This text by Sônia Salzstein is an analysis of the changes in the appearance of Brazilian art starting in the 1950s. She believes that the cultural modernization launched in that decade had a utopian dimension, which lost ground to an internationalized model of Brazilian art. The writer confirms the need to weigh the ideas of modernization that came to prevail during that process. Salzstein reflects on the problems raised by the “negotiated modernity” that appeared in the Brazilian art world. She is therefore led to question the significance of the simultaneity that on the one hand created the work of Alfredo Volpi—“linked to the modern classical tradition,” and on the other hand, that of Hélio Oiticica—“anarchic and deconstructed.” Salzstein raises the issue of contemporary art drawing its energy from phenomenology, which links anti-functional and anti-instrumental rationality to what is organic. She believes that this creates a unique combination of modern cognitive potential (constructor of forms) with the deconstructive and anti-formalistic criticism of the contemporary period. Her text confirms that Brazilian art is going through a defining moment. Integration into the international art world is outpacing the capacity of the Brazilian art world to come to terms with this change and transform it into a public, institutional, and community experience. In fact, its international standing has not brought about the fundamental changes in the local cultural scene that might lead to radical changes at the institutional level. Moreover, the circulation of ideas in the art world has not improved either. Finally, as the writer contemplates Brazil’s integration into the international art world, she wonders what dimension of this phenomenon might move the country beyond its provincial outlook.

This essay, published in 1996, attempts to systematize some dead ends that resulted from the modernization of Brazil in the field of art. Specifically, it analyzes the artwork created in the 1950s and 1960s. The writer states that both Concrete and Neo-Concrete artists started from the same constructive ideology, although they took opposite positions on modernization. This focus is similar to that of Ronaldo Brito in 1976, when he discussed the Neo-Concrete movement (see “Neoconcretismo” [doc. no. 1091308]). In turn, Salzstein makes the case that the dilemmas of modernization persist in contemporary modern art, pointing out the ongoing danger of conservative forms and art in service of ideology. When she analyzes the contemporary art scene, she is convinced that the systematic appearance of Brazilian artists on the international scene is indicative of a new wave of original contemporary thinking. The regular coexistence of art with the mainstream and the internal consolidation process must also be a part of the very same phenomenon. Brazilian art has accumulated a repertoire of various and varied poetics along with its own cultural references as points of attachment for the repertoire derived from its experience with modernity. Finally, Salzstein ponders whether such integration of Brazilian art into the international art world may have lasting repercussions beyond the simple accommodation that is a reaction to the cultural exigencies of globalization.

The writer, Sônia Salzstein, who is also an art critic and researcher, is distinguished by her incisive actions on the art and art history circuit. From 1989 to 1992, she was in charge of the visual arts department at the Centro Cultural São Paulo, where she implemented an interesting program oriented toward presenting the work of young artists. She is currently a professor of postgraduate and graduate level art courses in the Visual Arts Department at the Escola de Comunicações e Artes da Universidade de São Paulo (ECA-USP).

For another reading by Salzstein that complements this document on the issue of the integration of Brazilian art into the international art scene, see “Uma dinâmica da arte brasileira: modernidade, instituições e instância pública” [doc. no. 1111338].