User:Madelinesharris15/sandbox

Otra figuración

Introduction
Otra figuración was a short-lived yet highly influential artistic movement in Argentina roughly between the years 1961-1966 led by artists Luis Felipe Noé, Ernesto Deira, Rómulo Macció, and Jorge de la Vega. These four Argentinian artists started a studio in Buenos Aires in the early 60s, drawn together by their shared ideologies surrounding civic engagement in a chaotic and tumultuous socio-political context, caught between the 1955 overthrow of Perón and the constant power vacuums that led up to the 1966 military coup, and parallel artistic visions. This artistic vision consisted of a desire to reintroduce the figure to art, largely in response to the geometric abstractionism of previous decades failed to communicate the deep truths about life and social/political realities that they thirsted for in an oppressive political context. In this way, these artists reintroduced figuration, but with a non-traditional twist that sought to break away from Renaissance-style naturalism and instead introduced a fractured, fragmented, anti-aesthetic, and distorted style. Furthermore, this fragmentation proposed an ideological transition from modernity to postmodernity. With unclear figures appearing in their works, the Otra figuración artists left emotional connection and interpretation up to individual spectators, recognizing that they each superimpose their unique social identities and perspectives upon the work. Otra figuración’s first exhibition was in 1961 at the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes (National Art Museum /) in Buenos Aires, after which it became recognized as “Argentina’s leading art movement.” Noé is credited for naming the movement, in reference to the French art critic Michel Tapié, who had called for “a truly ‘other art’ that was neither abstract nor literally figurative.”

Luis Felipe Noé (1933-)
Noé, like his three peers, spent time in Europe, where they were each stylistically inspired. Unlike some of his peers who were self-taught, however, he was originally trained in painting. Upon returning to Argentina in 1961, he joined his three friends in establishing this artistic movement from Argentina, with the hope of developing a new style that combined abstraction with figuration and engaged spectators with their realities, both individually and socio-politically. Noé saw art as “an instrument of history” and wanted to find absolute artistic freedom in “escap[ing] all rules”. A distinct element of his works is that they contain allusions to urban life, emphasizing the external world, yet simultaneously representing “inner oppression” as well. Noé’s artistic style also developed in such a way that he paralleled Berni’s concretist influences and used tangible elements in his work. Later in his career, he produced a work “composed of hinged doors, reversed canvases, and painted images”. For Noé, the personal experience of the spectator is paramount, and he often created works that invited some level of active spectator participation or interaction with his art.

Ernesto Deira (1928-1986)
Unlike Noé, Deira was originally trained as a lawyer, but began painting in his twenties. His most notable artistic influence was Goya, with whom he shared the idea that the artists engage his or her tumultuous context and confront the difficult social justice issues at hand. Deira at one point was a professor in the United States at Cornell University. Stylistically, his art introduces “liberty into the figure,” and, like Noé, seeks freedom in breaking with traditional stylistic norms. Because of this Deira was known to bring a rebellious attitude to his work, and justified his unique style by saying: “Because I am not a realist. Because I believe in free people. Because I believe… because I want to save myself,”. His painting exhibits a postmodern understanding of reality and identity, since his works are meant to be experienced differently by each individual. His chaotic style proposes, in a sense, an inherently meaningless chaos that the viewer, superimposing his or her personal experience and identity onto the work, attributes their meaning to.

Rómulo Macció (1931- )
Like his peers, Macció lived in Spain for a time, where abstractionism greatly influenced his stylistic figuration. While his peers eventually ventured away from painting, Macció always continued as a painter, using “painting” itself not just as a medium, but also as a key sensorial part of the metaphors his artwork develops. In this sense, he creates a paradox of abstract and concrete. Stylistically, Macció often employs fragmented figures, containing only faces, indicating a certain degree of alienation.

Jorge de la Vega (1930-1971)
Like Deira, de la Vega taught at Cornell University in the United States, and his work contains the concretist influences of Berni, with his use of concrete materials like “rags” and “debris” as a means of creating tension with his work. Originally, de la Vega studied architecture and then pursued art as a self-taught artist. In addition to his visual art, he was a singer-songwriter. Stylistically, de la Vega sought to produce art that was “natural” and limitless, free from formula, believing that art should imitate the improvised nature of life. De la Vega aimed to create tension with his artwork, hoping that spectators would be pushed to engage society in a new way after interacting with his account of social reality as communicated through his art.

Description of movement
As mentioned above, Otra figuración sought to reinvent art by fragmenting and distorting the figure in a style liberated from traditional naturalism, and fuse the artistic elements of abstraction and figuration. Additionally, these artists developed this new style as an engaged response to their society in a time of political chaos. Using painting and colleges as media, the four artists employed bright colors, fragmented humanoid and animal figures, and developed a style that aimed to express absolute freedom in a context of socio-political repression. Verlichak calls their genre a sort of “tormented and ironic expressionism” that seeks to engage the politics of dissent.

Campos de Concentración (Concentration Camps), Deira 1961
Deira presents undefined figures lacking identity in this work, employing a dark color scheme. Given that his typical style utilizes bold primary colors, often in large blocks of color, alongside black and white the overwhelming darkness of the painting sets a unique tone. Additionally, his use of clumpy, drippy texture in applying the paint adds dimension to the work. The theme of this work is typical for Deira— he often alludes to Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden and the Holocaust. Between the alienated and indistinguishable humanoid figures and the dark color scheme contrasted by blots of intense red, the painting communicates an overall tone of “existential anguish” and alienation, communicating the role of oppression in taking away identity—a question of particular importance for an artist ushering in an era of postmodernism.

Encrucijada (Crucifix), Macció 1962
This work epitomizes the fragmented style of Otra figuración. The contrast between the color blocks and squiggly lines, the solid, angular frame and the soft, painted image characterized by curving lines, creates a tension between reason and insanity and stillness and anxiety, Tamburrino says. The contrast in solid, primary color blocks creates a sense of three dimensional space. Overall, this work’s combination of organization and chaos parallels the political context of 1960s Argentina, in a constant state of organized chaos.

Lists

 * Ernesto Deira: “La ninfa sorprendida” (1962), “Adán y Eva” (1963), “La casa” (1964).
 * Rómulo Macció: “Hambre” (1961), “Vivir un poco cada día” (1963), “Por dentro y por fuera” (1965).
 * Jorge de la Vega: “El rescate” (1961), “Pantagra” (1962), “Caída de conciencia” (1965).
 * Luis Felipe Noé: “Convocatoria a la barbarie” (1961), “Introducción a la esperanza” (1963), “Introducción al desmadre” (1965).