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.
Supported by a quote from André Breton —who himself quoted Karl Marx—, Luis Cardoza y Aragón again refutes the exploitation of art by revolutionaries. The tenets that composed the introductory document of the Congreso de Escritores [Writers’ Conference] convened by the Liga de Escritores y Artistas Revolucionarios (LEAR) [League of Revolutionary Writers and Artists] were reproduced again following an extensive treatise on truth in art. Basing his conclusions on Marxist authorities, including the brief communist infatuation of André Gide, Cardoza states: “There is no art for art, nor science for science, nor revolution for revolution.” Cardoza declared himself in support of the greatest artistic individuality and the least individualism; for the greatest realism although without transposition, vulgarity or falsification; he also opposed the inertia of muralism, wherein the knowledge (Diego Rivera), vigor (José Clemente Orozco) and drawing (Julio Castellanos), are nowhere to be found; thus transforming the pictorial method at that time into a new academy. In a manner reminiscent of a late Estridentista fad, Cardoza exclaimed: “We live in the era of radio, film, and the internal combustion engine.”
Luis Cardoza y Aragón, the Guatemalan intellectual and art critic, wanted to tell his fellow members of the LEAR, Liga de Escritores y Artistas Revolucionarios, that conformism, fanaticism or sectarianism should not prevail over the freedom of creation and thought. His article calls attention to the fact that El Machete, the official organ of the Mexican Communist Party, had been more receptive than the artists’ own organization. Despite being harshly criticized for not having participated in a consistent manner, Cardoza states that the best way of doing so is to voice his thoughts: “to tear the dogmatic tranquility.” This article was originally published in UO (magazine of the Universidad Obrera) [Workers’ University], in Mexico City, no. 12 (December 1936–January 1937); it was reproduced in Memoria magazine, no. 38 (January 1992).