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.
The text explains that the selection criteria for the artists appearing in the exhibition Buenos Aires 64 (New York: Pepsi-Cola Co., September 1964) was to show different vanguard groups’ expressions existing in Buenos Aires. It briefly describes the visual characteristics of each. With respect to Rubén Santantonín, the author mentions he finds himself among the “‘new beings’” sector, along with Marta Minujín and Emilio Renart. Lastly, Parpagnoli adds that the artists represented in this show do not belong to a school or movement, but what they have in common is the way they respond to the present world: “through the same youthful ardor, the freedom of contemporary techniques, and the restlessness characteristic of explorers.”
The Buenos Aires 64 exhibition took place during the month of September, 1964, in the corporate offices of Pepsi-Cola, Co. in New York City. The artists were selected by Hugo Parpagnoli, who was at the moment the director of the Museo de Arte Moderno de Buenos Aires. The roster of Argentinean representatives was as follows: Antonio Berni, Luis Felipe Noé, Ary Brizzi, Zulema Ciordia, Marta Minujín, Delia Puzzivio, Rubén Santantonín, Luis A. Wells, Josefina Robirosa, Luis Gowland- Moreno, Nemesio Mitre- Aguirre, Pablo Mesejean, Emilio Renart, Alberto Heredia, Carlos Uria, Carlos Squirru, Osvaldo Borda, Leon Ferrari, Bertha Rappaport, and Alberto Greco.
As indicated by the text, these artists did not belong to a school or a movement, even though they represented contemporary art from the Buenos Aires vanguard groups of those years and therefore, what “should,” or “preferably,” be shown abroad for the construction of an “updated” image (with respect to international centers) of what was being lived in the Buenos Aires art scene of that time: expressions linked to pop as well as art “of things” (a common expression in those years used to refer to objectual works) and also, the new geometry. They all constituted a corpus that was sufficiently “removed” from the traditional canon with which the “work of art” is considered.