Aracy Amaral states categorically that there is no Brazilian style of avant-garde art because there never were any artistic groups that were large enough or able to provide an innovative groundwork. In Amaral’s opinion, the lack of a local painting tradition was due to the impact and legacy of Portuguese art, and the resulting void was filled by a tradition of craftsmanship that yielded wood carving, traditional African images, and Indian handcrafts. After European descriptive and historical painting was introduced in Brazil, Almeida Júnior became the first artist to express Brazilian subject matter, albeit in a French style. The author of this essay credits Tarsila do Amaral with introducing a Cubist form of painting that blended Brazilian colors with a rural style, and credits the FAM (Família Artística Paulista) with having captured the suburban landscape. Aracy Amaral acknowledges the contributions of foreign artists and the internationalism of Ismael Nery, Vicente do Rego Monteiro, and Flávio de Carvalho. She notes that there is still widespread acceptance of the idea that art is an individual expression, and therefore accepts that local concrete and geometrical movements are the fruit of seeds that were brought into the country through the São Paulo biennials. On the other hand, she thinks that Pop Art, a movement that emerged in the United States, is an intellectualized form of expression that lacks authenticity. Amaral considers the work of naïve or primitive artists to be a genuine, instinctive form of art, though of little artistic interest. She mentions the precariousness of art schools, and the contributions made by architectural courses for training professionals in the art field that help to develop a perspective regarding social issues in Brazil. She explains that young artists are self-taught and therefore lack technical skills. She observes differences between artists from Rio de Janeiro and from São Paulo; the former (“cariocas”) show an interest in addressing the country’s historical problems, but they have no defined formal approach. She sees greater regularity in the work of the São Paulo (“paulista”) artists, but considers them to be disconnected from the national reality. Amaral considers art in Brazil to be an elitist, closed phenomenon that is removed from reality and from the university, and consequently finds scant expression in Brazilian culture.        

The “Propostas 66” seminar was organized by the visual artist, architectural landscape painter, and concrete art theoretician Waldemar Cordeiro (1925–73) in the auditorium of the Municipal Library in São Paulo from December 12 to 15, 1966. The goal was to provide a balanced view of the work of, and critical attitudes to, Brazilian art movements involved with new realism and Pop Art, including the visual arts and mass communication. There was a different theme for each of the proposals, which were presented over the course of four nights. On the first night the theme proposed by the critic, curator, and art historian Aracy A. Amaral (b. 1930) was “Conceituação da arte nas condições históricas atuais do Brasil” [A Concept of Art under current Brazilian Historical Conditions]. The critic Mário Pedrosa (1900–81) was the chairman, and the painter, architect, and Professor Sérgio Ferro (b. 1938) was the secretary. It should be noted that Amaral’s opinion in this “proposal” is diametrically opposed to the views presented at this same seminar by the artist Hélio Oiticica (1937–80) and the critic Frederico Morais (b. 1936), who both acknowledged the existence of an original Brazilian avant-garde.       

In reference to this matter, and for further information, see by Frederico Morais, “Vanguarda, o que é”, Vanguarda brasileira (Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 1966); and by Hélio Oiticica, “Situação da vanguarda no Brasil” (November 1966) [doc. no. 1110376].