This text was written by Waldemar Cordeiro in response to Sérgio Milliet’s critique of his “Manifesto Ruptura” that was published in the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo on December 13, 1952. In addition to replying to each one of Milliet’s questions, Cordeiro openly attacks the Brazilian critic. Cordeiro refers to Cícero Dias, the painter from Pernambuco who lives in Paris, as an example of a “non-figurative, hedonistic painter” and points out that Milliet’s articles about Dias reflect a “hedonistic conception of abstract art.” Whereas Milliet discerns a thread of historic continuity stretching from the Renaissance to abstract art, Cordeiro sees rupture—a key word in the name of his group. He stresses that the “new artistic principles” stipulated in his manifesto are: the two-dimensional nature of the canvas; the use of primary and complementary colors with no half tones; and the sense of movement that is created through the similarity and proximity of the various pictorial elements. Cordeiro explains that, having defined art as “a means for deducing knowledge from concepts [that are] beyond personal opinion,” the rupture group—written in lower case letters as shown in the group’s logo—considers it to be a means for acquiring knowledge that is just as significant as the positive sciences.

At the Grupo ruptura exhibition that was held at the Museu de Arte Moderna in São Paulo in 1952, a number of artists got together—for the first time in Brazil—to show a selection of “concrete” works and to launch a manifesto that called for a radical “rupture” with figurative art. Ever since the late 1940s—when he left his native Rome and came to Brazil—the combative painter, designer, landscape artist, and art critic Waldemar Cordeiro (1925-1973) had been writing articles that were published in the newspapers in São Paulo, where he lived, and where he eventually became the leader of the concrete movement and the spokesman for the Grupo ruptura.  

Cordeiro’s argument with the writer, painter, and sociologist Sérgio Milliet (1898-1966) is a good example of the debate that was sparked by the “Manifesto ruptura” (1952). In his acerbic reply to Milliet, Cordeiro clarifies the theoretical references that underpin the ideas expressed in his manifesto, referring to the theory of pure visual effect proposed by Konrad Fiedler (1841-1895) as a result of his prevailing neo-Kantian philosophical approach. These theories influenced the turn-of-the-century views on art history held by Wilhelm Worringer and Paul Frankl, among others, in the early twentieth century.   

For more on this matter, see by Waldemar Cordeiro, Geraldo de Barros, Lothar Charoux ET. AL., “Manifesto ruptura” (São Paulo, 1952) [doc. no. 771349]; and the newspaper review by Sérgio Milliet, “Duas exposições”, O Estado de S. Paulo, December 13, 1952.