Teoremas de unicidad

The first presentation entirely dedicated to Ângelo de Sousa’s photographic and film work took place in 2001, in the exhibition Sem Prata (Porto, Portugal). This was a unique opportunity for the curators, João Fernandes and Miguel Wandschneider, to work with the photographs and films by the artist with his participation in the process. The interview “A Felicidade no Gatilho”: Entrevista a Ângelo de Sousa, published in the catalogue, was a valuable reference for the development of this section. It allowed to gather information concerning display options undertaken by the artist, regarding his photographs and films, and particularly, his slide-based artworks. Therefore, some passages of the interview are transcribed and/or described within this text. Furthermore, Bernardo Pinto de Almeida and Wandschneider have been interviewed within the framework of this study, as testimonies of people who followed Ângelo de Sousa’s photographic and film production and exhibition.

As previously mentioned, photography was part of Ângelo de Sousa’s daily life. However, this part of his work did not have the same visibility as other means of expression also used by the artist.

When questioned about the few exhibitions with his photographic and film work, he answered as follows (Sousa 2001, 11):

“If things are going to work, they require certain material and psychological circumstances, objective and subjective conditions, as people used to say. And neither the objective nor the subjective conditions existed for showing the films and photographs. I believe that the possible is a decisive factor in everything that we do, regardless of what we want, and that the possible also conditions what we actually want. Perhaps I can best sum this up by saying, in a very Portuguese sort of way, that there have never been any infrastructures where they might be shown.”

As explained in chapter 2, during the 1980s, some exhibitions focusing on the use of photography and film by artists exploring their specific aesthetic characteristics were organized.

However, there was no institutional structure to sustain neo avant-garde proposals with these (and other) new media. As pointed out by Delfim Sardo (2015, 16), only during the 1990s, with the arising of important institutions such as Museu de Arte Contemporânea from Fundação de Serralves (Porto), Fundação Caixa Geral de Depósitos - Culturgest and Centro Cultural de Belém (Lisbon), among others, was a significant openness of the museology felt. Consequently, this scenario conditioned the exhibition of photographic and film works, particularly those with novel approaches to those media (Sardo 2015, 16).

Perhaps only for circumstantial and practical reasons, and since his painting and sculptural works were already appreciated at that time, Ângelo de Sousa opted to invest mainly in the exhibition of these artworks. Also, perhaps because some of his photographic works were poorly received when shown¹, he chose to reserve them mainly for his private life. Furthermore, according to his own words, Ângelo de Sousa did not have the need to show his work or did not work to show it, as he did not feel the need to receive other people’s opinion. He worked for his fulfilment, and he was satisfied with his photographic and film work (Sousa 2001, 25). It is also possible that his continuous production led to an accumulation, harder and harder to work with, which might have constrained his dedication. According

1 Namely of work Slides de Cavalete (1978-1979) in the exhibition A Fotografia como Arte / A Arte como Fotografia (1979), as previously explained in chapter 2 (section 2.2.2). Ângelo de Sousa also noted that when showing the work A mão esquerda (2ª série) (1977), he did not felt any enthusiastic reception (Sousa 2000, 4-5).

141

to the report sent to Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (FCG) in 1977², he stated that he needed to

“straighten a few years of photography”³, which would require time, time that he did not have due to his obligations at the University. Nevertheless, a few exhibitions with a selection of photographs and films did take place, and some of his photographs and films were displayed during his life, as presented in appendix IV, Table IV.1⁴. Indeed, Ângelo de Sousa participated in some of the most relevant exhibitions showing the photographic and film work of artists at the end of the 1970s, such as A Fotografia na Arte Moderna Portuguesa (1977) and A Fotografia como Arte / A Arte como Fotografia (1979). He was also part of several exhibitions focusing on audio-visual supports in general, that became more and more frequent from the 1980s onwards.

The information collected to build Table IV.1 was based on published documentary sources, which are essentially exhibition catalogues, flyers and brochures. According to Sardo (2015, 13), the non-existence of an organized and structured museology in Portugal until the late 1980s led to a generalized lack of documentation regarding exhibitions. This fact was also recognized during the work developed by Rita Macedo, which included interviews with directors and curators from museums (Macedo 2008, 301). In the absence of the artist, all types of available sources concerning the exhibition of his artworks can help in the decision-making processes (Wegen 2005, 206). As Ângelo de Sousa is no longer available to interview, the history of his exhibitions became one of the unique sources for the understanding of the artist’s intention. As stated by Julia Noordegraaf (2013b, 286), the exhibition of a work in different places and times might also provide a reference for future display.

By observing Table IV.1, it is possible to see that the both A mão esquerda (1ª série) (1975) and A mão esquerda (2ª série) (1977), were the most presented photographic works of the artist. According to himself (Sousa 2001, 23):

“That has to do with the so-called strategy of the dog marking out his territory. It seemed so evident to me that someone would very soon remember to make photographs of their hands that I, like a dog that marks the trees that it walks past, decided to say that I had already done so. That was why I presented them at the Venice Biennial as early as 1978.”

Based on the carried-out investigation, Ângelo de Sousa took different options over time concerning the display of his works. The analogue films, which started to be presented with a certain frequency since the exhibition Ângelo 1993: Uma antológica, were transcribed in 1995 to VHS and displayed as a video projection. In 2001, the videos were converted onto DVD for their exhibition in Sem Prata (Wandschneider 2018). Regarding black-and-white photography (presented only a few times in the first decades of his production), he used silver gelatine prints, normally printed by himself, and then in Sem Prata, he opted for displaying digital prints. Colour slides were presented either in projections or printed, both using silver dye bleach (Cibachrome) or digital technology. It is also possible to observe different choices for the presentation of the same artwork. For instance, the work A mão esquerda (1ª série) was first projected in the exhibition A Fotografia na Arte Moderna Portuguesa (1977), and then, since 1978, A mão esquerda (2ª série) (1975) was printed in Cibachrome. Also, the sizes of the prints changed; first the work was presented in 18x24 cm format, and since the exhibition Fotografia (2000), in 60x90 cm. In 2003, he decided to project the work again in the exhibition Sem Limites (2003). As far

2 Subsídio de investigação, artes plásticas e comunicação visual (research, plastic arts and visual communication funding)awarded by the Fine Arts Service from Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.

3 Translation by the author of this dissertation.

4 Although very important to the development of this section, Table IV.1 is presented in an appendix because of its large size.

142

as it can be understood from the information contained in the catalogues and, according to Bernardo Pinto de Almeida (2018), it was a contemporaneous procedure to display original slides in the exhibitions until recently.

Although an exhibition catalogue might be a precious document (often the only documentation remaining from an exhibition), the accessed catalogues revealed the lack of valuable information. For instance, in “A Felicidade no Gatilho”: Entrevista a Ângelo de Sousa, Ângelo de Sousa explained that the slide-based artwork A mão esquerda (1ª série) (1975) and A mão esquerda (2ª série) (1977), and the film A mão (1976) had previously been projected on a white canvas (Sousa 2001, 43):

“The lines of the hand, both in films and in photographs, are not very different from the lines of the apparently monochromatic painting. For me, these films and photographs work like paintings. It’s not by chance that I projected them onto a white canvas that has roughly the same size as a painting”.

However, this information was never mentioned in the respective catalogues. Furthermore, the techniques and materials of the artworks are usually poorly (and sometimes badly) explained, especially for photographic works. The original photographic process is rarely described, and only the presented process is specified. If the subtitle ‘inkjet print’ is presented tout court, incorrect assumptions might be taken. For instance, it could be assumed that Ângelo de Sousa photographed with a digital camera, or that the original image was a chromogenic negative. Although, as it is possible to conclude from the survey conducted within the framework of this study and presented in chapter 3, basically all colour photography by Ângelo de Sousa was made with chromogenic reversal films, and he did not use digital cameras to photograph. Curiously, more attention is paid to films, and information regarding both the original process and the process presented in the exhibition are usually described. However, the options undertaken during the curatorial process are rarely described. When the display options are different from the ones made by the artist during his life, and no considerations regarding the reason behind the option adopted are presented nor additional documentation gathered, this can lead to misinterpretations of the artworks.

While reading interviews with Ângelo de Sousa, such as “A Felicidade no Gatilho”: Entrevista a Ângelo de Sousa, it is possible to understand that during his life he actively participated in his exhibitions’

conception. As confirmed by Almeida (2018), the artist gave the upmost importance to what was presented and how it was presented. He always looked for the most precise condition to communicate his work. For instance, when the artist decided to present digital images at Sem Prata, he only selected images that could ‘fit’ that technology (Almeida 2018). As far as it can be understood, after the artist’s death, the decision-making process regarding the exhibition of his artworks relies essentially on curators’ opinions. However, in an ideal scenario, due to the multi-dimensional nature of time-based media, the exhibition process should be defined not only by the artist and the curator, but also by other professionals with different expertise, namely by conservators, to ensure that the continuity of the artworks relies on what might be called its significance. As defended by Joanna Philips (2015, 168-169), the lack of an interdisciplinary approach can lead to an incomplete understanding of the artworks.

According to Barbara Sommermeyer (2011, 145), the role of a curator is to understand and interpret the work created by the artist, recognizing its relevance by placing the work in context, and presenting it to the public. From the point of view of Tânia Alegria (2013, 15), the curator has been the exhibition creator since the 1960s, the person who defines the exhibition concept. Suzanne Keene (2001, 27) argued that “curating an exhibition has become a glamorous and high-profile thing to do”. Being the author of the exhibition, the success of the exhibition is the recognition of the curator’s work, and this

143

can influence his or her actions and decisions (Sommermeyer 2011, 145). On the contrary, the main responsibility attributed to the conservator⁵ has been the conservation and restoration of the artwork material. However, as defended by Sommermeyer (2011, 145), the mission of a conservator is to preserve both the material and the immaterial integrity of the artwork. To reach this goal, the conservator needs to recognize the information that the artwork and its context provides and detect any discrepancy that might lead to an incorrect interpretation of the artwork (Sommermeyer 2011, 145). Since the remit of the conservator is above all with the artwork, he or she can be considered the professional who can act most independently in the decision-making about the preservation and exhibition of an artwork (Sommermeyer 2011, 146). Despite the efforts made internationally during the 21st century, namely by the International Council of Museums, Committee for Conservation (ICOM-CC), the European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers (ECCO) and the European Network for Conservation-Restoration Education (ENCoRE), to recognize the importance of the conservator’s role (Casanova 2011, 2-3), Portugal still shows a lack of professionals working as staff members of institutions trained in conservation, close to other professionals of the cultural heritage, such as art historians, curators, etc. According to the study conducted by Francisca Figueira (2015, 48-49), only scarce supervision is provided by conservators within museums or other cultural heritage institutions.

Furthermore, based on Lúcia Matos’ point of view (2015, 53), cultural heritage professionals still must adapt to the new challenges posed by contemporary art, and particularly by time-based media art (Matos 2015, 53).According to Andreia Magalhães (2015b, 70), Portuguese institutions frequently have an incomplete understanding of time-based media works for which they are responsible. Consequently, deficient strategies for their management, documentation, preservation and exhibition are undertaken (Magalhães 2015b, 70). The fact that an association is responsible for taking care of Ângelo de Sousa’s work, can also contribute to insufficient financial resources, and consequently, a lack of interdisciplinary approaches to the collection. So far, NEÂdS has been self-financed and has no staff permanently working on the collection. As Sommermeyer explained (2011, 145-146), referring to estate associations with similar characteristics:

“A main concern is that the deceased artists should not be forgotten; on the contrary, their fame should be increased. This is one of the reasons why exhibition projects are strongly supported by foundations, even if they are a risk to the artworks. And it’s no surprise either, that foundations prefer deteriorating artworks to remain as long as possible, even as they vanish into oblivion”.

Considering this background, it is urgent to establish guidelines for the exhibition of Ângelo de Sousa’s photographic and film works. Ensuring the proper communication of the works, is a way to guarantee that its significance is well preserved. Therefore, a contribution to the definition of guiding rules for the display of slide-based artworks by the artist is presented in the following section.

5 The term ‘conservator’ is used by the author of this dissertation, as having the same meaning as ‘conservator-restorer’.

144