Society for Latin American Studies

El Di Tella and Argentine Cultural Development in the 1960s

Author(s): J. King
Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Oct., 1981), pp. 105-112
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for Latin American Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3338623 .
Accessed: 27/05/2011 11:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Latin American Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Bulletin of Latin American Research.

http://www.jstor.org

ElDi Tellaand ArgentineCultural

Developmentin the 1960s
J. KING
Universityof Warwick
INTRODUCTION
The activities of the Arts Centresat the Di Tella Institute-or EDi Tella, as the
buildingin Floridacame to be known-spanned the 1960s in Buenos Aires.Their
work began as a modest venturein plasticarts, but later developedinto the most
significantculturalinstitution of the decade, extending into theatre and music.
The culturalmoment cannot, of course, be consideredin isolation: the Centres
had a history specific to themselves, which was at the same time bound to
Argentinedevelopmentin the 1960s as a whole. The declaredaim of the Centres
was to up-date and modernize the various artistic disciplines. This could be
achieved only by strengtheninglinks with Europe and the United States and
promotingBuenos Airesas an internationalcentre.
The expansiveoptimismof this endeavourcan also be seen in other aspects of
scientific and intellectual enquiry following the downfallof Peronin 1955. 'The
winds of change'in the 1960s would blow away the remainingvestigesof traditional Argentinesociety. There would be a new image-a word which begins to
be used increasinglyin the late 1950s-of positive, efficient, creative,classless
values embodiedin new politicianssuch as Frondiziand industrialistssuch as the
Di Tella family. The movement towardsscientific and culturalmodernizationin
this periodwas, to paraphrasePeter Gay,an idea attemptingto becomea reality.1
This article will trace the vicissitudesof one specific culturalinstitution, from
the early enthusiasmof the late 1950s, to the increasingbankruptcyandpessimism
of the late 1960s.
EL DI TELLA-CONTINUITYAND CHANGE.
El Di Tella both continued and modified certain dominantthemes in Argentine
culturalhistory, with the aspirationto promote the city of Buenos Airesand its
artists on an internationallevel linking the Di Tella projectto a traditionwhich
had been dominantsince the 1880s. Argentina,withoutEuropeancontacts,could
only remain a cultural backwater condemned to introspective provincialism.
Giventhe right conditions,however,the knowledgegapandgeographicaldistance

106

BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH

could be bridgedsatisfactorilyand BuenosAirescould take its placeas a leading

city in the world.
Since culturalgroups in Buenos Aires have sharedcertainideas concerning
intellectualdevelopment,it is interestingto consideranothergroupwhichdefined
the 1930s and 1940s in Argentinaas El Di Tella was to define the 1960s: the
literarymagazineSur, foundedby VictoriaOcampo,which groupedmost of the
important writers of the Ocampo-Borges-Mallea
generation.The aim of this
magazinewas also to build bridgeswith metropolitancentres:'Surha servidode
puente entre Europay nuestrosescritores'.2Similaritiestranscendgenerational
differences.Both were smallmodernizingelite groups,thoughthey occupiedvery
differenthistoricalmoments. In the 1930s and 1940s, culturalgroupssaw their
role as that of a civilizingminorityin a world increasinglyinimicalto cultural
standards.Therewas an increasinggap betweencultureandcivilizationandvalues
could only be maintainedby a few. The 1960s saw a movementfrom6lite control, as manynewgroupswereeagerto experimentwith differentformsof modern
culture. Newsweeklymagazinessuch as PrimeraPlana, with its circulationof
100,000 (Sur'swas severalthousand)beganto appearand help define the new
taste. The pressureson 'modernism'in this decade-to innovateand keep up with
the latest fashion-helps to explainthe hectic imageof El Di Tella.3
The two groupswere also the resultof privatefunding.VictoriaOcampoacted
as a traditionalMaecenas.'Surme ha pertenecidomaterialmente.En lo espiritual
ha sido compartidopor un grupode escritores'.4ElDi Tellasimilarlywas funded
out of the fortuneof the Di Tellafamily,but throughthe foundation,an institution relativelynew to Argentina.Whilstit continueda traditionof privaterather
than state fundingof culture, the foundationwas conceivedas a corporate,not
a privatebody, whichwould act outsidefamily or companyinterests.Thesevanguard, private-sponsoredmovementsshared the same strategy of openness to
foreigninfluencesin the sense that, in Borges'justlyfamousphrase,the Argentine
artists'traditionwas that of the whole world. Culturalbridge-building,
the 1930s
phrase,was updated in the 1960s to a concernfor 'advancedforeigntraining'.
Such a strategyimpliedan attackon provincialismand introspectivenationalism
in the culturalfield, sharingthe educativeoptimismof one of the first philanthropistsin the Americas,AndrewCarnegie:'Americanart, if placedside by side
with the best Europeanart, would be stimulatedto achievequalitiesof its own
and not imitate works from abroad'.5Finally,both movementswere based on
small intellectual groups in Buenos Aires. The adjectiveArgentineis often too
ample a term to describethe achievementsof the country'smajorcity. The few
streets from Florida/Viamonteto the Plaza San Martin,the close-knitcaf6 and
salon society of the Sur group,becameknown in the late 1960s as the manzana
loca. Thebars,boutiquesand galleriesaroundEl Di Tellamadethe areaan island
of colour,fascinatingyet increasinglyisolated.
Yet whateverthe elements of continuity in Argentineculturalhistory,El Di
Tella is part of a very particularmovement-the attempt to restructuresociety
after the downfall of Peronin 1955. In its attitude towardsacademicsand intellectuals, Peronismhad two main effects. Numbersof students at university
increasedbut they were givenfew facilitiesand inadequateteaching.6Duringthis
period, Argentinawas almost entirely cut off from scientific developmentin
other partsof the world,and after 1955, a largenumberof peopleweretherefore

EL DI TELLAAND ARGENTINECULTURALDEVELOPMENT

107

eager to renovate Argentineculture. We can define this new spirit in a seriesof

snapshotsof Buenos Airesin the late 1950s.
The militarygovernmentof theRevolucion Libertadoraandthe civiliangovernment of Frondizi did much to encouragethe expansion of culturaland scientific research.7Universitieswere given grantsto improve equipmentand manning
levels, and intellectualswho had been dislodgedby the Peronistregimecameback
to occupy positions of importancein the educationaland technicalapparatuses.
One example of relevance to the Di Tella experiment is that sociology as a
disciplinebecamefirmly rooted at this time underthe guidanceof GinoGermani.
The word that the new disciplinebeganto use about the processof which it was
a partwas desarrollismo,which was givenfurtherweightby FrondiziandFrigerio,
in the pagesof the magazineiQue?
The State offered some aid, but allowed space and freedomfor new forms of
enquiry to be explored. State supportwas complementedby grantsfrom North
American foundations. This support for certain forms of social democratic
development in Latin America became formalized in the Alliance for Progress
in the early 1960s, following the perceivedthreat of Cuba,but it was already
apparentin the late 1950s. In fact, this policy was a reworkingof the dictum of
'Give them a share' which had suffered setbacks in Argentina during the war
years-due to Argentina'snon-cooperationwith American foreign policy-and
under Per6n. United States investmentbegan to flow again into Argentinaand
the interest of foundationswas part of this generalmovement. In the late 1950s
both the Rockefeller and Ford foundations promoted developmentprojects in
Latin America,while the Museumof ModernArt in New York greatlyexpanded
and enlargedits internationalsection exhibitingAmericanartabroadas the liberal
face of the ColdWar.8
These were boom years in Argentina-a marketingtermwhich referredto the
sellingof consumergoods, but becameappliedto formsof culturalconsumption.9
Just as the saleof fridgesandwashingmachinesincreased(a SiamDi Tellaconcern),
considerablesums were spent on advertising,visits to the psychoanalystbecame
an integralpart of middle-classBuenos Aires life, people flocked to the films of
IngmarBergmanand began to buy the boom novelists such as Julio Cortizarin
tens of thousands,whereasthe traditionalprint run had been 2-3,000. Publishing
houses expanded, the renovated Museo de Bellas Artes under Romero Brest
exhibited young artists and travellingforeign exhibitions. Argentineartists experimented with local versions of abstract expressionism and art informel,
theatreworkshopssprangup, andthe successfulmagazinePrimeraPana influenced
politics,10 commented on books and cultural activities (the section Artes y
Espect6culos) and directed fashion. This was the atmospherethat El Di Tella
breathed as part of a generalmood of expansion. In this climate, it supported
modernart and could, in Tom Wolfe'sfacetious words,help to 'leadthe vanguard
marchthroughthe land of the philistines'.1
ORIGINSAND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE CENTRES1958-66.
The Di Tella Foundation and the Institute were set up on 22nd July 1958. The
cultural enterprisewas to serve as a memorial to Torcuato Di Tella, who had
built up the Siam Di Tella industrial complex. The Foundation, rather than

108

BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH

old-fashionedphilanthropy,was used as a memorial that reflected 'modem'

thinkingof the late 1950s. The Instituteintendedto specializein economicsand
sociology,reflectingthe interestsof the two Di Tellabrothers.The artsinitiative
developedby accidentwith the decisionto displayand developthe art collection
of TorcuatoDi Tella. Initiallythe collection was shown in the Museo de Bellas
Artes and an annual art prize was organizedfor Argentine artists, but this
deliberatelylimited initiative was extended through a series of coincidences.
Whena buildingbecame vacantfor rentalin Floridabeside the PlazaSanMartin
it was converted into a flexible museum. The Rockefeller representativein
Argentinaapproachedthe leadingArgentinecomposerAlberto Ginasteraabout
the possibility of setting up a centre for advancedmusical trainingfor Latin
American composers. The Institute, known to North Americanfoundations,
agreed to supervisethe programmewith facilitiesmade availablefor musicians.
RomeroBrest,a leadingart criticand the most forciblepersonalityin the Buenos
Aires art world, resignedfrom the Museooveran internaldisputeand offered to
organizethe artsprogrammein the Di Tella.Aftersomediscussionhe wasaccepted
by EnriqueOteiza,the overallhead and guidingspiritof the Di Tellain the 1960s.
TheatredirectorRoberto Villanueva,who had initiallybeen askedto coordinate
activities, was then offered an additional centre working for theatreresearch,
ambitiouslycalled 'audiovisualexperimentation'.In this way three centrescame
into being in the 1960s-CAV (Centro de Artes Visuales),CEA, (Centro de
Experimentaci6nAudiovisual)and CLAEM(Centro Latinoamericanode Altos
EstudiosMusicales),each with its separateprogrammeswhich were radicallyto
transformthe various disciplines.The developmentof CAV is briefly reviewed
below.12

The declaredaimsof CAVwere to promoteArgentineart at home andabroad

and to educate the Buenos Aires art public, by organizingnationaland internationalart prizesand a flexible programmeof travellingexhibitions.The main
argumentwas that since Argentineculturaland scientific developmentlagged
behindthat of the metropolitancentres,the Institutewouldbridgethisknowledge
and indeedgeographicalgap.'3 In the socialsciencesit wasfelt that only advanced
foreign trainingcould ensurethat the necessarystandardswere reachedand researcherswere sent to studyabroad.14Inart,a similarmodelwasinitiallyadopted.
Early prizes consisted of a travelgrant coveringstudy abroad,with a one-man
show of the winner'sworksin a EuropeanorNorthAmericangallery.Withforeign
critics invited to judge the prizes, international attention would focus on
Argentina.In this way, BuenosAirescould take its placein a few yearsas one of
the leadingcentresof art in the world.
The nationaland internationalprizeswere clearly significantat a local level:
they were importantfor nationaldevelopmentand self-definition.It is questionable, however, whether Buenos Aires could ever become part of an influential
internationalcircuit, capable of promotingArgentineart in the metropolitan
centres.Internationalism
(as was the case with abstractexpressionismor pop art)
was largelya one-waymarketdevice and New Yorkand Europewere not receptive to Argentineartists.
The yearlynationalandinternationalprizescausedacrimoniouscriticaldebate.
As the leadingand most wealthyculturalinstitutionin BuenosAires,the Centre
had considerablepower, and deliberatelysupportednew tendenciesin art rather

EL DI TELLAAND ARGENTINECULTURALDEVELOPMENT

109

than monumentalizingaccepted styles. In this way it was dismissed as being

frivolous, in hectic pursuit of the new and most shocking,from environmentsto
'happenings'(a word that was used to describeanythingthat a critic did not like
or understandabout modernart). The Centrethus had increasinglyto defend its
own choices as well as promote new art. If critics did not often like the premios
(awards), they were more receptive to the monthly travellingand local exhibitions. These rangedfrom pre-Columbianart to Picassoand were very influential,
since the Buenos Aires public was large enough and sufficiently uninformedto
benefit strongly from such shows. Attendance figuresincreasedbetween 1963
and 1966 as people were attractedto this flexible modernmuseumofferingboth
theatre and contemporarymusic. Up to 1966 the activitiescan be seen as legitimate. Even the 'shock'entriesto the prizesof one year did not seem so shocking
the next, as La Nacion almost wistfully wrote: 'Ya nada nos asustaen esta casa
de sustos'.l5Yet the optimisticconditions of the early years were to changeafter
1965 with the following three years witnessing the culminationof the Centre's
effort and its decline.
1966-70: TOWARDSTHECLOSUREOF THECENTRE
Duringthis periodtwo main factorsbroughtpressureon the Centres.Firstly,the
economic collapse of Siam Di Tella and secondly, the increasinglypolarized
political situation under President Ongania.In 1965 competition from cheap
American imports resulted in crisis in the Di Tella motor car industry.The car
industry had briefly flourished;the most popularof its range,the 1500, became
an instant successwith BuenosAirestaxi drivers.Two phrasesbecameincreasingly
used to underlinethe impact of the Di Tella corporationon the popularculture
in Buenos Aires, El Di Tella, (the arts buildingin Florida)and Los Di Tella (the
ubiquitous taxi cabs in the streets). Yet both were threatenedby decliningsales
and the threat of bankruptcy.Siam attempted to sell the enterpriseto IKA, a
transactionwhich led to major disputes over valuationand seriouslythreatened
the whole Siamcomplex.The Institute'smainsourceof fundswasthus injeopardy
throughoutthe late 1960s, as Siampetitioned the governmentto help savethem
from economic collapse. In CAV for instance,there were no longerthe funds to
maintainsuch an ambitiousinternationalistpolicy.
After 1966 the political situation became polarized with effects felt in the
culturalfield. Onganiaorganizeda seriesof attacksagainstacademicand cultural
institutions. Interventionoccurredin the universities,precededby a declaration
by Onganiathat 'no permitiremosque acosen a nuestrajuventudextremismosde
ningunaespecie'.16Widespreadresignationsof teaching staff followed, with the
banningof radioprogrammesand televisionshows, censorshipin the theatreand
burningof imported political textbooks such as worksby Marxand Engels.17El
Di Tellawas kept underclose scrutinysinceit hadbecomea focus of youth culture
and fashion.Modem art-'happenings'and 'hippies'in the crude simplificationof
many critics-and the more overt manifestationsof popularculturein the formof
clothes, long hair, and rock musicwereseen as deeplysuspicious,andthe manzana
loca receiveda lot of police attention. For those on the right of the political spectrum, El Di Tella was seen as decadent,which in this analysisreferredto a series
of attitudesembracingcommunism,subversionand terrorism.

110

BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH

Thecritiquefromthe Left-also moralistic-wascoherent,thoughthearguments

used variedin complexity.One clearstatementconcerningthe roleof the Di Tella
in Argentinesociety was made in the Solanasfilm La Horade los homos, which
portraysan extrajerizanteelite workingagainst(undefined)populartraditions,
and is similarin analysisto that developedin the 1950s by J. J. Hernmndez
Arregui,
Arturo Jauretcheand J. Abelardo Ramos in terms of its simple dualitiesand
essentialistfaith, in this mannerexplainingaway the complexityand contradictions of the Di Tella experience.18A rathermore sophisticatedcritiqueof the
Di Tella was offered by certainDi Tella artistsand the grupo de Rosario who
questionedthe institutionalbasis of art and its socialfunction,on the basis that
the artistwas responsiblenot just to fellow artists,galleriesand collectors,but
ratherto popularforms of strugglewhich were growingin intensitythroughout
the late 1960s.
Thisled a numberof artiststo rejectthe gallery-prizesystemandworkinstead
on more immediateforms of communication,such as the exhibition Tucuman
arde which in 1968 exposed the desperateconditions of that areaof Argentina.
CAV therefore found itself in an increasinglydifficult position. It had little
money, a numberof artistsand the directorhimselfquestionedtheir traditional
function, and other groups,tired of the moralisticconditions of the late 1960s
and anxious to test their skill in Europeand the United States, (the Rodriguez
Ariasgroup),left the country.The Centrehad some greatsuccessesin thisperiod
such as the Le Parcexhibition,which attracted150,000 viewersafterhis success
at the Venice Biennale,and the Experiencias,but the expansiveoptimismof the
early 1960s had been lost.'9 The call for standardsbecame more stridentand
the centre was seen as a threat or as a showcasefor the dependentbourgeoisie,
with accusationsconcerningfinancialand social accountabilitybeing made increasingly.The Centrewas alwaysan islandof colourin Florida.In the optimistic
years it was hoped that its sphereof influencewould increasealthoughin later
years these hopes could not be realized.Its closurewas a result of its own internalcontradictionsas well as the weight of variousexternalpressures.
The closureof the Centreshas been the subjectof much debate.It was clearly
the result of financialstringencies,yet many commentatorspoint out that the
Centreswere a political embarrassment
at a time when a bankruptcompanywas
trying to negiotiate with an economically modernizingbut culturallyrather
stultifying military government.Space does not allow a more detailedanalysis
of this, but the facts, while not denyingthe politicalexpediencyof the closure,
seem to point to a predominantlyeconomicexplanation.The ArtsCentrescould
find few allies among the Siam industrialists,or the economicand socialscience
centres, the governmentand the ever more powerfulpopulist-Peronistalliances
all opposed to that model of culturaldevelopment.The Di Tella 'moment'had
come to an end.
Yet El Di Tella,in the management,the threecentres,the cafeteria,the library,
and the bookshop,was more thanjust the sum of its individualparts.TheCentres
ran in parallel,overlapped,attractedand rejectedeach other,with the layout of
the buildingand the friendshipsformedwithin it creatingcertainopportunities
for interdisciplinarywork. The Di Tellawas a meeting-placefor young artists.It
allowedthem a lot of freedom,which could havepositiveresults,but whichcould
also be easilyabused.Althoughit had the powerto legitimateand promotetheir

EL DI TELLAAND ARGENTINECULTURALDEVELOPMENT

1ll

work, the financialand social cost of these activitieswas very high and could not
be sustainedin a climate of 'bankruptcy'and increasingpolitical and social unrest. Whilethe Institutehad a viable strategyfor the optimismof the early 1960s,
it had few defences againstthe radicalizationof the later years.
NOTES
1. The historyof the WeimarRepublicin Germanyoffersa numberof interestingparallels
with Argentinain the 1960s. See Gay,P. (1969). WeimarCulture.SeckerandWarburg
(London).This analogy,with a numberof interestingobservationson Argentinain this
periodwas providedby JuanCarlosTorre.
2. Ocampo,V. (1967). 'Vidade la revistaSur: 35 aflosde unalabor',Sur, 303-305. (Nov.
1966-April1967), p. 19.
3. See Jameson,F. (1979). 'Reificationand Utopia in MassCulture',The Social Text,
(Winter),p. 136. An impassioneddefenceof the review,as opposedto the weekly news
magazine,is madeby RegisDebray(1981). Teachers,Writers,Celebrities:TheIntellectualsof ModernFrance.New Left Books (London),p. 60-78.
4. Ocampo,V. (1970). 'Despuesde cuarentaanos',Sur, 325 (Julio-Agosto),p. 1.
5. Alloway,L. (1969). The VeniceBiennale.Thamesand Hudson(London),p. 149
6. HalperinDonghi,T. (1961). La Universidadde BuenosAires, EUDEBA(BuenosAires).
7. Technical institutes such as the Consejo Nacional de InvestigacionesCientificasy
Tecnicas,El Instituto Nacionalde TecnologiaAgropecuariaand the InsitutoNacional
de Tecnologa Industrialwere set up with governmentfunds.The Fondo Nacionalwas
foundedin 1958 to providestate fundingfor the arts.
8. Lynes, R. (1972). Good Old Modern:An IntimatePortraitof the Museumof Modern
Art, (New York).
9. HalperinDonghi, T. (1972), in his Argentina:democraciade masas,Paidos(Buenos
Aires),equatesthe growthof marketingwith the impact of the Di TellaInstitute.On
p. 156 he suggeststhat, while the Jockey Clubcouldguaranteethe qualityof tradition,
the Di Tellaofferedmodernityin its place.
10. It has been suggestedthat PrimeraPlana,by constantlyridiculingandcriticizinggovernment strategiesand democraticpoliticians,helped createthe climatefor the coup of
1966.
11. Wolfe,T. (1980). ThePaintedWord,Bantam(New York),p. 36.
12. CEAbegan its activitiesin 1965 workingin the fields of experimentaltheatre,modern
dance,mime,musicalcomedyand 'cafe-concert'.CLAEMwas a separateteachingInstitute for composers.Twelvebecariosfrom all over LatinAmericatrainedfor a periodof
two years in El Di Tella, taughtby local musiciansand visitingprofessors,including
such major contemporarycomposers as Copland,Messiaen,Nono and Xenakis. As
part of its teachingand researchprogramme,CLAEMdevelopedone of the most advancedelectronicmusic laboratoriesunderthe creativegeniusof the technicaldirector
Fernandovon Reichenbachand its musicaldirector,FranciscoKropfl.
13. Interviewwith GuidoDi Tella.
14. It was arguedthatscientificmodernizationcouldbe achievedby highlytrainedspecialists
researchingin smallinstitutesbased on the model of MIT,where Guido Di Tella had
studiedunderRostow. Therewas a generalconsensusfor acceptingRostowianTalcottParsonsmodelsof developmentin the early 1960s.
15. LaNacion, 21.9.65.
16. Clarin,9.7.66.
17. Yooll, A. G. (1979). ThePressin Argentina1973-78, Writersand ScholarsEducational
Trust(London).
18. King, J. (1981). 'Towardsa Readingof the ArgentineLiteraryMagazineSur', Latin
AmericanResearchReview, Vol. 16, No. 2.
19. Experienciaswas the name given to the exhibitionsthat replacedthe nationalprizesin
1967, 1968 and 1969, with the prizemoney dividedup amongtwelveartists.The 1968
Experienciaswere the most memorable.One exhibit, the notoriousbaflo by Roberto
Plate, illustratessome of the tensions of the period. Plateproduceda simulacrumof a

112

BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
public toilet, where the visitor entered an environment consisting mainly of white walls.
There he was encouraged to produce descargas emocionales rather than ffsicas Predictably, graffiti appeared, some of which contained unflattering references to Ongania.
The police intervened and tried to close the whole exhibition and after negotiations it
was decided to close only the one exhibit. A ludicrous situation arose, with the exhibit
closed with a municipal seal and a policeman standing guard outside to prevent any
violation of the order. Consequently it became a much more interesting exhibit than
before, with people flocking to the latest Di Tella 'happening'.