MISCELLANEOUS IMPRESSIONS ON THE EXHIBITION THE UNSHATTERED
Amparo Serrano de Haro y Africa Cabanillas
The exhibition The Hatless, which has been on view until January 15 at the Fernán Gómez Cultural Center of Villa de Madrid, is the culmination of a project to recover and disseminate women related to culture, initially belonging to the Generation of ’27, which has aroused great interest in the media and among the public; not so much among specialized cultural critics. Started in 2016 with a documentary, Tània Balló, its main manager and curator of the sample, has progressively expanded the chronological period and the number of women she has dealt with with other audiovisual products, books and conferences.
The most valuable aspect of this exhibition, as of almost everything Balló organizes in relation to this matter, is the popular following that it obtains, in addition, of course, to its praiseworthy desire to produce something significant. As feminist art historians, we applaud the insistence and ambition of your projects, but we also lament those aspects of your products, those negligence or errors that crack that “historical vision” that is so necessary to adequately convey and, thus, consolidate the fundamental contribution of women -of the Republic and later times- to our culture.
To begin with, it seems to us that perhaps the fact that women artists, writers, journalists, thinkers, actresses, musicians are mixed together… It is nice to show the enormous boiling and richness of female vocations in all the arts and cultural manifestations of the moment, but, didactically, it seems to us an error. In the first place, because it gives a lot of information, with too many names, all at once, in such a way that it is difficult to get a lasting impression from it. Secondly, because an exhibition must have a very consistent common thread in order to build a story with protagonists among whom there is a solid and well-founded relationship that can lead to analysis, comparisons and conclusions, and this dispersion and disorder prevent this from being the case. In that, this exhibition responds to the well-known syndrome ―very frequent in those dedicated to women― of the “mixed fruit salad”, in which even the tastiest and most exquisite pieces are diluted in a diffuse flavor that does not have any own personality.
In order to make a critique that corresponds to our specific knowledge as art historians, we are going to focus exclusively on the plastic creators included in it.
Undoubtedly, the most positive aspect of the exhibition is the presentation of many figures hitherto unknown or considered secondary, who have been invisible in the history of patriarchal art, among which the painters Margarita Manso, Norah Borges and, in particular, stand out. Ruth Velazquez. It is striking, for example, to find in the exhibition works by Margarita Manso, the watercolors choir girls, the caress e Privacy, from the late twenties, since they are very rare, because, although he trained at the San Fernando School of Fine Arts, he barely devoted himself to painting, and, which are, moreover, difficult to access, coming from a private collection. The ultraístas avant-garde group is well represented with beautiful works by Norah Borges ―sister of the famous Argentine writer who traveled to Spain in 1919, where, after marrying Guillermo de Torre, she would settle until practically the Civil War― and that unknown and extraordinary, Ruth Velázquez, pseudonym of Encarnación Velázquez Padilla, whose creations have not been exhibited since the 1930s, which, in our opinion, is the most interesting aspect of this exhibition. However, her works: five etchings and the paintings Autumn (The Swallow) y The death of the Pierrotapart from a reproduction of The mother of communismall created around 1920, appear dispersed in different rooms, so that the global and joint evaluation that such a curious and surprising artist deserves is prevented.
It is also very interesting and commendable, the representation of graphic work, especially the posters of the years of the Republic and the Civil War ―mostly from the government side―, created by Manuela Ballester and, above all, by Juana Francisca Rubio. , which have been less studied, until relatively recently, than other artistic manifestations.
Of course, works by many of the most well-known creators are included: Maruja Mallo, Ángeles Santos, Delhy Tejero, Rosario de Velasco, Marisa Roësset Velasco, Victorina Durán ―renowned, in particular for her costumes and sets― and the sculptor Marga Gil Roësset. However, it must be understood that these artists have different stylistic facets and that the exhibition does not help the viewer to form a unitary idea of his work or of his plastic personality. Since every great creator of that multiple avant-garde moment develops different styles and the dispersion of his works in the show makes him seem like a different artist each time.
Among the most famous of the Spanish painters of the time, the absence of works by Remedios Varo stands out. Even her name is missing… This is something very serious, incomprehensible, in an exhibition that aspires to recover the names of the Republic and the Civil War that Francoism wanted to make disappear from Spanish culture. When, precisely, together with Mallo, Varo is one of our few artists who managed to transcend borders and form part of the international avant-garde in her own right; in both cases of surrealism. Of her, there is only a reproduction of the immigration card when she arrived in Mexico in 1942 in a small room in which the documentation of many of the artists and intellectuals who had to go into exile has been grouped. A good and impressive idea, but one that deserves a sign or message that explains the meaning of those documents.
Other near-absences are those of the Russian-born painter Olga Sacharoff, of whom only one painting is included, Retangeles santos mouse, from 1954, which is not from his most important and original period, the twenties, when he mixed post-cubist and primitivist influences in his work. The same occurs in the case of Pitti Bartolozzi, of which, although two works can be seen, Contamination y The arts, are both from the Franco era and not from the 1920s and 1930s, in which she was well known for her illustrations and collaboration with the Misiones Pedagógicas. In addition, surprisingly, although it is noted, it is not reported that her husband, Pedro Lozano, signed many of her works after the war, which seems to us to be a fact that is important to make known.
But worst of all, in our opinion, is the lack of explanations, of direction, with which the rooms and the works are juxtaposed, seeking to create an “impact”, rather than developing a thought, a perspective, a guide, so necessary, both for the breadth and complexity of the period and for the number of artists and works. Nothing is said and nothing is explained. All sociological, artistic and biographical problems are ignored. For example, no allusion is made to the different isms that occur at the same time, in fact, none is mentioned, except ultraism.
The works seem to have fallen on a line without order or concert. We also find that original works are mixed with reproductions in an unjustified way. In the case of Delhy Tejero, who stands out for her talent and modernity, of the five works of hers that are in the exhibition ―in addition to the book illustrations by her great friend Marina Romero, Poems A.-, in The bathers of the Duero, from 1936, the figure of the young woman on the right, who appeared undressing, has been erased by the artist herself. In other words, being able to choose from a large cast (since the painter’s family, who has lent it, is the one who owns the largest collection of her works), an intentionally controversial, strange painting has been chosen. But for what purpose? Do you want to return to the legend of the “eccentricity” of this artist?… The cartouche gives an explanation of the erasure of the figure, but brief and incomplete.
Works of great quality and sophistication, of evident aesthetic value, are next to other vulgar, modest or provincial ―whose interest is of a sociological nature―, such as those of Rosario Suárez-Castiello, without any attempt being made to make a difference. among each other. Putting them together without explaining that dissonance requires an intellectual and information effort from the viewer, which should be provided from the exhibition itself.
Likewise, an accumulation of very abundant photos and documents is presented: immigration cards, university degrees, sometimes interesting, but frequently without adding the data that justifies their inclusion. A series of personal films are also shown without any indication of which artist it is, nor of the date, nor of what is the interest of that document.
It is about helping to understand that art in the Second Republic and the women artists who worked had many paths open at that time. And that their works present a great wealth of different perspectives and talents, even though their destinies were later swept away by war and violence… their lost works, their forgotten names…
Finally, we find it striking that in an attempt as important as this one, no attempt has been made to record their effort and scope through a catalogue, not even a modest brochure or room sheets, which could help the public remember the names or some of his works. And it is necessary to count, when considering such an ambitious objective, to provide a greater information load, texts; and, in turn, leave testimony of all this ―not only through panels and cartouches―. Not doing so seems to go against the entire purpose of the show: to demonstrate that there was a literary, artistic, musical, etc. creation, made by women that was important and that deserves our attention and our recognition.
It is always a risk to make clear the perspective from which one works and even more so, to leave it in writing. However, it is what makes any exhibition something valuable about which one can continue thinking, working, debating and building, even if it is in opposition. And, obviously, by introducing the works themselves, the paintings, of the artists themselves in an exhibition, there is a greater need for clarity and knowledge than that required by a television program or a popularization document. Each one of these paintings has its little discourse, its biography, its identity, its reason for being… and it deserves to be seen, understood, heard.
Therefore, we are saddened to say that despite the fact that it is undoubtedly a commendable effort, this exhibition has lacked context, order and, above all, rigor -historical, documentary, artistic-. Something very necessary when trying to go beyond disclosure.
The HatlessFernán Gómez Cultural Center of the Villa, Madrid, from October 19, 2022 to January 15, 2023.