Art has always been a way for humans to express themselves and this is no different in Cuba. In a country where speech and expression is limited, artistic expression may be the only way to share ideas. Prior to the Revolution, the island’s artistic scene was just as diverse as the people. Influenced by South America, Europe, Africa, and other Caribbean nations, Cubans had a unique way of expressing themselves without using words. With the recent unrest and problems plaguing Cuba, artists have begun to use their art to question the state’s authority. Thus, the government has put forth Decree 349, which “essentially grants the Cuban Republic complete control over independent artistic production” (“As Criminalization of the Arts Intensifies in Cuba, Artists Organize”).
One thing that struck me as odd was the hypocrisy of the government’s views on art between when comparing the two modules. For instance, Decree 349 states that pornography and sexism in art is prohibited, but the government had no issue allowing dancers to dress skantily and dance for tourists in order to support the country. Although, I suppose censoring art and dictating specific uses are both oppressive, but I would be interested to hear other views on this.
I think Cuba’s standpoint on the arts has always been dictated by what the state found useful at the time. After struggling for years economically, the state needed to exploit artists and allow them to make money and support the economy, which was why some artistic freedoms were allowed. However, with Cubans leaving the country and the art taking a more political turn, the state has decided it needs to shut down individual thought. For this reason, I found Tania Bruguera’s story to be fascinating. Her performances include readings promoting free speech, stimulating the individual thought the communist government greatly fears. With individuality, the government would have a tougher time exploiting the people and would need to listen to the desires of the people in order to keep loyalty. However, as Bruguera states, the government sells “the image [of] everyone in Cuba being happy” (“Tania Bruguera: Cuban Artist Fights for Free Expression”). It seems to be that the government loved its art when they could use it as proof that their people are happy in the socialist nation, but now that it is being used against the socialist state, the state is actively trying to shut it down.
As stated before, do you feel like it is like the country’s decision to condemn body art yet encourage dancing for tourists to be hypocritical? If more Cuban artists were to flee the country, or the sale of art is greatly restricted, how will the economy be affected? Will the loss of capital force the government to remove art restrictions, or will the fear of rebellion still be too great?
Rebecca -
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a great point of that now that the art is being used against the government they are putting restrictions up but when it was benefitting the government art was sold everywhere with no restrictions. I do find allowing dancing for tourist to be hypocritical but if you think from the Cuban government perspective tourist bring in money directly for the government. I personally don't think that if Cuban artist were to flee the country and sell their art else where it would affect the cuban government. There are so many restrictions in Cuba that if they were to go to another country with their unique style of art I think that the artist would be very successful. I think the loss of capital force also won't affect the government due to artist not selling their work through the government now. I personally believe the Cuba government should lift all restrictions on art and allow artist to get a profit off of their own pieces.
I don’t think it is right that the Cuban government condemns body art but yet will charge tourists almost $400 to watch Cuba dancers. In the film, “Cuba and the Cameraman”, the tourist that was charged $400 in the dance club thought it was ridiculous he was charged that much when its Cuba… Now think, how much of that $400 is going to the government and how much of it is actually going to the dancers? Because, the average monthly income in Cuba is $25 and that $400 tab is just for one customer in the dance club! Absolutely ridiculous that they would charge that much, then they have the odyssey to not allow artists to express themselves freely by painting body art or revolutionary art. Is there an injustice in this government system? How should this be resolved?
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
ReplyDeleteI think your position of the Cuban government treating art as they see fit is really interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way, but they do seem to do whatever benefits themselves the most at the time. When Cuba was at the start of Fidel Castro's reign, art was highly censored. Due to this, many artists felt the need to leave the country in order to have their freedoms fulfilled. During the Vanguardia movement, artists had to go to Europe to continue their artistic journeys since the Cuban government wouldn't allow space for their growth. Once the government realized that the selling of art could make more than a lawyer could, they started to encourage the practice through tourism. Since many Cubans cannot afford to buy art on their own, the artists of Cuba were forced to target the tourist market, which further helped the government because it too was trying to grow tourism as a source of income. Due to all of this, I do believe that the Cuban government has been hypocritical towards the nation's artists. If the Cuban government only wants art to be created when it sees fit, then it isn't actually supporting creativity at all.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteI strictly believe in being able to decide in which way people express themselves, especially when it comes to their own bodies. The Cuban government wants to control the way that people are shown to the public eye, which sounds a lot like controlling people and not just controlling art. That is an imprisoning way to live, and I for sure would be angry if someone told me I couldn't paint my body or dress how I'd like, but when it is time for them to make money they can force people to wear nearly nothing to make a pretty penny out of tourists. I feel like since the art economy of Cuba is so vast that if artists refused to sell their art or refused to perform, the art market and the tourist market would crash, and the country depends heavily on both to keep them afloat.
Now my question to you is, do you think that some states in the US have similar views when it comes to women's bodies? For example, in some states abortion is still illegal, and in some counties women don't have access to birth control, hence the governing bodies controlling these women's bodies.
I agree with Emely, Human beings have been creating visual things from the time that they began to draw. What these images mean to the government depends on the context in which image is created, for what purpose it is created and by whom it is created.
DeleteThat's a very interesting point that you bring up about how pornography and sexism are prohibited but dancing for the tourists is greatly encouraged. I hadn't thought of it that way, as hypocrisy by the Cuban government. I suppose the government sees the dancing as a more acceptable expression of art and an easy way to bring in lots of money from tourists. I think that if more artists flee the country or the sale of art becomes more restricted the economy would greatly suffer. Art is a big attraction when tourists visit the island so if the artists can no longer sell their work, that would cause a major loss in revenue. I'm not sure if the government would remove the art restrictions because once they do I think it's clear that the artists would gladly express their frustrations towards those in power. Although, artists seem to be doing that anyways and starting to rebel a lot more too. So at this point there is almost no point in the restrictions since people are still practicing free speech regardless of the consequences.
ReplyDelete