingsverywell.Soit’samixtureofmyknowledgeofantiquitiesand,sotospeak,thefirstcontactswith live Indians in theirhabitat.Now, that isafirst impressionthat,sotospeak, Icouldn’trecapture,becausewhenImadefriendsandwasinvitedinIndianhomesandsoon,somethingelseemergedwhichwas,perhapsas Isuggested, lessacademicandmoresimplyhuman.That is, thethingsthatwehadincommonratherthanthethingsthatseemedforeigntomyselfinthefirstcontact.
CharlotunderstoodhimselfasamemberoftheFrenchclassicaltradi-tion,fromPoussin,throughDavidandIngres,toCézanne.ThattraditionwasbasedonClassicalartwithitsgeometricapproachanduseofthenudehu-manbodyasthebasicsubject.Fromthehumanbody,theGreeksdevelopedtheiresthetics,theirsenseofstyleandproportion,whichtheythenextendedtofieldslikearchitecture.CharlothadworkedwithnudemodelsinFranceandattheAcademyofSanCarlosbothonhisexploratorytriptoMexicoin1921andafterhesettledtherelaterinthesameyear.Thosenudesprovideabase-lineforunderstandinghisworkwithLuz.Thatis,Charlotwasfollow-inghisClassicaltraditionwhenheturnedtothenudeinordertocreateaMexicanesthetic,andhewouldmakeLuztheclassicAztecnude.
TheresearchofVillanuevaHernández(2004)hasrevealedthat“Char-lotmereceserelprimerartistadentrodelmuralismomexicanoenpintarunaindígenadesnuda”,CharlotdeservestoberecognizedasthethefirstartistinMexicanMuralismtopaintanindigenouswomannude.VillanuevaHernándezisexploringtheevidencetoseehowfarbackthisjudgementcanbeextendedintime.TherewascertainlynotraditionofthefineartsnudestudyofMexican Indianwomenas such.However, latermuralistswouldmakethenudeIndianwomananimportantsubject.VillanuevaHernándezemphasizeshowsociallydifficultLuzwouldhavefoundposingnude;infact,shekeptthatworksecretfromherfamilyandneighbors.Ibelieveherspe-cialrelationwithCharlotencouragedhertodosoforthefirsttime.Later,shewouldposenudeforotherpaintersandforEdwardWeston.AmajordifferencefromEurope,however,wasthatCharlot’sMexicannudescouldbeplacedwithinanormal lifesetting.Publicnudityhadbeennormal fortheGreeks,who,forinstance,exercisednude.ButacademicnudestudyaspracticedinCharlot’stimehadnosocialcontextapartfromartmakingitself.Charlotwasdisturbedbytherarefiedcharacterofthissetting.However,inIndianculture,therewereseveraloccasions inwhichnuditywasnormal,andCharlotmadetwoofthesemajorthemesofhiswork.Inthetemascal,sweatbath,womenofallageswouldbathetogethernaked.The Chalma BatherwasbasedonCharlot’sobservationofthepilgrimsbathingtogetherin a river to cleanse themselves from their journeybeforeentering thetown.Indepictingsuchpractices,CharlotcouldstudytheIndianbodyandIndianlifetogether.
CharlottookthebodyofLuzasdiagnosticfortheAztecwoman.Ed-wardWeston’sphotograph,fromtheback,ofLuznuderevealssomeofthe
26Antonio Rodriguez, 2000:90; 94, nude photographs ofMexicanIndiansareunusual,ex-ceptforthefewdoneforethno-graphic purposes.Amy Congerhas speculated that Weston’scould have been made as anartist’said.IsuggestthatWestonbecamebrieflyinterestedinthesubject through Charlot’s con-temporarywork.
25
qualities that attractedCharlot. In comparisonwith theClassicalWesternbody,Luz’sheadislarge.Herstrongshoulders,broadback,andslimhipsformablock.Herarmsarethin,andherlegstaperevermorenarrowlydowntoherfeet.26Classicalpracticeformajorworksprescribednudestudiesofthefigureswhowouldthenbecoveredwithclothing,theshapeofwhichwouldbedeterminedbythebodyinside.TheAztecbodywhenrobedcouldberenderedasthecubewithroundededgesthatCharlotwoulddevelopinmanymedia.Charlotdiscussedwithmeanimportantseriesofnudedraw-ingshemadeofLuzin1923:27
Well,thoseweredoneearly.Mostofthemweredonein‘23,Ithink.Butin22,IwasextremelybusywiththefrescointhePreparatoria.In‘23,1finishedthefrescoearlyintheyear,orunveileditearlyintheyear,andthenIhadasortofaleisureuntil‘24,whenIdidafewfrescoesintheMinistryofEducation.ThatiswhenIdidquiteanumberofdrawingsfromlifefromLuz,kindofmixing,upboththesighting,youcouldsay,oftheIndiannudeandthethingsIknewaboutAztecIndians.TheanalysiswhichshowstomeI’vebeensuccessfulisthatitwouldbehardtofindclassicalhangovers,sotospeak,of,shallwesay,classicalGreekstatuesinmyviewsofIndiannudes.SoIknowthatit’snotentirelyanegativething,andifitdoesn’thavetheelementsthatyoulearninschool,let’ssay,attheBeauxArts,
27InterviewAugust 7, 1971.CharlotandLeal seemtohavebeenworkingonthesameIines.Charlot, 1963: 168, publishedLeal’smemoir :“Iaimedatgivingtheirracialtypesamonumental-ityundilutedbyoccidentalstan-dards”; Karttunen, 1994: 201.Charlot showedWeston“thirtyor so” drawings of Luz, Kart-tunen, 1994: 199; 1 rememberaboutthisnumberinmyfather’sstudio before they were dis-persedinindividualsales.
Jean Charlot, Por la señal… Luz y Concha, 1936, Tinta china, carbón y sanguina sobre papel, 65 x 49 cm, Colección Zohmah Charlot.
2�
itmusthaveotherpositiveelementsthat,ifImaysay,wereratherhardtorootoutofthedailylifeofmymodels.Forexample,perhapsformethemoststrikingthinginretrospectperhapsaretheseriesofnudesIdidwhicharenottainted,Iwouldsay,bytheideaofaclas-sicalGreekorRomannude,andassuchIthinkgoratherdeepintothepointofviewoftheIndian.Thewholepointofthepictureswastoputthingsinformandcolorthathavenotorcannotbeputintowords.
Again,Charlot felt thathisown thinking andartistic explorationhadbeenvalidatedby thediscovery that they coincidedwith thoseof Indianartists.WhenCharlotvisitedthefamousPandurofamilyof folkpotters inTlaquepaque,hewasgivenastatuetteofawomanmakingtortillas,anun-usuallypersonalworkthatwasprobablya familyportrait.Hetreasured itanddepicteditmanytimes:28
Well,Ithinkitwasasortofasecurityformethatthoseseriesofdrawingsandwoodcutsofthenudehadbeenontherightline,becausethatlittlestatueis,ofcourse,asortofapraiseofthefemininebody,butintermsthatcertainlyare untouched by Greek and Roman classical beauty. Between the bulk, forexample,ofthebodyandthelimbsthatarerepresentednotforthemuscleformationbutfortherhythmofthework,andtherelationofthesmallheadonthelargebody,allthosethingsareformeasortofapleasantreminderthatwhatIhadfoundonmyownwassomethingthatalsoexistedintheheadoftheIndianartist,oftheIndianpotter.
ForCharlot,theIndianestheticwasthesubjectofanendlessquest:
Well,Ihaven’tachievedityet.Thatis,it’ssortofamonumentalidea.Andgiventhat it isnot inanatomical terms, that ideaof Indianestheticdoesn’t remaininsideorskin-deepwiththeformofabodybutpervades,orshouldpervade,everythingaround.AnditissuchasortofnearlyencyclopedicaffairthatIhavebeenworkingforit,well,prettymuchalifetime,andIstillfeelthatIcouldworkforitanotherlifetimeandnotettotheendofit.It’snotaquestionofsaying,“Eureka!”It’sjustaquestionoffollowingandfindinginthingssaytheshapeoftreesortheearsofamuleoransuchthingthesameestheticqualitieswhichIfeltarepartoftheIndianworld.
Thecomplexityof thisquest is suggestedbyastoryCharlot toldofpaintingLuzwithBasketof1924:29
Iknewverywellthevalueofcubes,butIalsoknewthatIcouldnotflauntartinthefaceofmyIndianfriends,becauseitwouldbewrong,itwouldbepride-ful,anditwouldendbyalienatingthem.SoIhadtolearn,asIsaid,Ihadtobebornanew.OfcourseoneofthegreatinfluencesonmeatthetimeisLuciana,whowasmyIndianmodel.IwouldaskherwhatshethoughtaboutthethingsIdid,andIwouldcorrectthemverycarefully.Forexample,IrememberonceIhadputahighlightinherhair.Shewasinhertwenties,andherhairwasabeautifulblack,andthosehighlightswereofcoursewhite,andshesaid,“Whydoyouputwhite
28InterviewAugust 7, 1971.Charlot, 1963: 30 f, figure 5.Morse,1976:64.ThestatuetteisnowintheJCC.
29Charlot, 1972. Luz Seated, with Basket, oil, 14” X 10-3/4”,1924,checklistno.40.
2�
hairinmyhead.Idon’thavewhitehair.”SoIhadtolearnandtrysomethingelsebywhichIcouldmakeherheadgoroundwithouthighlights.Itwasn’teasy.ThisisaportraitofherinthatparticularstylethatIworkedhardtodoasifIhadneverknowninParis.
CharlotisconsultingLuzasfarmorethanamodel.Intheirspecialrela-tionship,hisworkhadtopleaseher,topassherjudgment.Sheisafullhumanbeing,participating in thecreationof theartwork. Shehelpedhim recog-nizethoseconventionalWesterndevicesthatweresoengrainedthathehadceasedtobeawareof them.AbandoningWesternconventionsandfindingmeansthatwouldbeacceptabletohisAzteccollaboratorhelpedhimdevelopanon-European,Mexicanstyle.TheircollaborationdemandedauthenticityandarticulationfromLuzandhumilityandsincerityfromCharlot.Thesuccessoftheirworktogetherspeaksforbothofthem.
AninterestingconsequenceofCharlot’sattitudewasthatheavoidedus-ingextremedistortionsofLuzorhisotherIndianmodels.Charlotcouldusehisowngrandfatherforsuchexperiments,becausehebelongedtoaculturethatwouldunderstandthem.Indiansubjectswouldnot,andthisculturaldif-ferencehadanimpactonthestyleCharlotdeveloped.HedislikedtheprintBanana Vendorinwhichhefelthehadgonetoofar(Morse,1976:40).
AfterMexico,Charlotwouldexploretwoothercultures,andportraitsandmodelswouldagainprovebasictohiswork.Whenin1930CharlotmetayoungAmericannamedGrace,hethought:“Shewasthemostun-Indianthingwehadevermet.Ithoughtshewouldbeniceforacontrast.30Withherwhiteskin,blueeyes,sharpfeatures,andlong,thinneck,sheistheop-positeofLuz.Charlothasherweara“pilgrimcap”toprovidehercultural,historicalcontext.SimilarlyinHawaiiandFiji,hewoulddepictPolynesianandMelanesianbodiesintheirworld.
Luzwas,however,themost importantsinglemodel inCharlot’s life.Thereasonforthiswasundoubtedlythedepthoftheirrelationship.LuzshowedCharlotnotonlywhatitwasliketolookAztec,buttobeAztec.Thepeopleofthe landwerenotartifactsorMuseumpieces.Reared in
Autor desconocido, Luz con Jean Charlot y sus hijos Ana, Juan, Martín y Pedro, 1946, plata sobre gelatina, Colección Familia Villanueva Hernández.
30Morse, 1976: 113. Alsotwo paintings: Grace (American girl), oil, 12” X 8”, June 1931,checklist230;Grace,1931,26”X18”,checklist239.
2�
thetraditionalwayoflife,survivoroftheRevolution,LuzprovedthatAz-teccourageandstrengthsurvivedinthemodernworld.TheimpactshehadonartistsandthinkerslikeJeanCharlotdemonstratedhowmuchherculturestillhadtocontribute.Asquotedabove,CharlotwrotethatLuz“llegóaserpersonasumamenterespetadayapreciadaportodoslosquela conocieron”, succeeded inbecoming apersonmosthighly respectedandappreciatedbyallthosewhoknewher.Shedidthisalsoforherpeople.LuzandCharlotsharedthesamemission.
Bibliography
AntonioRodríguez,José,“LuzJiménez.Susimágenesparaunanación,”inLuz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.8998.
Temascal, 1925, México, litografía sobre piedra transferida a papel, 70.4 x 55.3 cm. Colección Fundación Jean Charlot.
2�
Brenner,Anita, Idols Behind Altars: The Story of the Mexican Spirit, [reprint1929],Boston,BeaconPress,1970.
,The Boy Who Could Do Anvthing, illustratedby JeanCharlot,(retoldby),NewYork,WilliamR.Scott,Inc.,Publisher,1952.
, The Timid Ghost or What would you do with a sackful of gold?,NewYork,WilliamR.Scott,1966.
Charlot,Jean,The Mexican Mural Renaissance: 1920-1925,NewHavenandLondon,YaleUniversityPress,1963.
Horcasitas, Fernando, De Porfirio Díaz a Zapata: memoria náhuatl de Milpa Alta,SeriedeHistoriaModernayContemporánea,Mexico,UNAM,InstitutodeInvestigacionesHistóricas,1968.
Horcasitas,F.,andS.0.deFord(eds.),Los cuentos en náhuatl de doña Luz Jiménez,México,UNAM,1979.
Luz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario 1897-1965,MéxicoCity,InstitutoNacionaldeBellasArtes,2000.
Karttunen,Frances,Between Worlds: Interpreters, Guides, and Survivors,NewBrunswick,RutgersUniversityPress,1994.
Karttunen,Frances,“TheLinguisticCareerofDoñaLuzJiménez”,inLuz Jimé-nez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.151ff.
León-Portilla,AscensiónH.de,Tepuztlahcuilolli: impresos en náhuatl,México,UniversidadNacionalAutónomadeMéxico,1988.
León-Portilla,Miguel,“LecturasdelapalabradedoñaLuzJiménez”,enLuz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.151ff.pp.99-120.
Morris,EarlH,JeanCharlot,andAnnAxtellMorris,The Temple of the Warriors at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, 2 volumes, Carnegie Institution ofWashington,number406.Washington,D.C.,CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,1931.
Morse,Peter, Jean Charlot’s Prints: A Catalogue Raisonné,Honolulu,TheUni-versityPressofHawaiiandtheJeanCharlotFoundation,1976.
Roura,AlmaLilia,“Aguas,Diego,¡ahíVieneLupe!LasModelosdeDiegoenSan Ildefonso”, en Memoria Congreso Internacional de Muralismo: San Ildefonso, cuna del Muralismo Mexicano: reflexiones historiográficas y artísti-cas,México,AntiguoColegiodeSanIldefonso,1999,pp.119-147.
TuñónPablos,Enriqueta,“LuzJiménez,mujerymusa”,enLuz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.71-76.
VillanuevaHernández,Jesús,“Tecualnezyolehua:Laquesublimacosasbellasa la gente”. en Luz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario, 2000, pp.19-36.
Whorf,BenjaminLee,“TheMilpaAltaDialectofAztecwithNotesontheClassicalandtheTepoztlánDialects”,enHarryHoueret al.,Linguistic Structures of Native America, NewYork, London,Viking Fund Publica-tions inAnthropologynumber6, JohnsonReprintCorporation,1971,pp.367-397.
Zurián,Carla,Fermín Revueltas: constructor de espacios,México,InstitutoNa-cionaldeBellasArtes,MuseoMuralDiegoRivera,EditorialRM,2002,(BibliotecadeIlustradoresMexicanos).
30
Unpublished
Charlot,Jean,n.d.ChecklistofPaintings.Charlot,Jean,1970-1978,InterviewswithJohnCharlot.Charlot, Jean,1970-1979,Tabletalk,NotesonConversationsbetweenJean
CharlotandJohnCharlot.Charlot,Jean,1972,“AnArtistLooksBack”,LecturedeliveredattheHono-
luluAcademyofArts,March8,1972,editedbyJohnCharlot.O’Higgins,Pablo,1974,InterviewedbyLesterC.Walker,Jr.,March21.VillanuevaHernández,Jesús,2004,EmailtoJohnCharlot,December19.