The editorial categories are research topics that have guided researchers during the recovery phase and continue to be the impetus behind the Documents Project’s digital archive and the Critical Documents book series. Developed by the project’s Editorial Board, each of the teams analyzed this framework and adapted it to their local contexts in developing their research objectives and work plans during the Recovery Phase. Learn more on the Editorial Framework page.
In this article, Venezuelan critic and professor Mónica Amor refutes the constructivist and organicist approach that has been used to understand Gego’s work. That approach, she claims, does not address the way Gego’s production undermines [conventional] processes for the reception of art. Gego’s environments challenge the position of “mastery” from which the viewer perceives a work, insofar as they entail a confrontation with the space that holds them. In Amor’s view, the production, as well as the perception, of these works emphasizes the notion of “contingency,” since the ruptures in their edges or limits mean that they cannot be taken in as a “whole.” Similarly, these works eschew the notion of interior and exterior since no balanced metonymic relationship is established between the parts and the whole.
In this and other later writings on Gego (Gertrud Goldschmidt 1912–1994), a Venezuelan artist of German origin, Venezuelan researcher and curator Mónica Amor focuses her analysis on the artist’s environments in galleries as well as in outdoor spaces. It is on the basis of these works that Amor develops her thesis on the alteration in the subject/object relationship that Gego’s work effects at the level of both production and perception. Amor asserts that Gego’s work projects “a partial, fragmented [and] contingent vision of its setting.” Regarding this issue, Amor contrasts Gego’s aesthetic with that of her contemporaries—even those who nourished and influenced her work—and discusses the possible reasons that Gego went against the grain.