Nuno Ramos

Look here the esposta George Guimarães to the text of Nuno Ramos "White Flag, love: In defense of the pride and the will of the art " (below), published in the newspaper Folha de São Paulo in 17/10/2010.

ABSTRACT

Target of protests by taggers, journalists and activists animal cause, work “White Flag”, by Nuno Ramos, was dismantled in the 29th Bienal de São Paulo, determination by IBAMA, that was authorized. The artist makes a defense of the legality of the work and reflects on consensus and ruptures inherent artistic activity.

Searched INTENTIONALLY kill three vultures of hunger and thirst in the building of Bienal de São Paulo. Pus there huge cans full of dark ink, to be afogassem, besides mirrors, for they hit his head during the flight. Constructing tunnels in sand preta, for them to enter without getting out, dying inside. And, to force them to fly, usually launch rockets toward you.

CHARGES

As in nightmares or in lynchings, is not possible to answer charges of this order, circulated through the internet and word of mouth tightly insatiable in three weeks, creating a breeding ground next to violence and intimidation. As a result, full em Biennial, between bands asking me to be arrested, My work was attacked by a tagger, who dribbled security, tore the screen protection to animals and damaged one of the sand sculptures.
Were surrounded, me and my wife, by environmental activists, we cursed and shouted across the glass of the car, mouth in slow motion, “to-read-men-ta-and-les!” -what, clear, had been done that day. Barbara Gancia, Columnist Sheet, been asking, using an imaginary repressive military or fascist militia, I was put panties against a wall and subjected to a shower with fire hoses for fire department.
Ingrid E. Newkirk, president of the non-governmental organization Peta [people for the ethical treatment of animals, its acronym in English], an article fierce, published in the Folha 8/10, is only assumed from the outset that: I want to appear (she, not? anyone doubt that one of the themes of the controversy is precisely the struggle for space in the media?); it sou (the terms are hers) cruel, “bad boy”, without compassion and producer of bad art. As there are no arguments and reasoning is circular, everything returns to unblemished awareness columnist.
The news crossed borders rare for issues involving art (unsuspected times in all TV channels, notebooks Newspaper little accustomed to the culture and in various regions of the country), passing the subject bar and bakery. The vultures, definitely, had managed to escape and, to use the verses of Augusto dos Anjos, landed on my luck.

TOM

I attend an area of ​​culture away that light radiation, and do not want to miss the tone. Beginning this text, therefore, doing my homework: what you want to I HAVE happened, happened through institutions. The permit from IBAMA Sergipe, allowing the transport and exposure of animals, was legitimate and within legal parameters absolutely, as well as its forfeiture by IBAMA Brasilia.
Try, I and the Biennial Foundation, who supported me in every way possible in defense of my work, an injunction in court and lost. ACAT and we take, the same day that the injunction left, the three birds. I feel restrained, wronged and shocked by all this, but I can not say I've been censored. And by understanding the way that destroyed my job to take the three birds is legitimate, quero divergir completely dela.
Like almost any sensible information circulated, I have to first tell the obvious:

1) The birds used in my work are birds born in captivity, and not sequestered to the natural habitat; is for this captive returning (and where they are now), when they were “Loose” my work;
2) Belong to the Park Hawks (breeding conservationist who works with the permission of IBAMA, conducting educational activities and pedagogical, throughout Brazil, with birds of prey), that keep them on display for the public, as in a zoo;
3) These same three birds participated in 2008 a very similar version of this work, the Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil in Brasilia, for two months, adapting perfectly to the space and suffer nothing, with a management plan approved by the same IBAMA;
4) The birds were adapted to the space before the Biennial shows, with the presence of the veterinarian responsible for them and a handler;
5) This handler, the same that takes care of them in Sergipe, permanently stayed with them the entire time display of birds to the public, literally opening and closing the show:
6) Were fed by it every morning, quantity and frequency stipulated by the management plan;
7) The volume of speakers was controlled, being held at a time much less than the murmur of public, to avoid stress to the animals;
8) The management plan of the birds, accepted by IBAMA Sergipe, revoked, now in the midst of controversy, IBAMA São Paulo-but no recommendation for forfeiture. What the coach award, serious and dour IBAMA São Paulo-requested adjustments were basically, desligássemos that one of the speakers and instituíssemos bath of ultraviolet light each morning, to address the lack of direct sunlight on the animals (while bathed in daylight space). Offered, yet, a license to 15 days, to be extended in accordance with the periodic evaluation on the well-being of animals. The IBAMA in Brasilia, that, under political pressure and media, determined arbitrarily output of birds, in disagreement with the report of IBAMA São Paulo, caught what appeared to be a rich process of collaboration between serious technical, knowledgeable about the animals, and a work of art;
9) We obtained favorable report from the Department of Parks and Green Areas of the City of São Paulo;
10) Technicians from the poultry industry Zoo Sao Paulo, in survey work, expressing no specific criticism of the handling birds I learned on this visit, including, the cage the vultures was bigger than any of the zoo cage, including the condor.

ATONEMENT

That, then, much confusion? What is being expiated here?
For starters, and how to approach the problem, I remember that “White Flag” is not a work of ecology, I'm not expert on birds of prey, as “Guernica” Picasso is not just a work on the Spanish Civil War, Picasso or a historian. So I used the services of an ecological entity, Park of Hawks, and got, both in the assembly in Brasilia, in 2008, and in São Paulo, authorization from the legal body in my country for such issues.
Or the law does not apply to all? Treat my work as a criminal offense and me is to do what was right Francoist, when calling “Guernica” frame Communist, or the French aristocracy in the second half of the century 19, when threatened to retaliate “Olympia”, Manet, in the name of morals.
What I was denied to the criminalization of my work was the possibility of a sense-sequestration, say, any sense that he could propose. And it is against this, more than against the boataria and Slander, I write today.

VALUES

Art does not fit in the good or the bad values, for more confidence one has in them. It exudes an open sign, for it was invented, that fanaticism as they heard these past few weeks not completely circumscribe the possible life. Of course no one is above the law, and, repeat, fulfill, artist and institution, strictly-Brazilian environmental legislation is but the possibility of thinking differently being criminalized here.
Extraordinary artists like Joseph Beuys (by sinal, founder of the Green Party in Germany), Jannis Kounellis, Hélio Oiticica, Nelson Felix, Tongue, Meireles, used animals in their facilities. Probably the work of Beuys which includes a coyote (“I Love America and America Loves Me”) is, no please, one of the most important works of art of the century 20.
“Tropicália”, by Hélio Oiticica, that has macaws live inside (curiously, exposed há few months, the birds, the building of Itaú Cultural in São Paulo, na avenida Paulista, without raising any controversy), is a fundamental work for understanding who we are and who we want to be. Deny that these artists did with their work-radical oxygenation of our imagination- treating them as criminals certainly would regress to times of sad memory.
I can understand who is against animals in captivity. It would be interesting to take a little consistency of this position-ie, radical vegetarianism, since almost all of the meat we eat comes from animals in captivity, closure of all zoos, Jockeys clubs, farms with animals and rides, yet, overall upgrade of our relationships with domestic animals. But, more consistent than, I wish there were enough Democrats to accept that not everyone thinks like them, not everyone will deem the place of shamans, in intimate contact with the wishes and feelings of animals, and within legal rules of each country public access to these animals can occur without hysteria or slander.

WHITE FLAG

As little or nothing has been said about the work, I beg leave to interpret what I did myself, starting with a brief description. “White Flag” (this title, amidst a bombardment of these, these are things that only art explains) was assembled first two years, CCBB in Brasilia, and now, expanded and modified, received a second version, especially for the 29th Biennial.
The work consists of three enormous sand sculptures black pounded, matte and fragile, from the top of which, made of marble, three speakers emit, intervals discrepant, songs “White Flag” (Max Nunes and Laércio Alves, interpretada by Arnaldo Antunes), “Boi the guy next” (folklore, by Dona Inah) and “Carcará” (John Valley and Joseph Candido, por Mariana Gaydar). Three vultures live in the facility for the duration of the work.
The result is a solemn scene, between the Litany and the lullaby, I seem to have dug, in its assembly in Sao Paulo, a kind of black hole in the Bienal building. I think the building will, one of the happiest Niemeyer works, with its speed and optimism, gained with my work a counterpoint ambivalent, nightly and delighted, sad but also close to the world of fairy tales.
There is a kind of upward spiral at work, that dematerialized as the viewer up the ramp of the building and the heavy sand columns become the geometry of the beholder's sculptures up. Done first sand, After marble, glass after, Sound after, After flight, work is in its way the same as the birds, a cycle that rain stool white, parts falling on the floor and on, starts again.

ANTIPENETRÁVEL

But the crucial point, Macho their, is that, despite the monumentality of the unfinished work and the texture of the sand, solicitam that the body of the viewer, the public is kept out of the work, a kind of antipenetrável. The work has been somewhat busy, already taken so we can not approach. The night, the songs and the vultures are their owners, and the public is left to watch out something alive, do not need it.
The songs and the animals, ascension forces against the inertia and weight of the sculptures, already taken account of the work and the screen saver, materializing the design of the building will, marks this institutional passage between an outer and an inner active, closed itself, Mistura culture (songs), nature (the vultures) and architecture.
The birds and the songs give the work its now, lasting facing something indifferent to the outside world. Hence a lot of people have told me that he was seen by birds and not observer, within the grid and not outside. And in the midst of such turmoil, surely the three birds seemed the only walkable.
This internal activity is self-sufficient in the heart of this work and accompanied me throughout these difficult days Shambles. Glad to see that somehow the work already presupposed that, talked about it and defended himself exactly that-she wanted to be with you and not us, away from the noisy stuff however caused.

Workshop

Instead of the activity of the viewer, own many of the best modern works, and we found between one extreme formulation of the idea “Penetrable” by Hélio Oiticica, contemporary art seems to be turning into, a stubborn self-sufficiency.
Is not the place to develop this, but, to give two memorable examples, think “Ellipses”, by Richard Serra, supported themselves and no longer on the walls of institutions, or “The Cycle Creamaster”, de Matthew Barney, with its endless folds and internal relations, partilham this feature. My work follows somehow that direction.
The increasing institutionalization of art brought with her a wealth of institutional discourses, all perfectly centered, sure of themselves and fighting for space in the media and budgetary opportunities. It comes, perhaps, the shattering of the great universal notions that accompanied the formation of the modern world: policy, religion, bourgeoisie, proletariat, Luta class, right, left etc..
With the collapse of these universal notions, individuals (ecology, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities etc..) signed up, full of themselves, pointed, jealous of its truths. The art may be the last experience universalizing, or at least not symmetrical to the discourse of the world, and I think that tends to be increasingly attacked, whenever disagree, and as superb as arbitration. But I think that's what she should keep: their pride and their agency, so you can continue creating.

Effrontery

For me it was the most impressive of all: the absolute failure, say, interpretive who attacked me, refusal to see something else, to relate the feeling of membership or disgust that my work has caused with anything he proposed, in short, the brazenness with which it was used as a springboard for a speech now ready, prior to it, I saw him only a possibility irradiation.
For this, of course, the main ingredient that is being taken in an absolutely opaque and literal, kind of meaningless corpse. To be strict vehicle speeches and groups, without using their resources, say, natural (seduction, desire, ambivalence), art work must be, indeed, from the beginning definitely dead. Thence, I believe, the ferocity with which I was attacked-a kind of preventive hygienic operation, to prevent any germ of amazement, ambiguity, beauty, stupor, could appear, disqualifying the desired consensus.
No farm, I think the famous quote by Frank Stella, who threw a whitewash in the illusions of subjective beginnings of years 60 and ushered in the minimalist poetics that last until today, “What you see is what you see” (“What you see is what you are seeing”), seems to have migrated to the world of art. The literalness of the works of a Carl Andre and Donald Judd a whole moved to the institutions and the public.
So maybe the art to fit today fairly simple task, but so hard, to say exactly the opposite: “What you see is NOT what you are seeing”. In other words, dream. Or, as says the song lyrics, “White Flag, love”.

I feel restrained, wronged and shocked, but I can not say I've been censored. And by understanding the way that destroyed my work is legitimate, quero divergir completely dela

What I was denied to the criminalization of my work was the possibility of a sense-sequestration, say, any sense that he could propose

For me, the most impressive was the brazenness with which it was used as a springboard for a speech now ready, prior to it, I saw him only a possibility irradiation

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ilustrissima/il1710201005.htm