Book Review: FRESCOS: 50 Puerto Rican Artists Under 35

FRESCOS is probably the only book on the subject of the younger generation of Puerto Rican artists. Many (or in reality, not so many…) other books have been written about established artists from a historical point of view. FRESCOS takes a more curatorial approach (of course, since most collaborators are curators) and presents the artists by placing a rather large number of images of their artwork alongside their curriculum (CV) – something that takes up most of the 352 pages. Yes, the book is huge and heavy… so it isn’t something you could carry around… it’s more of a desk-reference type of book. Another good thing is that it is both in Spanish and in English, so it reaches a larger population.

Back to the curators who write the essays: They are not obscure curators, they have importance in the Puerto Rican art scene. Celina Nogueras Cuevas, the editor of FRESCOS, is also the founder/ex-creative director of CIRCA (the most important art fair in PR) and has done a multitude of other projects. Marianne Ramírez Aponte is the director of the Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Puerto Rico. Juan Carlos López Quintero is the director of the Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico. Cheryl Hartup is the chief curator of the Museo de Arte de Ponce. Elvis Fuentes is a curator in the Museo del Barrio (NY).

Other curators include: Marimar Benítez (ex-chancellor of the Escuela de Artes Plásticas de Puerto Rico), Pablo León de la Barra, Paco Barragán, Sylvia Karman Cubiñá, and Marysol Nieves.

The only thing that bothers me is the large font of the essays included (18 or 20pt). I think they could have saved some space/pages (and therefore money) if they had chosen a smaller font size. Actually, if funds were available I would love to see a “pocket book” of this.

-_-

I am sort of revealing my identity/real name without actually saying it. But what the hell… (Just don’t publicize it here on this blog. If you’d like to confirm your suspicions e-mail me, I will be sure to respond if you are correct!)

Adolf Hitler and Art

[[Disclaimer: I by no means condone the killings perpetrated by the Nazi State. This post has absolutely nothing to do with taking pride in the actions of the Nazis. Please read thoroughly before making any comments.]]

     Adolf Hitler was first and foremost a man, a human being, and as such bound to make mistakes. I’m not trying to make a case in his favor, but rather analyzing a part of his human nature. I’d like to briefly explore his views on art, criticize him as an artist and as a “pseudo-curator” (of ‘entartete kunst‘ or “degenerate art”), and state that question that has always lingered on my mind. Actually, i’ll start with that:

What would have been the course of history had Hitler been accepted as an art student at the school of Vienna? What if he had achieved his dream of being a successful artist instead of becoming Führer?

[Me] As a visual artist, I may see his case in a kind of biased way, but I will give no apologies for my thoughts on this subject specifically. Just to clarify: I do not claim to be an expert of his work in any way.

Hate the guy or not, he was an art-aficionado and considered himself an artist. So, let’s talk about the artist not about him as the brain of the mass murdering that took place with him as a leader.

Just by looking at his artwork, his paintings, one can surely deduce that he was an extremely conservative person and even possessed a sort of sensitive personality. It is obvious that he didn’t handle rejection or criticism well. He had his own style which was very traditional, even “neo-classical” with a tad bit of influence from modern art even if he hated it. Observing his paintings closely one is able to see the brush stroke and able to sense a bit of rapid movement of his hand – which could indicate a tiny influence of the way impressionists used to paint. On the other hand, this was not necessarily the case and may simply mean that was his own personal style. One thing is sure, he loved adding all those little intricate details of the buildings he painted – to which we could argue shows something of that complicated spirit he possessed.

Personally, I think that technically his artwork is pretty good since he seems to dominate well the concepts of perspective and light. I’m not a fan of landscapes or urban life as a topic in general…but to each his own.