Mary Schneider-Enríquez

The particular atmosphere surrounding Latin American art at Harvard University may be a consequence of the study commissioned by the Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. As Steve Reifenberg remarked in an article published in the Harvard Crimson in 2001, the conclusion reached in that research by the doctoral student Mercedes Telles was that Latin America was a subject of study in the Romance Languages and Literatures Department, but not necessarily in the Department of the History of Art and Architecture. This discovery may have triggered a new vision that has had multiple effects. One of the most recent ones has been the appointment of Mary Schneider-Enríquez, an expert in 20th century Latin American art, as Harvard Art Museum’s new Associate Curator of Modern and Contemporary Art.

The change began with the arrival of Thomas Cummins, a former professor at the University of Chicago, who began to lecture regularly on Pre-Columbian and Colonial Art at Harvard. Then in 2000/2001, Schneider-Enríquez organized the first modern Latin American art exhibition for HAM, “Geometric Abstraction: Latin American Art from the Patricia Phelps de Cisneros Collection“, at a time when curators and collectors of modern Latin American art were strengthening ties with the university.

When she proposed her idea, Schneider-Enríquez was certain that both the former museum director and the public “would be impressed when they learned about the work of these Latin American artists, which was based on the same visual ideas as those of European artists in the 1940s through the 1960s.” The exhibition also included the presentation of papers and panel discussions on the subject by students, professors and art lovers.

This historian’s fascination with Latin American art originated in the 1980s, when she attended Frida Kahlo’s first exhibition in Mexico. Since then and partly as a result of her having married a Mexican national she has traveled frequently to that country and studied the work of local artists. Her Master’s Thesis was focused on Diego Rivera, cubism and politics. At the time when she was completing her PhD at Harvard University, Latin American art became a passion for her, precisely because of the gap in the academic syllabus regarding this subject.

In 1994 -1995, Schneider-Enríquez co-curated the exhibition“Mexico: A Landscape Revisited” with the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, jointly with a group of Mexican curators with whom she developed a historical review of the landscape as a subject in Mexican painting. It focused on the 20th century, when the traditional notion of the landscape was displaced by a more open concept. “A specific idea regarding the notion of landscape, country, town or environment no longer exists”, she declares.

In 1999, “a time of an explosion of activities and interest related to Latin American arts in New York”, she curated Gerardo Suter’s traveling exhibition, “Labyrinth of Memory”, organized by the Americas Society. In this exhibit, the curator highlighted the way in which Suter fused elements from Pre-Columbian history and studio photography techniques, and the ways in which he combined photography, installation and video.

“Although there was already an interest in Latin American art in the United States, the idea that everything resembled the work of the muralists and of Frida Kahlo still prevailed,“ Schneider-Enríquez affirms.

The artist’s innovative techniques, his way of manipulating images to arouse disturbing emotions in the viewer, and his way of employing the body as a canvas for his work were ideal to introduce in the United States a different notion with respect to the art of the region.

Profile:

CL: In your opinion, what led the United States to open up to Latin America, after having ignored it in the days of the Cold War?

MSE: I began my career as an art critic writing for Art in America and ART News in 1988, when the director of The New York Times in Mexico recommended me as a Latin American art correspondent. Then, in 1990, the exhibition “Mexico, Splendor of Thirty Centuries” was held at the Metropolitan Museum. It was evident that in New York people wanted to know more about the art of the region. Sotheby’s and Christie’s began to attract more buyers to their auction sales. All of a sudden, Latin American art became chic. The free trade agreement accelerated this process, and New York’s overture to Mexico was greater than ever before.

CL: This is true with respect to Mexico, but what about the rest of Latin America?

MSE: All this, in turn, had a positive effect on Latin American art as a whole. Many artists moved in to New York, and international curators also arrived in the city to work with museums and galleries.

CL: What role did private collectors play?

MSE: Private collectors like Patricia Phelps de Cisneros started or enriched their collections at that time. International art fairs also expanded. Galleries played a key role in bringing artists from all over the world. Globalization had a generalized effect; it was like a “typhoon”.

CL: To what extent did the exhibition “Geometric abstraction” turn Latin American art into a focal point at Harvard?

MSE: It introduced Harvard professors and students to Latin American geometric art. At Harvard they had not had the experience of being in direct contact with these works and realizing that all this had occurred.

CL: What effect did that first experience have?

MSE: It aroused the faculty and the students’ interest in learning more about the subject, and at the same time, after Professor Cummins’s arrival, there was greater institutional support to study and publish books on Latin American art. And of course, my appointment is a direct consequence of this change.

CL: In 2004 you collaborated in the retrospective “Matta: Making the Invisible Visible” (McCullen Museum of Art, Boston College, 2004), Do you believe that Roberto Matta has already earned recognition in the United States as a pioneer of American abstract expressionism?

MSE: In my view, Matta was one of Latin America’s great artists who gave a global character to his oeuvre. His influence within the New York group in the 1940s –Mark Rotko, Jackson Pollock, Willem De Kooning, Arshile Gorky – was crucial. Matta was essential and he was not a muralist. Although there wasn’t a generalized knowledge about Latin American art at Harvard, many did know about Matta.

CL: The exhibition “Constructive Spirit: Abstract Art in South and North America, 1920s-50s” (Newark Museum, 2010) proposed that there had been an exchange between abstract artists between 1940 and 1970.

MSE: At that time, artists like Roberto Matta and Joaquín Torres- García, who had decided to live for a while or settle outside their home towns remained close to related groups, groups sharing the same culture. I can see no ghettos of this kind nowadays, everything is much more global.

CL: Can you mention some artists who utilize this global language?

MSE: There is Doris Salcedo. Although at the beginning her work was marked by a local element, at present it is completely

CL: A su juicio, ¿qué llevó a Estados Unidos a abrirse hacia Latinoamérica, después de haberla ignorado en tiempos de la Guerra Fría?

MSE: Yo empecé como crítica de arte en Art in America y ARTNews en 1988, cuando el jefe de The New York Times en México me recomendó para que escribiera de arte latinoamericano. Luego, en 1990 fue la exposición de “Mexico: Splendor of Thirty Centuries” en el Metropolitan Museum. Era evidente que en Nueva York querían saber más. Sotheby’s y Christie’s comenzaron a atraer más compradores a sus subastas. De pronto, el arte latinoamericano se convirtió en algo chic. El acuerdo de libre comercio aceleró este proceso y Nueva York tuvo que abrirse más a México que nunca.

CL: Eso con respecto a México, pero ¿qué pasó con el resto de Latinoamérica?

MSE: Todo, a su vez, tuvo un efecto positivo para la totalidad del arte. Muchos artistas se mudaron a la ciudad y curadores internacionales también llegaron para trabajar con los museos y galerías.

CL: ¿Qué papel jugaron los coleccionistas privados?

MSE: Los coleccionistas privados como Patricia Phelps de Cisneros, comenzaron y enriquecieron sus colecciones en ese momento. Las ferias de arte internacionales también se expandieron. La galería jugó un papel fundamental en traer artistas de todo el mundo. La globalización tuvo un efecto general, que fue como un “tifón”.

CL: ¿Hasta qué punto la exposición “Geometric abstraction” hizo del arte latinoamericano un punto focal en Harvard?

MSE: Fue una introducción de los profesores y estudiantes de Harvard al arte geométrico latinoamericano. En Harvard no habían tenido la experiencia cercana de contemplar esas obras y darse cuenta de que todo eso había ocurrido.

CL: ¿Qué efecto tuvo esta primera experiencia?

MSE: Despertó el interés del profesorado y los estudiantes por saber más del tema; y, al mismo tiempo, tras la llegada del profesor Cummins, hubo un mayor apoyo institucional para estudiar y publicar libros sobre arte latinoamericano. Y, por supuesto, mi puesto es consecuencia directa de este cambio.

CL: En 2004 usted cooperó en la retrospectiva “Matta: Making the Invisible Visible” (McCullen Museum of Art, Boston College, 2004). ¿Cree que Roberto Matta ya ha ganado el reconocimiento en Estados Unidos como pionero del expresionismo abstracto americano?

MSE: Para mí, Matta fue uno de los grandes de Latinoamérica que hizo de su obra algo global. Su influencia en el grupo de Nueva York en los años cuarenta -Mark Rotko, Jackson Pollock, Willem De Kooning, Arshile Gorky- fue elemental. Matta fue esencial y no era un muralista. Si bien en Harvard no había un conocimiento generalizado sobre arte latinoamericano, muchos sí sabían de Matta.

CL: La exposición “Constructive Spirit: Abstract Art in South and North America, 1920s-50s” (Newark Museum, 2010) planteó que sí hubo un intercambio entre artistas abstractos entre 1940 y 1970.

MSE: Antes los artistas como Roberto Matta y Joaquín Torres-García, que decidieron vivir un tiempo o establecerse fuera de sus ciudades, se mantenían cercanos a grupos afines, de su misma cultura. Yo veo que ahora no hay guetos de ese tipo, es mucho más global.

CL: ¿Puede citar algunos artistas que utilizan este lenguaje global?

international. Adriana Varejão makes reference to Brazil and its colonial history, but it has developed in some directions that speak of many more things, as could be witnessed in her exhibition in New York (Adriana Varejão: New works, Lehmann Maupin Gallery, 2009) the past year. Guillermo Kuitca and to a certain extent Vaissmann, are also part of this group.

CL: What is the vision of the Harvard Art Museum’s directors regarding Latin America?

MSE: The new director, Thomas W. Lentz, has a great interest in transforming the museum into a more international institution. Latin America is an important branch, especially with regard to modern and contemporary art. My mission in this position is to contribute to broaden the vision of the institution. A very positive factor at Harvard is that there is effective collaboration between the museum and the History of Art Department.

CL: What will contribute to a greater interaction between museum and academy?

MSE: While the museum remains closed, we will be organizing activities and lectures to arouse greater interest. When the museum opens its doors (2014), we shall have study centers for people to be able to view works which are not on exhibit and study them in detail. At present, I am essentially planning the reinstallation, but in the course of the next six months I will communicate my proposals regarding exhibitions.

CL: How can one avoid referring to Latin America as an island in the map of art?

MSE: I am examining art from the past hundred years to see what has happened and what we can combine, establishing new dialogues and study issues. For example, we have purchased a work on paper by León Ferrari, which will function very well when we contrast it with works by Jackson Pollock and Ellsworth Kelly, because the visual is always obvious. On the other hand, the analogy of Víctor Grippo’s potatoes, which are also on exhibit at the museum, would not be understood if we did not show the historical moment when it was produced. An audience that is not acquainted with Latin America must have access to the context.

CL: How will you reflect this vision in your capacity as curator of the Harvard Art Museum?

MSE: I think my position in this museum has to do with showing the history of Latin American art and its great moments, but also with showing those artists who are handling an international language that reflects how art is thought of in the world at present. However, although I advocate showing Latin American art from a global and not a local perspective, we must show how the historical context has had an influence on art.

PROFILE

María Schneider Enríquez’s appointment as Associate Curator of Modern and Contemporary Art at the Harvard Art Museum (HAM) was effective as of April 2010. Schneider Enríquez is currently a visiting lecturer in fine arts at Brandeis University. She is also completing her PhD in the Department of History of Art and Architecture of Harvard University, the institution where she obtained her BA in 1981 and her MA in 1987. She has served as a member of the Advisory Committee for Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies since 1995, and has been a member of the Board of Trustees at the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, since 1999. She is also a member of the Harvard Art Museum’s World Visuality Committee. Schneider Enríquez has been an ARTNews Latin American art correspondent; she has worked as an art critic for The New York Times, and contributed articles to Art in America and Art Nexus.