1

Antropofagia:

A Highly Critical Arrière-Garde Modernism in 1920s Brazil

Kalinca Costa Söderlund

School of Philosophy and Art History, University of Essex,

Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, UK

At/In: International Conference: Southern Modernisms, Escola Superior

Artística Do Porto (ESAP): Porto, Portugal, 19-21 February 2015 - ISBN

978-972-8784-64-5

Abstract:

This paper investigates from an interdisciplinary perspective Antropofagia’s entrenchment in autochthonous culture and its comprehension of the ontological dimension of Tupi

cannibalism. Tarsila do Amaral and Oswald de Andrade’s interaction with Parisian cubists

and surrealists is seen as driven by equalising intellectual affinities and a collaborative

cosmopolitanism – rather than as motivated by the wish to obliterate perceived hegemonic-subaltern cultural power asymmetries. If their cannibalism-engendered

agenda had something to ‘devour’ it was the local aesthetic-literary establishment and its

discourse, based on distinctions between white-Brazilian high culture and native, Afro-

Brazilian and mixed-ethnicity popular culture. By juxtaposing Antropofagia to Paul Ricoeur’s paradox (namely, how to reanimate an

ancient civilisation whilst taking part in a universal one), the paper shows that this

Brazilian modernist movement mitigated the tension between the universal and the

particular through a specific rationale: to adopt the philosophical ethos of local civilisation

against the homogenising traits of modernism, and, by doing so, to also reject the Eurocentric approach to the so-called ‘primitive’. Equally, the paper proves that certain

aspects of Kenneth Frampton’s Critical Regionalism are recognisable in the ways in which

Antropofagia consciously criticised the western root of dominant Brazilian culture. Here a

main difference between Antropofagia and Frampton’s category surfaces: whilst Frampton’s Arrière-Garde is more preoccupied with cultural colonisation from without,

the anthropophagic one focuses on producing hybrid aesthetic-literary forms in order to

reconfigure a local cultural field crippled by issues from within, that is, by coloniality.

Keywords: Antropofagia, Brazilian Modernism, Critical Regionalism, Arrière-garde

2

Between the Universal and the Particular

According to Paul Ricoeur, the following paradox must be addressed if a raising

nation wishes to undertake modernisation. This nation ‘has to root itself in the soil of its

past, forge a national spirit and unfurl this spiritual and cultural revendication before the

colonialist’s personality’ (1955, p. 277). Yet, modern civilisation cannot be joined unless

‘the pure and simple abandon of a whole cultural past’ takes place (ibid). Here, the major

contradiction such a nation must overcome is ‘how to become modern and to return to

sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization’

(ibid).

Ricoeur’s words were reawakened by Kenneth Frampton so to conceptualise Arrière-

Garde architecture. The latter represented the rebirth, within the arts from the 1950s

onwards, of a critical, oppositional and liberative stance, that ‘distance[d] itself equally

from the Enlightenment myth of progress and from a reactionary, universalistic impulse

to return to the […] preindustrial past’ (Frampton, 1983, p. 20). The Arrière-Garde would

thus generate forms of Critical Regionalism, that is, it would both produce expressions of

resistance that consciously drew on particularisms without succumbing to hegemonic,

romanticised and exoticist visions of the so-called ‘rudimentary’, and partake of the

modern project by mediating its impact.

Frampton’s categories outline a type of cultural practise that mitigates the polarity

present in Ricoeur’s paradox for being deliberately analytical of, and equidistant from,

the global and the local, the past and the present. This paper shows that Frampton’s

cultural hybridity is recognisable beyond the field of architecture and as early as the

1920s, in Antropofagia, a Brazilian aesthetic-literary movement. Analysing Antropofagia’s

engagement with the ontology of a pre-colonial autochthonous group, namely, the Tupi

cannibals, we shall see the ways in which the movement joined the cultural agenda

springing from Paris, and antagonised the status quo of the Brazilian cultural

establishment. We maintain that, by means of approaching the cannibal from a non-

Eurocentric perspective, Antropofagia outlined a formula with which to produce original

modernist aesthetic-literary expressions; that (by borrowing Ricoeur’s words)

Antropofagia ‘unfurled’ these expressions before the ‘colonialist’s personality’ enrooted in

the socio-cultural structure of Brazil itself.

The Cannibal’s Alterity

It is undeniable that Antropofagia resulted from the restless stirrings brought about

by the young intellectual Brazilian arena that in 1922 organised the São Paulo Modern Art

Week. Equally, Antropofagia would not have set its path without the years that Tarsila do

Amaral and Oswald de Andrade spent living between São Paulo and Paris. Indeed,

3

Antropofagia resulted from productive phases defined by migrations from Amaral’s

Paulista studio to her apartment in Place Clichy, and from Paris to Amaral and Andrade’s

marital property in the rural area of the State of São Paulo. Antropofagia was both a

reaction to those national discourses of artistic and literary transition from academicism

to modernism, and a consequence of the cubist and surrealist circles experienced by the

couple in Paris in 1923 and 1925/26.

Amaral’s A Negra (1923) {fig.1} set the pace of an enquiry that would reach its

apex with Andrade’s notorious manifesto of 1928. The latter actualised the growing

awareness with which the couple drew on autochthonous cannibalism to radically revise

the colonialist approach to the so-called ‘primitive’ societies, and to effectively re-

formulate the questioning articulated by the Brazilian avant-garde of 1922 against the

academies. Operating on two distinct fronts, Andrade’s manifesto wanted Brazilian

culture to originally contribute to the global spread of modernism whilst reproaching the

white-Brazilian cultural elite’s inability to supplant those hierarchies and dynamics

inherited from Brazil’s colonial era.

Figure 1. Tarsila do Amaral, A Negra (1923), oil on canvass,

100 x 81,3 cm. MAC-USP, Museu de Arte Contemporânea da

Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

Courtesy of Tarsila do Amaral.

By analysing Leclercq (2006) and Belting’s (2011) studies on primitivist

appropriations in Paris during the years surrounding Amaral and Andrade’s stays in the

4

French capital, it becomes clear that the couple did not comply with their contemporary

mentality and trends. Instead of reiterating the Parisian infatuation with ‘primitive

fetishes’, they set their own parameters of recognition and appreciation of the cannibal.

Contrarily to what was generally happening in Europe, Antropofagia neither expropriated

the Brazilian native of its habitat and resemblance, nor approached it as a figurative

subject to be explored and deconstructed pictorially. The voice speaking in the Manifesto

Antropófago advocates that ‘[t]he only things that interest me are those that are not

mine’, thus it reveals how the anthropophagic approach towards the cannibal relied on

the Tupi ‘self/other’ relationship (Andrade, 1928, p. 312). Andrade clearly points to the

cannibal’s receptiveness in relation to the ‘other’ – or to what Castro (2002) calls the

cannibal’s radical alterity. What Andrade was putting at the core of the anthropophagic

programme was the ontological predation symbolised by cannibalism’s literal dimension.

For the pre-colonial cannibal, to eat a captured man was not a form of subsistence

for the physical body; the act of man-eating stood for the tribe’s collective identity and

its constant renovation by means of incorporating those ideals and values that did not

belong to the social group. As Andrade (1945, p. 104) himself stated, ‘the Indian did not

devour [the enemy] for greed, but for a symbolic and magic act in which resided all his

comprehension of life and man’.1 Therefore Antropofagia did not nurture a ‘primitivism of

the external form’; a quest within the instinctual realm and formal simplicity of ‘primitive’

cultures and their visual expressions (Goldwater, 1967, p. 255). It did not rely on

cannibalism as a material practise. In order to represent the foundations of Brazil’s

cultural anthropophagy, Tupi cannibalism needed to be approached from a cosmological,

ontological and symbolic perspective.

The Jungle-Paris Connection

Although much has been written on the ways in which Antropofagia drew on

cannibalism, very little effort has been spent, to our knowledge, on looking beyond the

metabolic metaphor: eating, digesting, absorbing what is good, excreting the waste. This

is somehow surprising, especially if one considers the character of Andrade’s protracted

investigation on the theme over several decades. Keeping this in mind, it can be said that

the importance of cannibalist society’s central creed, or, in other words, of what has been

recognised to be part of Amerindian Perspectivism, has been overlooked.2 This casts a

1 ‘[O] índio não devorava [o inimigo] por gula e sim num ato simbólico e mágico onde está e reside toda a sua compreensão da vida e do homem’. 2 Amerindian Perspectivism is an ethnological strand consolidated by the anthropologists Eduardo Viveiro de Castro and Philippe Descola. Its main characterist is the absence, within the cosmologies of Amerindian societies, of dychotomic thinking, such as nature/culture, object/subject, ‘self/other’, animal/human, and so forth. From Castro’s viewpoint, Amerindian

5

shadow over the pivotal ways in which cannibalism’s ideological dimension shaped

Andrade and Amaral’s liaison with the European ‘other’.

The cannibal’s alterity functioned as a paradigm for Antropofagia’s interaction with its

contemporary Parisian art production. From this perspective, it becomes clear that

Amaral’s work from A Negra to Antropofagia and Andrade’s anthropophagic manifesto

epitomise the fact that cannibalistic societies ‘did not exist outside an immanent

relationship with alterity, [given that Tupi religion,…] enrooted in the warrior’s exo-

cannibalism, projected a way of being where the socius was constituted by means of its

relation to the ‘other’’ (Castro, 2002, p. 220).3 Accordingly, we interpret the posture

taken by the anthropophagous to deal with the European modernists working in Paris as

a process ‘where the incorporation of the other depended on a coming out oneself – the

exterior was in an unceasing process of internalisation; the interior was nothing but an

outward movement’ (Ibid).4 By analysing the ways in which Brazilians going back and

forth to Paris and Parisians visiting Brazil worked and interacted, this type of identity

communion is nothing but apparent.

Having returned to Brazil from Paris in 1924, Amaral would join the Caravana

Paulista.5 From this procession and cultural discovery across Brazil, Amaral’s work would

allow Légerian purism to merge with those bright blues, pinks, greens and yellows

belonging to countryside craftsmanship, to vernacular renderings of Brazil’s luscious

vegetation and forest without dismissing the formal achievements of A Negra – painted

just a few months earlier in the French capital. This blending of local folklore and popular

culture with the universal is evident in A Feira II (1925) {fig. 2}.

Perspectivism entails a cosmological stance which cannot conceive (as is the case from the Eurocentric point of view) of a psychic discontinuity between all things and beings that inhabit the cosmos. This implies a lack of boundaries between the human species, animals and spirits (deities, gods etc.), therefore it also denies a separate domain between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’. Humans see themselves as animals and spirits and vice-versa, as much as humans see themselves from the perspective of other humans. For an Amerindian society, not only do all the species-specific differences appear as modalities of the human, but also all the cultural-specific differences coming from external cultural backgrounds and epistemologies appear as modalities of the Amarindian society itself. 3 ‘[N]ão existia fora de uma relação imanente com a alteridade, [já que a religião Tupí,...] radicada no complexo do exocanibalismo guerreiro, projetava uma forma onde o socius constituía-se na relação ao outro’. 4 ‘[O]nde a incorporação do outro dependia de um sair de si – o exterior estava em um processo incessante de interiorização; o interior não era mais que movimento para fora’. 5 The Caravana Paulista (1924), was an itinerant journey across the variegated cultural, architectural and folkloric landscape of Brazil, which was composed by Andrade, Amaral, René Thiollier, Olívia Guedes Penteado, Paulo Prado, Gofredo Silva Telles and, occasionally, by Mário de Andrade. The group partook of events which were paramount to Brazilian popular culture, such as the Rio de Janeiro Carnival and the Eastern festivities in the rural areas of the State of Minas Gerais. It travelled across Brazil’s inner land, visiting fazendas and the work of colonial Brazilian sculptor and architect Aleijadinho.

6

Figure 2: Tarsila do Amaral, A Feira II (1925), oil on

canvass, 45,3 x 54,5 cm. Private collection, São Paulo.

Courtesy of Tarsila do Amaral.

Here A Negra’s formal monumetalisation and simplification is transposed to

representations of plants and fruits – whose colours scrutinise the Brasil caipira (Brazilian

bumpkin). Amaral’s theme digresses from the recognition of the socio-cultural agency of

the Afro-Brazilian, crucial to the making of A Negra, for it focuses on the emancipation,

within the high culture realm, of the day-to-day life of the people.

Further development of Amaral’s hybridisation of cubist approaches and signifiers of

‘Brazilianness’ (her childhood spent in the countryside, a non-urban existence and the

archaic) would appear in Abaporu (1928) {fig. 3}. Here, Amaral’s choice of the subject,

who is ‘that man that eats man’, deals with surrealism from an oneiric and psychological

angle; it complements cubist constructivism whilst managing to propel the viewer into

the nature of human condition at its primordial stage, enrooted in hearth and the

instinctual world. Like A Negra, Apaporu’s body is distorted and threatens to escape the

canvass’s borders; it is set in a bucolic landscape, this time explicitly organic and phallic,

rather than geometric and disguised as in the case of the black woman of 1923.

7

Figure 3. Tarsila do Amaral, Abaporu (1928), oil on

canvass, 85 x 73 cm. MALBA, Museo de Arte

Latinoamericano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires. Courtesy of

Tarsila do Amaral.

The success of these works is staked on how they lie on the threshold of Ricoeur’s

paradox; they do so through a synthesis between leading modernist trends and the

condition of being and living in the historical-sociological landscape of Brazil. The

analytical acumen with which the universal is approached here finds its impetus in the

‘auto-determination for the other’ peculiar to the cannibal, to produce a type of art that

saw negotiation, rather than definite identity, at the core of the ‘self–other’ relationship

(Cocco, 2009, p. 230).6

The couple’s creative ventures during their European seasons and the hospitality

offered in Brazil to foreign artists, authors and intellectuals also mirror the cannibal’s

alterity. From a list of collaborations and mutual influences, we may highlight that Amaral

illustrated Blaise Cendrars’ Feuilles De Route, and Cendrars dedicated his publication to

his Brazilian “modernist friends” (Waldman, 2011, p. 9).7 Further, and by taking into

consideration the planning of one of Cendrars’ ballets similar to his The Creation of the

6 ‘[A]utodeterminação pelo outro’. 7 ”[A]migos modernistas”.

8

World – which although never executed was a collaborative project that included

Andrade’s plot, Amaral’s costume design and Heitor Villa-Lobos’s music – it can be said

that Brazilians in Paris subdued the hegemonic traits of early 20th century modernism.8

Thanks to the couple, many Europeans had the opportunity to form views on

Brazilian cultural production, and to process them within their work. From 1924 onwards,

Cendrars visited Brazil a few times, travelling with the couple to the State of Minas Gerais

to explore the national baroque and vernacular. Without these trips and the exchanges

they implied, Cendrars would not have gathered the experiences that led him to produce

several works.9 In São Paulo, Cendrars participated in the exhibition/conference

Tendências da Estética Contemporânea, and Benjamin Péret to the conference L’ Ésprit

Moderne: du Simbolism au Realisme. Hospitality and networking support were also

offered to Hermann Keyserling, Josephine Baker and Le Corbusier (1929).10

Indeed Amaral and Andrade’s socio-cultural fabric seem to have been woven in ways

which are unpreoccupied with issues of peripheral cultural dependency from the centre.

To devour the European here is far more related to the symbolic act of communion with a

valuable ‘other’, than to a bellicose attitude against an enemy. Yet Antropofagia retained

the combativeness of cannibalism’s literal dimension, releasing it by means of attacking

the local cultural arena rather than the global one.

Devouring the Academies

The anthropophagic conflictual stance was mainly directed towards the local aesthetic-

literary environment. If supremacy was to be overturned, then it had to be the one held

by the Brazilian academies – and in relation to this particular issue, Antropofagia was the

definitive battle within a war that began in the mid-1910s.11 The diatribe was still vitriolic

8 Aracy Amaral’s (2003) study discusses this project, and is perhaps the most valuable example of a bibliography on Tarsila do Amaral and Andrade’s collaborations and interactions with other modernists working in the French capital. 9 According to Waldman (2011), Cendrars’ stays in Brazil resulted in the writings of Moravagine, Éloge de la Vie Dangereuse, of poems for Sud-Americaines (all in 1926), and of a chapter of Les Confessions de Dan Yack (1929). Sources of inspiration and an intense and convivial integration with the Brazilian intellectual and aesthetic-literary elite occurred owing also to Cendrars participation in the Caravana Paulista (1924). 10 Les Corbusier was introduced to Brazilian coffee baron, industrialist and literary modernist Paulo Prado as a consequence of the friendship and intellectual affinities between Amaral, Andrade and Cendrars. Prado sponsored the architect’s trip to Brazil, having Le Corbusier as a guest at his own residence, and introducing him to his brother, Antônio Prado Júnior, who at the time was the mayor of Rio de Janeiro. The connection allowed Le Corbusier to work for Antônio on projects involving the restyling of the city. Further, both Cendrars and Le Corbusier were remunerated for the series of lectures they gave in Brazi l – all of which fostered intense and productive exchanges. 11 The Landmark of such war has been attributed to Anita Malfatti’s first major Brazilian exhibition (1917) upon her return from a training period in Europe and the USA. The academic reply to Malfatti’s initiative harshly stated that ‘modernism […] was merely a movement that caricaturised colour and form without committing to rendering a comic idea, aiming only at “bewildering and fooling the spectator”’’. ‘[M]odernismo […] era apenas um movimento caricatural da cor e da forma, sem o compromisso de ressaltar uma idéia cômica mas visando, unicamente, “desnortear e aparvalhar o espectador”’ (Luz, 2010, p. 79).

9

shortly before the modern art week of February 1922, as in September 1921 Monteiro

Lobato refused to publish Paulicéia Desvairada, the book in which Mário de Andrade

announced the directives of Brazil’s literary modernism.12

Lobato’s stance is a typical example of what the Brazilian academies thought of the

young, local avant-garde abroad. The foreign experience, he claimed:

‘instead of refining the nationalism of vocations, […] makes them Francophile,

because for the sake of national imbecility, France is still the world. It pulls the

State out of the youngster, eradicating him/her from the native land to throw

him/her into the Quartier Latin, with the tips of his/her roots broken’ (Camargos,

2003, p. 139).13

This witnesses the xenophobic nationalism with which the dominant strand of Brazil’s

cultural elite was trying to outline the idea and the image of modern Brazilian artistic-

literary production.

Paradoxically to this anti-Europeanism, Lobato’s regionalism heavily relied on colonial

exoticism. This was apparent in his descriptions of mixed-ethnicity people such as the

Caboclo, which claimed that this minority was deprived of will and aesthetic sense, ugly

and grotesque; the ‘priest of the Great Law of the Minimum Effort’, the one who lives

with what nature gives him, without wasting energy to achieve any goal in life (Lobato,

1914, p.?).14 Further, his characters Jeca Tatú and Saci-Pererê were not elevated to

valuable symbols of popular culture; seen through the Eurocentric eye, they were merely

treated as despicable tokens of indolence resulting from a lower racial and genetic nature

– worsened by the lack of hygiene and health. Judging by Lobato’s endeavours, the

academies were unwilling to realise that, as opposed to Antropofagia, they were

depicting the native and the popular as uncivilised and backwards due to the untied knot

with which the white-Brazilian elite was still fastened to the country’s colonial past – and

therefore inexorably bounded to that French matrix it so vehemently abhorred.

With its valorisation of the fundamental value system of the native, and its

emancipation of popular culture, Antropofagia antagonised the academies’ xenophobic

12 Monteiro Lobato was a strong exponent of 1920s Brazil’s aesthetic-literary establishment. He was an internationally distinguished author at the time, an authoritative art critic and he also ran an editing house. By 1922 his literary career was sufficiently outstanding for him to run for chair no. 11 of The Brazilian Academy of Literature, subsequent to the death of Pedro Lessa. Moreover, in the same year, the North American, Isaac Goldberg dedicated a chapter of his book Brazilian Literature to Lobato’s oeuvre. 13 “[A]o invés de apurar o nacionalismo das vocações, […] afrancesa-as, porque, para a imbecilidade nacional, o mundo é ainda a França. Pega o Estado no rapaz, arranca-o da terra natal e dá com ele no Quartier Latin, com o peão da raiz arrebentado”. 14 ‘[S]acerdote da Grande Lei do Menor Esforço.’

10

approach to the European ‘other’; their lack of self-criticism towards the fact that their

depictions of Brazil heavily relied on those Eurocentric structures of socio-cultural

discrimination inherited from colonialism. If Andrade (1928, p. 312) advocated: ‘down

with all the importers of canned conscience’, this was because, by 1928, ’canned

conscience’ was no longer a prerogative of the European settled in the Brazilian colony,

as it had already been transformed into Brazil’s own white-elite mentality. By shifting the

blame away from the ‘exporters’, therefore from the Europeans, Antropofagia was

attacking the segments of Brazil’s ideological heritage brought from Europe but

nevertheless turned into ‘Brazilianness’ within the post-colony. Hence, Andrade’s

statement must be interpreted as a key insight on the movement’s intention to supplant

academia and its parroting the European canon.

As an attack on ‘a burdensome colonial baggage, […] patriarchal society

[and]…intellectual rhetoric that mimicked the metropolis and succumbed to foreign

ways’, Antropofagia implied an inward critique of that parcel of Brazilian society unable to

overcome the reproduction of the colonial discourse within the Republican reality (Nunes,

2004, p. 85). Both envisioning and tackling the issue of coloniality, the Manifesto

Antropófago, advocated: ‘Down with antagonical sublimations. Brought into caravels. But

them who came were not crusaders. They were fugitives from a civilisation that we are

now devouring’ (Andrade, 1928, p. 312). 15 It was the post-colony’s heritage, brought to

Brazil in caravels a few centuries earlier, that needed to be questioned; what Andrade’s

contemporary Brazil needed to devour were the traces of its own dark past. Antropofagia

wanted to ravage – as in the case of cannibalism in its physical and aggressive sense –

the European in the Brazilian, not the European in Europe.

Anthropophagic Foresight

Antropofagia represents a form of Critical Regionalism for standing, under its own

terms, at the crossroad between the roots of a particular place, and the impact of

universal civilisation. The most distinctive anthropophagic trait is that the movement

neither represented a stylistic appropriation of the ‘primitive’, nor an idealised return to a

preindustrial past. This is one of the conclusions that surfaced from our concern with

revising the anthropophagic ethos. Another is that the movement represented a take on

the ‘primitive’ equidistant from that of both periphery and centre.

15 The notion of coloniality is articulated by Peruvian sociologist and political theorist Anibal Quijano. It entails the reproduction of the colonial system of domination and power within post-colonial realities and their geo-cultural identities. Such a system was historically constructed on the grounds of race discrimination, serfdom and unwaged work, and forced the colonised to learn the rules and discourse of the coloniser. Coloniality therefore is generated by the colonisation of cognitive perspectives, modes of producing and attributing meaning, material existence, the imaginary and the sphere of intersubjective relations within the socius and its unceasing activity even after the colony has finally achieved its political and economic independence.

11

The anthropophagic treatment of the cannibal entailed a new approach to

international networks and intellectual migrations, and a stop to the continuity with which

Brazilian aesthetic-literary production, given its historic sense of subaltern dependency,

had until it then related to the European one. Indeed Antropofagia propelled the core

values of an ancient local society into Brazil’s modernising reality, as much as it

transformed those values in a formula with which it was possible to consciously hybridise

the arts of the centre, and thus question the homogenising character of universalist

expansion.

Antropofagia, from our viewpoint, managed to be a form of collaborative

cosmopolitanism within the global aesthetic-literary cluster that emerged in the early 20th

century for thinking, like the cannibal in the anthropophagic act, about seeing the ‘self’

like the ‘other’; ‘a point of view that represents the best corner from which to see

oneself’ (Castro, 2002, p. 281).16 It joined international trends in ways that, although not

confrontational, antagonised the hegemonic traits of European modernism and the

modern emancipative project by inscribing the ideological voice of Brazil’s autochthonous

people into the colonial discourse.

We also show that the level of critical awareness of Amaral and Andrade surfaces

from the measure in which they fought the tenets of Brazil’s white-European high culture,

rejecting the latter’s colonialism-engendered categorisation of the native, Afro-Brazilian

and mixed-ethnicities’ cultural practises as ‘less advanced, primitive, or, at the very best,

exotically interesting at a safe distance’ (Frampton, 1983, p. 22). This is indeed another

perspective from which Antropofagia anticipates Frampton’s Arrière-Garde - although the

latter seems mainly preoccupied with universal civilisation from without (i.e. neo-

colonialism), whereas the former shifts the attention to universal civilisation from within

(i.e. coloniality). Cannibalism, intended as material, rather than a symbolic practice, was

a bellicose local affair.

16 ‘[U]m ponto de vista que representa o ângulo melhor de visão de si mesmo’.

12

References

Amaral A. A. (2003). Tarsila: Sua Obra e Seu Tempo. São Paulo: Editora 34 and Edusp

Andrade O. de (1928). “Anthropophagite Manifesto”. In: Ades, D. (1989), Art in Latin

America - the Modern Era, 1820-1980. London: South Bank Centre.

Andrade O. de (1945). “Informe sobre o Modernismo”. In: Boaventura M. E. (org.)

(1991), Oswald de Andrade, Estética e Política, Obras Completas. São Paulo: Editora

Globo.

Belting H. (2011), “World Art and Global Art: A New Challenge to Art History”. At: The AICA Symposium on Global Art (2011), Salzburg.

Camargos M. (2003). “Uma República nos Moldes Franceses”. In: Revista USP n.59,

September/November. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo (USP).

Castro E. V. de (2002). A Incostância da Alma Selvagem e Outros Ensaios de Antropologia. São Paulo: Cosac & Naify

Cocco G. (2009). Mundo-Braz: O Devir-Mundo do Brasil e o Devir-Brasil do Mundo, Rio

de Janeiro e São Paulo: Editora Record.

Frampton K. (1983). "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of

Resistance". In: Foster H. (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic - Essays on Postmodern Culture. Seattle: Bay Press.

Goldwater R. (1967). Primitivism in Modern Art. New York: Vintage Books

Leclercq S. (2006). “The Surrealist Appropriation of “Indigenous” Art”. In: Arts &

Societies, Editorial of November 2006. Available at: http:/www.artssocietes.org [Last accessed in 17/10/2011]

Lobato M. (1914). “Urupês”. In: Jornal o Estado de São Paulo, 23/12/1914. São Paulo.

Luz. A. A. da (2010). “Arte Moderna do Século XX”. In: História da Arte no Brasil –

Textos de Síntese. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.

Nunes B. (2004). “Anthropophagic Utopia, Barbarian Metaphysics”. In: Ramírez M. C.,

Olea H. et al. (2004). Inverted Utopias - Avant-Garde Art in Latin America. New Haven

and London: Yale University Press in association with the Museum of Fine Arts, Huston.

Quijano A. (2000). “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America”. In: Nepantla - Views from South 1.3. Durham: Duke University Press.

Ricoeur P. (1955). “Universal Civilization and National Cultures”. In: History and Truth

(1965). Evanston: Northwestener University Press.

Waldman T. C. (2011). “Espaços de Paulo Prado: Tradição e Modernismo”. In: Arteologie,

n. 1, Dossier Thématique: Brésil, Questions sur le Modernisme.