Cuban representation at the Biennial of Graphic Arts and non-aligned cultural policy

ABSTRACT

The article examines how the policies of international cultural exchange of socialist Yugoslavia are reflected at the level of biennial crossroads, using the example of the Ljubljana International Biennial of Graphic Arts (IBGA). Our research is based on the analysis of archival materials, existing literature, and interviews with the participants of the Biennial in the studied period. The Cuban example is highlighted in this paper to examine the example of the renowned designer and graphic artist Félix Beltrán to show that there was no firm international cultural policy on the Yugoslavian institutional level. With the transition to market socialism and the liberalization with which Yugoslavia began to approach the Western capitalist economy, something similar happened at the level of international cultural policy. The West held the leading position in global cultural politics, which managed to preserve capitalism and make it part of the culture with its hegemonic cultural code. This also announced the beginning of the decline of international socialist history, which was very noticeable in the field of cultural crossings, such as biennials.

KEYWORDS:

• Graphic arts
• Ljubljana Biennial of Graphic Arts
• Non-Aligned Movement
• Félix Alberto Beltrán Concepción
• modernism

Artistic creativity, gallery development, and international cultural exchanges gradually define and develop together with social and political circumstances. The article examines how the policies of international cultural exchange of socialist Yugoslavia are reflected at the level of biennial crossroads, using the example of the Ljubljana International Biennial of Graphic Arts (IBGA). We are interested in how the basic principles of non-alignment are reflected at the level of IBGA practices. IBGA was an important world exhibition of graphic art at the time, so we take it as a focus of our research around which it builds a story in a broader Yugoslav and non-aligned context, where cultural policies and public responses are intertwined. We try to examine the insights into the most important artistic, political, and social processes affecting the dynamics of the global artistic and cultural scene.

The article looks for the intersections of the main common influences between different socialist contexts on the main premises of the non-alignment: anti-imperialism, the policies of non-interference and peaceful coexistence, and specific politics as was the political innovation of Yugoslav self-management. Cultural links between the two countries have flowed continuously through cultural conventions since April 1960 (the first convention was signed on 29 April 1960 in Havana).¹ The most varied exchanges have taken place at the level of study exchanges, but also at the level of artistic manifestations, which took place at that time. The highlighted case of one artist is used as an example to emphasize the question of how the practical expression of one of the world-renowned artists of the time resonates in different social contexts. In this way, we examine the resonance of the works in one of the most important artistic intersections in Yugoslavia, and whether the broader implications of cultural policies can also be discerned from such an example. The images of Cuban artist Félix Alberto Beltrán Concepción (Félix Beltrán), reveal the language of the Cuban Revolution and became means of communication for the socialist revolution more broadly through their appearances at three International Graphic Biennials in Ljubljana (1977, 1979, and 1981). Here we will focus on their communicative role in the Yugoslav self-management system.

Our research is based on the analysis of archival materials (Archive of the Republic of Slovenia, Archive of Yugoslavia in Belgrade, Archive of the Moderna Gallery in Ljubljana, and Archive of the International Centre for Graphic Arts) and interviews with the participants of the Biennial in the studied period (art historians and artists Živa Vujić Škodlar, Andrej Jemec, Aleksander Bassin and Tomaž Brejc).

Cultural policies of Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned Movement

After the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was expelled from the Informbiro, one of the outcomes was also the concept of the Non-Aligned Movement, a movement founded in 1961 at the Belgrade Conference that sought to link developing countries and create an alternative to the bloc division of the world, or to establish a third force to what was then called the Eastern and Western blocs. It was an experiment of active neutrality (more Vesić, O’Reilly, and Vlidi 2016), described by Edvard Kardelj (SI AS 1227_138_7362, 5) as ‘a policy of peaceful active coexistence and cooperation between countries, enabling nations to fulfill their elementary interests, i.e. to fight for their political and economic freedom and equality in international political and economic relations.’

The cultural policies that were expressed in art during the period in which the world was torn into blocs were divided. Sociologist Močnik (2007, 68–74) noted that in the West, ‘art was subordinated to the logic of commerce […] a niche aimed at commercial exploitation,’ while in the East, ‘politics replaced art in the role of secondary treatment,’ working with presentations as well as its practices that accumulate and totalize, ‘for it had to integrate individual practices and their ideological mediation into a social whole.’

We will look at how cultural policies operated within the frame of the Non-Aligned Movement. We are interested in how socialism developed and expressed itself through art at the premise of the Non-Aligned Movement in Yugoslavia, where a move from being a part of the bloc division of the world was shown, and what were the alternative policies in the developing countries. For the Yugoslav security and economic system, the Non-Aligned Movement was a good way to open the country without getting into one of the two military and economic blocs. Since the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement coincided with the peak of the decolonization process, this secured Yugoslavia several markets and ever-growing political alliances, which was also reflected in Yugoslav art (Jakovljević 2016, 15). An important type of Yugoslav self-management system began to express itself in the transition to socialist aestheticism in art. This characteristic of the Yugoslav space underlined its departure from the Eastern bloc.

On the economic level, Yugoslavia moved closer and closer to the West, at the same time or even before cultural exchanges with France, the United States, and other countries took place (84–85). In the period after 1951, workers’ self-management socialism replaced administrative socialism with combined planning and a gradual introduction of new self-management institutions and procedures that were intended to work from ‘below’ and thus disburdened the political apparatus (Kirn 2014, 183). In Yugoslavia, there has also been a transition, which Jakovljević calls a transition from socialist realism to socialist aestheticism which took place. This period coincided with the gradual move from partisan graphic prints and the neutralization of revolutionary elements. In the example of the Ljubljana Graphic Arts School, we can see the move from partisan graphic prints – which emerged from the expressionist experience, upon which the image of heroism and recognition for the newly formed socialist Yugoslavia was applied – towards subjectivism, the withdrawal of art to nature, the cultural past, personal narratives and intimacy (personal poetics), and later to personal lyricism, Informal, but mainly into the research of the possibilities of graphic prints to present the rational geometric scheme and pure unsaturated colors on one side, and revive the interest in objects and figures in the so-called new expressive figuralics, at the back of which we can feel a move towards Pop-Art on the other (Škrjanec 1993, 40–41). In parallel, a common denominator was set in the search for purity of form and perfected quality, with which artistic expression sought to distance itself from political events. With their intimate form and small dimensions, graphic prints held a specific place in art, for they did not depend on public tenders and were ‘free’ of state control and propaganda interests, as well as popular amongst people, all of which enabled artists to move away from political influences.

Lazar Trifunovič, art historian, art critic, member of the organizing committee and jury of the International Biennial of Graphic Art, and an advocate of Informal – a classic Western European art movement of the post-war period – stated that within the Yugoslav socialist context aestheticism was sufficiently modern to alleviate the general complex in relation to its openness towards the world, sufficiently traditional to please the taste of the new socialist bourgeoisie born from social conformism, and sufficiently inert to adapt to the myth of a happy and unique community. It represented everything that was necessary for the merger with the politically projected image of society (Jakovljević 2016, 30).

As a member of the post-war generation, art historian, and director of the Modern Gallery in Ljubljana (between 1948 and 1986), Zoran Kržišnik, was confronted with the central question: ‘How can we find a way out of socialist realism?’ (Žerovc 2007, 24) Thus, the IBGA, of which Zoran Kržišnik was the main founder, adopted a positive attitude towards contemporary modern art, which leaned upon Western modernism and led to social aestheticism. At the time a new variant of high modernism emerged in graphic arts, which later obtained the name Ljubljana Graphic Art School, and was based on the excellence and formal perfection of the graphic paper. IBGA was a piece in the mosaic of Western modernism also as regards its jury, selection, and awards were concerned, thus as a board member from MoMA Castleman (1993, 236) wrote:

It was inevitable that the jury of the biennial favoured the artistic expression of the artists from capitalist countries. This was, of course, a consequence of the fact that art represented state policies and the method of selection (by states) preserved this situation.

It is important to understand how the Non-Aligned Movement in Yugoslavia influenced the international cultural level where connections were established with the newly emerging developing countries and open a question of plural premises (anti-imperialism, decolonization, freedom, equality, peaceful coexistence, anti-authoritarianism, gradual dissolution of countries, self-management, federalism, internationalism) on which the Non-Aligned Movement was based. This is evident in the example of IBGA and in its connections with the member states of the Non-Aligned Movement. We have looked at three premises that were characteristic of both Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned Movement, and will use these premises to examine how cultural exchange and mutual influences were expressed in artistic practices:

(1) Anti-colonialism, anti-colonial struggles, and the question of decolonization are examined through the prism that these were culturally linked to struggles over modern art. Adajania (2012), Ramadan (2016), and others have noted that the struggles against imperialism and all its influences were indirectly connected to the struggle for true modern art. Stepančič (2007, 38) also agreed, noting that for some member states of the Non-Aligned Movement that had recently gained independence, ‘exhibiting their art was an important recognition of their struggle for decolonization, national sovereignty, and independence.’ However, she also emphasized that: ‘The nationality of the artists or their geographic origins at the time, as well as today, importantly influenced their inclusion in international exhibitions. The autonomy of art, which was the paradigm of modernism, was merely a desire in exhibition policies.’ (33) Our attempt is to show how decolonization and anti-imperialism were translated into the world of art and exhibition politics. Kirn (2023) wrote: ‘decolonization does not mean merely an autonomy and take-over of political power, but also a contribution towards deep structural changes, which eliminate all forms of exploitation and oppression.’ In this sense, the fundamental element of decolonization is emancipation at the level of reproduction of values and culture, which comes from the perspective of the oppressed (Fanon, Said, Davis, etc.). We examine the question of decolonization through the phenomena of artistic intersections that manifested themselves in the form of biennials or triennials in members or observers of the Non-Aligned Movement (Ljubljana, Havana, New Delhi, Alexandria, Sao Paulo, etc.). The central question is whether the IBGA exhibition or curatorial policies brought original views on decolonization and introduced new approaches to shaping alternative socialist cultural policies. The example of IBGA, which showed an impressive number of works by artists from non-aligned member states, shows that such artistic intersection failed to establish cultural policies and ‘socialist’ cultural codes that would be based on decolonization, anti-imperialism, and socialist ideals.

Yugoslavia focused on finding new ways to confront the economic-technological hegemony of the superpowers. Edvard Kardelj (SI AS 1227_164_681) wrote in his Notes on Non-alignment that it was necessary to stimulate, with ‘organized international actions, mediated by specialized UN agencies and other similar international institutions, the possibilities of small and medium-sized countries to participate in the decisive scientific-technical or economic trends of our time.’ At the level of cultural policy, the West developed numerous cultural policies and measures that it successfully used to build its hegemony (Guilbaut 1983). Archival sources and other research reveal that Yugoslavia, one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement, did not have a common strategy, although numerous cultural conventions, agreements, and programs of cultural cooperation were established (which took place through the Committee for Cultural Contacts Abroad in Belgrade until 1967. After that, the cooperation was transferred to the Republics of Yugoslavia which were connected under the transformed Federal Committee for Cultural Contacts Abroad. From 1975 onwards cultural relations in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (SRS) were run by the Institute of SRS for International, Scientific, Technical, Education, and Cultural Cooperation), through which numerous traveling exhibitions, study exchanges, and especially technical and educational cooperation and exchanges took place. In her research on international exhibition exchanges, Merhar (2019, 68) concludes that: ‘Yugoslavia did not have a long-term or planned international cultural policy with its fellow members in the Non-Aligned Movement, nor with other countries.’ In the study of cultural policies, with which the Non-Aligned Movement should have entered the race for a global decolonial cultural policy with its own anti-imperialist and socialist code, we can see that on the level of institutionalized forms, at least on the level of Yugoslavia, this code was not reflected in the cultural exchanges in venues and/or in broader international cultural policies. The biennials became synonymous with the externalization of Western culture (Rojas-Sotelo 2021).

(2) The policies of non-interference and peaceful coexistence are some of the bases of the Non-Aligned Movement and we are interested in how these were expressed on the level of art crossroads. However, it is a question of whether these truly enabled the development of a space for pluralist and changing subjectivities. Ramadan (2016, 344) stated that this fluidity operated as a malleable classification category and (national) identity in insecure times. Thus, the various events emphasized the diverse aspects of this identity. The question arises whether the biennials that emerged in the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, from Alexandria to Havana, represented meeting points for diversity and incorporated the diverse identities that were expressed through art. The main cultural exhibition events among the members of the Non-Aligned Movement were the triennial in India and the biennials in Havana, Sao Paulo, Alexandria, and Ljubljana. However, all of them were inspired by western patterns, as they were all strongly influenced and followed the pattern of the Venetian Biennial.

Attitudes toward art and within art toward modernism varied. In Cuba, for example, Fidel Castro said, ‘Our enemies are capitalists and imperialists, not abstract art.’ (Craven 1999, 14) This indicates an attempt to search for a unique path and establish the new social and cultural codes that would permeate into art. Something similar took place in India. This can be seen in the example of the East-West Music Meeting in New Delhi, which took place in 1960 under the motto: ‘I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.’ (Zitzweitz et al. 2021, 372) In his opening speech in 1959 at the 3^rd IBGA in Ljubljana, Marjan Dermastia (SI MGLC 1959), the president of the Ljubljana City Council, stated that art played a key role in building the new world:

Artists were always and everywhere those individuals who recognized the desires and needs of working people and expressed them in their works of art. Their manifestations strengthened the deep belief in progress and a better future. Just as artists have always and everywhere stood up against oppression and exploitation, today they raise their voices against the horrors of nuclear war, contributing to the strengthening of the widespread resistance of working people throughout the world against the division of the world into blocs, which is the best basis for festering destructive initiatives and tendencies. Every such manifestation, especially the present one, is a prerequisite for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among nations.

In addition to the institutional level, it should also be mentioned that dispersed and independent cultural cooperation took place on a non-institutional level. The expression of solidarity, original art production, and artistic connections flourished among the non-aligned countries; as an example, the Museum of Solidarity (whose committees were founded in Cuba, Spain, France, Mexico, etc. emerged), the action of the Salvador Allende Brigades (these were composed of Chilean and other South American artists in exile and their European allies, who continued the tradition of the museum and expressed their solidarity with those who suffered from dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s when they were very widespread), etc. (Beriosa 2017)

(3) The principles of Yugoslav self-management were particularly important to our study, considering the various political innovations that shaped post-war art. The vast production of partisan graphic prints and the conservative socialist realism found in Soviet art, the influences of which were present long after the Informbiro, were gradually transformed with modernist influences. At this point, we examine the utopian dimensions of the self-management model that emerged in Yugoslavia after the dispute with the Informbiro, as a simultaneous critique and alternative – to both the Eastern and Western bloc – and how its dimensions were reflected in art. Edvard Kardelj said (SI AS 1227_138_7362):

We experienced this in practice, for the technocratic-monopolist and bureaucratic-centralist tendencies, that we have encountered in our country, especially lately, not merely endangered the self-management and political rights of the working class in our country, but also became one of the main sources of conflict between the nations and led to the appearance of reactionary nationalism in our country.

The images emerging from the basic principles of self-management started benefiting socialism, which was based on the values of equality, unity, brotherhood, and freedom. ‘As one of the fields of social activities, art had to become an active and equal factor in the social and political struggle for the fulfillment of socialist goals.’ (Škrjanec 1993, 5) With the break from socialist realism and the move towards western modernism and socialist aestheticism, which emerged in Yugoslavia, this image started changing. This transition was favored by the authorities, as well as the artists, who gained a new social role as self-managed cultural workers. If we look at the Ljubljana Graphic Arts School, we can notice that with the move towards modernism, the central character became the strong desire for art to move away from politics. This opened the doors to strong cultural policies from the West, which preserved its primate in colonial art coding and through this the establishment of its role as a key player, which led to the spread of capitalism. Thus, it would be hard to support the thesis that IBGA, as Videkanić (2019, 188) states, presented ‘the first articulation of non-aligned modernism, which coiled between the principles of international modernist aesthetics and political and social demands that were brought by international decolonization and socialist emancipatory projects.’ The principles behind the articulation of non-aligned modernism are not clear as the processes that took place in the organization, selection, jury processes, etc., did not have any graspable criteria that would emerge from socialist and emancipatory policies and the reconsideration of the decolonization processes. The programs, juries, award policies, media attention, correspondence, and notes of the IBGA organizational committee clearly reveal that its foundations were established under the conditions and influences of Western modernist criteria, which established itself as internationally objective even though the numerous organizations’ practices of the IBGA reveal this was not and could not be the case. Regardless of the vast selection of artists from non-aligned states, these artists were not recognized within the broader context, and the potential of this important venue for the development of our policies and as a crossroads for establishing a different – non-aligned – modernism, did not truly develop. It seems that IBGA with its western-centrist and unreflective understanding of ‘quality’ in art and its autonomy, was visually distancing itself from the search for new cultural policies that would be based on socialist principles.

Graphic art, non-aligned, and IBGA in Ljubljana

In the studies of the IBGA in the late 1970s and early 80s, we follow this institution that played an important role in Yugoslavia. The Non-Aligned Movement and the connection with the Global South were political projects that Yugoslavia joined already at the Bandung Conference (1955) and other meetings of the emerging movement, while art in Yugoslavia (and the IBGA within it) became an important field for the movement with the end of Soviet socialism. Zoran Kržišnik skilfully established it as one of the central international art crossroads:

We set up the biennial to step into the world. […] Of course, there was constant political unease surrounding the Biennial. […] The move from extreme Soviet socialism was in a way also a break from social realism. Later, the non-aligned idea started emerging and at the time I through Crvenkovski² proved to the Marshall³ that the International Biennial of Graphic Arts was, in fact, a materialized idea of this so-called openness, i.e., what was at the time considered as non-aligned. (Žerovc 2007, 25–26)

Stepančič (2007, 33) summarised Kržišnik’s curatorial work in Ljubljana in the following words: ‘By presenting the art he selected, the way he presented it, the selected artists and what he emphasized or ignored, he co-crated and expressed the ideologies of the ruling culture in former Yugoslavia as well as internationally.’ As for the division by country, IBGA’s exhibition model was based on the Western model, on the example of the Venice Biennale, but in contrast to the Venice Biennale, it also gave a place to the developing countries, to the newly emerged post-colonial states in Africa and Asia (e.g. India; from the 2nd Biennial onwards relations, were established with Latin America), which were already represented at IBGA before the official establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961, had the opportunity to present themselves.

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee for International Graphic Exhibitions show that, in addition to Kržišnik’s personal contacts (SI MGLC 1955) and the contacts of the team working for the Biennial, the selection was also made through embassies and ministries: ‘As for the artists from India, it would be best to write to the Indian Ministry of Education.’ At the next meeting, they decided that: ‘As for the participation of Eastern bloc countries, it would be best to write to the embassies in Belgrade and ask them to invite three artists from their country with five works each. We should also write to the embassies of Brazil, Egypt, and South Africa.’ Six years later, after the founding conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade in 1961, the United Arab Republic, Morocco, Indonesia, and Cuba began to appear at IBGA, and as the Non-Aligned Movement spread and because of the Biennial’s efforts, many other member states began to participate.⁴

At the 1963 meeting of the Organizing Committee, art critic Lazar Trifunović emphasized (SI MGLC 1963):

We must not forget that this is an international exhibition; therefore, we must pay special attention to the confrontation between the West and the East. Personally, I am not in favor of having the selection made by embassies or various associations, because I believe that we should establish a personal, active selection process among the participants from the Eastern Bloc countries and the Asian and African countries. I support the reduction of the number of exhibits on display, with which we would increase the quality of contemporary graphic art on display. Special attention should be paid to the selection of artists from the newly emerged Asian and African countries, which have not played a role so far.

During our research of the archives of the International Graphic Biennial in Ljubljana, we noticed that personal contacts with ‘the Eastern Bloc countries as well as Asian and African countries’ did not materialize in most cases. Correspondence indicates that these connections were mostly made through embassies, and art critic Aleksander Bassin (personal communication, 10 July 2021) stated that invitations to artists to participate in the IBGA were strongly encouraged by Kržišnik’s personal contacts in the embassies of the non-aligned member states in Yugoslavia, as well as by the Federal Committee, while the artist who often exhibited at the Biennial and fraternized with Kržišnik, Andrej Jemec (personal communication, 11 August 2021), stressed the importance of ‘invitations to participate in the Biennial.’

The Cuban example is highlighted in this paper to examine the example of the renowned designer and graphic artist Félix Beltrán, whose work was well-known in institutions in the East, West, and non-aligned member states, as well as at the non-institutional level. We assumed that the organizers of the Biennial, as well as the broader Yugoslav art community, would have responded to his presence at IBGA. However, upon reviewing newspapers, records, and correspondence, and after conducting interviews, it became apparent that none of the interviewees working for the Biennial at the time knew or had heard of the artist. Nor was the artist mentioned in the magazine and newspaper articles that covered the Biennial. Nor can he be found in the available archives.

In 1979, Cuba participated in the 13th IBGA with a representative, the artist Félix Alberto Beltrán Concepción. We can note, however, that neither Cuban curators nor the Cuban Embassy are mentioned in the 1979 catalogues, although that year the Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in Havana, which also adopted the resolution on ‘revitalizing, preserving and enriching the cultural heritage of the non-aligned nations and strengthening cultural cooperation between them,’ (Čuček 1983, 54). The archives show that contact was sought with Cuba in 1979 and that the contact person was Fermin Portilla of the International Relations Department at the Cuban Ministry of Culture, whose address was obtained from Margarita Madan de Florez, the head of the Cultural Department at the Cuban Embassy in Belgrade. IBGA sent five invitations and a request to receive interesting prints that would represent Cuba, (SI MGLC 1979). The Cuban Embassy in Belgrade is mentioned in the Acknowledgements of the 14th IBGA in 1981 when Beltrán’s works were joined by those of three other Cuban artists: Humberto Castro Garcia (b. 1957), Gilberto Frometa Fernandez (b. 1946) and Angel Ramirez (b. 1954). Due to lost or insufficient archives, we have not been able to determine how Beltrán’s works came to IBGA, but we must assume that they most likely came to the biennial through his presence in American and European galleries.

According to art historian Živa Škodlar Vujić (personal communication, 15 August 2021), who played various important roles in the biennials during this period, the selection was based solely on ‘quality – technical (mastery of technique) and aesthetic quality (composition, innovative artistry) of the print. Occasionally, an artist from a non-aligned member state would send his or her print to the call for entries, but the works were of such poor quality that they were not included in the exhibition.’ We should emphasize that the prints were of ‘poor’ quality due to the different visual codes used by the – mostly - Western-oriented jury, which was looking for highly modern prints. Škodlar Vujić pointed out: ‘You must understand that the artist who sent his works to a tender had to master printing techniques first and foremost, have a studio and the machines to produce a print, buy a high-quality roll that would protect his prints in the mail, and pay the postage for a faraway country. So, the reasons why so few artists participated in the Biennial exhibitions were mundane. Something similar could be said about the participation of critics or museologists who would evaluate and award the best and most innovative graphic creations-with a few exceptions in later years (Belgica Rodriguez from Venezuela and Argentina), there were simply no experts in the field in these countries; of course, we should also mention the distance they would have to travel to reach Europe and the travel expenses their institution would have to cover…’ (Ibid.)

Although IBGA expressed a desire for cultural exchange, in Yugoslavia the contemporary prints of the developing world were overlooked, ‘due in part to the organizers, who usually exhibited it in the lower halls of the Modern Gallery, which were considered inferior,’ (Stepančič 2007, 39). Živa Škodlar (personal communication, 15 August 2021) understood this concept of exhibiting differently, writing, “The fact that works from e.g. Egypt or South America were exhibited in the basement mainly due to the few artists from these countries, which resulted in a fragmented presentation that was not suitable for the large halls and the presentation of the countries where artists traditionally dealt with graphic art or where graphic art was part of almost all artists’ works (especially Japan, U.S.A, Canada, Italy, Germany, etc.).” Andrej Jemec (personal communication, 11 August 2021) could not find any difference either, writing that the conditions ‘are similar in all other countries of the world.’

Even though IBGA and its jury selection were based on the Western model, it still allowed for moments of in-between (Adajania 2021) – cracks important for the exchange of ideas and cultural influences between the non-aligned world and also the West. Even if so-called Western modernism was the central criterium it offered the opportunity to enter Yugoslavian galleries and markets.

Graphics of Félix Beltrán at the International Graphic Biennial between 1977 and 1981

In the 1960s and 70s, the work of artist, printer, and designer Félix Beltrán was considered an outstanding example of socialist posters and graphics, and he played an equally important role as an artist and professor for many who followed in his footsteps (Lara-Betancourt 2016, 158). Beltrán was born in Havana in 1938 and began working as an apprentice for the publishing house McCann Ericson at the age of fifteen. At the age of eighteen, he began studying at the School of Visual Arts and the Graphic Art Center-Pratt Institute in New York (1956–59), during which time he worked on individual commissions and served for a time as artistic director at Cypress Books Company (Taborda and Wiedemann 2008, 104–105). In 1961, he received a scholarship for his postgraduate studies at the New School of Social Research and graduated from the Print Graphic Art Centre in 1962. At that time, the revolution was taking place in Cuba, and he returned to his homeland to serve it (Lara-Betancourt 2016, 159). Upon his return, he was employed by Editorial Nacional de Cuba. In 1963 he became an assistant professor at the Escuela de Diseno Industrial, where he introduced the design subject in 1964. In 1965 he worked in Madrid, and upon his return to Havana he was put in charge of the Comision de Orientacion Revolucionaria del Comite Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba, the main propaganda department of the Cuban Communist Party.

After the revolution, prints and posters gained importance in Cuba. Screen printing was the preferred technique, and prints were often printed on low-quality paper and with poor colour choices. ‘The new government required the production of posters and prints with which to announce both political information and information about new health programs,’ (Taborda and Wiedemann 2008, 23). Because Cuba did not have a high literacy rate, images were used to communicate. Cuban artists depicted political heroes differently than Chinese or Soviet artists, who preferred socialist realism. Politicians and revolutionaries such as José Martí, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara were depicted as pop icons, in bright colours, with abstract patterns, and in iconic poses modelled after iconic photographs. Félix Beltrán explained that the initiative and instructions for the development of revolutionary graphics came from the state and not from the artists, but since this was the only way for the artists to create prints, they agreed (Cuesta 2007). After Cuban artists were brought back to Cuba from abroad through various institutions, they remained in Cuba and depended on the state for their survival.

There were no written instructions on what the prints and posters had to look like, though there were certain restrictions. The state liked to see slogans from political speeches, especially from Castro, where it made sure the messages were clear and could not be misinterpreted, which created a certain paranoia and self-censorship among the artists. The lack of freedom of expression reduced the quality of the works, which also suffered from the lack of tradition in the creation of prints and posters. It was also important that the prints and posters ordered were produced quickly, without time for proofs, sometimes within a single day. According to Félix Beltrán (Cuesta 2007), some exceptions created high-quality works, such as Fernandez Reboiro, who knew how to develop unique visual concepts.

There were almost no counter-revolutionary messages. It is said that in 1970, on the June 26 celebrations, Félix Beltrán printed a poster that was open to interpretation. He wanted to use it to convey the message that interest in the revolution was waning. When a Japanese newspaper published an interview with him and the paper reached out to Cuban politicians, the artist had to defend his work to officials and he lied to them, saying that he had been misunderstood by the reporter. Félix Beltrán said in the interview that such deviations could come at a high price, as one could be prevented from leaving Cuba (Cuesta 2007). Artists working for the Ministry of Propaganda under the direction of María Angélica Álverez had somewhat more freedom, preferring slightly more modern posters. Cuba presented itself to the world through documentaries and posters because posters could travel to places where it was not possible to talk about the Revolution (Cuesta 2007). Posters represented one of Cuba’s rare attempts to criticize the U.S. and capitalism.

In the late 1960s, prints and posters began to convey also cultural messages, and documentaries promoted through prints and posters were particularly good at it. Foreigners understood Cuban prints and posters as an interesting curiosity; however, they became proof that Cuba allowed contemporary art that differed from Eastern Bloc art in numerous ways. When the Soviet Union stopped financing Cuba in the late 1960s, artists could hardly work, mainly because they did not have the necessary materials. ‘In the end, the system exiled certain artists. The same thing happened with Constructivism in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s. The government pressured the artists, stifled them, and sent them into exile,’ said Félix Beltrán (Cuesta 2007).

Félix Beltrán was neither one of the persecuted nor one of the artists disapproved of by the regime. He was at the top of the Cuban and later international career ladder (among others, he exhibited in Stuttgart in 1969, in Leipzig in 1971, and in Bern in 1972, as well as at the 8th Biennial in Warsaw and Brno in 1980, at the 7^th Drawing Exhibition in Rijeka, he received the prize for his film poster in Cannes in 1974, as well as the prize for the Olympic bid for Moscow in 1980). He designed the Cuban contribution to Expo 67 in Montreal and Expo 70 in Osaka, among others, and during this time he became a professor of graphic arts at the College of Havana. He also published the first Cuban books and manuals on design and typography Desde el diseño (Havana, 1970); Letragrafia (Havana, 1973); Acerca del disegno (Havana, 1975). He was the president of the Art Section of the Union of Cuban Artists (1977–1981) and president of the Cuban National Committee in Paris (1979–1982), but in 1982, right after the time he exhibited at the IBGA (1977–1981), after numerous long stays that began in 1975, he moved to Mexico, where he became curator of the Archivo de Diseño Gráfico Internacional Gallery at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, where he also worked as a lecturer.

At the IBGA in Ljubljana, prints from the revolutionary period of Cuban posters were exhibited, some of which had explicit revolutionary content. Nothing was written about these prints in Yugoslavia. They were not mentioned in the newspapers, they did not receive any awards, the jury did not mention them, and none of the organizers, jurors, critics, or visitors of the Biennial who were interviewed remembers them even being exhibited. We believe that the reason for this is to be found in the fact that two mutually unreadable art systems clashed at the Biennial: the subdued socialist aestheticism characteristic of Yugoslavia and the American-influenced revolutionary graphic art that the IBGA team could not read – high-quality, post-pop revolutionary prints. They were judged only on the qualities recognized in the IBGA space. We also find it interesting that Beltrán’s prints were accepted (either because of his exhibition history or because he was the only Cuban representative in the first two years) as being of sufficient quality for the exhibition, but then went virtually unnoticed.

In 1977 Beltrán was the only Cuban representative with the print Vietnam Woman 2 (Vietnamita 2, 1975), and in 1979 he exhibited three prints: The Destruction of Vietnam (1977, mixed media), Sabotage on the Ship ‘La Coubre’ (1977, mixed media) and Fascist Repression in Latin America (1977, mixed media), while in 1981 he exhibited a single print: After the Air Raid (1980, mixed media). After that, he did not participate in the IBGA anymore, while the number of artists from Cuba increased in the following years at IBGA. Beltrán (as well as other Cuban artists) did not reach the Slovenian and Yugoslavian audience, nor the younger, socially engaged second-tier artists. The alternative Slovenian art space that emerged at this time did not perceive the artist’s revolutionary tendencies. This could be partly due to the context of IBGA, which ‘provided a space for politics to show the openness of Yugoslavia, while at the same time creating a space where people who stood on opposite shores could meet in peace. Zoran Kržišnik recognized the power of the authorities and successfully used it to his advantage’ (Grafenauer 2013, 24) and the dominance of the Graphic School of Ljubljana. With this change in context, the meaning of Félix Beltrán’s image changed for the viewer, as he sought qualities that differed from the American-influenced silkscreens with revolutionary content. American in form, and revolutionary in content, his posters were directed against the belated ideals of socialist aestheticism – during this period many accused the IBGA of not following the latest (Western) trends.⁵

Conclusion

Beltrán’s exhibited prints are a mixture of new American figuration and abstraction, a qualitative response to contemporary trends, conveying in content and expression that which places Félix Beltrán among socialist artists. In Yugoslavia, there was no response to his work. This was unusual for IBGA, which exhibited works from all over the world and was at home in a country with a socialist political system, which was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement and where Félix Beltrán was one of the most visible representative carriers of socialist art. The transition from visuality to political charge at the IBGA, which aimed for pure modernist graphics and did not consider the rest to be of particularly high quality, led to Beltrán’s invisibility. This is confirmed by the fact that IBGA rated works that came from the Non-Aligned Movement and developing countries as inferior to Western works that had a developed gallery system, because they had the desire and goal to show them at the Biennial, where they would be evaluated by critics, thus increasing the chances of Slovenian artists to enter international galleries. Thus, IBGA evaluated revolutionary paintings differently, namely based on the quality of the print, which resembled the Ljubljana School of Graphic Arts. The evaluation was based on the form (which in Beltrán’s case is of high quality, but different) and pushed the revolutionary aspect into the background, as if art was not connected with the socialist revolution, which Zoran Kržišnik (SI AS 1931) was accused of during one of the party inspections when he was accused of being for the petty bourgeoisie and having connections with the West.⁶

IBGA, which operated in socialist self-management Yugoslavia, one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, excepted the presentation of socialist, even revolutionary art created by Félix Beltrán but it was ignored by organizational structure, the profession, and also the Yugoslavian public. Beltrán’s graphic prints were a utopian breakthrough of socialist ideas into art, as they achieved the internationalization of Cuban posters and graphic prints. Cuban posters became globally recognizable due to their uniqueness and the resonance of the Cuban style, which developed when Cuba became economically and politically independent from the U.S.A and the capitalist world, at a moment, when it felt sufficiently independent to absorb any style, even the styles of the bourgeoisie societies that rejected Cuba and were rejected by Cuba (Kunzle 1975, 95).

Non-alignment policies have always been affirmed by the members as anti-bloc cohesion and solidarity among them. They have also often stressed that solidarity and the unity of interests between non-aligned and socialist countries should not be confused with hegemonism.⁷ Yugoslavia and Cuba had a turbulent political relationship, which, as the archives show, did not affect cooperation at the level of cultural links.

But at the level of artistic venues, we can see that they were not able to cooperate with each other to the same extent as these exchanges took place at the level of the economically powerful Western countries, from where the modernism they were adopting was also coming. Cuba, through Beltrán, succeeded to some extent in recoding the Pop Art modernist code, which was mostly inscribed with the code of capitalism, into a socialist one, and in popularising the revolution. In Yugoslavia, this recodification took place in many areas, but at the level of art centres and art itself, this process did not really take place, and in the case of IBGA and the Ljubljana School of Graphic Arts, these processes cannot be tracked.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the ARRS - Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije: Models and Practices of Global Cultural Exchange and Non-aligned Movement. Research in the Spatio-Temporal Cultural Dynamics [J7-2606].

Notes on contributors

Petja Grafenauer

Petja Grafenauer, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at the Department for Theory at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design, University of Ljubljana. She is a specialist in Post-World War II local and regional art, mainly focusing on painting and contemporary art. Since 2012 she has also been researching the cross-sections between economy and art. She is currently working on two research projects, i.e. Models and Praxes of Global Cultural Exchange and Non-Aligned Movement. Research in the Spatio-Temporal Cultural Dynamics, and Protests, Art Praxes, and Culture of Memory in the Post-Yugoslav Context. Her findings are regularly published in scientific, professional, and popular media. She has written or edited several books on visual art, including a study of pop art in Slovenia, titled Non-Aligned Pop (2017), a book of texts by Zdenka Badovinac titled An Authentic Interest (2010), and a monography on the painter Aleksij Kobal (2008).

Daša Tepina

Daša Tepina, Ph.D. is an assistant researcher of art theory at the Department for Theory at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design, University of Ljubljana. Her main research interests and published works include social movements, autonomy, art, and utopias. She is currently working on two research projects, Models and Praxes of Global Cultural Exchange. Research on Spatio-Temporal Cultural Dynamics, Protests, Art Praxes, and Culture of Memory in the Post-Yugoslav Context. Her book Revolucionarne utopije (Revolutionary Utopias) was published in autumn of 2022 at Aristej publishing house.

Notes

1. AJ 559_60_135, str. 2: Veze sa Latinsko Ameriko, Ostala Latinska Amerika 1959–1970: Informacija o kulturno-prosvetnoj saradnji izmedju SFRJ i Republike Kube, 14. 9. 1965.

2. Macedonian politician (1921–2001). One of the organizers of the anti-fascist resistance in the then Republic of Macedonia, after the war he was a member of the federal government, a secretary and president of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Macedonia (1963–69), a member of the executive bureau of the Presidency of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (1959–71) and a member and vice-president of the Presidency of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (1971–74). Excluded from public life (1974–89).

3. Josip Broz Tito, the president of Yugoslavia at the time (translator’s note).

4. Malaysia (1971), Sudan, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Cyprus (1973), Yemen, Nigeria, Sierra Leone (1975), Bangladesh (1977), Bolivia, Gambia, Iran (1979), Mozambique, Senegal (1981), Panama (1983), Columbia (1985), Venezuela (1989).

5. ‘As graphic processes are spreading, the possibilities for applying graphics to new materials, graphic wall decorations, graphic prints on spatial objects, graphic mobiles, film graphic prints, computer graphic prints are also offered to the Ljubljana biennial’ (Čopič 1973, 57).

6. The check was performed about ‘vast petty bourgeoisie examples’ and was abandoned.

7. AJ 837–KPR-I-5b/39 (1–12), Kabinet predsednika republike. Jugoslovansko-Kubanske konsultacije, 8. 4. 1978, str. 4.