MODERN DICTATORSHIPS and their ART WORLDS

International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2019

Caterina Preda's first book provides a comparative analysis of the interactions between 'art' and 'politics' in two different dictatorial regimes: the Chilean military junta led by Augusto Pinochet (1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989) and the Romanian state socialist regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu (1965Ceaușescu ( -1989)). Intriguing only at first glance, the comparison between these 'opposing cases' (2) offers relevant new insights into both situations. It also contributes to the currently developing field of research that specifically proposes a trans-regional approach to the regimes in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe in the late 20 th century (Badescu 2019). 1 As for this work, Preda explains her choice via the extreme range of governments embodied by these regimes. Preda considers that art plays the role of a 'recorder' (31) in any society since it both reflects and registers its profound transformations. The purpose of the book is, then, to better grasp the similarities but also the limits of these regimes through the attitudes they had towards 'art'. Moreover, it aims to propose an understanding of how modern dictatorships functioned -'modern dictatorships' being defined as 'the rule of a person or a group of persons that assumes power in a given state and exerts it without control by the ruled' (15). Her approach is consequently and, understandably, interdisciplinary, crossing political sciences, art history and philosophy. Ambitious as it is, the book, however, does not totally achieve its goals. The main argument developed is that, despite evident historical, ideological, political, social and economic differences, Chilean and Romanian regimes under dictatorships have had the same purposes while using divergent strategies to attain these: namely, they both aspired to use art as a political instrument to transform the society. Meanwhile, artists in these countries also had similar behaviors and transmitted the dictatorial experience using the same stratagems. To Preda, artistic practices gain new meanings in dictatorial contexts (17). But is it really so? A comparison with democratic regimes would have been a good start to better understand the specificities of art under dictatorships. Further, is it the meaning of art or its uses, discourses and practices that change? Here is one question that could have been more directly tackled. The analysis of 'art' extends in this book not only to the artworks themselves, but also to the artists' actions and discourses, and to the cultural institutions and actors that framed artistic productions. Further, while the author suggests that she will mostly focus her analysis on visual art, she bases her demonstration on various examples taken from diverse cultural expressions, such as painting, cinema, television, theatre, literature, ballet, music, heritage, monuments, architecture or even urbanism. On the one hand, the large range of examples offers a good understanding of the cultural landscape, even going as far as providing a panorama of the multiple artistic creations in each country. On the other hand, this variety of examples is such that their description sometimes takes precedence over the deep analysis of each of them. The book consists of seven chapters, including the introduction and the conclusion. Except for these two, only one chapter deals principally with both countries at the same time: this is chapter 2, whose purpose is to recall the main features of each regime, rather than confront the main subject: i.e., art and politics. The introduction (chapter 1) explains at length the theoretical and methodological approach, to the extent that it sometimes feels like the author strives more to anticipate any critics, especially regarding the countries compared, more than

2016

This article shows how various artists segued out of the cultural blackout of the late seventies and into a phase of surprising artistic production during the military regime in Chile. At a time when political parties were banned and public gatherings considered illegal, Chileans found alternative ways to oppose the military government. In this climate, I argue that artistic expression took on political meaning. The fact that the "No" Campaign of 1988 was able to oust the dictator with an optimistic message of joy and hope, attests to the point that Chileans were able to shed their fears and change their outlook. Throughout the decade, the arts-innovations in poetry, music, theater, narrative and the audiovisual media-had offered people a much-needed forum for expression.

Iberoamericana, 2013

This article shows how various artists segued out of the cultural blackout of the late seventies and into a phase of surprising artistic production during the military regime in Chile. At a time when political parties were banned and public gatherings considered illegal, Chileans found alternative ways to oppose the military government. In this climate, I argue that artistic expression took on political meaning. The fact that the "No" Campaign of 1988 was able to oust the dictator with an optimistic message of joy and hope, attests to the point that Chileans were able to shed their fears and change their outlook. Throughout the decade, the arts-innovations in poetry, music, theater, narrative and the audiovisual media-had offered people a much-needed forum for expression.

Public Art Dialogue, 2019

A book review of: Preda, Caterina. Art and Politics Under Modern Dictatorships: A Comparison of Chile and Romania. New York: Palgrave, 2017 in Public Art Dialogue, 2019

This article retraces the contours of the artistic policies applied by the Romanian and Chilean dictatorial regimes in the period 1970-1990. It does so by looking specifically at institutions and policies in a historical perspective (the before and the after). Moreover, the two regimes are placed in a comparative perspective with democratic regimes and totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The purpose of this double comparison is to advance a framework of analysis of artistic policies in dictatorial regimes that is comprehensive and that could be extended to other cases.

This article introduces the comparison of the relationship between art and politics in ten dictatorships in Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania), and South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay). The specific analysis concentrates on the 1970s and the 1980s when the two regions were ruled by dictatorships, either inspired by communism or anti‑communism (Doctrine of National Security). The article provides an overview of the main theoretical issues in studying such diverse regimes by focusing on their institutional frameworks. The tentative conclusion is that these regimes are not only comparable, but also similar in several respects.

The European Legacy, 2012

Under a political dictatorship it is primarily from the margins that an artistic critique can be articulated, as suggested by the examples presented in this article from Romania and Chile during the 1970s and 1980s. By focusing on their threefold marginality—of the artist, the art form, and the subject of art—and by applying to them Jacques Rancière's concept of dissensus, the analysis of artistic variants of marginality sheds light on the relationship of art and politics in totalitarian regimes.

Music and Dictatorship in Europe and Latin America, edited by Roberto Illiano and Massimiliano Sala (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers), 2010

THE DICTATORSHIP, NOT ART, CHANGE ART

Several of the essays in Escuelas de arte, campo universitario y formación artística (Art Schools, the University Field, and Artistic Training, 2015), 1 an anthology edited by Carolina Herrera and Nelly Richard, suggest that, in Chile, the art/neoliberalism relationship refers back to the neoliberalism/university relationship: "the idea that the Chilean visual arts scene constitutes a field configured by academic institutionality has become a common position. Critics, artists, and historians have insisted that the development, transmission, and conditions for registering art and artists in the country, are all subordinate to the blueprint devised by the university institutions that train visual artists.. .. The Cuban critic and curator, Gerardo Mosquera. .. maintains an analogous assessment: 'The Chilean taste for erudite discourse. .. must be related to the weight placed on the teaching of art in the country.. .. The vast majority of artists possess a university diploma in their specialty. The various universities have their own traditions and tendencies, and the artists are basically classified according to university and graduation year.. .. Many have asked themselves if the history of local art might not simply be the history of the academy.'" 2 In the same vein, the art theorist Carlos Pérez Villalobos notes: "Art degree programs (a limited labor market of artists and intellectuals

2010