In this introductory essay, which appeared in the catalogue for the paradigmatic exhibition Projeto Construtivo Brasileiro na Arte, Aracy Amaral describes the “revelation” she experienced as she researched the period in question: “the chance to make a clear distinction between the different kinds of work produced by artists in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro” in order to compare the contributions made by each group to the history of Brazilian art. Avoiding all mention of existing publications that defined the distinction between Concrete art (or Concretism) and Neo-Concrete art, the author argues that “the differences between the (aforementioned) groups are obvious and are very reminiscent of the controversy between realism and idealism.” Amaral detects class differences in both groups: the São Paulo artists were liberal professionals who worked in graphic design, architecture, advertising, and industrial design; they therefore saw art—as stated by Waldemar Cordeiro in the group’s “Manifiesto ruptura” (1952)—“not as a form of ‘expression’ but as a product.” They aimed “to integrate the arts into a social process” (that is: Brazil’s postwar “developmental euphoria”) and, in so doing, went from “decorating the environment” to possibly “constructing a new world.” The artists in Rio de Janeiro, meanwhile, were not interested in their sister group’s commercial or industrial approach; they were more concerned with “the autonomy of the individual, specific tasks, and exploring new ideas that had none of the utilitarian qualities” that came to define Concrete artists. Neo-Concrete art involved an aesthetic speculation “of much greater creative density.” Amaral adds that, “whereas the group in Rio opened the doors to the Pop Art of the 1960s,” the São Paulo group made a significant contribution in the areas of advertising, graphic design, furniture, and landscape painting.

The art historian, critic, and curator Aracy Amaral (b. 1930) held several senior administrative positions at the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo (1975–79) and the MAC-USP (Museu de Arte Contemporânea da Universidade de São Paulo, 1982–86). She is currently an art history professor at the FAU-USP (Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo). She is the author of a number of books about Brazilian art, including Tarsila sua obra e seu tempo (2010), Textos do Trópico de Capricórnio – artigos e ensaios (1980–2005) in three volumes, Arte para quê? A preocupação social na arte brasileira 1930–1970 (2003), and Artes plásticas na Semana de 22 (1970). 

[For other readings on Amaral’s work, see her essays in the ICAA Digital Archive: “Arte na rua” (doc. no. 1110675); “Arte da América Latina: questionamentos sobre a discriminação” (doc. no. 776879); “Arte no Brasil” (doc. no. 1110373); “Aspectos do não-objetualismo no Brasil” (doc. no. 1111221); “Brasil na América Latina: uma pluralidade de culturas” (doc. no. 776834); and “Críticos de América Latina votan contra una bienal de Arte Latinoamericano” (doc. no. 1079493), among many others.]

This essay appeared in Projeto Construtivo Brasileiro na Arte, the catalogue for the exhibition organized in São Paulo by Amaral 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; “Concretismo/ Neoconcretismo” (doc. no. 1315134) by Frederico Morais; “Arte Concreta” (doc. no. 1315020), “Da arte concreta à arte neoconcreta” (doc. no. 1315036), “Arte neoconcreta, uma contribuição brasileira” (doc. no. 1315052), “Concretos de São Paulo no MAM” (doc. no. 1315102), and “Resposta a Cordeiro” (doc. no. 1315118) by Ferreira Gullar; see also “O problema da educação artística depois da Bauhaus” (doc. no. 1315069) by Tomás Maldonado.]