Artists and Military Dictatorship in Brazil

Alexandra Schuch Pernau (218MA12)

Professor Rebecca Jennison

31st of March 1964 in Brazil became known as the day that lasted 21 years.

After a long fearmongering campaign against an alleged communist and socialist threat – in which the
influence and support of the United States government was key - the Brazilian military took over the government
from the hands of elected president João Goulart. The thorough efforts to convince the population of the dangers
of an overly leftist policy (at the risk of Brazil becoming another Cuba) resulted in the Brazilian middle class actually
supporting the coup. However, the initial “short-term” intervention to remove a seemingly socialism-sympathetic
president not surprisingly led to a two-decade oppressive military government and the rewriting of the Brazilian
constitution.

Politics aside, the installed situation had a major impact in

the arts in Brazil. The military dictatorship was not only political and
social – it was a moral and indoctrinating one. In relation to the
artistic production in Brazil, this meant, most notoriously, massive
censorship. The curbing of civil liberties and violent persecution of
opposing mindsets during this period led to a massive exodus of
intellectuals and creative minds into political exile in Europe and in
the US.

In 1968, after four years of growing measures aiming to control the press and
entertainment productions, the infamous AI-5 – institutional act number 5 - was instituted
by the military regime. Even though the censorship was in place even before the AI-5 was
implemented, after this act a requirement for pre-censorship – in other words, evaluation
pending approval of all and any cultural and artistic expression that would be directed to
the public – was officially put in place. All of the cultural expressions were target by the
censorship division – visual arts, music, poetry, cinema. Aside from the censorship for the
arts, press and communication media, the act toughened up the persecution of those
individuals the military labeled “subversives” and nullified civil rights. 2

3 Since the coup in 1964, any publication

considered to be questioning the sovereignty of the military
regime had been banished, with the exception of
independently made and distributed magazines. The
institutional act of 1969 – the aforementioned AI-5 -, made
necessary the previous submission of any material to a
government organ called the DCDP, or “Divisão de Censura de
Diversões Públicas” (censorship division of public
entertainment). This division would be responsible for
analyzing all the contents submitted, selecting which parts to
be censored or vetting entire pieces – be they song lyrics,
poetry, illustrations or comic strips. The censors had some
artists, whom they already targeted as particularly subversive, on their radar. This meant that works by these
people were indiscriminately singled out for major censorship. This was the case of the musician Chico Buarque
de Holanda. Flagged as a subversive figure, his work was relentlessly censored.

Artists like Chico, however, had an advantage over the military censorship: creativity. Not surprisingly,
artists in different areas found different ways of outwitting the censors. Popular Brazilian music (or MPB) related
artists are the most frequently remembered group who employed this creative resistance method. Musicians
would use irony and world play, that many times passed unnoticed by insensible minds of censors. Such subtle
play on words and poetic double-meaning many times contained hidden messages, which were exploited by
artists. Several times, musicians were successful in outwitting the DCDP and publishing their work. The public,
however, did not share the lack of sensitivity of the military censors and would often grasp the real message of
these lyrics. The censorship would, frequently, realize their mistake and ban such works afterwards, but by then
it was too late – the message had gone public: “this is a dictatorship – we are being silenced, oppressed, suffering
and dying.”

The Brazilian musicians who faced the dictatorship

became the iconic image for artistic resistance in dictatorial
Brazil. They were not, however, the only ones. Unsurprisingly,
visual artists would also join in creating works that reflected
this socio-political situation. Painters, photographers and
sculptors – amongst others – would have different takes on
the issue – either directly addressing and contesting the
military control through the use of human body elements or
completely distancing themselves from figurative expression
as a response. 4

The general context of Brazilian visual arts in the 60’s was characterized by a tendency to Constructivism
and Concrete art (or ‘arte neo concreta’). The Constructivist movement in art and architecture in the 1950’s and
1960’s, as well as the non-symbolism of concrete art, was seen by Brazilian artists as a means to counter the
institutionalization of the arts. The main focus of artists seemed to be to question the materialistic tendencies of
art, focusing on creating artworks and spaces of experience rather than material pieces for exhibition. This had a
deeply subversive underlying logic, which revoked the object quality of the artwork in order to put the emphasis
on the experience – which in turn was, ultimately, dependent on the viewer. Such inversions were anti-capitalistic
in nature, as the non-object theory aimed at devaluating the commodity aspect of the work of art and the profit-
oriented system that built around it. Therefore, while the military regime took over to “protect the harmonious
continuity of the Brazilian culture and identity”, the art world was in the middle of questioning the art as it were
– as a product for the consumption of an elite.

Such tendencies in visual arts were not exclusive to Brazil at the time, but
rather in tune with the development of the field elsewhere in the world, particularly
in Europe. The specific political circumstances in Brazil in those two decades,
however, created a unique set of conditions that intensified such developments. As
it was the issue of many other influential and “subversive” individuals, a great
number of Brazilian artists went into exile, where most of them continued their
artistic production targeting the social and political issues in Brazil.

This was the case of Cido Meireles, whose work calls to

attention the controversial circumstances around the disappearance
and “suicide” – or, as we know it today, murder – of journalist Werner
Herzog. In his “Bank Note Project” of 1970, he stamped money bills
with the phrase “Quem matou Herzog?” (translating to ‘who killed
Herzog?’). He also stamped bills inviting people to also join the
intervention by stamping their own phrases and putting the money
back into circulation.
6
 On the same note, the artwork “Situação TE (Trouxas
ensanguentadas)” from Artur Barrio, exhibited at the event Do
Corpo à Terra (from body to dirt), organized by Frederico Morais
from April 17th to April 21st, 1970, in Belo Horizonte was another
example of a clear defiance to the regime. Barrio created works
from waste materials (meat, bones, mud, rubber, cloth, ropes,
knives…) wrapped in bags which created the illusion of human
bodies. The artist then dropped the pieces in a sewage canal in a
public park in the middle of the city. Unsurprisingly, the works
attracted a crowd who spied cautiously and anxiously the objects
– leading to the fight brigade and the police to collect the pieces
(public conglomerations were forbidden by the military
government). This work was particularly inconvenient for the dictatorship, as, especially in that moment, after
the AI-5, an increasing number of people were “disappearing” during the night. In such context, exposing
carcasses in a public area was exposing the kidnappings and torture that occurred under the curtains of the
military regime and its “Brazil forward” propaganda.

Aside from art pieces, public interventions relating to the

political context were made. During the night of April 27th of 1979,
the collective 3Nós3 (Hudinilson Jr, Mário Ramiro and Rafael
França) enacted an apparently simple public intervention in São
Paulo – they covered the heads of famous monuments with
plastic bags. The statue of Independence and the Monument for
the Flag, for example, were targeted by the group to suffer an
ironic twist of representation. While the original intention of the
statues was glorifying the Brazilian national history, now the same
monuments were telling a much darker and uncomfortable side
of this same history, regarding the violent and unethical methods
that oftentimes lead to such “glorious achievements”.
Furthermore, plastic bags were – and still are – a popular method of torture in Latin America, so the materials of
choice were on point to denounce the abuses of the military.

7&8

During the period in which Brazil was in the hands of the military, another key episode in the arts
happened – the boycott to the X Bienal de São Paulo of 1969. This infamous chain of events started when military
generals ordered the invasion of the Museu de Arte Moderna of Rio de Janeiro, its
closing and subsequent holding of the artworks, as to prevent a group of young
Brazilian artists from exhibiting in Paris. The ABCA (Brazilian association of art critics)
responded with a condemnation letter and the art community with protests, which
resulted in the prison of the Museum’s director, Niomar Sodré. 9
 10 Upon being informed of the episode, Jacques
Lassagne, the delegate of France to the X Bienal de São Paulo,
immediately wrote from Paris to condemn the imprisonment of
Sodré, which in turn resulted in him being banned from participation
in the Bienal by the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This seemed
to have pushed an international domino effect within the art
community, which included Pierre Restany, who was responsible for
a huge part in the organization of the international artists
participating in the Bienal, resigning from the position. Restany did
not only quit the Bienal, but also joined the many exiled Brazilian
artists who were living in Paris to initiate the “Non à la Biennale”
movement. This international reaction to boycott the Bienal of 1969 spread to include (interestingly enough at
the time of the Cold War) both delegations of the Soviet Union and the United States, which took the same side
on the issue and refused to participate in the Brazilian event. The X Bienal de São Paulo did in fact take place, but
with a weak and very traditional content.

While the international art community quickly and widely reacted to the oppression of the arts in Brazil,
the same level of protest did not occur inside the country itself. Brazilian artists’ lack of a strong response against
the control of the State is explained, in part, by the widespread repression and censorship of such kind of behavior.
However, artists who were active at the time also stated that there was no unity amongst the artistic community
who stayed in Brazil, and that, while extensive and overly-long meetings for discussion of these matters were
common, no objective decision was ever taken.

11, 12 & 13

This problematic period of Brazil’s history comes to often comes to the minds of Brazilian artists to this
day. For the past ten years, however, the issue has intensified as a new generation of right-wing and pro-military
middle class refused to acknowledge the negative aspects of the dictatorial period. While the assassinations and
tortures are considered debatable by some individuals sympathetic to the military, the seriousness of the facts
must not be relativized. The motivations behind the right-wing turn in western politics should be reflected upon
by artists and the general public. Art has a social role of registry and memory which, in the present period,
becomes of extreme and urgent importance, especially for such a young and frail democracy as Brazil’s.

Images:
1. Student attacked by police during the ‘bloody Friday, June 21st, 1968. Photography by Evandro Teixeixa CPDOC JB.
2. Antônio Henrique Amaral. “Homenagem séc. XX/XXI” (20th/21st-Century Tribute), 1967. Oil on canvas. Lili and João Avelar
Collection, São Paulo.
3. Rubens Gerchman. “É proibido dobrar à esquerda” (It’s forbidden to turn left), 1965. Gouache on paper, 54,1 x 74,4cm.
Museu de Arte Moderna da USP.
4. Artists protesting on the March of the One Hundred Thousand, “Marcha dos cem mil”, in June 26th, 1968.
5. Antônio Henrique Amaral. “Campo de batalha 4” (battleground 4), 1973.
6. Cildo Meireles. Inserções em Circuitos Ideológicos – 2, Projeto Cédula, 1970 to 1976.
7 & 8. Alex Flemming “Natureza Morta” (still life), 1978. Photo print on paper; 13 x 195 cm. Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo
9. Military government propaganda: slogan “Brasil. Ame-o ou deixe-o” (Brazil, love it or leave it), 1973.
10. Antônio Henrique Amaral. “Morte no Sábado” (death on Saturday), 1975. Oil on canvas; 123x165cm. Artist’s collection.
11, 12 & 13. Avatar da Silva Moraes. “Acorrentada” (chained); “Pregos” (nails) and “Domínio” (domination). 1970.