In this essay, Ferreira Gullar critiques the exhibition of works by São Paulo Concrete artists at the MAM-RJ (Museu de Arte Moderna de Rio de Janeiro, 1957). He also critiques Waldemar Cordeiro’s introductory essay and its assertion that “the content” of Concrete art involves “objectivity.” Ferreira Gullar challenges Cordeiro’s assertion, arguing that objectivity is a “behavior,” not a content, and that to refer to is like that indicates “a comfortable, conservative point of view. Perhaps the problem facing these artists consists of finding content for their objectivity.” Gullar suggests that when São Paolo artists “submit” to dogmatic interpretations of objectivity they limit their ability to generate meaning and to address the “main problems of a modern visual language.” He discusses the evolution of some of these artists—such as Mauricio Nogueira Lima, Judith Lauand, and Cordeiro—and concludes that “São Paulo artists continue to rely on concepts rather than experiences, as they always have.” An emphasis on experience—which is the fundamental approach to Neo-Concrete art—would create a “freedom of expression” that would help artists move forward, but toward “a creative objectivity” rather than “a critical objectivity.” Gullar pours salt in the wound of “orthodox Concrete Art,” claiming that “it is dead and buried. São Paulo artists must come to accept that.”

As he mentions in his essay, the critic Ferreira Gullar (1930–2016) agreed with the Neo-Concrete group’s basic principles. After his essay “Teoría del No-objeto” [see the ICAA Digital Archive (doc. no. 1091374)] appeared in the Sunday Supplement of the Jornal do Brasil (December 19–20, 1959), he became the movement’s theorist. As regards the issue of the São Paulo Concrete artists’ “critical objectivity” as distinct from the Rio de Janeiro Neo-Concrete artists’ “emphasis on experience,” it should be noted that, in all his theoretical writings—especially in his “Manifesto Neoconcreto” (doc. no. 1110328), in which he refers to experience (six times) using the least sensitive word he could have chosen, “transcendence” —Gullar endorses this hobbyhorse at an almost metaphysical philosophical level. See the annotations in “Da arte concreta à arte neoconcreta” (doc. no 1315036) and/or “Arte Concreta” (doc. no. 1315020).

This polemical essay is an example of the debates that raged between Concrete artists in São Paulo and their Neo-Concrete challengers in Rio de Janeiro (see doc. no. 1315118). It was originally published in the Rio de Janeiro newspaper Jornal do Brasil on July 16, 1960. The text appeared in Projeto Construtivo Brasileiro na Arte, the catalogue for the exhibition organized in São Paulo by Aracy Amaral (b. 1930) and Lygia Pape (1927–2004). The event was hugely influential in Brazil, prompting an innovative reading of the meaning of the rationalist movements in Brazilian art. The exhibition was presented in 1977 at the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo and, later on, at the MAM-RJ (Museu de Arte Moderna do Rio de Janeiro).

[For more information about this exhibition, see the following in the ICAA Digital Archive: “Projeto construtivo brasileiro na arte” (doc. no. 1110680) by Pape; “A arquitetura é a grande arte de nosso tempo —1948: Romero Brest em São Paulo” (doc. no. 1314972) by Jorge Romero Brest; and “O problema da educação artística depois da Bauhaus” (doc. no. 1315069) by Tomás Maldonado.]