Documents of 20th-century Latin American and Latino Art

www.mfah.org Home

IcaadocsArchive

Document first page thumbnail
  • ICAA Record ID
    1088241
    TITLE
    ¿Feliza Krugman o Irene Bursztyn? / Álvaro Medina
    IN
    Vanguardia Liberal : Vanguardia Dominical (Bucaramanga, Colombia). -- Jun. 2, 1974
    DESCRIPTION
    p. 4-5 : ill.
    LANGUAGES
    Spanish
    TYPE AND GENRE
    Newspaper article – Essays
    BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
    Medina, Alvaro. “¿Feliza Krugman o Irene Bursztyn?.” La Vanguardia Liberal:  Vanguardia Dominical (Bucaramanga, Colombia), June 2 1974, 4–5.
     
    NAME DESCRIPTORS
    GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTORS
Synopsis

The article “¿Feliza Krugman or Irene Bursztyn?” is the transcription of two texts read by Álvaro Medina on the program Orientación Plástica aired on Radio Nacional de Colombia on April 27 and May 3 (both Fridays), 1974. Medina accuses Colombian sculptor Feliza Bursztyn of plagiarism in the installation Las Camas [The Beds] presented at the Museo de Arte Moderno of Bogotá in 1974. Medina asserts that “the theme, concept, and production” of the work are the same as those in the piece that sculptor Irene Krugman (1925–1982) exhibited in New York that same year.   

Annotations

In this article, Colombian critic and art historian Álvaro Medina (born 1942) accuses Feliza Bursztyn (1933–1982) of copying the idea and form of a work by a North American artist. That accusation was not only aired on national radio, but also published in a number of Colombian newspapers (specifically Vanguardia Liberal and El Diario del Caribe), giving rise to controversy in the Colombian art scene. Medina casts doubt on the honesty of the work of an award-winning Colombian sculptor. There were a number of responses to this article, evidencing different positions [see “Análisis de la Obra de Feliza Bursztyn”, doc. no. 868498]. The harshest clash of opinions was between Medina and Marta Traba (1923–1983) [see “Bursztyn por encima de toda sospecha,” doc. no. 1075979]. Regrettably, this article, as well as Traba’s responses, turned into a petty childish dispute that failed to delve into complex concepts like copy, originality, appropriation, and others that would have been capable of enriching a conversation even if its origin lay in a flat accusation.  

 

It is striking that Medina demands originality in the seventies, a decade that witnessed the questioning, challenging, and undermining of belief in the uniqueness of the producer in the fields of literature—with the work of Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986), for instance—and art—with the rise of photography and works by Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968) and Andy Warhol (1928–1987), to mention just a few. What was called into question was the magic aura surrounding creation as a precious gift granted by Olympic muses. Medina does not argue, he accuses, and his facile attack turned into a polemic. In the view of French philosopher, sociologist, and historian Michel Foucault (1926–1984), anyone who makes use of the rhetorical form of controversy is “shrouded in privileges that he possesses from the outset and will never agree to question. On principle, he has the rights that authorize him to declare war and to turn that struggle into a just cause; the person he confronts is not a peer in search of truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is not well, is harmful and constitutes a threat.”

Researcher
Camilo Leyva
Team
Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
Credit
© Álvaro Medina, Bogotá, Colombia