1.	LINK: "4br - On Difference#2"
2.	LINK: "On Difference#2"
3.	ART AGAINST THE FRANCHISE-MUSEUM

Brazil is going through a moment of transformations and confrontations of the distortions and injustices perpetuated by public administration, many of which originated by the authoritarian attitude ingrained in our political system and in the minds of some of our leaders. An outrageous case of authoritarism and lack of transparency in public administration is the process of implementation of the Guggenheim – Hermitage – Kunsthistorishes – Rio Museum, that the city’s mayor, Mr. César Maia, is trying to impose on us.

Surely this is only one of several points associated to a broader problem within the cultural arena, demanding an urgent debate. From a national perspective, it is necessary to arrive to a democratic definition of the priorities in art and culture, which must include a discussion of the National Program of Art Inducement, as pointed out by Yacoff Sarkovas (Valor Econômico 03/01/2003). Included in the process is the revision of the tax exemption project, that is, the Federal Bill of Cultural Incentive.

We, visual artists, curators, art critics, art historians and art educators consider as well urgent the creation of an area within the Ministry of Culture that could debate policies for supporting the production of contemporary art, so to avoid the perpetuation of archaic, improper and disastrous initiatives unable to understand how the actual economy of arts in Brazil and in the world. We know that the dynamics of visual arts take place within an art circuit with its own demands and specifications and that need to be analyzed and discussed in order to actualize their functioning models and effectuate the implementation of a specific policy for the sector.

However, the implementation of the Guggenheim Museum, due to the manner it has been negotiated and, above all, the volume of public resources involved in its construction and maintenance, forces us to demand the authorities to deal with this topic immediately; which means we demand more respect towards public interests and protest against the overt alienation of the several social segments involved in this project.

The Rio de Janeiro City Hall has been conducting the process in a manner that is both spectacular and obscure. The seductive and grandiloquent traces of the work, aimed to convince citizens through propaganda, are in contrast with the lack of information about several aspects of the project, that is, financial, artistic, urban and architectonic, social, juridical and legal.

From the financial perspective, according to matter published in the media (O Globo – 4/2/2003), the construction of the museum would cost about 190 million US dollars, that is, about 684 million reais (in the exchange rate of 02/21/2003), plus another US$ 45 millions for paying royalties, the project, etc. (O Globo, 8/2/2003). After ready, exhibitions costing about US$ 9 millions would be sponsored through the Federal Bill of Cultural Incentive, along with its estimated annual deficit of US$ 12 millions. This would be paid with resources from the city of Rio de Janeiro, most probably through bills of art inducement, but also with the help of the federal legislation for non-profit organizations and social entities of public interest
(Estudo de Viabilidade - Rio Estudos, N º 79 – 22/11/2002).

The project was presented as a packet, including the museum’s presence in a plan of re- urbanization of an important area of the city. The content of this plan is obscure. Given this complex and unclear financial scenario, it is necessary a close examination of the project in order to analyze its viability. One of the obscure points is related to the museum’s maintenance. The mayor insists that the museum will be supported by public resources and sponsorship programs, that is, tax exemption. In this way, the “giant-white elephant-cultural-titanic” would compete for the same resources available for our shaky cultural institutions. There is yet no study about the impact that the arrival of the Guggenheim on these institutions, but it most likely means a significant decrease of sponsored projects, which also means a significant cut of specialized employment. Also there has been no talk about how the museum will work. According to the same feasibility study, it would bring its own exhibitions and staff, supplying “specialized knowledge in development, management, operations, collections and calendar… besides a strong trademark that is internationally respected” (Rio Estudos, N º 79 – 22/11/2002). The feasibility study commissioned by the city hall arrives at the following conclusion (pg. 33):

“This report is the result of a 10-month study conducted by a specialized international team. At the end it didn’t produce a ‘yes or no’ or a ‘go or let go’ answer. Instead, the arguments of the work presented at Chapter 1. ‘Introduction’, for the development of the Guggenheim Museum in Rio, were confirmed. A series of results were produced indicating that the Museum could be liability for both parties. The report developed a series of themes that need to be satisfactorily dealt before the project can be resumed in order to arrive at a reasonable possibility of success”. (our underlines)

In short, the conclusion of the report indicates the need of a deeper debate about the project involving the Museum’s implementation.

It is wildly known internationally that the Guggenheim Foundation is undergoing a process of deficit and instability, due to the expansionist policies implemented by the very Mr. Thomas Krens, its director in the last 15 years, who now is negotiating with the mayor.

Mr. Krens’ policy of expanding the museum’s visibility through satellite Guggenheims, that would “provide the Foundation with financial support and scale economy for exhibitions and acquisitions” " (Lee Roesenbaum, Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, December 10th, 2002, available at http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110002748), meets his goals of creating a global network of financial support for the Guggenheim Foundation. To include the public resources of the city of Rio de Janeiro in this network of private initiative may even be legitimate, but can not be of the interest of Brazilian and Rio de Janeiro’s tax payers and citizens.

While the interests of the Guggenheim Foundation seem to be quite clear, the arguments and studies presented by the City Hall of Rio de Janeiro are confuse and incomplete, not dealing with the whole issue. Obviously, the Guggenheim Museum is only a secondary tool of a large process that involves financial interests of great magnitude. The obscure form this process is being conducted points out to evidences that artistic, cultural and educational issues are relegated to second plan, while the implementation process is being motivated by another conjunction of interests, which are not quite noble, innocent or utopian.

In the last twenty years, Brazilian contemporary art has achieved international reputation and respect, with professional of its most diversified segments participating of important events in several regions of the world. Such credibility qualifies them as legitimate agents to be heard and consulted about projects of the sector’s area that are of public interest of the population of Rio de Janeiro.

So, we ask:

Why should we commit such large volume of resources in a project of seemingly unfavorable conditions?

Why should we decide on that in such a hurried way, not caring to hear professionals from the several areas involved?

Why a city with so many financial difficulties and without a clear and transparent cultural policy directed to all art segments should commit such an outrageously large amount of resources in a single museum?

Why the artistic community of Brazil and Rio de Janeiro, amply qualified and internationally respected, have been blatantly ignored, when this large-scale project will directly affect it?

In face of the authoritarian performance of our public representatives, we demonstrate our solidarity to those who are demanding transparency and zeal in the use of public resources and, more specifically, that the City Hall produces proper clarifications on the obscure points of the project.

See attached information on the Guggenheim, the Federal Bill of Cultural Incentive and other federal programs of tax exemption.

Rio de Janeiro, March 5th, 2003

This document is signed by the group artesvisuais_políticas, formed by visual artists, art critics, curators, art historians, art educators and museum employees of Rio de Janeiro in order to discuss cultural policies and the construction of Guggenheim-Rio, and connected, through the internet, to a petition, today with over 400 signatures, against the use of public resources in the construction of Guggenheim-Rio.

grupo artesvisuais_políticas
Adriana Guanaes, Aimberê Cesar, Alex Hamburger, Alexandre Dacosta, Alexandre Lambert, Ana Lúcia Milhomens, Ana Muglia, André Alvim, Armando Mattos, Beatriz Luz, Beatriz Pimenta, Bob N, Bruno Lopes Lima, Cecília Cotrim, Christina Bocayuva, Clarisse Tarran, Cristina Pape, Daniela Mattos, Elisa de Magalhães, Ernesto Neto, Fabiana Santos, Fábio Carvalho, Gisele ribeiro, Glória Seddon, Guilherme Andries, Guilherme Chaves, Isabel Sodré, Isadora Bonder, Ivana Monteiro, Jacques Kalbourian, Joana Traub Csekö, Judith Miller, Julia T. Csekö, Laura Lima, Leila Franco, Lia do Rio, Lígia Teixeira, Livia Flores, Lola Machado, Luis Andrade, Luiza Interlenghi, Márcia X., Marília Jaci, Marssares, Marta Strauch, Mauricio Ruiz,, Mauro Espíndola, Otavio Avancini, Patricia Canetti, Rachel Korman, Ricardo Basbaum, Ricardo Ventura, Rita Barroso, Romaric Sulger Büel, Sandra Porto, Sheila Cabo, Simone Michelin, Stela Costa, Suely Fahri, Tiago Rivaldo, Vandir Gouvea, Wilton Montenegro.