AG: At the end of last year and the beginning of this year, two exhibitions were held which emphasized the old debate between art and politics. There were different arguments involved in the discussion. One, that this was nothing more than pure opportunism; that since Argentina is in crisis, now the artists are engaging in an art calling focusing on this and curators simply gather and exhibit art with this new "more favorable" socio-political concern. Another exhibition which took place this year insinuated something which also formed part of this debate: that during the nineties many artists continued to be preoccupied by contextual, political, social situations and that their work reflected on these aspects. The problem is that in those years a kind-of consensus had been constructed around the idea that there is no reason why art should be committed to anything or give rise to critical discourses.

AR: One has the sensation that these were "light" years, artistically speaking. Wasní­t this so?

AG: The debate that is beginning now is very interesting. The nineties were not a homogenous block. There was not only one type of art, there were many different proposals. What happens is that "light" or art that had more formal concerns simply had a stronger discursive construction. And these samples of political art from recent months form part of a critical review of those years, since they endeavor to speak out against that hegemony and show that many artistsí­ political art is neither opportunism nor a radical change in their production, but that there are artists who have been working along this line for some time. What there is now (which didní­t exist before) is the possibility of organizing this type of exhibition and having it not be buried. In the nineties this would have given rise to a sort-of historical erasure. In 1997, I organized an exhibition the sole purpose of which was to show that not only was there an art interested solely in surface aesthetics — "light" - but that there were other artists — who were well represented — who were working along more contextually driven lines. But, due to the critical hegemony which existed in the nineties, this exhibition was erased.

AR: The curators didní­t have an "eye" for "political" art in those years?

AG: Exactly. But there were those who continued to work in a way that was far more democratic. I am thinking of Magdalena Jitrik, Rossana Fuertes or Daniel Ontiveros, among so many others.

AR: Circuits create margins, but individuals are sufficiently strong at times to follow their own trends, follow their convictions? What I mean is, are they capable of maintaining tragectories despite the public, critics and curators looking the other way?

AG: Absolutely. Although it is always sad for an artist to have to wait for favorable circumstances for his work to be understood and enjoyed. That is, the best thing would be to have a more demoocratic articulation as regards acceptance of the different proposals.

AR: How do international curators see Argentine art at this moment?

AG: If I review some recent exhibitions of Argentine art (such as that in Berlin), I see that the emphasis was placed on the Argentine crisis. The works selected and the brief historical synopsis of our art was focused on the political, economic and social collapse. To international eyes there is always a greater inclination to read and understand a culture in its critical moments rather than in optimistic and serene production stages. One must also know that those international eyes reconstruct ‘typical artí­: it is hard for them to see what is different, what is new, what does not reside within their stereotypes. In view of this the only posible response is to prepare strategies for showing Argentine art in its other complexities, and not only what is adapted to fit within these well-worn external discourses.

AR: Are there not too many obstacles for artists? Curators with so much power and dealing this with stereotypes .... AG: Well, we must not demonize these circuits either, because there are many people who work in an open and intelligent manner. At this moment I am an optimist.

AR: Why?

AG: Because the market — in all its aspects — is not always omnipotent. There are thousands of ways of establishing other places for intervention, other forms of negotiation. Probably these instances woní­t have the same power, but one must never renounce the possibility of making them work. It is also necessary to maintain those places where different dialogues originate which combat hegemonic practices. For the time being, we are under the effects of a breakdown in omnipotence due to everything which exploded in the midst of our crisis. I believe it is healthy when one no longer feels so confident, allowing other voices to be heard. And that is, for me, the best in the field of culture. When culture leaves aside monolithical production, individuals are strengthened and their art becomes richer.

This article was originally published in Clarin.com: VII No 2540