statements

cildo meireles

I remember that in 1968, 1969 and 1970 we knew we were beginning to touch on what was
interesting—we were no longer working with metaphors (representations) of situations; we
were working with the real situation itself. On the other hand, the kind of work that was being
done tended to volatilize, and that was another characteristic. It was work that, really, no longer
had that cult of the object, in isolation; things existed in terms of what they could spark off in
the body of society. It was exactly what one had in one’s head: working with the idea of the
public. At that time we were putting everything into our work, and it was being directed
towards a large, indefinite number of people: that thing that is called the public. Nowadays, in
fact, there is the danger of doing work knowing exactly who will be interested in it. The idea
of the public, which is a broad, generous notion, was replaced (through deformation) by the
idea of the consumer, which is the part of the public that has acquisitive power. Really, the
Inserçoes em circuitos ideológicos (Insertions into ideological circuits) arose out of the need to
create a system for the circulation and exchange of information that did not depend on any
kind of centralized control. A language. A system essentially opposed to that of press, radio
and television, typical examples of media that actually reach an enormous audience, but in
their circulation system there is always a certain control and a certain channelling of the inser-
tion. In other words, there the “insertion” is performed by an élite that has access to the levels

cildo meireles
on which the system is developed: technological sophistication involving huge amounts of
money and/or power.
The Inserçoes em circuitos ideológicos had taken shape as two projects: the Coca-Cola proj-

statements
ect and the Cédula (Banknote) project. The work started with a text I wrote in April 1970 and
it sets out precisely from this position: 1) in society there are certain mechanisms for circulation
(circuits); 2) these circuits clearly embody the ideology of the producer, but at the same time
they are passive when they receive insertions into the circuit; 3) and this occurs whenever
people initiate them. The Inserçoes em circuitos ideológicos also arose from the recognition of
two fairly common practices: chain letters (letters you receive, copy and send on to other
people) and the bottles flung into the sea by victims of shipwrecks. Implicit in these practices
is the notion of a circulating medium, a notion crystallized most clearly in the case of paper
money and, metaphorically, in returnable containers (soft drink bottles, for example).
As I see it, the important thing in the project was the introduction of the concept of
“circuit,” isolating it and fixing it. It is this concept that determines the dialectical content of
the work, while interfering with each and every effort contained within the very essence of the
process (medium). In other words, the container always carries with it an ideology. So, the
initial idea was the recognition of a (natural) “circuit” that exists and on which it is possible to
do real work. Actually, an “insertion” into this circuit is always a kind of counter-information.
It capitalizes on the sophistication of the medium in order to achieve an increase in
equality of access to mass communication and also, one must add, to bring about a neutraliza-
tion of the original propaganda (whether produced by industry or by the state), which always
has an anaesthetic effect. It is a contrast between awareness (insertion) and anaesthesia (circuit),
considering awareness as a function of art and anaesthesia as a function of industry. Because
any industrial circuit normally is far-reaching, but it is alienating/ed.
Of course, art has a social function and has more ways of being densely aware. A greater
density of awareness in relation to the society from which it emerges. And the role of industry
is exactly the opposite of this. As it exists today, the power of industry is based on the greatest
possible coefficient of alienation. So the notes on the Inserçoes em circuitos ideológicos project
specifically contrast art and industry. (. . .)
The way I had thought of it, the Inserçoes would only exist to the extent that they ceased
to be the work of just one person. In other words, the work only exists to the extent that other
people practice it. Another thing that arises then is the idea of the need for anonymity. By
411

extension the question of anonymity involves the question of ownership. You would no longer
 work with an object, because the object would become a practice, something over which you
412

could have no kind of control or ownership. And it would try to raise other matters: firstly, it
would reach more people to the extent that you no longer needed to go to the information
because the information would come to you; and consequently there would be the right condi-
tions for “exploding” the notion of a sacred space. (. . .)
Insofar as museums, galleries or pictures form a sacred space for representation, they
become a Bermuda Triangle: anything you put there, any idea, is automatically going to be
neutralized. I think people tried primarily to make a commitment with the public. Not with
the purchaser of art (the market). But with the audience sitting out there in the stalls. The hazy
face, the most important element in the whole structure. Working with the wonderful possibil-
ity that the plastic arts provide of creating a new language to express each new idea. Always
working with the possibility of transgression in terms of reality. In other words, making works
that do not simply exist in an approved, consecrated, sacred space; that do not happen simply
in terms of a canvas, a surface, a representation. No longer working with the metaphor of
gunpowder itself. You would no longer work with the object, because the object would be a
practice, something over which you could have no kind of control or ownership.

This text is taken from statements made by Meireles in a recorded interview with Antônio Ma-
nuel. This extract was originally published in Ronaldo Brito and Eudoro Augusto Macieira de
Sousa, Cildo Meireles, arte brasileira contemporânea (Rio de Janeiro: FUNARTE, 1981), and
more recently in Cildo Meireles: IVAM Centre del Carme, 2 febrero/23 abril 1995 (Barcelona:
Generalitat Valenciana, Conselleria de Cultura, 1995), p. 174, from which these extracts are
taken.