In this essay Ronaldo Brito discusses Brazilian Constructivism as an integral part of an “organized cultural strategy” that was in effect from the 1940s to the 1960s and was closely aligned with “the country’s social and cultural development.” He mentions things like the “promise of decolonization” and the limitations of Constructivist art, and “a deeply capitalist ingenuity and belief in technology itself,” which is on a parallel with the political opacity of Neo-Concrete art. In his opinion, Neo-Concrete art is at the apex of the Constructivist tradition—its “most sophisticated elements,” one might say—and the “implicit awareness of the unfeasibility of such elements vis-à-vis the Brazilian cultural avant-garde.” When discussing Neo-Concrete art, Brito concentrates on the humanist aspect as opposed to “concrete empiricism,” an approach that sought to transform the work of art in spite of remaining “practically apolitical,” to the extent that he became involved with the practical functions involved in industrial (graphic) production. Unlike Concrete artists who worked in advertising, graphic design, or architecture, Neo-Concrete artists were, somehow or another, “immune to the pressures of the market.” The difference, though merely circumstantial, is considerable because it prevents the avant-garde in Rio de Janeiro from addressing a broader range of social issues. Despite the fact that, apparently, Concrete art excelled at understanding the social function of art and its potential, it never pursued radical goals, thus ignoring the semiotic operations it inspired.

Born in Ceará, Ronaldo [Correia de] Brito (b. 1951) is a noted Brazilian critic whose writings have been published in books, magazines, and exhibition catalogues. He contributed to the weekly publication Opinião and founded the magazines Malasartes and Gávea [see the ICAA digital archive (1111305)]. More importantly, he played a vital role in the revaluation of the Constructivist art movements (most particularly regarding the contributions made by Neo-Concrete artists) and their legacy to contemporary Brazilian art. In this essay the author describes the opposing views held by different Concrete art movements as they evolved in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (where the prefix “neo” was added to the name). In Brito’s opinion, Concrete art is a “dogmatic phase,” whereas Neo-Concrete art has exploited intense criticism and challenges to carry out its “breakaway or rupture phase.” The former became involved in its implementation; the latter had to address the issue of local adaptation.

[For more on Brito’s work, see: “Neoconcretismo” (1091308); “Análise do circuito” (1111095); “O desequilibrista” (1110616); “Leitura crítica do real” (1110555); and “Trágico moderno” (1110423), among others.]

This essay appeared in Projeto Construtivo Brasileiro na Arte, the catalogue for the exhibition organized in São Paulo by Aracy Amaral (b. 1930) and Lygia Pape (1927–2004). The event was hugely influential in Brazil, prompting an innovative reading of the meaning of the rationalist movements in Brazilian art. The exhibition was presented in 1977 at the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo and, later on, at the MAM-RJ (Museu de Arte Moderna do Rio de Janeiro). 

[For more information about this exhibition, see: “Projeto construtivo brasileiro na arte” (1110680) by Pape; “A arquitetura é a grande arte de nosso tempo —1948: Romero Brest em São Paulo” (1314972) by Jorge Romero Brest; “Concretismo/ Neoconcretismo,” by Frederico Morais (1315134); “Arte Concreta” (1315020), “Da arte concreta à arte neoconcreta” (1315036), “Arte neoconcreta, uma contribuição brasileira” (1315052), “Concretos de São Paulo no MAM” (1315102), and “Resposta a Cordeiro” (1315118) by Ferreira Gullar; see also “O problema da educação artística depois da Bauhaus” (1315069) by Tomás Maldonado.]