Neo-Pop in Br op in Brazil: When P azil: When Pop Art Addressed P essed Politics olitics

Neo-Pop in Br op in Brazil: When P azil: When Pop Art Addressed P essed

Politics olitics

Introduction

The goal of this work is to analyze Pop Art in such a way as to demonstrate a distinctly

Brazilian representation (or “language”) of Pop: what I will call Brazilian Neo-Pop. From a

theoretical perspective, I will seek to replace the common structuralist/Marxist interpretation of

the (lack of) Pop Art in Brazil with a more inclusive postcolonial approach. These structuralist

and postcolonial approaches will be discussed in more detail but put simply, I argue against the

(structuralist) view that Pop Art can only exist in countries with a sufficiently advanced form of

capitalism (such as the United States). I hope to demonstrate that there exists in Brazil art that is

recognizably Pop. Of course, that does not mean the Pop in Brazil is identical with that in the

U.S. or the United Kingdom (thus, my use of “Neo-Pop”).

For example, a major difference between American Pop and Brazilian Neo-Pop, I argue,

is that in Brazil, the optimism and consumerism that scholars (often) believed to be glorified in

Pop were “anthropophagically” (a concept to be discussed) reinterpreted by Brazilian artists,

creating Neo-Pop works. An important part of the transition from Pop to Brazilian Neo-Pop

involved following a broader Latin American inclination to adjust Pop by dealing with different

political contexts. In Brazil, this results in a form of Pop that is more politically active and more

openly critical of American culture. However, before I discuss the concept of Neo-Pop (or the

theoretical approach I am taking) in detail, we must first get clear about the concept of Pop Art in

general, which I will do for the rest of this introduction.

American Pop Art was born in the 1950s and 1960s when Abstract Expressionism was

the dominating artistic force in the United States. Abstract expressionism was a movement that

aimed to free art from subject matter, creating something some would call “true” American art.

Clement Greenberg, the Abstract Expressionism enthusiast that praised Jackson Pollock, argued

that the work of American Abstract Expressionist artists, “constitute the first manifestation of

American art to draw a standing protest at home as well as serious attention from Europe, where,

though deplored more often than praised, they have already influenced an important part of the

avant-garde.”

As a reaction to Abstract Expressionism, Pop tried to blur the line between “high” and

“low” art. As a result, art critics such as Greenberg did not seem to understand Pop as art, since,

from its beginning, Pop Art represented the return of the subject matter. However, that subject

matter (as Lucy R. Lippard argues) was depicted through the lenses of consumerism, celebrity

cult, or a parody of the ideal. So the subject matter has returned, but in a new way. It tries to

blend “high” art with so called “low art” such as advertising. So how should we understand Pop

Art? To understand the category of Pop, there are a number of different concepts to consider.

Most importantly, we need to understand Pop’s relationship to realism and to Dada.

Although Pop is sometimes referred to as “New Realism,” the use of realism (the attempt

to realistically depict real-world objects, as opposed to expressionistic works, for example) alone

does not, I believe, suffice to define Pop. Importantly, Pop is also a style that mimics

advertisements and commercial art, meaning that while the objects or figure are comprehensible

(in a realistic sense), there is a change in scale, color, or atmosphere that does not allow one to

see it as a natural representation of reality. As an example, consider Andy Warhol’s Marilyn

Monroe, 1967 (Fig. 1).

Thus, the formal attributes of Pop do not conform perfectly with those of realism. The

defined lines and shadows, bright colors, and compositions do not appear merely as realism, but

give a sense of familiarity to the work. They communicate using common objects or images

known by many viewers, who are thus able to understand the subject. The objects offered

“cannot escape recognition, the objects themselves seem a bit slanderous, and the man himself,

when appears, does not conceal his lineage from the personalities of advertising posters.” The

manipulation of images by Pop artists also makes it difficult for them to be called naturalistic.

The images are transformed to be recognizable, but not “realistic,” “thus the goal of Pop Art is

not simply to present, but to transform the image of our contemporary American consumer

economy into ambivalent and provocative forms.”

Due to its subversive use of mass media images, mass consumption products, and its

appearance as a visual comment on the society it is immersed in, some critics think that Pop Art

is closer to the Dada movement than it would be to realism. The comparison to Dada can be seen

in Marcel Duchamp’s (1887-1968) ready-mades, which—like many Pop Art works—seem to

feature little work or expression by the artist himself. Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel, 1913 (Fig. 2) is

the first ready-made in art history. It is a bicycle wheel (as the title aptly describes) that is

exhibited mounted upside-down on a wooden stool. Andre Bréton defined ready-mades as a

“material furnished by chance made the focus of attention.” Duchamp’s ready-mades served to

question the concept of authorship, since he chose to barely modify the objects. However, what

most influenced Warhol’s famous Pop Art works, such as the Brillo Box, 1964 (Fig. 3), was the

historical and critical reception of Duchamp’s ready-mades by the art community (rather than the

works themselves). Duchamp’s ready-mades were not well-received by the art community, but

his conceptualist notion of art made Pop artists like Warhol possible. In the 50 years between

Duchamp and Warhol’s work, viewers and critics became more used to the idea of an intellectual

(rather than material) definition of art.

Dadaism was understood as embracing nihilism and absurdity as main concepts. Dada

artists reacted to the world around them with works that did not allow any understanding or

rationalization. These Pop predecessors reacted with irony and hostility (which Pop also did), but

without giving the audience a safe route of comprehension. Their work became a dialectical

movement between the absurd and rational experiment. In contrast, Pop Art was not understood

as a nihilistic movement. It was seen as having a positive, even optimistic, outlook on post-war

culture (especially consumer culture). Therefore, Pop Art can be distinguished (despite some

overlap) both from realistic works, and from the nihilistic works of Dadaism.

What can be said about Pop is that the use of reproduction in the movement (the work

itself is often made by someone other than the artist), turns Pop Art into another type of

conceptual art (in line with Duchamp’s conceptualism). Pop Art can also be seen as influenced

by Surrealism and Cubism. Surrealism allows humorous creations that sometimes lack political

critique (in contrast with Dada, which often features political critiques). This humor, and also an

element of the bizarre, are features that Pop assimilated from Surrealism. While some artists of

the Dada movement used art (or anti-art, as they would put it) to deal with World War I, for

example (with ironic and chaotic performances, assemblages, or collages), Pop Art did not often

engage in direct critique against American capitalism—at least not as assertively as Dada artists.

The relationship between American Pop and American culture is a difficult one. Starting

with Lucy R. Lippard’s seminal 1966 book Pop Art, it has been traditional to see Pop as

optimistic and celebratory of American culture and American post-war consumerism. As a result,

many scholars assume that Pop Art in the United States did not have a direct engagement with

sociological conditions. The audience is understood as having room to interpret the meanings of

the works, as well as the author’s use of superficially bright-colored and commercial forms (for

example). There has been some objection to this optimistic view since

Lippard’s work, and one can certainly see certain artists as being more critical of American

culture or taking a more direct political stance. However, as recently as 2012, Bradford Collins

argues that “while many commentators now conclude that Pop in general was actually a critical

development,” it remains true that “the majority of writers on the subject continue to believe that

Pop as a whole was affirmative” of American consumer culture, rather than a form of political

critique.

Part of the reason for Pop’s lack of explicit cultural critique is that, even when depicting

hostility and irony, it uses shared public feelings with its audience that emerge from the common

(even nostalgic) objects. The concept of “irony” is often associated with Pop Art. Irony is not

synonymous with humor here, although irony can be humorous, or even funny. Irony, as a

rhetorical instrument is “an attitude, or a perspective on the world (that is, "being ironic"). In

other words, irony as an attitude opens the possibility of human emotion, even toward the

inhuman objects that occupy our dwellings.” Irony, thus, is the acceptance of ambiguity, even

about objects. The ambiguity leaves the viewer with freedom of interpretation, rather than

making a clear argument with the work or delivering a clear message about the subject matter,

for example. As a result, the audience is often left to wonder if the work is critiquing or

celebrating the culture and objects it depicts. Consider again Warhol’s Brillo Box, 1964 (Fig. 3).

Is his exacting reproduction of the box of Brillo pads a celebration of consumer capitalism? Or is

it a critique? The work itself, and the artist, remain ironic (accepting ambiguity).

Sheena Wagstaff provides insight into this ironic stance, when she writes about the

massproduced images of capitalism being used by artists as a means for what she calls “comic

relief.” She argues that the artists are trying to deconstruct their cultural system to provoke

thoughts on the real and counterfeit. These artists are praising the cultural emptiness (of

consumerism, for example) that would otherwise destroy them. The work is ambiguous, in the

first place, by choosing commonplace industrial artifacts as a subject matter. This provokes the

audience to ask why this particular thing was being transfigured into art. But also, some of the

ambiguity is communicated through irony, in other words, laughter. Pop art, thus, uses the

familiarity of the object or figure to look into its own culture, symbols, cults, and myths. Because

of this familiarity the message can be plural, unlike in the case of advertising (and publicity,

mass

media, and so on). In these cases, the message is simple, direct, and should call for action

(mostly to buy an item or lifestyle). In Pop art, despite sharing commonalities with commercial

art, however, the call to consumerism is not the only possible interpretation. This leaves the

viewer with critical possibilities about how to define or interpret the work.

Given the ironic/ambiguous nature of Pop Art, and how closely it is intertwined with its

cultural context, an interesting question is: can Pop Art exist outside of the United States? Does

Pop Art only make sense in the culture it was first created in? This thesis seeks to address that

question. To do so, it will focus specifically on the context of Brazilian art and artists in the

1960s.

The term Pop is not normally encountered in Brazilian art history, with potential Pop

works in the Brazilian context usually labelled instead under “New Figuration,” a more general

term used to address the new interest by Brazilian artists in figuration, or the subject matter. The

reasons for this seeming lack of Brazilian Pop are complex. Firstly, Brazilian scholars often

analyze art in relation to socioeconomics, following the structuralist tendencies of the field as

well as the Marxism common for Brazilian scholars. If one follows these Structuralist/Marxist

methodologies, Pop could be seen as a (perhaps problematic) reaffirmation of American culture

and beliefs. As we shall see, some structuralists (such as the Brazilian critic Mario Pedrosa),

even argue that Pop Art is impossible in a country that does not have a sufficiently developed

capitalist economy.

Potential Neo-Pop Brazilian artists, moreover, would not usually self-proclaim

themselves as Pop. There may be multiple reasons for this hesitance, but a major one is that in

Brazilian “Neo-Pop,” the use of commercial art of American products and symbols was seen as a

sign of American influence in the culture and art. This is true not only of American brands, but

also of a positive reception of a certain “American way of life.” A potential celebration of

American culture was criticized by many who, instead, aimed for a unique Brazilian identity in

culture and artistic movements. Likewise, American critics “had harshly criticized many Latin

American artists because of their apparently unconditional acceptance of international currents in

modern art, seeing the art as a continuance of colonial domination.” There was therefore both

internal and external pressure not to be seen as accepting colonial or cultural domination. The

political reasons for this hesitance will be discussed in more detail in Section III of this work.

Brazilian artists, I will argue, did not copy the Pop style, but rather reintroduced it in the

Brazilian context, while offering a critique against the Americanized Brazilian culture that

followed American intervention in the country during the 1960s (and the following dictatorship).

Although Brazil was never an American colony, it was seen, during the 1960s and following

years, that the United States had a colonial influence in the culture, society, and economics of the

Latin American country. Because of this colonial relationship, Neo-Pop in Brazil can be usefully

investigated via a postcolonial methodology. This methodology also allows for the addition of

Latin American voices to the European and American legacy of Pop Art, revealing how the

language of Pop was not limited to Europe and the United States, but existed, on its own terms,

in other countries and cultures. Thus, the methodology applied in this thesis will be qualitative

and postcolonial.

Using this methodology, I argue that Neo-Pop artists in Brazil were not only using

American Pop to criticize foreign influence but were also adding a uniquely Brazilian language

to Pop Art, which I will call Brazilian Neo-Pop. I believe that there are three major components

that distinguish Brazilian Neo-Pop from American Pop. The first is the Brazilian postcolonial

“anthropophagic” approach to culture. The second is the influence of Umberto Eco’s concept of

the “open work.” And the third is an increased willingness to be politically engaged (and, as a

result, more openly critical of American intervention on Brazilian politics and culture). All of

these features will be explained and expanded upon in the course of this thesis (especially in

Section IV).

Perhaps the primary difference between American Pop and Brazilian Neo-Pop is the

introduction of the Brazilian concept of anthropophagy (which is a central component of Brazil’s

postcolonial self-understanding). Brazil’s colonial history is different from that of the U.S., and

its relation to the U.S. is complicated. Postcolonialism (and anthropophagy) is used here to argue

that Brazilian culture appropriated Pop but did not create derivative works. Instead, Neo-Pop was

in dialogue with both local and global cultural conditions. The Brazilian artists I am calling

NeoPop were not mere copies of American artists or styles, but created, in an anthropophagic

context, their own manifestation of a style that is influenced by the language and subject matter

of Pop. This is true despite arising in a different socio-cultural context and with different

intentions. The anthropophagic method is how Brazilian artists comprehend the process of

assimilating foreign influence through the anthropophagic method. The artist “eats” the dominant

culture/art and adds local art influences, symbols, or narratives. The Brazilian artists deals with

foreign influence while creating something for a Brazilian audience (and in dialogue with a local

art history).

Anthropophagy does not demand the resulting work have political meanings or messages.

However, the anthropophagic act or process is inherently political in a sense. It involves a

cultural, economic, and political context in which one party is “underdeveloped,” or relates to a

more dominant culture. So, it is a question of cultural identity. What does it mean to be

Brazilian, in the context of this broader context? I argue that, in the case of Brazilian Neo-Pop

Art, political meanings will play a large role, due to the complex political relationship between

Brazil and America.

To make the case for the existence of a Brazilian Neo-Pop Art, this thesis will be divided

into multiple sections. Firstly, I will provide a literature review and methodology section to

outline some of the relevant research on this topic. In the second section, I will define the terms I

am using and clarify my usage of “Neo-Pop” art. In the next section, I will briefly outline the

American influence on Brazilian politics during the 20th century (and thus describe the political

context for the Brazilian reception of American Pop Art). Section IV will discuss early Pop Art in

Brazil, focusing on Waldemar Cordeiro and his “Popcretos” in the early 1960s. Cordeiro was the

only Brazilian artist, at that time, to openly admit the influence of American Pop in his work.

To understand Cordeiro’s approach to “Pop Art + Concrete Art,” the section will turn to

Umberto Eco’s concept of the “open work” and Oswald de Andrade’s concept of

“anthropophagy.” The next section will provide a detailed description of two important 1965

exhibitions that grew out of Cordeiro and his influence: Opinião 65 and Propostas 65

(exhibitions that are certainly Pop influenced and, I argue, already Neo-Pop). These important

exhibitions would cause a rupture with the Concrete and Neo-Concrete movements (from the

1950s) and pave the way for the IX São Paulo Biennial in 1967 (the first formal international

Pop Art exhibition in Brazil, featuring American artists). The conclusion of the thesis makes

some general observations about the style of Neo-Pop in Brazil. It compares and contrasts

Brazilian Neo-Pop with the Pop works created in America and Europe, as exemplified by works

from artists such as Cildo Meireles and Hélio Oiticica.

I. Literature Review/ Methodology

Because Pop is often at the center of the debate about technique (or lack of), scholars

dealing with Pop need to address formalistic characteristics to not only define the style but also

to approach the frequent discussion about copying and originality. Bradford R. Collins, for

example, spends part of his analysis diving into the formal aspects of Pop. Collins refers to Roy

Lichtenstein’s work, noting the influence of Japanese prints. Collins argues that Lichtenstein was

not merely copying comic book illustrations but demonstrating how to elevate them to a high art

level.

Pop Art, especially in the United States, has been analyzed under formalist and

structuralist methodologies that often refer to the style as Postmodern, especially in contrast to

Modern art. Such structuralist methods often focus on the symbols that Pop Art portrays, arguing

that they are used as a way to interpret the consumerist culture that created them. For example,

structuralist authors such as Lucy R. Lippard interpreted symbols such as the Campbell’s Soup

Cans or an image of Marylin Monroe as a brighter/optimistic way to look at a post-war world.

Lippard notices a celebration of pop culture in these consumer symbols. She also notes the

younger orientation of Pop artists, seeing Pop as a generational art that was part of its culture, in

both creation and reception.

Structuralist methodology was also employed in the Brazilian academy and art criticism

during the 1960s and, to this day, many scholars still rely on the methodology to analyze art in

relation to structures of power and its societal implications. A Marxist approach is also common

in the Brazilian academy, because (as we shall see in the context of Neo-Pop) many critics and

intellectuals in Brazil during the 1960s would be occupied with the socio-economic applications

of art and its call for change. Art was understood as a product of its social context. Because of

this, the Brazilian relationship to American Pop Art was complex.

One of Pop Art’s most prominent Brazilian critics was Mario Pedrosa, who understood

Pop Art as anti-art that conformed to the canon and was a style that inspired conformism and

optimism. Pedrosa would call Neo-Pop artists “Popistas of Underdevelopment.” The term was a

juxtaposition of (Pop) American capitalism with (the Underdevelopment of) Brazil’s economic

status: “[the American Pop] aptly reflected the pervasiveness of an already established consumer

culture; [Brazilian Pop] meanwhile, reflected the effects of foreign investment and economic

growth, and of Brazil’s rapid transition toward that financial model.”

Anti-Pop attitudes in Brazil often argue for Pop as a strictly American movement. As

Alexandre Pedro de Medeiros describes, critics might deny the creation of Pop outside of the

Anglophone context by looking at Pop works through the lenses of pseudomorphism—a

definition given by Erwin Panofsky to works that (even if identical in form) are different at a

genetic level, or carry a distinguished ethos. The main theme of the cautionary discourse is that,

during the 1960s, Brazil was not the stage of an optimistic post-war context but stood at the

doors of dictatorship and anything other than a reaction to this political event could not exist.

Even if the 1960s started with Tropicalia and its bright and vivid representations in music and in

the art of Hélio Oiticica, the decade would end with the heroes of the movement victims of

censorship.

Pop Art is a difficult movement to define. According to Natalia de la Rosa, to think about

Pop Art in Latin America is to assume the relation of the US with the rest of the continent. Rosa

writes that Pop Art works in Latin America “are works that respond and exhibit an extreme

condition of capitalism by claiming an alternative where theory, like art, sought to merge with

life.” Latin American artists wanted to modify the conditions of capitalism according to their

place. With the same idea, Oscar Masotta observes Pop Art as a movement that uses images, or

Pop images, as codes that can be cracked in multiple ways and are subject to local cultures.

Luis Camnitzer had a contrary understanding of the Pop Art made in Brazil, Argentina, and

Colombia. According to Camnitzer, Pop is a movement and not something that can be

appropriated, causing vernacular Pop art such as seen in Brazil to be a folklorized version of the

formal movement developed in New York.Against Camnitzer’s argument, Camila Maroja will

affirm that, instead of a movement, Pop Art in Latin America is better understood as a verb with

which art is created—using a shared visual language, the final meaning of which is defined by

the insertion in a given culture.

In Brazil specifically, Sonia Salzstein describes how Pop became associated with a battle

of “ideological configurations.” The digestion of Pop by anthropophagic artists, observes

Salzstein, meant an irreverent attitude toward once-revered institutions of bourgeois society—not

only artistic institutions, but also the institution of the public sphere. We can now return to Mario

Pedrosa’s argument about the status of Brazilian capitalist stage as “underdeveloped.” For

Pedrosa, Brazil was unable to produce Pop Art. Pop Art, in his understanding, was closely related

to stages of capitalism, and Brazil, as a pre-industrial economy being pervaded by capitalism,

could not create Pop that was not derivative.

Pedrosa’s argument, I believe, can be addressed by taking into consideration Salzstein’s

argument that the underdeveloped status of Brazil was already the result of capitalist expansion.

If to make Pop one should be capitalist, Brazil was easily a candidate, despite not representing

the same level of development as the United States. Salzstein describes art in Brazil in the 1950s

as following the ideals of the Brazilian-left that endorsed a national-developmentalist project. In

the 1960s, especially after the military coup in 1964, this experience of modernity in Brazil

would become more mature, she suggests. In other words, the political and cultural synthesis that

the art from the 1950s aimed for would mature through engaging its opposite. Rather than

synthesis, contradictions arose that allowed the bizarre and pathos to be expressed.

Salzstein does not develop the concept of pathos that she notices in the 1960s in Brazil, but it

seems fair to affirm that the choice for other styles that admit the subject matter (such as

Pop Art) allowed some pathos, or experience, or even suffering, to be dealt with in art. This was

also introduced into art by the rupture from movements (based on manifestos and

group/collectives of artists) that diluted their individualism to adapt to the collective intentions of

their art.

American Pop is seen by scholars such as Cecile Whiting as addressing consumer culture

in a dubious fashion—according to Whiting, it is unclear whether the work is criticizing

consumer culture or complicit with it. However, the majority of scholars, according to Bradford

Collins, see Pop as an affirmation of consumer culture. From this position, however, Collins

warns that it is difficult to differentiate Pop Art from popular culture, making Pop Art works

indiscernible from cultural artifacts. For example, there would be no discernable distance

between Warhol’s Brillo Box and the “real” commercial product.

I believe that this issue (of Pop Art’s ambiguous relationship to the broader culture) is

avoided in the Brazilian approach to Neo-Pop. The Brazilian appropriation of Pop was done in

conjunction with the modern Brazilian idea of cultural anthropophagy. To understand the impact

of the concept of anthropophagy in Brazil, consider Oswald de Andrade’s seminal 1928 text

Anthropophagic Manifest, which claims to offer a new orientation in Brazilian culture. Andrade

argues for the negation of truth as acknowledged by the “canon,” or the Eurocentric version that

invents what is (high) culture and what is primitive. Andrade’s manifesto is a calling to this

former colony of Portugal to do something with what is said about these people, to digest the

foreigner’s culture and truths in their own terms, adding their own local beliefs and culture. This

is also known as the “cannibal manifesto,” where the “cannibal” concept is playing with the

notion of the primitive (as in the natives that had to be catechized by the Catholics), and the idea

that those natives were cannibals—alluding to the dangerous and animalistic idea of indigenous

tribes that must be saved to become humans.

In art, this concept of anthropophagy started in modern literature and the arts and spread

into music and other art forms. The meaning of the anthropophagic concept was that there are no

more “pure” Brazilian ideas. We have the facts of what was made by Brazilians and their culture,

but without the need for “purity.” Through anthropophagy, one assumes the foreign culture so that

one can appropriate the culture in one’s own terms. Anthropophagy works with materials from an

internationalized culture by combining them in a local manner, (perhaps with a farcical tone). It is

an intersection of various stages of capitalism, where modern forms are used to deal with archaic

content. From a postcolonial perspective, despite predating that postcolonial concept, Andrade

wanted to invite the mixing of God and “Guaraci,” (the sun god of the Native Brazilian Tupi-

Guarani people). He strove to mix foreign culture with the local art, and to create a culture that

consumed as a colony (politically or culturally) but created as an independent.

In the research I have done, there are a number of different perspectives on what

American Pop Art consists of. Some (Whiting) see American Pop Art as an ambiguous comment

on American culture, while others (Lippard) see it as optimistic and largely affirmative. Collins

argues that the affirmative position is the dominant interpretation among scholars. Likewise,

there are a number of opinions among Brazilian scholars about the possibility of Brazilian Pop

Art. Some (Pedrosa, Madeiros) argue against the creation (and even the possibility) of Brazilian

Pop Art. Others (Salzstein) see Brazilian Pop as an important development that addresses

Brazil’s cultural and political struggles (for self-identity, and in relations to the United States) in

the 1950s and 1960s. My own work in this thesis will align more with Salzstein, as I will argue

that Brazilian Pop Art not only exists, but (as a postcolonial position supports) offers a unique

development in Pop Art by introducing the concept of anthropophagy and creating a more

explicitly political language for (Neo)-Pop Art.

II. Defining the Nomenclature: Neo, not Post, Pop

Now that I have established a variety of academic positions (both American and

Brazilian) on the topic of Pop Art, I would like to turn to my argument. Again, I hope to argue

that there exists art in Brazil that is recognizably Pop. However, I believe that Brazilians

(because of their particular postcolonial situation, and particular political relation to the United

States), created Pop works that, while recognizably Pop, have some important differences. Most

importantly, they are more politically active and more openly critical of American culture than

American Pop, which is generally understood as either optimistic (or, at times, ambiguous) about

American consumer culture. Thus, the form was recognizably Pop, but the content and messages

often had important differences. In this section, I hope to explain my use of the term “Neo-Pop,”

as opposed to a concept such as “Post-Pop.” In doing so, I will also provide a brief introduction

of how Pop arrived in Brazil, which I will expand upon later in this thesis.

When considering art history, it is common to group artists into broad categories in an

attempt to establish broader trends. For example, in “modernism,” the ways an artist explored the

media was often more important than the message. Because of this, some artists abandoned any

form of message in their work. Instead, they highlighted the medium in a formalistic style. For

example, we can see this emphasis on the media over the message in Jackson Pollock’s work and

his action painting. Emphasis on the medium (such as action painting, ready-mades, or

performance), is the main interest of many modernists. In the case of Duchamp’s ready-mades,

his goal as part of the Dada movement is one in which the message was so chaotic that some

would say it was non-existent. Modernist movements like Abstract Expressionism focused their

work on the medium to the point that it would, perhaps, not even speak to people anymore.

As a reaction to modernist tendencies, Pop artists in the 1950s and 1960s believed that the

medium is just as important as the message (unlike modernism, which often neglected the

message). For example, Andy Warhol was trying to celebrate the ordinary things and returning to

a recognizable subject matter. Pop Art, then, brings back the recognizable subject matter from

popular culture, creating a dialogue with everyday life and commercial art to establish a

message. Consider again Warhol’s Brillo Box (Soap Pads), 1964 (Fig. 3). The medium of the

work is still important (as in modernism), for example in the construction of the boxes and their

replication of commercial products. However, the message is also important, as it draws on

recognizable cultural subject matter (rather than pure abstraction). Pop art can thus be

understood

as a form of “Postmodernism” in the sense that it reacts to modernist trends and represents new

directions in the art of the period.

The case of Pop Art as the first known Postmodernism is not the only use of “post” as a

reaction against the style/period. For example, Post-Impressionist’s such as Vincent Van Gogh

and Paul Cezanne were known for reacting against the naturalistic depiction of color and light by

Impressionists. The use of the prefix “post” usually has the connotation of “reacting against” in

its use in art history, as in the examples of Postmodernism and Post-Impressionism.

However, I do not wish to argue that the artists I am calling Neo-Pop are “reacting against” Pop

or trying to introduce a brand-new artistic style. Therefore, instead of “post-Pop,” the term that I

believe better describes the Brazilian works influenced by Pop artists is “Neo-

Pop.” Neo, meaning new, is a better description of how artists outside the United States were,

and are, using the language of Pop. These artists use symbols, color, in similar ways to American

Pop. They dialogue with commercial art and popular culture in similar ways as well. They are

expressing, I believe, not a reaction against Pop Art, but new ways of implementing the Pop

language.

What is known as Pop Art, then, can be found in: the similarities of theme, use of color,

scale, and the appropriation of mass consumerism into art. The style of Pop is easily read and

attractive to the viewer. Europe, Latin America, and Japan incorporated the American style of

Pop in their own terms. One of the first places in which Pop became Neo-Pop was Latin

America, which began to occur as early as the 1960s. In 1964, Argentinian Nicolas Garcia

Uriburu’s series of buses was one of the first works to be recognized as a regional Pop, or “Pop

lunfardo.”

As a part of the broader Latin American adoption of Pop, Pop artists were becoming

influential in Brazil as well. However, as we have already discussed in the last section, the

Brazilian relationship to American Pop was complex. The American Pop that was known in

Brazil was often seen as disconnected from its political dimension. For example, one of the most

influential art critics in Brazil in the 1960s was Mario Pedrosa (1900-1981), an ex-Trotskyist and

a Stalinist dissident. He was a brave defender of the abstract-concrete poetics that flourished in

Brazil from 1948 forward. His ideas became public in the fine arts section of: the Correio da

Manhã newspaper, to which he contributed articles from 1947 to 1952; the Tribuna da Imprensa

newspaper from 1950 to 1954; and, later, from 1957 to 1971, the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

Pedrosa was against any Pop Art influence in Brazilian art and could be understood as a

Brazilian Clement Greenberg. He was dismissive of Pop Art as art and praised the antecessor

movement that, in Brazil, was the Concrete movement.

Pedrosa would react against the influence of Pop Art in Brazil, stating that in an

underdeveloped country, such as Brazil in the 1960s, Pop Art would celebrate capitalism and the

American way of life, which he believed would alienate the people from their own culture.

Pedrosa would also observe that an underdeveloped country could not even make Pop Art, due to

not being at the same stage of capitalism as the United States. Pedrosa understood Pop artists as

“technicians of mass production” and conformists. This contradicted Pedrosa’s expectations that

art should serve politics as a means to call for social change.

Pedrosa’s view of American pop as largely ambiguous (or even optimistic) about

American culture is in line with many American critics, as we have discussed. Of course, one can

disagree with Pedrosa (and Collins), and point to American Pop which does seem to be more

politically active. After all, the ambiguity and irony that Pop works presented certainly caused a

debate about political optimism in the postwar art made in the United States. Perhaps Pedrosa’s

dismissal does not comprehend the complexity of Pop works that are comfortable leaving the

viewer with an ambiguous message, as we have discussed with Warhol’s, Brillo Box (Soap Pads),

1964 (Fig. 3), for example. To consider whether Pedrosa was being fair to American Pop, an

interesting example to consider is Robert Indiana’s USA 666, 1964 (Fig. 4). If we consider

Pedrosa’s comments about the work, do we find them to be entirely fair?

USA 666 depicts a black and yellow abstract commercial sign, reminiscent of highway

signs, with the words/commands EAT, HUG, ERR, and DIE (his definition of the American

dream). The equal-armed cross symbolizes the warning signs seen on highways, indicating a

change ahead. These words (yellow) rest on black backgrounds, beneath the (black) letters

“USA,” indicating the space in which the words might be understood as commands. Indiana

writes that “if it's a subject I feel intensely about then it will mostly certainly contain the color

black.” One can see these words as a poem representing the cycle of life, all around the central

panel marked “USA 666.” USA 666 had a personal reference to Indiana, because that was the

location of a Phillips 66 sign, the highway leading to the West where his adoptive father, Earl

Clarke, abandoned him and his mother.

How does Pedrosa understand this work? Taking the word “eat” into consideration,

Pedrosa would say that, according to Indiana, the word meant life. As a mother feeds a child, it is

an act of love and kindness. According to Pedrosa, this serves as a confession about the use of

advertising techniques to motivate consumption. The technique of using an imperative message

is seen here by Pedrosa as similar to an advertising slogan. However, one could say that the work

seems closer to a highway sign in order to indicate, directly, a message such as “stop.” Pedrosa’s

conclusion about promoting consumption seems vague because the word “eat” can, indeed, mean

to consume. But consumption might not be related to consumerism, as Pedrosa ponders, but to

consume as a means to live, to nurture.

One could see the word “eat” as fulfilling a necessary act: “USA EAT.” As Roy

Lichtenstein affirms, “Pop Art looks out into the world; it appears to accept its environment,

which is not good or bad, but different, another state of mind.” If the highway sign aspect of the

work is taken into consideration, one might see it as a warning message about what comes ahead.

“Eat” is expected, just as it is to “die.” There is a feeling of certainty and even impending doom

that blurs the individual. The sign speaks to a community, the USA. The words with three letters

represent a country, a geopolitical agreement comparable to the agreement to call certain

landscapes by numbers, such as 66, or Route 66.

The sign warns about the continuation of the journey. The viewer stands staring at the

sign (as a driver) with, hopefully, awareness of what the words mean, what the shape and colors

represent, and what action is expected of them. However, unlike a driver, the viewer does not

complete the action right away. But along their life, they see a destiny that will happen, fulfilling

the American dream created by Indiana. That seems in many ways direct and survivalist instead

of an advertisement for consumption as Pedrosa understood. There was an admiration for urban

life in some Pop artists that confused critics such as Pedrosa. He believed that if one looks at life

to make art, one should only address it with criticism to highlight its problems (specifically

socio-economics problems). In Indiana’s work, for example, the “politics” is not about a message

of change, but an admiration of life as it is that is. In its own way, this is also political and even

poetic.

Of course, USA 666, like many Pop works, invites different interpretations. One might

disagree with Pedrosa, Collins, and others like them, about the political intention of different Pop

artists. But it remains true that American Pop was seen by many in Brazil as lacking a clear

political messaging. This led some, like Pedrosa, to dismiss or distance themselves from Pop. For

others, who I will call Neo-Pop, it led them to create Pop works with more explicit political

messages. To understand why there were anti-Pop sentiments in the Brazilian academy, and why

political engagement was seen as such an important metric for Brazilian art, it is important to

understand the political situation of Brazil in the 1960s. In particular, given that Pop Art was

coming in large part from America, we need to understand the complex political relationship

between American and Brazil in the 1960s.

III. American Influence in Brazilian Politics

To understand the mindset of critics such as Pedrosa, as well as Brazilian artists who

were influenced by American Pop, it is important to understand the political situation in Brazil

leading up to the arrival of Pop in the 1960s. The preoccupation of Brazilian Neo-Pop artists

with political messaging (in a way not seen in American Pop) can only be understood within the

political context of Brazil at the time.

The United States began its “Good Neighbor” policy with Brazil in 1934. This policy

emphasized cultural exchange, and officially endorsed the Brazilian President-turned-dictator

Getulio Vargas (who became President in 1934, before assuming dictatorial power from 193745).

The Good Neighbor policy even targeted textbooks in the United States in an attempt to describe

Brazil as a resourceful country, rich in products like coffee and rubber. The American presence in

Latin American culture was vastly expanded during the 1940s, with the creation of the Office of

the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (OCIAA).

In the post-World War II era, Brazilian military trained by U. S. officers became

increasingly wary of Vargas’ authoritarianism. In 1945, when Vargas planned to cancel the

elections to prolong his presidency, the military forced Vargas’ resignation and oversaw a new

democratic presidential election in Brazil. Two years later, in 1947, Brazil signed the Rio Pact

(Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance), which allied Brazil with the U.S. against the

Soviet Union.

The U.S. goal of containing communism led, in 1947, to the National Security Act and

the publication of the famous “X article” by diplomat George Kennan. These reinforced the

importance of Latin American support, because of its raw materials and its votes in the United

Nations. Latin American also represented the last strategic area to support the U.S. if Europe

became anti-American. Kennan stipulated two mechanisms of containment: economic aid to

allies and regime overthrow in “indulgent” governments.48 This second “mechanism of

containment” in particular would have an influence in Brazil.

In 1961, Brazilian president Janio Quadros resigned unexpectedly, leaving his

VicePresident, Joao Goulart, to assume the presidency.49 The Kennedy administration was

suspicious of Goulart as early as 1961 and began working against him, including preparing

elements in Brazil for a potential coup. The codename given to the plan to prevent Brazil from

following

China or Cuba into communism was “Operation Brother Sam.” In 1962 President John F.

Kennedy’s brother Bobby met with Goulart in Brazil. Bobby Kennedy expressed concern about

48 Anthony W. Pereira, “The US Role in the 1964 Coup in Brazil: A Reassessment,” Bulletin of Latin

American Research 37, no. 1 (2016) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/blar.12518

49 Goulart at the time was on a diplomatic trip to China. The army was already suspicious of his leftist

tendencies and planned to not allow him to swear-in as president. Leonel Brizola, governor of the state Rio

Grande do Sul, mobilized the state’s force in support of Goulart, a campaign called “legalism,” which caused

Goulart to become president under a parliamentary system (to reduce his powers as president).

The U.S. did not issue any condemnation to the attempt to deny Goulart the presidency. J. P. Netto argues that in

1962, with Goulart not endorsing the U.S. position on the invasion of Cuba, Goulart caused the U.S. to become alert

about his plans for Brazil – especially after the excitement on the left caused by the Cuban revolution. J. P. Netto,

Pequena História da Ditadura Brasileira (1964–1985) (Cortez: São Paulo, 2014), 74-75.

the lack of support from Brazil about the Cuban revolution, and Kennedy formed a negative

opinion of Goulart.50

In March 1964 Goulart announced the Basic Reforms, a plan involving agricultural,

financial, electoral, and educational reforms aimed at the plight of the poor. The Reforms called

for voting rights for the illiterate, among other changes. The Basic Reforms were not endorsed

by certain elements of the Brazilian military and were seen by the U.S. as dangerously

communist. As a result, the Johnson administration would then implement “Operation Brother

Sam,” coordinating the uprising of anti-Goulart elements of the Brazilian armed forces and

providing them with an aircraft carrier loaded with arms and ammunition. On March 31, 1964,

the coup began. Goulart fled to Rio Grande do Sul, the presidency was declared vacant, and he

was forced to admit defeat. Without confrontation, the military forces established a “Supreme

Command of the Revolution” and Goulart leaves Brazil to exile in Uruguay. On April 2,

Operation Brother Sam was deactivated, and the US government recognized the new dictatorial

government of Brazil.

50 At a meeting in March 1963 at the White House, Bobby Kennedy urged the U.S. to remove anti-US and

leftist politicians from the cabinet in Brazil. Kennedy would warn that “[Goulart] cannot have it both ways, cannot

have the communists and put them in important positions and make speeches criticising the United States and at

the same time get 225- [2]50 million dollars from the United States. He cannot have it both ways. He has got to

really make the choice because you don't have any choice about it.” See: White House, Excerpts from John F.

Kennedy's conversation regarding Brazil with US Ambassador to Brazil Lincoln Gordon on Friday 8 March 1963,

Meeting 77.1, President's Office Files, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Boston, 7–9.

The American intervention in the Brazilian government was criticized by leftists in

Brazil. However, they also criticized the spread of American culture that started in the 1940s

with the OCIAA monopoly of American movies in Brazil and became stronger and more

consolidated in other areas of culture. These were signs of cultural imperialism that many

Brazilians saw as alienating. After the military coup in 1964, the swift American recognition of

the new dictatorial government caused leftists to despise “Americanisms.” Of course, they did

not know at the time the extent of the American involvement in the coup.

However, even if they were critics of the American intervention, artists were always

aware of foreign influence in their art (although some would only admit European influences).

As artists such as Caetano Veloso, a Brazilian musician that helped shape the Tropicalia

movement (alongside the visual artist Hélio Oiticica), noticed, it was impossible to avoid

American influence in Brazilian culture. In Brazil, we joke that one could be a leftist and still

drink Coca-Cola. This feeling of pervasive cultural influence led some artists to refuse admitting

any American influence, while others would accept it as inevitable. After all, Brazilian artistic

identity was far from pure. “Pure” Brazilian art would mean assuming the art of the indigenous

peoples. This was something Brazilian artists from the 1960s would understand as folklorization,

which they were not interested in (they wanted to be Brazilian but did not to see themselves as

connected to a “primitive” culture in this sense).

Groups (such as alliances of workers and students) mobilized against the dictatorship,

which resulted in a further implementation of stronger, more violent, civil restrictions. This in

turn led to revolutionary forces to oppose the regime. In 1968, the “hardline forces within the

military regime gained control of the state apparatus and, in the fifth of a series of institutional

acts (Ato Institucional 5, or simply AI-5) dissolved congress, suspended habeas corpus, and

established a regime of strict censorship over journalistic media and cultural production.”

Claudia Calirman, explaining the official Neo-Pop that started in 1967 in Brazil, observes that

the political climate of tension under the dictatorship in Brazil (especially after 1968 with the

institutional act number 5 and the increase in violence), made artists turn their attention to

political activism. They were dealing with the problems of a society under a dictatorship. As a

result, Brazilian artists were more influenced by Pop works that made sense within their political

context. For example, Calirman explains that Brazilian artists were more influenced by Warhol’s

more “morbid” (or political) works such as the series Red Race Riot, from 1963 (Fig. 5). Red

Race Riot depicted police attacks against civil rights activists in Birmingham, Alabama.

We can see the influence of Red Race Riot in Antonio Manuel’s Repressao outra vez –

Eis o saldo (Repression Again – Here is the Consequence), from 1968 (Fig. 6). Manuel’s work

involves five monumental panels covered by a black cloth, with a white string on top of them.

When lifted, the black cloth reveals orange/red-ish reproductions of newspaper pages with

photographs of police brutality against protestors of the dictatorship. On one of the silkscreens in

red tone the viewer reads: “eis o saldo: garoto morto, morreu um estudante,” or “here is the

consequence: dead boy, dies a student.” Most of the people that went to protests during the

dictatorship were artists, journalists, and students. The responses to the protests were brutal, the

armed forces (with full military equipment) treated protesters as war enemies, although the

students were known for not carrying guns or weapons.

I hope that I have demonstrated, based on this brief history, that the Brazilian relationship

to the United States was very politically and culturally complex. Many artists resented American

intervention in Brazil and the U.S. support for the violent dictatorship. As a result, some artists

and critics distanced themselves from American Pop Art and denied any association with it.

However, there were some Brazilian artists who openly admitted the influence of Pop on their

work. The earliest and most influential of these was Waldemar Cordeiro, the artist who in many

ways marks the creation of a Brazilian Neo-Pop language.

IV. Waldemar Cordeiro’s Popcretos

Neo-Pop will would start in Brazil with Waldemar Cordeiro with his creations called

“Popcretos.” Cordeiro was the only Brazilian artist to admit the influence of American Pop in his

work without addressing the risks of an “American celebration” in making Pop influenced art.

Cordeiro, an Italian-Brazilian artist, understood Pop as part of the international scene in which

American art such as Pop was changing the way Brazilian artists reacted to the angst caused by

political tension. Cordeiro’s Popcretos were a clear expression of Neo-Pop under Brazilian

terms. They anthropophagically admit the foreigner (American Pop), while digesting it to make

local art with local meanings, intentions, and criticism.

The first formal Pop exhibition of American artists would not occur in Brazil until 1967,

but that does not mean that Brazilians were unaware of Pop prior to that. During this early

(pre1967) period, Brazilian artists primarily had contact with American and British Pop artists

through traveling, or through art magazines. Waldemar Cordeiro would be one of the first artists

to have contact with Pop Art while traveling to Italy and would, in 1964, create works that I

argue are recognizably Neo-Pop. To understand Cordeiro’s early work, it is important to

understand two influences. The first is Oswald de Andrade’s anthropophagic manifesto (first

created in 1928). This manifesto would be central for Brazilian modernism in general, but we are

interested particularly in the Concrete and Neo-Concrete art movements (which Cordeiro was a

member of). The expression of these movements in Brazil were influenced by the concept of

anthropophagy, as was Cordeiro himself. The other influence necessary for understanding

Cordeiro’s development is the Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco. In particular,

Cordeiro was influenced by Eco’s 1962 Open Work. In order to understand how Cordeiro came

to create his Popcretos, we must first understand these influences.

The Manifesto Antropófago (Anthropophagic Manifest), created by Oswald de Andrade

in 1928, did not propose a model, but rather a process-like attitude. It was based on the

rehabilitation of the primitive concept of “life as devouring” the elements from other cultures to

incorporate them into Brazilian culture. The term “anthropophagy,” as defined by Gazi Islam,

“marks moments of intercultural contact, where devouring the other at once acknowledges an

appetitive desire for appropriation and an aggressive process of deconstruction.”

Anthropophagy has been used in Brazil since its Modern period and influenced how Brazilian

artists interpreted foreign art and appropriated artistic styles. Anthropophagic artistic productions

are identified in Brazil as an ambiguous juxtaposition of different stages of capitalist

development, creating art that mixes modern content with an archaic content.

Between the original proposal of Oswald de Andrade (1928) and its re-interpretation in

the 1960s (with Neo-Pop and Tropicália, for example), something crucial happened: the

emergence, consolidation, and crisis of the Brazilian abstract-concrete avant-garde movements of

the 1950s. The anthropophagic method was assimilated by the unfolding of the Concrete (São

Paulo) and Neo-Concrete (Rio de Janeiro) avant-garde movements. Concrete art is known for its

abstraction, geometric forms, and for rejecting any meaning or symbolism outside of the brute

existence of the work itself. Cordeiro was the co-founder of a São Paulo group of Concrete

artists, and one of the primary theorists behind the movement.

However, by the 1960s, the pure formal experimentation of the Concrete and

NeoConcrete movements in the postwar period was being left behind, by artists such as

Cordeiro, to look for new influences, especially in the urban scene and urban icons. In Brazilian

terms, to process this anthropophagic response to Concretism one should imagine, in the

example given by Cordeiro, a Cadillac in the middle of an Amazonian indigenous tribe. Cordeiro

explained that to understand this composition, one needs to comprehend the meanings of these

things as value. Life, says Cordeiro, is natural and artificial, the objects created without the

intention of making art are part of a visual manifestation interchangeable with art. Challenging

this visual reality, things should carry semantics; the Cadillac in the Amazon tribe opens a new

horizon of reality. The consumption of the cultural object (the Cadillac) is understood as a

natural stage. This foreign object can have a meaning and values that can mirror everyday life,

when given new meanings through the composition.

The second major influence on Cordeiro’s development of the Popcretos is the work of

Umberto Eco’s, particularly his theory of the “open work.” The introduction to the Harvard

University Press edition of Open Work describes Eco’s concept of ambiguity and the “open

work” as follows:

The deliberate and systematic ambiguity of the open work is associated by Eco with a

well-known feature of modern art, namely its high degree of formal innovation.

Ambiguity, for Eco, is the product of the contravention of established conventions of

expression: the less conventional forms of expression are, the more scope they allow for

interpretation and therefore the more ambiguous they can be said to be. In traditional art,

contraventions occurred only within very definite limits, and forms of expression

remained substantially conventional; its ambiguity, therefore, was of a clearly

circumscribed kind. In the modern open work, on the other hand, the contravention of

conventions is far more radical, and it is this that gives it its very high degree of

ambiguity; since ordinary rules of expression no longer apply, the scope for interpretation

becomes enormous.

Eco’s emphasis on the ambiguity of the open work was important for Cordeiro’s move away

from the Concrete movement. His quest for more “open” works that worked against conventions

and allowed for broad and complex interpretation pushed him more in the direction of Pop.

Otilia Arantes observes the influence of Eco in Brazilian art criticism during the 1960s.

She notes that, for artists and critics like Cordeiro, Hélio Oiticica, and Ferreira Gullar, Eco’s

structuralist idea of the “open work,” served as a theoretical horizon on what could be done with

the avant-garde. It called on them to create open works that invite the viewer’s participation. As

Gullar would claim, ambiguity should be the main theme that should occupy artists. An open

work has an ambiguous message with plural meanings; it has multiple possibilities coexisting in

one signified. Art critic Mario Barata observes that as a result Eco’s influence, there was an

unexpected shift in Brazilian art. The new artistic plan and the viewer’s participation made

engaging with the work more direct and easier for viewers to comprehend the symbolic and

linguistic meanings.

As Cordeiro would emphasize, the open work, Neo-Pop, Realism, and the entire

paradigm of artistic expression of that time tried to eradicate the authoritarianism of the cultural

industry. Following Eco’s philosophy, they used symbols and language from the institutionalized

culture to start a war against it. This is how Cordeiro and the participants in the exhibitions that

marked the 1960s, in Brazil such as Opinião 65, understood their place as avant-garde artists.

For example, Cordeiro’s Opera Aperta, 1963 (Fig. 7), also called Ambiguity, depicts an

oil painting with small, squared mirrors attached in four rows. The mirrors work as sentences on

the paper, all distributed into lines with small gaps between them, representing, visually, the urge

to turn visual art into words (or theory). Eco’s work, which Cordeiro says influenced him (he

even reproduces the title in his work), deals precisely with this interest in interpreting art and

bringing art into a debate. The mirrors also work as windows seen from afar, in which the

viewer, upon approaching the work, can have their image, although fragmented, reflected. This

creates a provocative “open” ambiguity, or what Eco would see as a “participatory encounter,”

between the audience and the work. The open work is interested in art that can be both:

celebratory and depreciative, ironic and political, meaningful (intended to be comprehended) yet

complex. It admits plural interpretations all at once.

Cordeiro’s Opera Aperta does not look similar to other Pop works at first glance. This

was something of a “proto-Popcreto,” as the word “Popcreto” would only be created in 1964.

What I am calling Cordeiro’s Neo-Pop would only be fully established in 1964 with his

Popcretos, but in his Opera Aperta we can already see his interest in introducing ready-mades.

This is seen here in the choice of mirrors that reflect the outside world onto its canvas.

Cordeiro’s question about what art can be and how common places can be transfigured is his call

for change. Change not only in art, but (following the local expectations for art) as a force for

cultural change. The change does not need to be political in the sense of a message for the

government. It promotes changes in culture to embrace the viewer as a critical thinker, not

having to be guided toward one political agenda.

A few months after the establishment the military dictatorship, Waldemar Cordeiro would

exhibit a series at the Art Exhibit at IAB (São Paulo, June 1964) that Augusto de Campos

(the Brazilian Concrete poet) would baptize as “Espetaculos Popcretos,” or “Popcreto

Spectacles.” According to the poet, Cordeiro’s works had a Concrete structure, but one that had

anthropophagously swallowed the experience of American Pop Art.

Campos described Cordeiro’s Popcretos (Pop Art plus Concrete Art) as containing

“worthless utilitarian objects, pieces of furniture and scraps from automobiles [that] commanded

the new harvest of objects-dejects.” Campos exhibited alongside Cordeiro his anarconcreto

poem-posters that he explained as “verbal and nonverbal splinters derided the military

dictatorship installed in March that year.” Cordeiro’s Popcretos were a call to action to artists to

“re-semanticize” Concretism.

In this exhibition, Cordeiro would present a work with the title Popcreto para um

Popcritico, 1964 (Fig. 8), in which a red painted wood has a hoe resting vertically on its surface.

Through dots, the surfaces reveal photographs of hair, mouth, and noses that, because of the

small apertures, seem to look at the viewer without allowing the viewer to see a face or

recognize something human (other than fragments). The choice of a random object alludes to the

readymades that Cordeiro introduced to his hybrid of Concretism and Pop Art.

In Popcreto para um Popcritico, “popcreto” appears in the title, carrying the weight of

Cordeiro’s artistic shift in his title as the amalgamation of Concretism plus Pop Art. This is

followed by the explanation “popcritico,” translated as “critical pop.” This work can be a

statement about the new art that Cordeiro would venture into, Popcreto. The eye that peaks

through the holes is that of a viewer/art critic that cannot gaze into the entire dimension of the

work. The viewer/art critic stands behind a theoretical “jail” that is seen in the third plan for this

work. First, we see the hoe, then the red metal with holes, and, finally, we see fragments of a

human presence in photographic images.

The red that separates the ready-made object from the human representation is vibrant

and oppresses the work. It is as if the color is the protagonist; it is the red that the viewer

remembers after leaving the presence of this work. The red, however, can be understood as

politically symbolic (as a reference to Communism, for example). The ready-made with the red

surface reminds us of the Soviet Union’s flag (Fig. 9). Cordeiro’s use of the color red here can

guide us to the local political debate about Marxism in art criticism at the time while also

referencing (perhaps), a political stance from Cordeiro himself.

The use of a hoe instead of a hammer or sickle (as seen in the Soviet flag) could be

symbolically representing a rural Brazil that is not part of the progress that the urban centers

were experiencing. The dialectic of urban and rural is also part of this work. In the end, the

Marxism of Cordeiro expressed in his art was different than what some critics would expect

(without a clear, straightforward message, leaving space for diverse interpretations). Perhaps the

politics of this Popcreto was presented as a dialogue with critics such as Mario Pedrosa (the

famous critic of Pop that could be alluded to by the Popcritico part of the title). Perhaps the work

speaks against the Marxism of critics like Pedrosa. Cordeiro is provoking, presenting the red

“jail” that one can only peek through. Through his choice for ready-mades, Cordeiro would see a

return to the world, to the things that are recognizable and serve as symbols, such as a hoe

representing rural work.

Is there anything Pop about these works, beyond their title? Popcretos are small in scale

and not colorful, using mass-media images and readymades with a painted canvas. Scholars such

as Oscar Svanelid, observed the influence of Robert Rauschenberg’s work on Cordeiro work (in

fact, Cordeiro had contact with Rauschenberg during his time in Paris in 1963). Svanelid argues

that Cordeiro obtains his idea of antagonistic thoughts (which Svanelid describes as a “revolt”),

from Rauschenberg. In Contra-Mao, or Wrong Way, 1964 (Fig. 10) Cordeiro breaks the rules of

Concrete, providing a divided image that in black and white seems to only reveal itself in

fragments, resisting any single interpretation. The fragments that Svanelid calls a revolt is

Cordeiro’s interest in breaking the symbols apart (like the dismembered star), to force new

meanings. This plurality of possible meanings is also Cordeiro embracing Eco’s concept of the

open work.

To further consider the presence of Pop language in Cordeiro’s Popcretos, we can turn to

Max Bense, a German philosopher that was famous among students in Brazil at the time.

Cordeiro showed demonstrated appreciation for his work, sending Bense photographs of his

Popcretos. Bense was intrigued by the new way Cordeiro was utilizing Pop (mixing it with

Concrete art) and would try to define Cordeiro’s Popcreto as analytically as possible. Bense

separated what was Pop from what was Concrete. For the Pop elements of the Popcretos, he

listed the following: the use of everyday objects (banality), the material, disorder, and practical

usability. For the opposing Concrete influences, he identified: the use of mathematical figures,

the ideal (Platonic), order, and theoretical consumption. This logical differentiation, breaking

apart the contents of Cordeiro’s Popcretos, can sound reductionist, but can also help us to

comprehend what Cordeiro was trying to mix. These opposing elements are brought together in

the work without relieving their tension in the object. Popcretos are not a harmonious work, but,

rather, an explicit tension between rational ideas (Concrete) and common objects (Pop).

Despite his own use of the term Pop to title his Popcretos, Cordeiro’s work would be

received as belonging to a variety of alternative titles: New Figuration, New Realism, New

Objectivity, or Carioca Realism. However, the artist himself would incorporate Pop as the

constitution of his work and as part of his new stage in his career. From 1963, when he observes

the changes in global art towards a new nature (being represented as industrial). He started to

elaborate on what he called the next stage of art (at least at a personal level) and worked to

understand his own relationship to labels and movements such as New Figuration or New

Realism.

In the years of 1964 and 1965, Cordeiro produced two important documents published by

the Habitat magazine: one responding to art critic Jose Geraldo Vieira by defending the New

Figuration, and a second text, “Realism: Revenge Muse and Grief,” in which he abandons New

Figuration and affirms that a better term would be Realism. He sees his Popcretos, for example,

as representative of this new Realism.

In the open letter to Vieira, Cordeiro affirmed that the new figuration has nothing to do

with figuration; rather, New Figuration is a new “poetics” (in Eco’s sense). After fifteen years of

impersonal objectivity in visual language (in the Concrete movement) New Figuration is

about intentionality. New Figuration does not “represent” reality, but “presents” it following a

new method: New Figuration does not present bare materials but things (with semantic context).

Cordeiro would call this objectivation of things a semantic unity. Cordeiro gives an example of

this unity, observing that a cannon is not only a large cylinder but also a weapon that kills. In

this, Cordeiro’s understanding of New Figuration agrees with the interests of the time (as

expressed by critic Ferreira Gullar and other artists such as Hélio Oiticica, for example), that art

should be interested in a “new humanism.” It should provide meaning and context for human

affairs, as opposed to a rational play of form.

Finally, Cordeiro affirms that the New Figuration will exterminate its adversary,

figuration, with the final weapon of referential meaning. In this way, it will anthropophagically

digest the enemy. One year before this open letter (in a text about the VII São Paulo Biennial in

1963) Cordeiro had already announced New Figuration as a means to fight individual alienation.

In this brief text, Cordeiro affirmed a new period in art that he noticed at a global level in Pop

Art, Nouveaux Realistes, and in the New Figuration presented by the artists at the 1963 Biennial.

This new period he called a semantic period, or New Figuration. The semantic period was part of

a process that had a syntax period, a pragmatic period, and evolved into semantics (or: the

sign as things). Cordeiro observed that these different periods signal different stages of

capitalism (as Roberto Schwarz agrees).

Cordeiro described New Figuration as immediate materiality with a social function that

used anti-art objects as criticism of the beaux arts form. Although Cordeiro did not define the

term beaux arts in his writing, it is a common term to use when referring to art made in France or

art made in Brazil with French influence. New Figuration was seeking new meanings and a more

active spectator (active with the work of art, and against the political superstructure). The world

that interested New Figuration was that of industrial production (an interest similar to the interest

in nature from other art movements). It was interested in readymade objects with human

significance, taken from the everyday experience of the view. Cordeiro noticed that the alienation

of consumerism comes from the desire for possessing the thing. But under the gaze of New

Figuration, the thing/object, was an element to be transformed. It was transformed in information

and sign and message. Consumer objects (mirrors, hoes, and so on) are now presented not as

consumer objects, but as vehicles of meaning.

In Cordeiro’s second Habitat publication of 1965, “Realism: Revenge Muse and Grief,”

Cordeiro distanced himself from New Figuration. He assumes Pop Art as a form of Realism,

through his Popcretos. He addressed the new forms of Realism in modern art such as Pop Art,

New Realism, and in his own “Popcretos.” Cordeiro stood with this New Realism, arguing that

abstract art, and the Concrete art that he helped to establish in Brazil, is a naturalist materialism.

He argued that art should bring man together by presenting things directly, as expressive signs,

and forming a new language. New Realism, Cordeiro would affirm, dealt with the problem of

morality, industrial revolution, image dominion, visual language, and the new humanism. With

the failure of technological utopias, he saw social and individual problems worsening with

technical progress. Concrete art, according to Cordeiro, was the construction of an artificial

visual language in a postwar context that needed a visual language valid at the universal level,

aiming at the structure of perception. Cordeiro then affirms that this New Realism has nothing to

do with New Figuration, because New Realism is the direct representation of things of the serial

industrial production.

Cordeiro would mark Brazilian art with his Popcretos. I believe that Popcretos are an

early expression of Neo-Pop in Brazil. He self-consciously accepts American Pop Art, but he

anthropophagically combines it with his own experiences and his own Concrete style. His

Popcretos are not as explicitly critical of American culture (and cultural imperialism) as the

NeoPop that would follow him. However, we can already see the need to respond to the political

situation of the dictatorship, and an increase in the use of political objects and symbols—as in

the Marxist commentary we interpreted in Popcreto para um Popcritico, 1964 (Fig. 8).

Now that I have discussed Cordeiro’s influential early adoption of Pop with his

Popcretos, I would like to track the development of Neo-Pop (that comes largely out of

Cordeiro’s work and influence on the scene). Two 1965 exhibitions that Cordeiro was involved

with (Opinião 65 and Propostas 65) would be instrumental in developing the Brazilian Neo-Pop

language. During this early period, Neo-Pop in Brazil would develop organically, coming from

figures (like Cordeiro) that had been exposed to Pop in their travels or in magazines. It would not

be until 1967, with the IX São Paulo Biennial, that American Pop can be said to have officially

arrived in Brazil in a formal way. However, as I have already argued with Cordeiro, Neo-Pop

was already developing in Brazil before 1967. In the next section, I hope to track the

development of Brazilian Neo-Pop from Cordeiro to the Biennial.

V. Exhibition Opinião 65

In this section, I will primarily discuss the influential Opinião 65 exhibition, which I

argue marks an important step in the development of Brazilian Neo-Pop. First, I will provide

context for the exhibition and describe the intentions with which it was created. Then I will

describe several of the artworks that featured, demonstrating the (Neo)-Pop Art tendencies they

displayed. Then I will describe several reactions to the exhibition, demonstrating how the

exhibition was understood as conne

During the 1960s, American Pop Art started to be introduced in other countries, although

sometimes under different labels. As we have seen with Cordeiro in Brazil, for example, Pop was

introduced as “New Figuration.” It was understood as a shift from Neo-Concretism, an abstract

movement established as the peak of national art during the 1950s that now, in the 1960s, started

to lose its character as the predominant style among serious Brazilian artists.

During the exhibition Opinião 65 (Opinion 65) in 1965, many artists started to explore a

Neo-Pop style to deal with their local concerns. As I have already established, due to the recent

dictatorship, those concerns were largely political. Despite having different approaches than what

was seen in figurative art, Pop Art reintroduced the figurative amidst an abstract tradition already

consolidated in the United States. The same was true in Brazil, with the transition from

the Concrete movement to Pop Art. Thus, Pop Art served to liberate artists from the dominance

of abstraction (in both America and Brazil).

Brazilian artists, both young and already established, were looking for new figurative

styles in the 1960s to make art with critical interpretations of urban life. New Figuration began

taking shape in 1964, with the Paris exhibition Mythologies Quotidiennes, or Everyday

Mythologies. That exhibition influenced Ceres Franco, the organizer of Opinião 65, to think

about a Brazilian exhibition with artists interested in New Figuration. It was the Opinião 65

exhibition that would introduce Pop Art to Brazil and push the country to move away from

abstraction.

Opinião 65 was an exhibition with twenty-nine artists (Brazilians, Argentinians, and

other nationalities). Because the artists in Opinião 65 were not American, some would argue that

the historical introduction of Pop Art in Brazil would not occur until the 1967 IX Sao Paulo Art

Biennial (where American Pop artists would have their works exhibited in Brazil for the first

time). Opinião 65, however, marked the introduction of New Figuration/Realism and the rise of

political messages seeking to grapple with the recent dictatorship. I argue (following other

thinkers to be discussed below) that Opinião 65 already demonstrates the presence of Pop in

Brazil. Further, I believe that we can see here the features of Brazilian Neo-Pop that I have

already identified in Cordeiro, such as: the political messages of the works, the influence of

Eco’s open work, and the continued Brazilian anthropophagic postcolonial process of

interpreting and reconstituting foreign cultural objects.

Ceres Franco, organizer of the exhibition Opinião 65, described the event as a rupture

exhibition, which is an interesting choice of words. Waldemar Cordeiro was one of the artists

included in Opinião 65. In particular, examples of his Concrete Art phase were shown as the

contrast with what the New Figuration art was “rupturing” from. This language of “rupture” is a

reference to Cordeiro’s own 1952 text the “Manifesto Ruptura” (Rupture Manifest). In this,

Cordeiro calls for the Concrete movement’s rupture from figurative painting. In it, he condemns

any kind of figurative art and any form of expression, whether individual or symbolic. The

Concrete movement understood art experiences as based on values such as space-time,

movement, and matter. According to the manifesto, “knowledge is based on concepts” and “clear

and certain principles” that position art far above subjective opinion. Thus, Franco is making a

bit of a joke, using Cordeiro’s words from thirteen years ago to poke fun at him. In 1952 he

called for a rupture with figuration, and now he is calling for a rupture from that rupture (and

thus back to figuration: a New Figuration).

This rupture was understood by contemporaries as a break from abstract art, especially

the successful Neo-Concretism that Brazilian artists devoted their careers to and dominated the

landscape in the 1950s. This exhibition was commemorative of the fourth centenary of the

Museum of Modern Art in Rio de Janeiro. Opening one year after the beginning of dictatorship,

the exhibition was a breath of fresh air/art in the city. If featured Brazilians such as Waldemar

Cordeiro and Antonio Dias, as well as artists from France, Spain, Argentina, England, and

Hungry. Franco would describe these works as part of the international interest in Realism and

Figuration as seen in American Pop Art and European Nouveau Realism.

Franco called the art being made by young artists (and the new art that she opted for

exhibiting: with Nouveaux Realism and Pop Art influences) “young painting.” Franco defined

this style of art as concerned with everyday life, returning to society, culture that melts into art,

and urban. She described this “young painting” as a cult of everyday myths (recalling her

inspiration from the Paris exhibition Mythologies Quotidiennes). She also observed the

enthusiasm and critical spirit of European young artists. Franco made a distinction between

foreign and Brazilian artists, mentioning foreign artists as more individualistic in their career,

while Brazilian artists were sharing a feeling of hope. Even though Franco did not develop this

sentiment of hope, it seems related to the opinionated/critical spirit of the exhibition. An

exhibition that survived among the tensions of censorship and dictatorship.

Franco observed common themes in the works of the exhibit: man’s different

relationships with machine, technological development in society and art, and the industrial

revolution and the idea of progress. This idea of progress was the main aspect of the 1950s in

Brazil. There was an optimism about Brazil and the progress of its culture; that what started in

the 1920s would end in the 1950s with the elaboration of Brazilian Neo-Concretism. Considered

the national art in essence in agreement with artists and scholars such as Cordeiro. Works in the

exhibition included photographic processes, assemblage, and Oiticica’s parangoles. There were

examples of Concrete art with Ivan Serpa and Cordeiro. There were works concerned with the

“man” in artists such as Roberto Magalhães and Jose Jardiel. And there was the work of Jon

Christofori, the pioneer of New Figuration. The “opinion” that named the Opinião 65 exhibition

signaled the variety of comments that the artists wanted to make about the rupture represented by

New Figuration (and also, opinions about the dictatorship).

One artist that had his work exhibited at Opinião 65 was Roberto Magalhães, with Obra

sem titulo, 1965 (Fig. 11). In the work, there is a soldier with a gun in profile with a swastika on

his beret and his mouth open, with sharp teeth, as if yelling. The Maltese Cross on the lapel of

this soldier is evocative of the Order of Christ in Brazil, an order instituted by emperor Pedro I of

Brazil in 1822 with religious and state interests. To this day, the Maltese Cross is a common

symbol in Brazil (it is even associated with a soccer team from Rio de Janeiro). In Magalhães’

work, the symbols of the swastika, the Maltese Cross, and the army elements remind the viewer

of the dictatorship that was happening. In Magalhães’ work there is no pop culture symbol such

as a movie star; popular culture is being demonstrated through the military symbols.

Magalhães would also present a self-portrait with three half-faces: Self-Portrait in Three

Phases, 1965 (Fig. 12). In this self-portrait we see three half-painted faces that seem closer to

masks than to the human figure. His self-portraits are part of a series in which he used

serigraphy, or silkscreen printing, a technique introduced by advertising and used in art by Pop

artists. This technique connects Magalhães with the idea of a character, not what would be

expected by a self-portrait. We can understand this not as a single work, but as part of a series

with his other work, Talking Self-Portrait, 1965 (Fig. 13). In Talking Self-Portrait, the artist

seems not to express Pop via a style, but instead with his choice of technique and the theme of

the artist. Seen as part of a serial narrative, Self-Portrait in Three Phases reflects a change in the

figure, a transformation, as if he is a super-hero changing into their costume. In Three Phases, his

repetition of the face is notable, as Warhol would also make similar choices in his Marilyn

Monroe (Fig. 1) two years after Magalhães, in 1967. The face is the symbol, the changing aspect

is a face/mask without a body that stares, emptied, soulless in a self-portrait. It reveals nothing of

the artist as a person but speaks loudly of society.

Antonio Dias would participate in the exhibition with his Nota sobre a Morte Imprevista,

1965 (Fig. 14). An anti-frame in rhombus shape with objects that invade the physical space of

real life. The work crosses the border between comic book and reality, denying the limits of the

frame. The object (excrement) lures the viewer without giving itself to the touch, as it is kept

behind glass. Dias exhibited a work that would not only participate in the new paradigm being

built (New Figuration) but he also utilized his brushstroke in a comic book style that resisted any

narrative. The theme of violence (the dictatorial violence) is combined in this anti-frame of

cartoon skulls, explosions, dismemberment, and other violent imagery. It seems familiar due to

the comic book style and the separated squares that bring an order that is as confusing as it is

frustrating. The comic style panels indicate a narrative frame, but the panels themselves do not

conform to this frame. The anti-narrative explodes in the object, crossing the border into the

space of the real (as the bottom panel emerges out of the cartoon and into reality). It is as if the

violence were not contained in the work but is now also an act that incites the viewer, presenting

physical filth. The characters are dismembered, with bones and red blood assembled in an

unidentified figure without continuation. From any perspective, even if the viewer could turn the

painting in an attempt to comprehend the situation, only one thing would remain: the excrement.

As a result of the violent act, or even as an annunciation of its arrival, the object is the only

presence that matters, it is the focal point.

Now that we have examined some of the works that featured in the exhibition, we can see

how contemporary (and later) critics understood the works of Opinião 65. As we shall see, the

exhibition was already understood as drawing on Pop influences. One of the contemporary

voices to provide support for Opinião 65 was the critic Ferreira Gullar, who praised the

exhibition as a breath of new humanism, with artists being interested in the world, not absorbed

by their own life and problems. He also noted the influence of Pop Art in the exhibition

(although it was not formally called a Pop Art exhibition). Gullar observed that he did not see

any “masterpiece,” in the sense of a genius use of craft and technique. However, he notes that

these artists were not occupied with this, but rather sought to present a new direction for

Brazilian art. He saw the artists’ world view as an interest in human life and the problems of man

and society.

Remember that Ceres Franco, the organizer of the exhibition, claimed that this exhibition

was meant to break with the art of the past, specifically abstract art and the Neo-Concretism that

had flourished and dominated Brazilian art during the 1950s. This motivated her to bring artists

influenced by new movements such as American Pop Art and European Nouveau Realism into

the exhibition. Gullar agreed with Franco about this rupture, seeing the exhibition as part of a

process to exhaust the basic elements that had supported art from Impressionism until then. With

the Concretism of the 1950s, abstract art and life were so distant from each other that, with

Opinião 65, Gullar found a new interest in (and a revival of) everyday life. Artists were returning

to life and, thus, figuration. Gullar agrees with the title of the exhibition, that it successfully

delivered the artists’ opinions. Further, he saw it as part of an internationalization of art that

would locate Brazil among other countries (such as United States and France), in a return of

figuration and realism. Gullar called this a Brazilian critical realism.

Otilia Arantes, in her article “De Opiniao 65 a XVIII Bienal” (From Opinion 65 to the

XVIII São Paulo Art Biennial), gave a thorough description of Brazilian art from 1965 until

1986. Arantes observed three stages of avant-garde in Brazil: cubo-futurism, from 1917 to 1932;

abstract/concrete, from 1945 to 1960; and dadaism/pop from 1965 to 1969 (possibly 1974). It is

notable that she places the end of Concretism and the beginning of Pop in 1965 (and not 1967

with the formal debut of American Pop artists at the IX São Paulo Biennial). In 1965, with the

abandonment of Concretism, Brazilian artists were interested in art as synonymous with politics;

and art that had an aggressive position against conformism. Anti-art was understood as realism,

experimentalism, active participation of the spectator, and political impact (or social change).

Arantes observed that, in the 60s, artists in Brazil absorbed (ate) technological resources

and international art while questioning the introjection or rejection of national traditions

(anthropophagy). Waldemar Cordeiro, Hélio Oiticica, and other artists in theater, music, and

other arts saw the act of creating art in Brazil as a means to oppose folklorization (they did not

want Brazilian art to simple be a reproduction of folk/local art). These artists wanted to locate

Brazil in the universal context. They wanted to overcome the delay in Brazilian development in

art, trying to represent Brazil as a country able to create art (even amidst poverty and labeled as

underdeveloped).

Arantes wrote that the influence of Pop Art on Brazilian artists was undeniable. However,

they were not only replicating contemporary reality with its myths and symbols but creating a

new language in Brazilian terms. She argues that Brazilian (Neo)-Pop artists such as Wesley

Duke Lee and Geraldo de Barros (she cites Oiticica as Pop as well), had a distinguished style in

comparison to American artists.

One example that Arantes uses to demonstrate the distinct (Neo)-Pop language being

developed in Brazil is the work of Mauricio Nogueria de Lima, a participant of the Concrete

Rupture movement (alongside Cordeiro). In 1964, he exhibited works with traffic symbols, as

seen in Nao entre a esquerda (Fig. 15), or “Do Not Turn Left.” In Do Not Turn Left, he would use

words as a concrete poem with a bold “no” in lowercase (as was common in this style) across the

top. He also has the traffic symbol of a vertical arrow pointing left with a red circle surrounding

it and a red line crossing out the black arrow (a symbol of negation commonly understood by

drivers). One of the texts reads: “entre pelo cano,” a Brazilian expression that means “to go to

jail” (left), and “conservem-se a direita,” keep right (right). These two uses of text in this poster

add a political tone to the work, with references to right and leftwing politics.

The text warns “do not turn left” because of the recent dictatorship that was already beginning to

oppress leftists, especially artists.

Arantes observes that this work demonstrates how the Neo-Concrete Lima was moving to

a fresh (Neo)-Pop style. For example, the work deals with reality (a return to humanistic

home/society), uses symbols, short texts/imperative, and irony. Arantes argues that these artists

(such as Lima and the artists at Opinião 65) wished to reveal the everyday reality regulated by

the laws of consumerism and what she called (borrowing Mario Pedrosa’s concept)

“infrareality,” using materials combining past and ultramodern objects.

Another later scholar who observed the presence of (Neo)-Pop language at Opinião 65 is

Luiz Renato Martins, in his 2017 book The Long Roots of Formalism in Brazil. Martins claims

that artists such as Antonio Dias “kidnapped Pop art, which was appropriated, devoured and

swallowed up, if I may insist, by a new ‘cannibal’—to recall the terms of the ‘Cannibalist

Manifesto.” He adds that the artists at Opinião 65 performed a “reinterpretation of Pop art,

inflecting it with a Brazilian and politicised bias.”

In 1965, artists connected by this new interest in figuration and realism (and influenced

by Pop Art), another exhibition, Propostas 65, in São Paulo. This exhibition would serve to

continue the move toward New Figuration and the development of Brazilian Neo-Pop that

Opinião 65 started. For example, Cordeiro and Angelo de Aquino would bring together artists

that participated in the Opinião 65, joined by others that were not present in the Rio de Janeiro

exhibition.

Mauricio Nogueira Lima presented a bright colored painting in red and yellow of The

Beatles, the Atomic Beatles, 1965 (Fig. 16). The text reads paul, george, john, and ringo (all in

lowercase). The work is an appropriation of mass culture idols and is reminiscent of the

American Pop Art language, with the use of a cult of celebrity, bright colors, simple and evenly

distributed images, and a composition that appears as the cover of an album or magazine. The

difference is that Lima integrated their names so as to differentiate them, exploring their

individuality against simply “The Beatles.” The “atomic” in the title refers to their “explosive”

presence in the media and the massive effect they had on music during that period. Lima would

continue his Neo-Pop later in the decade, and in 1969 will paint his own Marylin, Marilyn

Monroe (Fig. 17). Lima is one of the Neo-Pop Brazilian artists that has shown the most direct

influence of American Pop in his work. Cordeiro would describe Propostas 65 as exhibiting

artists enslaved by traditional languages and others proficient in the new languages. Lima

belongs to the second category.

Art critic Sergio Ferro wrote that this new Brazilian way of painting in Propostas 65

would use any instrument available to react to reality and its many problems. Without one

unified style or an elegant language, Propostas 65 presented a plural expression of realism and a

fearless (anthropophagic) appropriation of methods, such as Magical Realism, New Figuration,

and Pop. Ferro says the exhibition demonstrates that reality is impossible to comprehend and that

it cannot be accessed through only one type of knowledge—or art.

The pluralism affirmed by Ferro was not only found in the many expressions of similar

themes and worries, but also in the use of styles. Nelson Lerner exhibited Object no 2, 1965 (Fig.

18) a candy dispenser commonly used in bodegas in Brazil. Cordeiro would briefly address the

work in the exhibition catalogue with the single word “popcreto,” affirming that Lerner had

created a Popcreto. For Cordeiro, as we have discussed, in a Popcreto “the object (ready-made)

is built, and it builds a space that is no longer the physical space. The disintegration of the space

of the physical object is also a semantic disintegration, destruction of conventionalities, and, on

the other hand, a semantic construction, the construction of a new meaning.” In other words, the

candy dispenser, or object number 2, is given a new meaning; it is taken from the common place

and emptied out from its everyday purpose to become an art object. The purpose of the object is

not given in its title, as it now becomes part of a serial process of objects turned into art by the

artist. Cordeiro’s Popcretos allow readymades to not only confuse art enthusiasts, but to instruct

the viewer in the search for meaning. Object no 2 also recalls Wayne Thiebaud’s work, which in

the American West Coast would explore the themes of food and consumerism. In his work,

cakes, milkshakes, jukeboxes, and candy dispensers are painted in a study of color and as a

communication of the contemporary culture of the 1960s.

Pop Art would only be official in the country after the IX São Paulo Biennial in 1967.

This Biennial would mark the first Pop Art exhibition in Brazil. This exhibition was organized by

the Smithsonian Institute and was the American contribution to the IX Biennial. In this event,

there were two exhibitions, “Environment USA 1957 – 1967,” with works by Robert

Rauschenberg, Edward Ruscha, Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, and others,

and “Edward Hopper: Retrospective.” William C. Seitz, organizer of the exhibitions, affirmed

that he chose Hopper to demonstrate a disenchanted parallel between American life in the 1920s

and the 1960s. Seitz said that he aimed to show Pop Art beyond its celebration of consumerism,

opting for exhibiting works such as Jasper Johns’ Three Flags, Ruscha’s Gas Station,

Rauschenberg’s Buffalo II, and Warhol’s Death and Disaster Series. We can only speculate as to

why he would choose these works to present American Pop to Brazil, but perhaps he understood

that Brazilian artists would not be receptive to the celebratory/optimistic strands of American

Pop (of the kind that Lippard saw as defining for Pop).

As critics and scholars such as Gullar, Arantes, and Martins have argued, since Opinião

65, Pop Art in Brazil was more than a simple reproduction of the Pop style in a different country.

With this exhibition, Pop Art had its start already as a Neo-Pop. It was not against or counter to

the American style (as in a “Post-Pop). Instead, it was adding (or directly addressing) its local

political and sociological intentions. The Neo-Pop exhibited at Opinião 65 and Propostas 65 was

already shaped by Brazilian artists according to the country’s political bias.

Pop Art was never a style that artists shared with the same ideology or intentions. As a

non-monolithic style, Pop Art always had a variable and diverse life according to each artist.

Considering the politics of Pop in American artists (such as in works by Robert Indiana) and the

Neo-Pop of Brazilian artists such as Cordeiro or Dias, for example, the complexity of Pop can be

seen on an individual basis.

However, what can be broadly said about the Neo-Pop language in Brazil (as seen at

Opinião 65 and Propostas 65) is that it was not only more directly political, but the politics were

different than that in the United States (given the dictatorship and the political turmoil).

Additionally, this difference in postcolonial situation required the use of different methods and

concepts. For example, Brazilian Neo-Pop Art is heavily influenced by Andrade’s concept of

anthropophagy and Eco’s concept of the open work. Thus, not only is the content of Brazilian

Neo-Pop noticeably different from American Pop (more political and critical of American

interventionism), but the formal approach of the artists is also informed by different concepts

(anthropophagy, the open work). In this section, I have attempted to trace the development of

those three general features of Brazilian Neo-Pop as they developed out of Cordeiro’s work,

through the 1965 Opinião and Propostas exhibitions, and up to the debut of American Pop in

Brazil in 1967.

In the concluding section, I will compare and contrast Brazilian Neo-Pop with the Pop

works created in America and Europe, as exemplified by works from artists such as Cildo

Meireles, Marcello Nitsche, and Hélio Oiticica. Oiticica is a good example of a Brazilian artist

who avoided the label of Pop for personal and political reasons (despite its seeming influence on

his work. On the other hand, Meireles and Marcello Nitsche both demonstrate a more

selfconscious adoption of American Pop. For that reason, their work provides helpful insights on

the differences between the American Pop and Brazilian Neo-Pop languages, as we can observe

how they re-interpreted work by American artists such as Warhol.

Conclusion

The thesis of this work (as stated in the introduction) was to reintroduce Pop Art in such a

way as to include a distinctly Brazilian representation of Pop: as Brazilian Neo-Pop. I have

sought to demonstrate that, in Brazil, the optimism and consumerism that scholars believed to be

glorified in Pop were “anthropophagically” reinterpreted by Brazilian artists who created

NeoPop “open works.” An important part of this process involved following a broader Latin

American inclination to adjust Pop by dealing with different political contexts: in Brazil, this

meant, in large part, dealing with the influence of American politics and culture, especially in

light of the 1964 military coup that occurred even as Pop Art was being introduced in Brazil.

In 1965, one year after Brazil’s military coup and Cordeiro’s Popcretos, two exhibitions

would cause a rupture with the Neo-Concrete movement from the 1950s, Opinião 65 and

Propostas 65 (in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, respectively). At the Opinião 65 and Propostas

65, Pop Art would be understood as an influence on artists such as Waldemar Cordeiro, the

ItaloBrazilian artist that was already established as a famous and influential artist in Brazil due to

his presence in the Concrete and Neo-Concrete movements. Cordeiro would, in 1965, participate

in both exhibitions: at Opinião 65 his work was exhibited to represent the Neo-concrete

movement, as a means of distinguishing the new styles that were being introduced in Brazil such

as Pop Art. Cordeiro himself would organize Propostas 65 to exhibit, alongside other artists, his

artistic shift into Neo-Pop, or what he would call “popcreto.”

If Opinião 65 started the debate about new interests in art and presented young and

already known artists side-by-side, Propostas 65 was received as a warning about what art meant

then. The polemical essence of Opinião 65 served to prepare the public and critics for what was

about to unveil: Propostas 65. With Nova Objetividade in 1967 (an exhibition organized by the

well-known artist Hélio Oiticica), the debate continued among Brazilian artists admitting an

evolution of ideas and styles. These new ideas served as instruments, Sergio Ferro argues, to

represent the new reality that unfolded and that would shift again, soon, with the oppressions of

dictatorship. While artists such as Carlos Vergara would make guerrilla art and refused any

influence outside of Europe, artists such as Cordeiro would see this attitude as a resistance to

learn the new languages that were being used. Cordeiro, a visionary, adapted to the new

languages and created his own.

It was only in 1967 that the country would have an exhibition of International Pop artists

at the IX Sao Paulo Art Biennial. As such, the Pop Art that arrived in Brazil pre-1967 was via

magazines that circulated in art studios and universities and through some artists, such as

Cordeiro, that would travel to Europe and have contact with artists (such as his contact with

Robert Rauschenberg while visiting exhibitions in Italy).

The influence of American Pop Art in Brazil would be assimilated, taking into

consideration the ideology that artists should use art as social criticism and for social change. In

order to create Pop Art for a Brazilian audience, artists had to deal with: the American influence

in Brazil’s culture, politics, and economy; the reaction against this influence by leftists (most of

them were themselves artists and art critics); avoiding making derivative Pop Art that would not

be in dialogue with the local interests.

Now that I have established (in the last several sections) the history of Pop and Neo-Pop

in Brazil, I would like to finish this work with some general comments on the differences

between Neo-Pop in Brazil and the roots of Pop Art in America and Europe. In doing so, I will

refer to a number of artists’ work as examples to illustrate my points. As Lamoni observes,

Brazilian art in the first half of the 1960s meant artists seeking “artistic practices often associated

with the creation of spaces of resistance as well as with the discussion of the relation between the

artist and the public.” This idea of political expression via art emerged from the political tension

in the country at the time. In the case of Neo-Pop, in Brazil, one of the main uses of the style was

to comment on the American imperialism that influenced the politics of Latin

American countries in the sixties and the horrors of dictatorship such as censorship and torture.

In Brazil, as a result of this political climate, scholars, curators, and artists themselves

were cautious when dealing with Neo-Pop. Hélio Oiticica was an excellent example of this

hesitance to label an artist as Pop. Due to the anti-Pop structuralist interpretation common at the

time, artists using graphic arts (such as the flags/banners designed by Oiticica and Antonio

Manuel in 1967 and 1968 in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro) were not considered Pop. Even when

utilizing the medium of printmaking (as often seen in Pop) such as the print of black ink on cloth

in Oiticica’s Be an Outlaw, Be a Hero, 1967 (Fig. 19), the work is not considered Pop. In Be an

Outlaw, Be a Hero, Oiticica places the image of the dead body of a common thief from the news,

prints it with ink on cloth and adds the “Be an Outlaw, Be a Hero” text underneath the body

(disposed as an inverted crucifix). This work was made to participate in Flag Sunday, an urban

intervention in São Paulo in which the flags/banners produced by artists would be sold in the

street to the passing public. Oiticica, as seen in this work, reappropriated popular culture

symbols and images and had mass culture as his focus. Despite this, he was still considered not

politically upfront in many of his works. His contribution to Brazilian Pop was not discussed by

critics, and the style of Pop was acknowledged only by convergence, as it was common with

other artists that used Pop in their style. To avoid the “Americanism” in Pop Art, some

Brazilian artists like Oiticica refused the term Pop and, instead, opted for “Nova Objetividade,”

or “New Objectivity.”

Oiticica’s New Objectivity did not want to completely abandon the Neo-Concrete (it still

aimed at being abstract and conceptual). Political change through art was his goal. To achieve

that, Oiticica’s work demanded the participation of the spectator. In his work Parangoles from

1964 (Fig. 20), banners, tents, and capes painted in bright colors were worn by artist and

members of the favela of Mangueira (also a school of samba). The Parangoles were an anarchic

position against the Brazilian political and social situation of the time. His Parangoles from 1967

were a series of anti-art capes made in diverse colors that were to be worn by spectators as a

contribution to an art environment (Oiticica believed in the museum being the world, outside the

institutionalized art space) that used the space to bring together art and life. Oiticica wanted to

turn the environment of the museum into an expression of everyday life and to radically

transform societal forces with his work. Oiticica’s work, although sometimes admitted as having

some convergence with Pop, is not usually considered Neo-Pop. Reasons for this can

vary: because of his intentions with his art (to create a Brazilian vanguard independent from

American or European styles); his environmental exploration with performance art; or his

criticizing the Brazilian culture from inside. Despite this, some artists, such as Marcello Nitsche,

use the terms New Objectivity and Pop interchangeably.

While Oiticica refused the label of Pop, an example of a more self-aware relationship

between (American) Pop and (Brazilian) Neo-Pop can be observed in Warhol’s Green CocaCola

Bottles, 1962 (Fig. 21) and in Cildo Meireles’ Insertions into Ideological Circuits: CocaCola

Project, 1970 (Fig. 22). Warhol’s image depicts seven rows of bluish bottles of Coca Cola.

The logo, in red, reads “Coca-Cola” at the bottom. The fading colors and inconsistent display of

the same image are indicative of the work not being seen as commercial art, which would need

to be more uniform. However, the repetition and the addition of the logo at the bottom can

confound the viewer into thinking that it is an advertisement. Intricate artistic reproduction and

the language of advertising are a part of Warhol’s style. Looking at this image, one does not have

a direct interpretation of the theme. Dealing with themes such as consumerism, globalization,

and the food industry, Warhol’s work can either be seen as praising or criticizing the American

brand or way of life. That is not the case in Meireles’ Insertions.

In Meireles’ Insertions from 1970, the artist engraved bottles with sayings like “Yankees

Go Home” and “Quem Matou Herzog?” (Who Killed Herzog?), referencing the death of

journalist Vladimir Herzog, killed while arresting the agencies of political repression in Brazil. It

features a mix of English and Portuguese messages. The bottles were redistributed for

circulation. These bottles were meant to be “parasites” in the circuit. As Meireles described this

work, “they were small, discrete even, but dealing with large scales.” Following in

Duchamp’s footsteps (and Warhol’s), these bottles were not created by the artist, but objects

distributed that the artist engraved with different sayings. Instead of exhibiting them, Meireles

returned them to the public to spread the message in one of the most consumed sodas in the

world.

Even though he used Coca-Cola bottles as a form of artistic criticism, Meireles choice of

Coca-Cola bottles can be seen following Warhol’s tendency to represent ordinary objects. When

Warhol chose cans of Campbell’s tomato soup to depict in his Campbell’s Soup Cans, 1961 (Fig.

23) he opted for it because “of his own experience with the product… its use as a compelling

symbol of the post-war American supermarket and the culinary shift that it signaled.” Meireles,

at the same time, utilized an ordinary object that himself had experience with (was familiar

with), that marked the influence of American culture in Brazilian habits, and marked a shift in

the Brazilian drink of choice. Instead of opting for a Brazilian brand of soda, Meireles adapted

the colonial culture into a new interpretation, creating what today could be seen as postcolonial

art. In Meireles’ Insertions, one of his sayings is “‘Yankees Go Home;’ the open critique of

American imperialism is not veiled through the use of an American brand or opening

interpretation as to whether it was celebratory of consumer culture. The artist, rather, openly

delivered his message against American intervention in national politics, because he was

interested in “circuits of exchange that were decentralized and unconstrained, preferring these

structures to the closed organization of the art world.” The “Neo” aspect of Brazilian Pop is seen

in this example. The work acknowledged its own culture and historical tensions rather than

reproducing the American style. Thus, it is “Neo,” and not only “Pop.”

Another characteristic of Brazilian Neo-Pop was the use of subject matter. Neo-Pop

works borrowed the commercial style of advertising, going beyond the imagery of mass culture

and adding a less subtle political message. As seen in Marcello Nitsche’s work I Want You, 1966

(Fig. 24), the entire canvas is used to depict a hand pointing its finger to the viewer with a

threedimensional red drop of blood. The image is a reference to the American propaganda poster

that said, “I want you for the US army.” (Fig. 25) Nitsche said about this work that he “sought to

use visual elements of everyday life, practicing a language that the Brazilian people already

knew. Based on this language, I inserted a criticism about the system.” As in this work, many

Brazilian artists found in Neo-Pop refuge to criticize the authoritarian regime. Artists suffered

under the dictatorship and were always looking for ways to trick the system. As Nitsche says, he

found in American imagery a way to criticize the situation. He did so with elements that did not

belong to Brazilian culture, but that Brazilians had enough knowledge about to understand the

visual reference.

This blend of Brazilian culture with other elements were not new or belonging uniquely

to Neo-Pop, but a concept developed during the Brazilian modernist movement in the 1920s

called “anthropophagy.” As we have discussed, the cultural concept of anthropophagy, first

introduced in 1928 by Oswald de Andrade, influenced how Brazilian artists received foreign art

and appropriated artistic styles. This postcolonial concept allowed Brazilians, via deconstruction

and reconstruction, to insert their own Brazilian cultural expression into the cultural objects

appropriated (or received) from dominant global cultures. One of the styles that was appropriated

through anthropophagy was “Pop Art.” In addition to the concept of anthropophagy, Umberto

Eco’s concept of the open work (and his ideas of ambiguity) would be influential on Waldemar

Cordeiro (especially), and through him the subsequent development of Brazilian Neo-Pop.

In Brazil, Pop Art received a different treatment when compared to its roots in Europe

and the United States. Brazilian Neo-Pop Art was more politically upfront and critical of

America’s symbols, way of life, and influence on the politics of Brazil. This is a contrast with

American Pop largely seen as either culturally/politically optimistic (for example by Lippard) or

ambiguous. Despite this potential change in tone, and despite the reluctance of many Brazilian

artists to be labelled as Pop, I believe that authentic Neo-Pop art thrived in Brazil in the 1960s.

Neo-Pop played an instrumental role in the way Brazilian artists understood and responded to the

tensions and terrors of the dictatorship—a dictatorship that would force many of them to flee the

country before the end of the decade.

Students also viewed