Stephen McKenney - The New Revolution: Cuba, Art, and Censorship
Cuba’s fight for independence famously ended in 1959 when Fidel Castro’s army marched into Havana, defeating the oppressive regime of Fulgencio Batista. This event marked the end of one revolution and the beginning of another. With Fidel came communism. The communist government’s censorship of artistic expression would breed a new class of rebel artists. In the present day, these revolutionaries have taken the place of the Castros and Guevaras in the fight for social change.
By the start of the revolution, artistic expression was already deeply embedded in Cuban society. Under the rule of Batista, the country had seen many significant art movements. The most prominent were the avant-garde vanguardia–which broke traditional rules and pushed social agendas through their work–and the Afrocubanismo movement–which sought to reconnect Cubans with their African heritage through art. These movements would fade in prominence toward the beginning of the Cuban revolution, but their influence would become clear after Castro took power.
As stated previously, the new communist government wanted conformity with the values of the revolution. It crushed personal expression during the “five gray years” (the beginning of the 1970s), even going so far as to silence the Cuban black power movement in 1971. In a country where alignment with anything but the communist government was not allowed, state trained artists–inspired by the vanguardia–took up the mantle of political criticism. This began with Afro-Cuban art collectives in the late 70s and early 80s. Collectives like Grupo Antillano worked to raise cultural awareness of racial discrimination in a state built upon a system meant to ensure equality for all people. Proyecto Pilon attempted to spread social discourse and art to the impoverished town of Pilon, but was shut down by the Cuban government. It was during this period (in 1976) that the Ministry of Culture was created–a censorship body that artists would continue to fight against into the modern day.
Through the late 80s, the policies of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union empowered artists to begin spreading more aggressive messages through their art. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic crisis in Cuba was so bad that Castro was forced to allow Cuban artists to sell their pieces internationally for hard currency. Many artists welcomed the opportunity to make money during hard times, but were concerned by the influence of capitalism. After all, the artists were anti-censorship, not anti-socialism. They believed in what the Cuban revolution stood for and wanted the utopian dream it had promised.
Throughout the 90s, art collectives such as ENEMA and OMNI-ZonaFranca took the failed projects of the Afro-Cuban collectives and revitalized them. They integrated art with community support, bringing expression and social discourse to underprivileged areas of Cuba (much like Proyecto Pilon tried to).
To this day, political and cultural discourse in Cuba is mainly communicated through art. The most famous example of socially conscious modern Cuban artists is likely Los Carpinteros, a duo of sculptors that subtly critique Cuba’s current social landscape. Street art has also developed significantly in modern years, and is perhaps the primary conduit to address social issues. Artists like Yulier and Fabian create public pieces of art that indirectly criticize the Cuban government. Yulier’s graffiti uses inhuman creatures to portray the suffering of the Cuban people, while Fabian uses his character “Supermalo” to compare the Cuban government with the dystopias of George Orwell.
In recent years, things have only gotten worse in Cuba. Many modern artists are still censored by the Ministry of Culture. Yulier was threatened with jail time if he refused to erase his graffiti. Many more have been imprisoned for their dissent, including famous performance artists “El Sexto.” The new president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, recently passed Decree 349. The law cracks down on artistic expression, especially with regards to sentiments the government doesn’t approve of. Despite all of their effort, the new breed of socially-conscious artists is not yet free to express their beliefs. This new revolution has only just begun.
By the start of the revolution, artistic expression was already deeply embedded in Cuban society. Under the rule of Batista, the country had seen many significant art movements. The most prominent were the avant-garde vanguardia–which broke traditional rules and pushed social agendas through their work–and the Afrocubanismo movement–which sought to reconnect Cubans with their African heritage through art. These movements would fade in prominence toward the beginning of the Cuban revolution, but their influence would become clear after Castro took power.
As stated previously, the new communist government wanted conformity with the values of the revolution. It crushed personal expression during the “five gray years” (the beginning of the 1970s), even going so far as to silence the Cuban black power movement in 1971. In a country where alignment with anything but the communist government was not allowed, state trained artists–inspired by the vanguardia–took up the mantle of political criticism. This began with Afro-Cuban art collectives in the late 70s and early 80s. Collectives like Grupo Antillano worked to raise cultural awareness of racial discrimination in a state built upon a system meant to ensure equality for all people. Proyecto Pilon attempted to spread social discourse and art to the impoverished town of Pilon, but was shut down by the Cuban government. It was during this period (in 1976) that the Ministry of Culture was created–a censorship body that artists would continue to fight against into the modern day.
Through the late 80s, the policies of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union empowered artists to begin spreading more aggressive messages through their art. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic crisis in Cuba was so bad that Castro was forced to allow Cuban artists to sell their pieces internationally for hard currency. Many artists welcomed the opportunity to make money during hard times, but were concerned by the influence of capitalism. After all, the artists were anti-censorship, not anti-socialism. They believed in what the Cuban revolution stood for and wanted the utopian dream it had promised.
Throughout the 90s, art collectives such as ENEMA and OMNI-ZonaFranca took the failed projects of the Afro-Cuban collectives and revitalized them. They integrated art with community support, bringing expression and social discourse to underprivileged areas of Cuba (much like Proyecto Pilon tried to).
To this day, political and cultural discourse in Cuba is mainly communicated through art. The most famous example of socially conscious modern Cuban artists is likely Los Carpinteros, a duo of sculptors that subtly critique Cuba’s current social landscape. Street art has also developed significantly in modern years, and is perhaps the primary conduit to address social issues. Artists like Yulier and Fabian create public pieces of art that indirectly criticize the Cuban government. Yulier’s graffiti uses inhuman creatures to portray the suffering of the Cuban people, while Fabian uses his character “Supermalo” to compare the Cuban government with the dystopias of George Orwell.
In recent years, things have only gotten worse in Cuba. Many modern artists are still censored by the Ministry of Culture. Yulier was threatened with jail time if he refused to erase his graffiti. Many more have been imprisoned for their dissent, including famous performance artists “El Sexto.” The new president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, recently passed Decree 349. The law cracks down on artistic expression, especially with regards to sentiments the government doesn’t approve of. Despite all of their effort, the new breed of socially-conscious artists is not yet free to express their beliefs. This new revolution has only just begun.
This leads me to consider the following questions:
1. What would Cuba's art scene look like if state censorship did not exist? Would it be less influential on the world stage?
2. Does Decree 349 signal an age of greater censorship in the near future? Or will the easing of relationships with capitalist countries like the USA open the door to less stringent domestic politics?
Hi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with this analysis. I had forgotten about perestroika and glasnost, so I did a small dive into Soviet history while reading this. I likewise agree with your statement that the artists are generally anti-censorship and not anti-socialism, which came up in the interviews with Cuban artists, one of whom said that he wants a new, truly socialist government that does not participate in the censorship of the current one.
1. I think that it would certainly be different since much of Cuba's art is sending express political messages against state censorship, but I do believe it would still be influential. I assume that you solely mean state censorship by the Cuban government, as Cuban art is still slightly censored by other governments (and by that mostly mean the US, and not to a significant extent). The effective censorship of Cuban society by the US (the embargo) and its exception for art are a large part of why Cuban art is so influential, as it was one of Cuba's only economic and cultural links to the US.
2. I don't know if this will necessarily lead to greater censorship. Perhaps it will, but large-scale protests are generally effective in reducing censorship, and that's what has happened in Cuba. I likewise don't know if opening the doors to capitalist countries like the US will necessarily lead to less stringent domestic policies. The only countries who actually participate in the embargo are the United States and Israel, and Cuba does have regular economic and societal relations with most other states. The US is nearly-universally considered significantly less free than most EU nations, most of whom do have regular trade with Cuba.
I like how you added that before the revolution art was already in the Cuban Society and connected to how movements took place when Castro came to power.
ReplyDeleteFor your first question, I believe if censorship through the cuban government didnt exist art would still be influential but many artists show censorship through their work by expressing their artistic freedom and using political news. Some artists use the truth of their society in their work and without the use of doing this, it would probably change certain artists art designs.
Stephen, I appreciate your analysis of the history of art in Cuba. I especially like the connection to the fall of the soviet union and how it forced Castro to allow artists to sell their art internationally. Decree 349 is one of those things that can't end well in my eyes. I disagree with censorship in any form, most of the time it is not something that is helpful to a society. I find it odd that the Cuban government puts such strict limitations on art in the modern day, as it is a surefire way to create dissent within a society. I fear that when the people cannot express their ideas through art, they may resort to other methods that are not as peaceful. In many ways, art can be seen as a way to "read the pulse" of a society, and when the government censors it, it could indicate that there is a sentiment being felt by the public that the government wants to hide.
ReplyDelete