“Les Sud-américains de Paris. Latin American Artists and Cultural Resistance in Robho...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Plante, Isabel]On: 5 July 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 923846429]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Third TextPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713448411

Les Sud-américains de Paris: Latin American Artists and CulturalResistance in Robho MagazineIsabel Plante

Online publication date: 05 July 2010

To cite this Article Plante, Isabel(2010) 'Les Sud-américains de Paris: Latin American Artists and Cultural Resistance inRobho Magazine', Third Text, 24: 4, 445 — 455To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09528822.2010.491375URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2010.491375

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713448411

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2010.491375

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Third Text, Vol. 24, Issue 4, July, 2010, 445–455

Third Text ISSN 0952-8822 print/ISSN 1475-5297 online © Third Text (2010)http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/09528822.2010.491375

Les Sud-américains de ParisLatin American Artists and Cultural

Resistance in Robho Magazine1

Isabel Plante

The editorial article written by Jean Clay in the first issue of Robhomagazine in 1967 was entitled ‘La peinture est finie’. The cover wasshared by two artists who, among others, were responsible for conveyingthe impression that painting was an activity in extinction: VenezuelanJesús Rafael Soto and the Argentinian Julio Le Parc, who had both beenliving in Paris for more than ten years.

According to Clay the Penetrables, developed by Soto since 1967,threatened that ‘space where we used to feel so safe’.2 Le Parc wasexploring the possibilities of kinetic art, spectator participation andcollective production, which had rewarded him with the Grand PaintingPrize at the 1966 Venice Biennale. Thus, Le Parc’s Mirrors, whosemodified reflecting surface produced alterations in perception, wereanalogous to Soto’s Penetrables. The work of art was no longer aperspectival window. Not only had it become an object with its owninternal logic; it had also turned to the spectators to challenge theirperceptive certainties. It was not about mere optical effects, arguedClay, as on this surface the spectator also projected ‘the mental space ofthe society he lives in’.3 To Clay, Kineticism had a clear political dimen-sion. Pop and Neo-dada were depicted, in that first editorial article, asthe offspring of a ‘consumer society’, in its fetishism of the artisticobject. Instead, the dematerialisation of the work of art was seen as asymbolic attempt to create an alternative system to that of consumersociety.

Edited between 1967 and 1971 by critic Jean Clay and poet JulienBlaine, Robho magazine was not – and not intended to be – a magazineon Latin American art. Its editorial articles introduced an internationalscope of art issues. The magazine project rather aimed to shed light onthe cultural resistance to American-style capitalist expansion. In thisapproach, artists such as Daniel Buren, Hans Haacke, David Medalla,Daniel Spoerri or Takis were leading figures, together with a significantnumber of Latin American artists. With graphic design by VenezuelanCarlos Cruz-Diez, the magazine’s central articles were devoted to Madi

1. A shorter version of this article was presented at the symposium ‘Latin American Art and the UK, 1960s to the Present’, Department of Art History and Theory, University of Essex, England, 26 April 2008.

2. Jean Clay, ‘Soto, de l’art optique à l’art cinétique’, in Soto, Denise René, Paris, 1967

3. Jean Clay, ‘Les miroirs de Le Parc’ (1967), in Julio Le Parc: Experiencias 30 años, 1958–1988, Secretaría de Cultura de la Nación/Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Buenos Aires, 1988, p 179

Downloaded By: [Plante, Isabel] At: 16:47 5 July 2010

446

Cover of Robho 1, June 1967, © Robho


447

art, Soto, Le Parc, Cruz-Diez, Lygia Clark and the Argentinian collectiveexperience Tucumán Arde (Tucumán Burns).

In 1968, Christiane Duparc stated in a high-circulation magazine thatLatin Americans had conquered Paris. The journalist, also a Robhocontributor and Jean Clay’s wife, analysed the different arts. In perform-ing arts, Jorge Lavelli, Víctor García, Jerôme Savary and Copi (RaúlDamonte Botana); in literature, Julio Cortázar and Ernesto Sábato; invisual arts, Carlos Cruz-Diez, Jesús Rafael Soto, Julio Le Parc, WifredoLam, Roberto Matta, Sergio de Camargo and Luis Tomasello. The arti-cle focused not only on the recognised quality of these artists, but ontheir habits.

It is a cultural island where pre-capitalist values such as friendship, soli-darity, affection and virility still prevail, values which are difficult to findin the consumer society in which, right or wrong, we try to stay afloat.These indolent people who have no timetables, these obstinate and tire-less country folks definitively have something to teach us.4

Christiane Duparc, ‘Les sud-américains ont pris Paris’, Le Nouvel Adam 19, February 1968, © RobhoLeaving aside the primitivist flavour of Duparc’s remark, the image sheoffered was well grounded. Toward the end of the 1960s, the number ofLatin American immigrants increased relative to the previous twentyyears.5 And although this number was not significant compared with,for example, North African immigration, the Latin American commu-nity became more visible to the French cultural elites. The large percent-age of intellectuals enhanced its public profile.

At the same time, the Cuban revolution was the focal point ofFrench anti-imperialist attention, contributing to the replacement of theUSSR by the Third World in the revolutionary imaginary. As KristinRoss points out, identification with the worker and the guerrilla fighterwas a key factor in the politicisation process of French youth.6 Thisimage of the Latin American people as a quite homogeneous culturalcommunity (somewhere between pre-capitalist and revolutionary) wasnot unrelated to the configuration by New Continent intellectuals of aLatin Americanism grounded on solidarity with the Cuban experience.7

However, the aforementioned artists were neither political exilesnor guerrilla fighters. Even so, it may be thought that belongingculturally to Latin America carried particular connotations within thecontext of the crisis of French modernisation in the 1960s, mainly forthose who regarded the latter as the triumph of the consumer societyor simply as the Americanisation of France. This article attempts toanalyse Robho magazine’s selection and interpretation of the work ofLatin American artists during this period dominated by the events ofMay 1968.

During May 1968 in France, politics exerted such magnetism onculture that the latter was displaced from its specific domain. This wasthe case of the Atelier Populaire, where the renowned posters in supportof mass mobilisation were produced. Robho did not review this activity,but some months before it had published an article by Le Parc entitled‘¿Cultural Guerrilla?’ in which the artist declared the need to takeaction. Soon afterwards, he joined the Atelier Populaire. In turn, Robhomagazine supported an art that it considered non-bourgeois, but chosethe way of art specificity because it trusted in the transforming potential

4. Christiane Duparc, ‘Les sud-américains ont pris Paris’, Le Nouvel Adam, 19, February 1968, p 46

5. If in 1946 there were around 3,800 Latin-Americans living in France, by 1968 there were more than 9,800. The number doubled after coups d’états in Chile and Argentina. Denis Rolland and Marie-Hélène Touzalin, ‘Un miroir déformant? Les latino-américains à Paris depuis 1945’, in Le Paris des étrangers depuis 1945, eds Antoine Marès and Pierre Milza, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris, 1994, pp 263–91.

6. Kristin Ross, May ’68 and Its Afterlife, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002

7. See Claudia Gilman, Entre la pluma y el fusil: Debates y dilemas del escritor revolucionario en América Latina, Siglo Veintiuno, Buenos Aires, 2003


448

Christiane Duparc, ‘Les sud-américains ont pris Paris’, Le Nouvel Adam 19, February 1968, © Robho


449


450

of an expanded art, of a savage art. And, as we will see later, future crit-icism on Robho magazine was to be based on this claim.

IS KINETICISM AN ACADEMICISM?

In May 1967, the opening of the Kinetic art exhibition ‘Lumière etmouvement’ was celebrated in Paris, with a strong Latin American pres-ence and attended by a large number of people.8 Some time later,Robho’s second issue asked if Kineticism was already another Academi-cism. The works of art of Soto, Takis, Cruz-Diez, Le Parc and Haackewere diluted in the midst of what Clay saw as ‘the trend of the littleengine or the little lightbulb’.9 This great misunderstanding, whichequated Kineticism with leisure, argued Clay, neutralised the criticalpower of Kinetic works.

The release of Robho magazine coincided with the growth of theart market and aesthetic and political radicalisation. This two-waypath provides elements to contextualise not only Clay’s contradictionswith regard to the business success of Kinetic Art,10 but also thosecontradictions posed to Le Parc. The interview with this Argentinianartist in Robho’s first issue included thorny subjects such as thecontradictions between the hostility towards a traditional art and hisbelonging to an art gallery, or between the collective work of theGroupe de Recherche d’Art Visuel (GRAV, Visual Art ResearchGroup) and the individual recognition achieved by Le Parc at theVenice Biennial. In this sense, Clay adopted a strategy similar to theartist’s: maintaining acceptable discourse in high-circulation publica-tions, he attempted to resolve contradictions within Robho. Thus,from the third issue onwards, he announced that the magazine wouldnot accept advertising.

As I have already mentioned, Le Parc joined the Atelier Populaire.For their part, the supporters of an art engagé attacked Kineticism. Butharmony did not reign among Kinetic artists, either. An exhibition atDenise René Gallery in 1969 exposed the tensions among them. Inresponse to Le Parc and Armando Durante’s declared intention toexhibit artworks, including ‘ideological texts’ (one of them consisted of apanel on which Le Parc glued the text ‘Demystify art’),11 non-negotiabledifferences were raised and Soto sent the following telegram:

Let’s not confuse the sacrifice of dead Guevara in the Bolivian jungle withthe lazy pamphlet makers of Paris. With a bit of talent and clear convic-tions we can be artists and revolutionaries at the same time. Pleaseexhibit my telegram.12

Guevara was a referent for both popes of Kineticism. The problem washow to spread these convictions without relinquishing the achievedconquests in the artistic field. Soto had donated a work to the Support-ing Committee of May Movements, but this support did not implyaesthetic changes. Differences would not be solved overnight: neither the‘denouncing’ works nor the telegram was included in the exhibition.13

A professional rivalry was added to this friction between Soto andLe Parc. In the letters he addressed to Lygia Clark, Helio Oiticica

8. Antonio Asís, Martha Boto, Sérgio de Camargo, Carlos Cruz-Diez, Narciso Debourg, Hugo Demarco, Armando Durante, Horacio García-Rossi, Ana María Gatti, Gyula Kosice, Julio Le Parc, Jesús Rafael Soto, Luis Tomasello and Gregorio Vardánega were among the thirty-nine participants.

9. Jean Clay, ‘Le cinétisme est-il un académisme?’, Robho, 2, November/December 1967, p 2

10. See Jean-Paul Ameline, ‘Denise René: historie d’une galerie, 1961–1978’, and Véronique Wiesinger, ‘L’art cinétique dans la guerre des marchés: De l’hommage à New York à l’ouverture du Centre Georges Pompidou, 1969–1977’, in Denise René l’intrépide: Une galerie dans l’aventure de l’art abstrait 1944–1978, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2001.

11. Published as Julio Le Parc, ‘Démystifier l’art’, Opus International, 8, October 1968, pp 46–8. Le Parc still has it at his studio.

12. Telegram dated 17 June 1969, in Soto, Galerie Nationale Jeu de Paume/Réunion des musées nationaux, Paris, 1997, p 203

13. See ‘Exposition-position’, Denise René, Paris, July–September 1969.


451

emphatically referred to it as ‘that shitty competition between Soto andLe Parc’.14 Both artists had an exclusive contract with Dense René and,while Le Parc had won the Venetian Prize, Soto had been another favou-rite in Venice and had been entrusted with important works, such as amural for the Parisian UNESCO building. In this sense, we should notforget that although these artists had arrived in Paris in the steps of themodern, they were also intent on proving themselves in the internationalarena. Che Guevara’s murder and May ’68 in France found them at thetop of their careers, and posed new challenges for them to face.

14. Letter from Helio Oiticica to Lygia Clark 7 June 1969, in Lygia Clark – Helio Oiticic: Cartas 1964–74, ed Luciano Figueiredo, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, 1996

‘Exposition Robho’, back cover of Robho 3, spring 1968, © Robho


452

PROPOSITIONS AND POLITICS

The back cover of Robho’s third issue, published in March 1968,announced an ‘Exhibition Robho’. With the concept of ‘the ephemeral’as a common thread, this exhibition aimed at encouraging the produc-tion of works that went beyond their limits and gave rise to ‘incontrolla-ble chain reactions’.15 Further on, the reader would realise that it was aproject ‘available’ for those interested in making it happen. If ‘instability’had been Kineticism’s slogan,16 Robho was doubling the bet: this exhibi-

15. Anonymous, ‘L’éphémère et la suite: Une exposition Robho’, Robho, 3, spring 1968, p 22

16. L’Instabilité was the name of the first GRAV exhibition at Denise René in 1962.

Cover of Robho 4, fourth trimester 1968, © Robho


453

tion had not even taken place. The fictitious event comprised Soto’sPenetrables, Carl André’s floors in which spectators intervened, worksto be destroyed or eaten, figurative and tachist paintings to be changedto monochromes and vice versa, works to condition spectators (Clark’ssensorial masks, Oiticica’s Parangolés, Cruz-Diez’s odoriferous corri-dors), and an atelier for plagiarising works.‘Exposition Robho’, back cover of Robho 3, spring 1968, © RobhoTwo months later a chain reaction did occur, the consequences ofwhich could not have been anticipated. May 1968 served as a catalyst foragreements and disagreements in relation to viable crossings between artsand politics – and Robho also felt the impact of the revolts. Although thefourth issue (released at the end of 1968) kept its modern design, not onlyhad the cover lost symmetry and visual cleanness, it also presented animage which was foreign to the artistic field: the photograph of one of thetwo black American athletes, winners of the 200-metre final at theMexico 1968 Olympics, who had raised his fist on the Olympic podiumas a sign of support for the Black Panther movement.17 Over the photo,in white text on black, it said: ‘Guerrilla Theatre’. Within its pages, therewere fewer geometric and kinetic works. In their place there was a multi-plication of more recent artistic and theatre experiences.Cover of Robho 4, fourth trimester 1968, © RobhoIts editorial article, entitled ‘Against the Harmless Artist’, ended witha claim to give up autonomy and integrate art to ‘the heart of social real-ity’.18 Clay chose his words carefully. He did not use the term ‘politics’because it was associated with ‘protest paintings’, which he consideredeasily assimilable by the system.19 Instead, the concept of propositionused by Lygia Clark, to whom the special dossier was dedicated, openedalternative ways to reach politics from art.

Clark had lived in Paris since October 1968, but her turn to the prop-ositions had begun in Brazil with works such as Walking (1964) or theseries The House is the Body (1967). Her work was more introspectivethan that of the Kinetic artists and no longer fitted in at the Denise RenéGallery. In this sense, her contact with Clay was crucial, as he helped herwith the sale of her work, facilitated her carrying out the propositions ata psychiatric clinic and contributed to the visibility of her works andwritings.20 In addition, Clay also took part in her group propositions.The relationship between them took the shape of an interchange of ideasand experiences.21

Clay sympathised with the way in which Lygia Clark linked arts andpolitics; it offered an experiential strategy to resist French modernisa-tion. Because, if May ’68 in France consisted mainly of a ‘declassifica-tion’, as Kristin Ross suggested, a transitory erasing of the subjects’habitual functions (students stopped studying, workers stopped work-ing, intellectuals stopped debating), the group experiences developed byClark from 1968 onwards can be understood in terms of micro-attemptsat dis-identification.

TUCUMAN BURNS IN PARIS

From Vietnam theatre to Puerto Rican theatre in New York, passingthrough the Argentine radicals, the Brazilian tropicalists, the ExplodingGalaxy of London, a geological fissure seems to have opened andexpanded beneath commodity civilization and the aesthetics it has

17. The International Olympic Committee considered that gesture disrespectful and suspended the two athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos.

18. Jean Clay, ‘Contre l’artiste inoffensif’, Robho, 4, fourth trimester 1968, p 4

19. Ibid

20. See letters from Lygia Clark to Helio Oiticica dated 20 May 1970 and 31 March 1971, in Figueiredo, op cit. Clark’s activity moved definitively into the field of the therapeutic when she went back to Brazil in 1976.

21. Clark mentions his presence in her propositions in her letters to Oiticica.


454

engendered: that of material value. Elsewhere, new values are born:collective and mass action, non-property, spontaneity, direct capture ofthe real… savage art.22

Robho’s fifth and sixth issues were released near the end of 1971. Fromits content, we can see two trends slipping through that ‘geologicalfissure’. On the one hand, experiences exploring perception: Oiticica,Clark, Rubens Gerchman, John Dugger and Lygia Pape;23and on the otherhand, a horizon of interventions moving from the field of art towards thefield of politics, such as Tucumán Arde and the confrontation episodeswith the MoMA.24 If we analyse why, according to Clay, the artists ofTucumán Arde were ‘Marx and Mondrian’s children’, we will be able tofollow the line of thought related to such different practices.

According to Clay, Clark’s appropriation of the Moebius strip for itsheretical use in ephemeral works signified not a disruption in ConcreteArt but a continuity. Clay also saw this same genealogy in TucumánArde. Nevertheless, this experience bordered on sociology and it did notengage with the modern art tradition of self-reflection but instead aimedto encourage critical thinking about society through the appropriation ofobjects and meanings coming from diverse contexts.25 In this sense, theywere Duchamp’s offspring rather than Mondrian’s. However, as we haveseen, the intellectual history of Clay himself was rooted in Kineticism, aKineticism that had turned to face the spectator.

In September 1968, Clay had travelled to Buenos Aires, invited to jointhe jury – together with Lucy Lippard – for the salon called ‘Materials:new techniques, new expression’, sponsored by the Argentinian IndustrialUnion. Even though neither the group from Rosario city nor those artistsliving in Buenos Aires who were preparing the experience known asTucumán Arde were part of this salon,26 Clay and Lippard had the oppor-tunity to meet them. Once back in Paris, Clay wrote to Le Parc thathis trip to Argentina had fascinated him and that he would publish anArgentinian version of Robho in partnership with Jorge Glusbergcontaining ten pages translated from the French version and another tenpages produced in Spanish. Clay also said that they would begin with ‘thegroup of Margarita Paksa and Pablo Suárez: very exciting!’.27 They werenot able to realise this publishing project, but some time later the Frenchcritic published seven pages of photos and texts on Tucumán Arde as oneof Robho’s dossiers.28

Latin American conceptualist practices added strategies against theNorth American advance, which Clay and a good number of Frenchintellectuals considered to be invading not only Vietnam or Brazil, butalso Europe.29 In this international horizon, the works produced by the‘Sud-américains de Paris’ (and by other artists who had not crossed theocean), which were strongly represented in Robho, had a specific –although difficult to define – contribution to cultural resistance.

CRITIQUE OF CRITICISM

If Robho’s attitude was non-conformist, it was not alone. Several groupsof artists oriented their activities to criticise the Fine Arts system and theofficial cultural initiatives. And in the same way that Robho sided with

22. ‘Dossier Argentine: Tucuman brûle. Les fils de Marx et Mondrian’, Robho, 5–6, second trimester 1971, pp 16–22

23. Anonymous, ‘Unité du champ perceptif: interaction des corps: architectures vivantes: pivots humains: pratique tribale’, and Lygia Clark, ‘Le corps est la maison: sexualité: envahissement du “territoire individuel”, Robho, 5–6, second trimester 1971

24. On the growing opposition to MoMA, see Francis Frascina, ‘My Lai, Guernica, MoMA and the art left, New York 1969–70’, in Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999.

25. Andrea Giunta, ‘Arte y (re)presión: Cultura crítica y prácticas conceptuales en la Argentina’, in Arte, historia e identidad en América: Visiones comparativas, vol 3, UNAM, Mexico, 1994

26. The collective work was already projected. They had discussed ideas in August, before Clay arrived. The exhibitions held at the Confederación General de Trabajo de los Argentinos in Rosario and Buenos Aires took place in November 1968. The artists were Pablo Suárez, Margarita Paksa, León Ferrari, Roberto Jacoby, Alfredo Rodríguez Arias and Juan Stoppani. Ana Longoni and Mariano Mestman, Del Di Tella a ‘Tucumán Arde’: Vanguardia artística y política en el ‘68 argentino, El cielo por asalto, Buenos Aires, 2000, p 113.

27. Letter from Jean Clay to Julio Le Parc, 2 October 1968, Le Parc Archives in Paris

28. Longoni and Mestman maintain that Jacoby gave Clay the materials on Tucumán Arde.


455

the criticism against cultural institutions, the magazine was itself chal-lenged. An anonymous pamphlet called ‘Open letter to Robho’ claimedthat the little team from ‘Robho-Moma’ was also deciding its content inan authoritarian way.30 To do away with restrictions on which artistswere featured, this pamphlet (which imitated the format of Robho)proposed to restructure the magazine as a publication of excludedgroups of artists (Salon de la Jeune Peinture, Amérique Latine non-offi-cielle). In this way, Robho would recover its so-called anti-establishmentcharacter.

However, the magazine was never to be published again. It wasunlikely that Robho would have become a vehicle for the ‘anonymousvoices’ who called for a say, because the magazine was grounded on theconvictions of its creator, Jean Clay. If some of the concerns in thecontemporary theory of culture were related to the death of the author(or the birth of the spectator), Robho embodied the tensions producedby that death. The experience of May 1968 had left its mark on intellec-tual production. In Michel Foucault’s words:

What intellectuals have discovered after the recent avalanche is thatmasses do not need them in order to know; they clearly know, they knowmuch better than them. But there is a system of power which forbids,which invalidates that knowledge… Intellectuals themselves are part ofthat system of power.31

The collective impugnment of Robho carried some of that distrusttowards representativity. According to the artistic community, the maga-zine could not be restricted to the discourse of two or three critics only;it should become a forum where artists and cultural associations couldexpress themselves without mediation.

But Robho and the cultural productions promoted by this magazinein terms of the ‘geological fissure’ in the artistic field during the 1960swere generated and appreciated by a group not much larger than theartistic community itself.32 Certainly, the conviction that the drifting ofartwork into art actions would give rise to a wider audience and a higherpoliticisation – a process described by Mari Carmen Ramírez in relationto Latin American conceptualism – was also assumed by Robho.33 Thosewho were aware of this tried to overcome their own ambiguities withactivities such as the ‘Open Letter to Robho’.

As we have seen, Latin American artistic production occupied acentral place in Robho. Indeed, the number of Latin American artistswho succeeded in Paris was significant; and although we should nothomogenise their reasons for migration, it is still worth considering thatthey were not merely seeking the epicentre of modernity or the ‘spring-board to fame’. Aware that New York had stolen the idea of modern art(paraphrasing Serge Guilbaut), they were also drawn to what the City ofLight implied in political terms. And while this may not have been thecase at the beginning, in the midst of the politicisation process, being aLatin American in Paris increasingly implied taking part in the culturalresistance against imperialism.

The translation of French into Spanish was done by Isabel Plante; and the wholepaper was translated from Spanish into English by Vanesa Frejtman.

29. On the rise of French anti-Americanism, see Richard Kuisel, ‘Détente: Debating America in the 1960s’, in Seducing the French: The Dilemma of Americanization, University of California Press, Berkeley–Los Angeles, 1993.

30. Lettre ouverte à Robho, June 1971, Le Parc Archives. Le Parc has kept the manuscript of the open letter, which was signed by Gérard Fromanger, Merri Jolivet and himself.

31. Michel Foucault, ‘Los intelectuales y el poder: Entrevista Foucault-Deleuze’ (1972), in Microfísica del poder, La Piqueta, Madrid, 1992, p 85

32. In total, 1,650 copies of the third issue were printed. Letter from Jean Clay to Le Parc, 2 October 1968, op cit.

33. Mari Carmen Ramírez, ‘Tactics for thriving on adversity: Conceptualism in Latin America, 1960–1980’, in Global Conceptualism: Points of Origin, 1950s–1980s, Queens Museum of Art, New York, 1999


“Les Sud-américains de Paris. Latin American Artists and Cultural Resistance in Robho...

Documents

Transcript of “Les Sud-américains de Paris. Latin American Artists and Cultural Resistance in Robho...