The US embargo against Cuba began during the Batista regime back in 1958, and is currently still going on. The political situation between Cuba and the U.S. has impacted Cuban artists, but I would say in the best way possible. Cuba is one of the only countries in the world that managed to be uninfluenced by their northern neighbor, especially in their arts. This allowed them to be influenced by only things that have been made in the past and things that are allowed in their present. At first glance, I found it quite unfair that they were so cut off from different sources of inspiration. But as I looked at the beautiful works of art made by Cuban artists in the media that professor Lee provided us, I learned to love them even more. Each piece made by every artist, and each artist's style is so unique and original - there is no overlap between artists and it makes every artist stand out. In place like the U.S., new artists seem to have developed similar styles and tastes because they are all exposed to the same influences. However, artists in Cuba weren't exposed to such influences on that level, forcing them to create their own image.
The articles have provided me with enough information to safely say that the Castro regime was the most impactful on the works of modern artists like Danilo Maldonado Machado or "El Sexto" and Tania Bruguera. They are just two examples of politically-driven artists who faced injustices towards their art after Fidel Castro died. During his regime (when he was alive), Castro was vigilant of artists works because he wanted to control or 'censor' what was being published/shown to the public. I find that he did this because he knew that artists that were against him (like Machado and Bruguera) made works that were both visually appealing and had significant meaning to them, making them more of a threat than just art. Also, Cuba being a hotspot tourist destination, the anti-Castro art could be used to paint Cuba as an oppressing place. This censorship led to many artists being exiled, vigilantly watched, and paranoid. Both Machado and Bruguera, and other artists, were arrested multiple times because of their art that demonstrated their disgust in the Castro regime.
The articles have provided me with enough information to safely say that the Castro regime was the most impactful on the works of modern artists like Danilo Maldonado Machado or "El Sexto" and Tania Bruguera. They are just two examples of politically-driven artists who faced injustices towards their art after Fidel Castro died. During his regime (when he was alive), Castro was vigilant of artists works because he wanted to control or 'censor' what was being published/shown to the public. I find that he did this because he knew that artists that were against him (like Machado and Bruguera) made works that were both visually appealing and had significant meaning to them, making them more of a threat than just art. Also, Cuba being a hotspot tourist destination, the anti-Castro art could be used to paint Cuba as an oppressing place. This censorship led to many artists being exiled, vigilantly watched, and paranoid. Both Machado and Bruguera, and other artists, were arrested multiple times because of their art that demonstrated their disgust in the Castro regime.
Overall, I found that learning about music and the arts in Cuba is very different than learning about American, or even Dominican and European art. The styles and influences vary so much, and the fact that most of the artists we learned about worked in a very oppressive and controlling environment under a totalitarian dictator. I would say that is an unstable way to express and make art, but it is what motivated many to express themselves in these ways. So my questions to the class are:
Do you believe that if the artists we learned about weren't under the influence of Castro's dictatorship, would their art be drastically different? That is, with the US embargo in place.
Also, do you think that the idea of censoring the work of these artists is a human rights issue? In the US, we have the freedom to speech (which includes nonverbal forms, including art).
Do you believe that if the artists we learned about weren't under the influence of Castro's dictatorship, would their art be drastically different? That is, with the US embargo in place.
Also, do you think that the idea of censoring the work of these artists is a human rights issue? In the US, we have the freedom to speech (which includes nonverbal forms, including art).
I have to agree with you that because there were no outside influences the art work from Cuba is so unique and original. I also love that all the artist have there own style, you bring up a good point that in the US some artist have developed the same techniques but in Cuba there is none of that. To answer your questions I think that if artist weren't under Castro's dictatorship that artist art would be completely different due to the fact that they could express their freedom of speech though there art. Although with the embargo in place artist would still be limited to supplies and materials. I think that artist would still use the same materials that the use now but the message behind their art would be different.
ReplyDeleteLooking at censoring the work of artist as a human rights issue I think for Cuba it isn't but for a citizen of the United States it is. Coming from the United States we are very lucky with all of our privileges. Cuba wants everything to benefit their government and doesn't want citizen to say bad things so I feel by censoring art is just another way that the citizens don't bash the government.
I have to agree with Natalie, The idea of censoring the work of these artists is considered a human rights issue. When people are drawing art they typically use visual shapes/forms, colours, and lines, to create meaning. Sometimes these 'meanings' are shallow. It is clear that before humans taught themselves how to read, how to tell themselves stories, and how to teach the history of Cuba by teaching them about the meaning of art.
DeleteYes, I believe that if Cuban artists weren’t under the control of Castro’s dictatorship then their art would be a lot different. For many years, Cubans weren’t allowed to have internet or technology. So, throughout the different time periods of art, Cubans didn’t have the opportunity to see the other famous works of art. The United States trade embargo completely isolated them. Not to mention, art and dance was their source of entertainment. I also agree that censoring these works of art is definitely a human right issue. Art is a way to express one’s self and is equivalent to giving a speech, expressing one’s opinion verbally, or in writing. Everyone should have the right as a human-being to express themselves. “Tania Bruguera, a Cuban-born artist who was detained on multiple occasions by authorities in Havana early last year after attempting to stage a performance about free speech, notes that though Castro is gone, his brother Raul, who has managed the country for the last decade, is still firmly in charge” (“Art after Fidel”). In this case with a famous Cuban artist, do you think it was right she was detained by the government after trying to preform freely?
ReplyDeleteJessica,
DeleteIf I was viewing the world through the eyes of a Cuban communist, I would be appalled if she wasn't detained. However, I see the world through my own eyes and I think that everyone should have the right to express themselves freely.
As sad as it is to say, Cuba's complete isolation made their art completely unique and I do not believe this would've happened if their art had been developed with outside influences. Although the embargo effected the nation negatively in many ways, it did lead to many interesting perspectives throughout the decades. If Cubans had access to internet, I'm sure art would've reflected the trends of the time. However, I do believe it still would've had a unique political message, because that is the purpose of art. In Cuba, freedom of speech isn't necessarily a human right if the speech is in opposition to the government, so internally the lack of freedom is not an issue. Overall, I do believe it to be a human rights issue because people should be able to express their opinions freely. However, do you think it is right to base what we believe a human rights violation to be using our country as a baseline? Do we have the right to intervene, and should we?
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
DeleteThis country isn't all that I know - I grew up in the Dominican Republic, where there is a similar history of bad leadership and censoring of people, so I do believe that we shouldn't use our country as a baseline. As one of the leaders of the UN, I think the United States has a right to intervene, but it isn't a priority item.
I completely agree with you about why Castro put those restrictions on art. He knew that if he allowed artists to paint whatever they truly thought it would cause many social issues which could potentially lead to a revolt against him. I found it interesting how many artists were so willing to risk going to jail to protest these laws and also how many people still continued to express themselves in an illegal way. For example, when reggaeton was banned from being played and sold in stores people still listened to it and found secretive ways to sell it. If Cuban artists weren't under the influence of the Castro dictatorship I think that the art would be very different. I don't think it would have as much of a message behind it since the dictatorship had the biggest impact out of anything in artwork.
ReplyDeleteAs for all the censoring the government did with Cuban art I do believe that this is a major human rights issue. People should be allowed to express themselves however they choose to do so. They shouldn't be put in jail for speaking their minds about how their society is and the ugly truths of it. We're lucky to live in the U.S. where we have the right to do that compared to countries like Cuba where it should be a basic right yet freedom of speech is a foreign concept to them.
Emely,
ReplyDeleteI also find Cuba to be very intriguing due to their lack of contact with outside nations. I believe that the artists in Cuba have flourished because not all of them have gone to outside influences when creating their pieces. Since Fidel Castro has caused so many hardships in their country, the artists of Cuba have a lot to say. I don't think oppression is beneficial, but I do believe that it has impacted their art in many ways. When you are constantly fighting for freedom, the art that is created can be very impactful. Because of this, I do believe that without Fidel Castro, Cuban artist's creations would be drastically different. To answer your second question, I think that oppressing creative ideas is definitely a human rights issue. When Bruguera states that she is attempting to blur the lines between the art and political sectors, I feel as though there is no other way to go about creating art in Cuba. The subjects are so interconnected that it would be difficult to see them as two different entities. In order to create art, one needs freedom of expression. If there is no freedom of expression, then the art that one creates is not coming from a creative place. I think that this struggle for freedom of expression is one of the most important struggles that anyone could go through, which is why the artists of Cuba are so strong about achieving this freedom.