John King- El Di Tella

8/10/2019 John King- El Di Tella

1/9

Society for Latin American Studies

El Di Tella and Argentine Cultural Development in the 1960sAuthor(s): J. KingSource: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Oct., 1981), pp. 105-112Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for Latin American StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3338623 .Accessed: 27/05/2011 11:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Latin American Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Bulletin of Latin American Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=slashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3338623?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3338623?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=slashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/9

ElDi Tella and Argentine CulturalDevelopment n the 1960s

J. KINGUniversity of Warwick

INTRODUCTION

The activities of the Arts Centres at the Di Tella Institute-or EDi Tella, as thebuilding n Florida came to be known-spanned the 1960s in Buenos Aires. Theirwork began as a modest venture n plastic arts, but later developed nto the mostsignificant cultural nstitution of the decade, extending into theatre and music.

The cultural moment cannot, of course, be considered n isolation: the Centreshad a history specific to themselves, which was at the same time bound toArgentine development n the 1960s as a whole. The declared aim of the Centreswas to up-date and modernize the various artistic disciplines. This could beachieved only by strengthening inks with Europe and the United States andpromoting Buenos Aires as an international entre.

The expansive optimism of this endeavour can also be seen in other aspects ofscientific and intellectual enquiry following the downfall of Peron n 1955. Thewinds of change in the 1960s would blow away the remaining estiges of tradi-tional Argentine society. There would be a new image-a word which begins tobe used increasingly n the late 1950s-of positive, efficient, creative, classlessvalues embodied n new politicians such as Frondizi and industrialists uch as theDi Tella family. The movement towards scientific and cultural modernization nthis period was, to paraphrase eter Gay, an idea attempting o become a reality.1This article will trace the vicissitudes of one specific cultural nstitution, fromthe early enthusiasm f the late 1950s, to the increasing ankruptcy nd pessimismof the late 1960s.

EL DI TELLA CONTINUITY AND CHANGE.

El Di Tella both continued and modified certain dominant themes in Argentinecultural history, with the aspiration o promote the city of Buenos Aires and itsartists on an international evel linking the Di Tella project to a tradition whichhad been dominant since the 1880s. Argentina,without European ontacts, couldonly remain a cultural backwater condemned to introspective provincialism.Given the right conditions, however, the knowledge gap and geographical istance


3/9

BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

could be bridged satisfactorily and Buenos Aires could take its place as a leadingcity in the world.

Since culturalgroups

in Buenos Aires have shared certain deasconcerningintellectual development, t is interesting o consider nother group which defined

the 1930s and 1940s in Argentina as El Di Tella was to define the 1960s: theliterary magazine Sur, founded by Victoria Ocampo, which grouped most of theimportant writers of the Ocampo-Borges-Mallea eneration. The aim of thismagazine was also to build bridges with metropolitan entres: Sur ha servido depuente entre Europa y nuestros escritores .2 imilarities ranscend generationaldifferences. Both were small modernizing lite groups, hough hey occupied verydifferent historical moments. In the 1930s and 1940s, cultural groups saw theirrole as that of a civilizing minority in a world increasingly nimical to cultural

standards. There was an increasing ap between culture and civilization nd valuescould only be maintained by a few. The 1960s saw a movement rom 6lite con-trol, as many new groups were eager o experiment with different orms of modernculture. Newsweekly magazines such as Primera Plana, with its circulation of100,000 (Sur s was several housand) began to appear and help define the newtaste. The pressures n modernism n this decade-to innovate and keep up withthe latest fashion-helps to explain the hectic image of El Di Tella.3

The two groups were also the result of private unding. Victoria Ocampo ctedas a traditional Maecenas. Sur me ha pertenecido materialmente. n lo espiritualha sido compartido por un grupo de escritores .4El Di Tella similarly was fundedout of the fortune of the Di Tella family, but through he foundation, an institu-tion relatively new to Argentina. Whilst t continued a tradition of private atherthan state funding of culture, the foundation was conceived as a corporate, nota private body, which would act outside family or company nterests. These van-guard, private-sponsored movements shared the same strategy of openness toforeign nfluences n the sense that, in Borges justly amous phrase, he Argentineartists radition was that of the whole world. Cultural ridge-building, he 1930sphrase, was updated in the 1960s to a concern for advanced oreign training .Such a strategy mplied an attack on provincialism nd introspective nationalismin the cultural field,

sharinghe educative

optimismof one of the first

philan-thropists n the Americas, Andrew Carnegie: American rt, if placed side by sidewith the best European art, would be stimulated o achieve qualities of its ownand not imitate works from abroad .5 Finally, both movements were based onsmall intellectual groups in Buenos Aires. The adjective Argentine s often tooample a term to describe he achievements f the country s major city. The fewstreets from Florida/Viamonte o the Plaza San Martin, he close-knit caf6 andsalon society of the Sur group, became known in the late 1960s as the manzanaloca. The bars, boutiques and galleries round El Di Tella made the area an islandof colour, fascinating et increasingly solated.

Yet whatever he elements of continuity in Argentine cultural history, El DiTella is part of a very particular movement-the attempt to restructure ocietyafter the downfall of Peron n 1955. In its attitude towards academics and in-tellectuals, Peronism had two main effects. Numbers of students at universityincreased but they were given few facilities and inadequate eaching.6 During hisperiod, Argentina was almost entirely cut off from scientific development nother parts of the world, and after 1955, a large number of people were therefore

106


4/9


5/9

BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

old-fashioned philanthropy, was used as a memorial that reflected modemthinking of the late 1950s. The Institute ntended to specialize n economics and

sociology, reflecting the interests ofthe two Di Tella brothers. The arts nitiative

developed by accident with the decision to display and develop he art collectionof Torcuato Di Tella. Initially the collection was shown in the Museo de BellasArtes and an annual art prize was organized for Argentine artists, but thisdeliberately imited initiative was extended through a series of coincidences.When a building became vacant for rental n Florida beside the Plaza San Martinit was converted into a flexible museum. The Rockefeller representative nArgentina approached he leading Argentine composer Alberto Ginastera boutthe possibility of setting up a centre for advanced musical training or LatinAmerican composers. The Institute, known to North American oundations,

agreed to supervise he programme with facilities made available or musicians.Romero Brest, a leading art critic and the most forcible personality n the BuenosAires art world, resigned rom the Museo over an internal dispute and offered toorganize he arts programme n the Di Tella. After some discussion e was acceptedby Enrique Oteiza, the overall head and guiding pirit of the Di Tella n the 1960s.Theatre director Roberto Villanueva, who had initially been asked to coordinateactivities, was then offered an additional centre working for theatre research,ambitiously called audiovisual xperimentation . n this way three centres cameinto being in the 1960s-CAV (Centro de Artes Visuales), CEA, (Centro deExperimentaci6n Audiovisual) and CLAEM Centro Latinoamericano e AltosEstudios Musicales), each with its separate programmes which were radically otransform he various disciplines. The development of CAV is briefly reviewedbelow.12

The declared ims of CAV were to promote Argentine art at home and abroadand to educate the Buenos Aires art public, by organizing national and inter-national art prizes and a flexible programme f travelling xhibitions. The mainargument was that since Argentine cultural and scientific development aggedbehind that of the metropolitan entres, he Institute would bridge his knowledgeand indeed geographical ap. 3 In the social sciences t was felt that only advanced

foreign trainingcould ensure that the

necessarystandards were reached and re-

searchers were sent to study abroad.14 n art, a similar model was nitially adopted.Early prizes consisted of a travel grant covering study abroad, with a one-manshow of the winner s works n a European r North American allery. With oreigncritics invited to judge the prizes, international attention would focus onArgentina. n this way, Buenos Aires could take its place n a few years as one ofthe leading centres of art in the world.

The national and international prizes were clearly significant at a local level:they were important or national development nd self-definition. t is question-able, however, whether Buenos Aires could ever become part of an influential

international circuit, capable of promoting Argentine art in the metropolitancentres. Internationalism as was the case with abstract xpressionism r pop art)was largely a one-way market device and New York and Europe were not recep-tive to Argentine rtists.

The yearly national and nternational rizes caused acrimonious ritical debate.As the leading and most wealthy cultural nstitution n Buenos Aires, the Centrehad considerable power, and deliberately upported new tendencies n art rather

108


6/9


7/9

BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN ESEARCH

The critique rom he Left-also moralistic-was coherent, houghthe argumentsused varied n complexity. One clear statement concerning he role of the Di Tella

in Argentine ociety was made in the Solanas ilm La Hora de los homos, whichportrays an extrajerizante lite working against undefined) popular traditions,and is similar n analysis o that developed n the 1950s by J. J. Hernmndez rregui,Arturo Jauretche and J. Abelardo Ramos in terms of its simple dualities andessentialist aith, in this manner explaining away the complexity and contradic-tions of the Di Tella experience.18 A rather more sophisticated critique of theDi Tella was offered by certain Di Tella artists and the grupo de Rosario whoquestioned he institutional basis of art and its social function, on the basis thatthe artist was responsible not just to fellow artists, galleries and collectors, butrather to popular orms of struggle which were growing n intensity throughoutthe late 1960s.

This ed a number of artists o reject the gallery-prize ystem and work nsteadon more immediate forms of communication, uch as the exhibition Tucumanarde which in 1968 exposed the desperate conditions of that area of Argentina.CAV therefore found itself in an increasingly difficult position. It had littlemoney, a number of artists and the director himself questioned heir traditionalfunction, and other groups, tired of the moralistic conditions of the late 1960sand anxious to test their skill in Europe and the United States, (the RodriguezArias group), eft the country. The Centre had some great successes n this periodsuch as the Le Parc exhibition, which attracted 150,000 viewers after his successat the Venice Biennale, and the Experiencias, ut the expansive optimism of theearly 1960s had been lost. 9 The call for standards ecame more strident andthe centre was seen as a threat or as a showcase for the dependent bourgeoisie,with accusations concerning inancial and social accountability being made in-creasingly. The Centre was always an island of colour n Florida. n the optimisticyears it was hoped that its sphere of influence would increase although n lateryears these hopes could not be realized. Its closure was a result of its own in-ternal contradictions s well as the weight of various xternal pressures.

The closure of the Centres has been the subject of much debate. It was clearly

the result of financial stringencies, et many commentators point out that theCentres were a political embarrassment t a time when a bankrupt ompany wastrying to negiotiate with an economically modernizing but culturally ratherstultifying military government. Space does not allow a more detailed analysisof this, but the facts, while not denying the political expediency of the closure,seem to point to a predominantly conomic explanation. The Arts Centres couldfind few allies among the Siam industrialists, r the economic and social sciencecentres, the government and the ever more powerful populist-Peronist lliancesall opposed to that model of cultural development. The Di Tella moment hadcome to an end.

Yet El Di Tella, n the management, he three centres, he cafeteria, he library,and the bookshop, was more than ust the sum of its individual arts. The Centresran in parallel, overlapped, ttracted and rejected each other, with the layout ofthe building and the friendships ormed within it creating certain opportunitiesfor interdisciplinary ork. The Di Tella was a meeting-place or young artists. Itallowed them a lot of freedom, which could have positive results, but which couldalso be easily abused. Although t had the power to legitimate and promote their

110


8/9

EL DI TELLA AND ARGENTINE CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

work, the financial and social cost of these activities was very high and could notbe sustained n a climate of bankruptcy and increasing political and social un-rest. While he Institute had a viable

strategyfor the

optimismof the

early 1960s,it had few defences against he radicalization f the later years.

NOTES

1. The history of the Weimar Republic n Germany ffers a number of interesting arallelswith Argentina n the 1960s. See Gay, P. (1969). Weimar Culture. Secker and Warburg(London). This analogy, with a number of interesting bservations n Argentina n thisperiod was provided by Juan Carlos Torre.

2. Ocampo, V. (1967). Vida de la revista Sur: 35 aflos de una abor , Sur, 303-305. (Nov.1966-April 1967), p. 19.

3. See Jameson, F. (1979). Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture , The Social Text,(Winter), p. 136. An impassioned efence of the review, as opposed to the weekly newsmagazine, s made by Regis Debray 1981). Teachers, Writers, Celebrities: The Intellec-tuals of Modern France. New Left Books (London), p. 60-78.

4. Ocampo, V. (1970). Despues de cuarenta nos , Sur, 325 (Julio-Agosto), p. 1.5. Alloway, L. (1969). The Venice Biennale. Thames and Hudson London), p. 1496. Halperin Donghi, T. (1961). La Universidad e Buenos Aires, EUDEBA Buenos Aires).7. Technical institutes such as the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y

Tecnicas, El Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria nd the Insituto Nacionalde Tecnologa Industrial were set up with government unds. The Fondo Nacional wasfounded n 1958 to provide tate funding or the arts.

8. Lynes, R. (1972). Good Old Modern: An Intimate Portrait of the Museum f Modern

Art, (New York).9. Halperin Donghi, T. (1972), in his Argentina: democracia de masas, Paidos (Buenos

Aires), equates the growth of marketing with the impact of the Di Tella Institute. Onp. 156 he suggests hat, while the Jockey Club could guarantee he quality of tradition,the Di Tella offered modernity n its place.

10. It has been suggested hat Primera lana, by constantly idiculing nd criticizing overn-ment strategies and democratic politicians, helped create the climate for the coup of1966.

11. Wolfe, T. (1980). The Painted Word, Bantam New York), p. 36.12. CEA began its activities n 1965 working n the fields of experimental heatre, modern

dance, mime, musical comedy and cafe-concert . CLAEM was a separate eaching nsti-tute for composers. Twelve becarios rom all over Latin America rained or a period oftwo years in El Di Tella, taught by local musicians and visiting professors, ncludingsuch major contemporary composers as Copland, Messiaen, Nono and Xenakis. Aspart of its teaching and research programme, CLAEM eveloped one of the most ad-vanced electronic music laboratories under he creative enius of the technical directorFernando on Reichenbach nd its musical director, Francisco Kropfl.

13. Interview with Guido Di Tella.14. It was argued hat scientific modernization ould be achieved y highly rained pecialists

researching n small nstitutes based on the model of MIT, where Guido Di Tella hadstudied under Rostow. There was a general consensus or accepting Rostowian Talcott-Parsons models of development n the early 1960s.

15. LaNacion, 21.9.65.16. Clarin, .7.66.17. Yooll, A. G. (1979). The Press n Argentina 1973-78, Writers nd Scholars Educational

Trust London).18. King, J. (1981). Towards a Reading of the Argentine Literary Magazine ur , Latin

American Research Review, Vol. 16, No. 2.19. Experiencias was the name given to the exhibitions hat replaced he national prizes n

1967, 1968 and 1969, with the prize money divided up among welve artists. The 1968Experiencias were the most memorable. One exhibit, the notorious baflo by RobertoPlate, illustrates ome of the tensions of the period. Plate produced a simulacrum f a

1ll


9/9

112 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN ESEARCH

public toilet, where the visitor entered an environment consisting mainly of white walls.There he was encouraged to produce descargas emocionales rather than ffsicas Pre-

dictably, graffiti appeared, some of which contained unflattering references to Ongania.The police intervened and tried to close the whole exhibition and after negotiations itwas decided to close only the one exhibit. A ludicrous situation arose, with the exhibitclosed with a municipal seal and a policeman standing guard outside to prevent anyviolation of the order. Consequently it became a much more interesting exhibit thanbefore, with people flocking to the latest Di Tella happening .

Documents

John King- El Di Tella