The MAM without Duchamp

Regina Texeira de Barros During the early months of 1948 in New York, three
“men of the arts”—amongst them, Marcel Duchamp—were
sought by a French art dealer to select abstract paintings
for the opening exhibition of the São Paulo Museum of
Modern Art, the first institution of its kind in Latin America.
The pieces were chosen, requested from their respective
owners, insured, packaged, transported to the port . . . and
were not shipped to Brazil!
It should be observed that the degree to which
Duchamp participated in this adventure may be understood
as either very unusual or perfectly logical, depending on
one’s point of view. As an artist accompanied by two gallery
owners, Duchamp might not have seemed to be the ideal
candidate to select the works for an exhibition of abstract
art in Brazil. Indeed, normally it was the curators, critics
or gallery owners who were involved in the evaluation,
selection and presentation of works, including aspects
of sales and acquisitions of works, whereas the artists
generally did not have much to do with such decisions.
Even so, for Duchamp, perhaps more than for any other
artist, the act of “selecting” had a fundamental importance
for his artistic practices. Furthermore, his role as a curator
and consultant for exhibitions, ever since the first decade
of the century—from his participation in the organization
of the First Exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists
in New York in 1917, to his attempt to organize a show
of Cubist Art in Buenos Aires during his short stay in that
city in 1918–1919, through his experiences cofounding
the Société Anonyme, Inc.: A Museum for Modern Art in the
1920s, his performance as curator in the exhibition of
Constantin Brancusi in the Brummer Gallery, in 1933, and
the role he played in the Surrealist exhibitions between
1930 and 1960—demonstrates that Duchamp was curiously
committed to the organization of exhibitions.

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa

In this context, his collaboration in the show of Abstract
Art at the MAM of São Paulo may be understood as yet
another demonstration of his great interest in this kind
of activity. It is possible to speculate on the potential
consequences of Duchamp’s strong commitment to the
works he helped select, in case the exhibition had taken
place as planned. (Would he have proposed special staging
for the space in the MAM? Would he have constructed
relationships among works through premeditated
juxtapositions in order to, at the very least, escape from
the “monotony of theoretical rigor,” as he explained in a
letter to Matarazzo Sobrinho?)1
To understand the sense of this brief story one must go
back quite some time.
Throughout the latter half of the 19th century,
the huge fortunes generated by the growing coffee
economy in São Paulo state were determinant in the
transformation of the state capital. The precarious colonial
village underwent large-scale urban reform, including
the correction and paving of the city centre streets, the
channeling of the waterways, the installation of new
residential neighborhoods, the implementation of an
electricity network and tram lines, the construction
of a towering municipal theatre, to name just a few of
the projects to adapt the city to the age of modernity.
The rural aristocracy drove the dramatic development
of the city of São Paulo until the late 1920s, when economic
factors (such as the Wall Street Crash) and political motives
(like the rise of Getúlio Vargas) brought about significant
changes to the social plan. The economic supremacy of the
São Paulo coffee elite was swiftly replaced by the wealth
generated by an emerging urban bourgeoisie, originating
mainly from immigrant families.
It is in this context that the empire of the Indústrias
Reunidas Francisco Matarazzo emerges, Brazil’s most
important industrial group in the 1930s and 1940s,
commanded by the Italian “Count” Francisco Matarazzo,
in São Paulo. One of the magnate’s nephews, Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho, also known by the nickname
of Cicillo, develops and interest in culture and leads
important initiatives in the state capital, such as the
creation of the São Paulo Museum of Modern Art (1948), the
Teatro Brasileiro de Comédia (Brazilian Comedy Theatre)
(1948) and the Companhia Cinematográfica Vera Cruz (1949).
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
R egina Texeira de Barros
In December 1946, Matarazzo Sobrinho marries Yolanda
Penteado, a young member of the old rural aristocracy, niece
of Olívia Guedes Penteado, the patroness of the modernists.
On their honeymoon they spend an extended period in
Davos, Switzerland, where they meet Karl Nierendorf, a
German settled in New York, owner of a modern art gallery
and director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.
Cicillo and Nierendorf chat about the ideal structure for
a modern art museum in São Paulo, and as the discussion
advances, they prepare a project for the opening exhibition,
of abstract art, which would have a huge impact on the São
Paulo public.2
In October 1947, Yolanda and Cicillo return from
their honeymoon enthused with the new projects, already
underway. However, in early November they receive the
news that Nierendorf had died prematurely in the last
week of November, in New York. The couple had planned to
invite the German gallery-owner to take up the position of
Artistic Director of the Museum.
Thrown by the unexpected news of Nierendorf’s death,
Matarazzo Sobrinho turns to his friend Cícero Dias for advice.
Dias, a painter from Pernambuco living in Paris, at the time
worked as a cultural attaché for Brazil in the city. He had
followed the conversations between Cicillo and Nierendorf
from afar, as well as the purchases of artwork for the future
museum, undertaken by the Italian painter Alberto Magnelli,
also based in Paris.
After two weeks, Dias sent Cicillo a report prepared by
the “Paris Commission,” of which Cícero Dias himself, Alberto
Magnelli and the Belgian critic Léon Degand were all members.
The Paris Commission report recommended Léon Degand—a
member of the French Communist Party and a fervent
defender of abstract art—to coordinate the exhibition in place
of Karl Nierendorf, assisted by the gallery-owner René Drouin.
The correspondence between Francisco Matarazzo
Sobrinho and Cícero Dias was so intense that even before
Cicillo had had time to answer Cícero Dias, the painter had
sent another missive to the industrialist. In this second
letter, Dias makes personal comments about the individuals
recommended by the Paris Commission:
Degand and Drouin could both substitute our sorely missed
Nierendorf. The former, a great art critic, connoisseur of
modern painting and one of the masters of non-figurative

art . . . possessing an artistic culture respected by everyone
in Paris as one of the most interesting and profound. The
latter, the owner of one of the most important modern
galleries in Paris and Europe of today. Showing an almost
exclusive interest in non-figurative painting and its
trends. I am of the opinion that both could play a highly
important role in this fine art exhibition which, according
to Drouin, will be the great artistic event of 1948.3
In early December 1947, Matarazzo Sobrinho sends a
letter to the Pernambucan painter, in which he reveals the
points he had agreed with Nierendorf:
My arrangement with Nierendorf followed these lines: I
would place at the disposal of Mr. Nierendorf approximately
5,000 dollars, 100 contos or 1 million francs, for him to
take charge of the transport, insurance and other expenses
involved with the paintings to come from Europe and
the United States, and their return to the countries of
origin, to carry out an exhibition here of 120 to 130
pieces, including sculptures, by foreign abstract artists,
not including the arrangements for the book or catalogue
about abstract art, and with it being my responsibility
here to cover expenses with the gallery, assembly, etc.4
At the end he asks whether, bearing in mind the
proposed conditions, Degand and Drouin would be willing to
cooperate in the execution of the exhibition.
Cícero Dias replies positively, already establishing the
value of Degand’s monthly salary at 50 thousand French
francs, which should be paid for six months—for which
time the Belgian critic would be devoted to organizing the
exhibition. René Drouin, on the other hand, “. . .does not
intend to receive this money at all. I believe he is interested
in the book, and continuing the exhibition in other cities,
selling paintings, etc.”5
Thus, in January 1948, Nierendorf’s substitute was clearly
defined: Léon Degand would assume the coordination of
the exhibition; René Drouin would be his helper; the Paris
Commission would supervise the progress of the project; and
Cícero Dias would act as “ambassador” for the MAM in Paris.
The budget for the exhibition was also established.
Everything having been agreed with Nierendorf’s
substitutes, the Paris Commission sent a letter in French to
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The MAM witho ut Duchamp
Matarazzo Sobrinho—written by Léon Degand—foreseeing the
arrival of the works of art in Brazil in June 1948.
Attached to that letter was a copy of the missive sent
by the Paris Commission to René Drouin, who at the time
was in New York. In this document, the Paris Commission
explains that, due to the cutback of expenses, Léon Degand
would not be able to travel to the United States to select the
works for the exhibition. Therefore, the Commission asked
Drouin, who was collaborating with the Belgian critic, to
select abstract pieces in the United States, both by young
and more mature artists.
The instructions for the selection of the works of art
are as follows: The American contingent must be limited
to roughly ten artists, with two pieces by each artist. The
number of pieces by American artists must not exceed that
by young European artists, who shall also have two works
each on show. The abstract art masters meanwhile will be
present with roughly five pieces each.
The Commission suggests that Drouin visits some
people and institutions that will certainly be able to
give recommendations about US artists with abstract
production, as well as documents about the matter.
Amongst them, Hildegarde J. Prytek, the painter George
Morris, the New York Museum of Modern Art and the
Guggenheim Foundation.
René Drouin arrives in São Paulo—coming from
New York—in January 1948 to arrange the details of the
exhibition. At the end of the month, the gallery-owner
sends Cicillo the project for the exhibition organization,
which is planned to take place between July and September
1948. In this document Drouin appoints himself as the
general coordinator of the exhibition and Degand as a
mere collaborator, responsible for the intellectual work.
The title of the project is: “Organization of an international
abstract art exhibition in São Paulo,” and it is comprised of
a simplified contract, in which the signatory establishes:
Mr. René Drouin is in charge of the general organization,
with the cooperation of one or two American individuals in
New York, and Messrs. Léon Degand and Cícero Dias in Paris.
Furthermore, Mr. Degand shall assume the preparation
of a book and a catalogue, as well as the explanatory
panels in the exhibition with reproductions and
comments. He will also organize several conferences.

Next he presents a cost appraisal, with the sum total—
including packaging, insurance, round-trip freight from both
Paris and New York to São Paulo, as well as Léon Degand’s
payment and expenses with photographs, assembly and any
extras—of US$ 5,000.
Any work sold, whether in New York and Paris, or in
São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Montevideo and Buenos Aires
(the cities scheduled for the exhibition itinerary), would
be remitted entirely to Drouin. The expenses not included
in the aforementioned value include: the exhibition
catalogue, Degand’s trip, an American critic’s trip and two
trips for Drouin.
At the end of the document, Drouin assumes general
responsibility for carrying out the exhibition and guarantees
that, with US$ 5,000 of credit, paid in advance by Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho, the exhibition with 100 to 150 pieces
would take place in satisfactory conditions.
In New York, Drouin contacts the directors of the
cultural institutions recommended by the Paris Commission,
but prefers to choose his own partners, and that is when
Marcel Duchamp enters the story: Drouin disposes of the
cooperation of the MoMA and the Guggenheim Foundation
in the opening exhibition of the São Paulo Museum of Modern
Art and instead opts for the trio of Marcel Duchamp, Sidney
Janis6 and the gallery-owner Leo Castelli.
In mid-April 1948, without any news about what
was happening in Paris, Cicillo turns to Cícero Dias. He
asks whether the painter has been following the work
being done by Drouin—who, for Matarazzo Sobrinho, is
responsible for the exhibition organization.
In reply to Matarazzo Sobrinho’s request, Cícero Dias
says that he is up-to-date regarding all of Léon Degand’s
work, and moreover, has only praises to offer: “I believe
that Degand’s service is perfect, both in the choice and the
manner in which it is being done.” He fails to send any news
about René Drouin.7
Meanwhile, Degand—who had only written to Matarazzo
Sobrinho the previous year—writes once again to the patron
of the arts on 20 April, now as a member of the Paris
Commission and heading the organization of the Abstract Art
Exhibition. In this letter, Degand tells Cicillo that the works
are being selected and foresees this stage of the project to end
in May. He informs that René Drouin has turned to Marcel
Duchamp and Sidney Janis to select the US pieces, therefore
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
R egina Texeira de Barros
being aware of the gallery-owner’s procedures in New York.
On 22 May, Degand writes again to Cicillo, summarizing
the work carried out in France:
The exhibition is established to address the current
trends in visual arts focused on non-figuration. In order to
make the spirit of the exhibition clearly understandable
for the public, there will be three sections:
1. A documents section, showing the evolution of painting
and sculpture, from Impressionism almost up to Cubism,
composed of color reproductions of paintings by Monet,
Pissarro, Seurat, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Redon, Bonnard,
Vuillard, Matisse, Derain, Vlaminck, Picasso, Marcel
Duchamp, Gris, Chirico and photos and sculptures by
Rodin, Bourdelle, Maillol, Laurens and Lipchitz.
2. A section of artists whose works are inspired and based
on elements taken from outer nature, but where these
elements are transposed in such a way that it is impossible to
recognize them. These works are practically non-figurative.
This section comprises older artists like: the painters
Klee, Miró, Arp, Léger, Masson, and the sculptors Arp,
González and Brancusi. And young artists like: the
painters Manessier, Singier, Le Moal, Barzine, Esteve,
Lapicque, Villeri, Molo, Hosiasson, Idoux, Lenoumand,
Hayter, Attan, Mucha and the sculptor Jacobsen.
3. One section of completely abstract artists, that
is, not only non-figurative, but also completely
independent of any recourse to outer nature.
This section comprises older artists like: the painters
Kandinsky, Mondrian, Delaunay (Robert), Delaunay
(Sonia), Freundlich, Malevitch, Lissitzky, Taeuber-Arp,
Van Doesburg, Schwitters, Bruce, Kupka, Picabia, Villon,
Herbior, Magnelli, Domela, Servranckx, Vordemberge,
Gorin, Kosnick, Kloss, Harburg, and the sculptors Pevsner,
Calder, Gabo, Chauvin, Manes. And young artists like: the
painters Schneider, Deyrollie, Dervasne, Poliakoff, de Staël,
Lanskog, Dias, Van Velde, M. Raymond, Verzclay, Nouveau,
Reth, Piaubert, Peassinos, Rezvani, and sculptors Beothy,
Stahly, E. Martin, Noll, Gilioli, Descombin, Lardera.
He reiterates that Duchamp and Janis are in charge of
selecting the young American painters, as well as looking
for works by the following artists: Klee, Miró, Hayter,
Mondrian, Malevitch, Lissitzky, Van Doesburg, Schwitters,

Vordemberge, Calder and Gabo. The young artists are to be
represented by one work of art8 each and the elder artists
with three to five, according to their importance or the
availability of the pieces.
The division of tasks between the Parisian gallery-owner
and the Belgian critic is finally clarified: “Mr. Drouin assumes
financial responsibility for the exhibition, at least as regards
freight, insurance and packaging expenses. For my part,
I assume full responsibility for the choice of the works.”
All the paintings and six of the sculptures9 —the rest
following after, by plane—were shipped on 8 July from
Le Havre, on the vessel “Jamaïque”, due to arrive in Santos
one month later.
Degand takes a Pan Air flight four days later in Paris, with
the intention of spending two or three days in Recife with
Cícero Dias, who is visiting his home town. However, Degand
has hardly stepped on Brazilian soil when he receives a
telegram from Matarazzo Sobrinho with express instructions
to head immediately for São Paulo, where “urgent matters”
await him. The urgent matters relate, without a doubt, to the
event on 15 July 1948, the date of establishment of the São
Paulo Museum of Modern Art. As soon as the Belgian critic lands
in São Paulo he is invited by Cicillo to assume the Artistic
Direction of the recently-created museum.
At the time, the works from France were already on
their way to São Paulo. Degand, therefore, concentrates on
the arrangements for the American participation in the
Abstract Art Exhibition which will mark the official opening
of the Museum of Modern Art. He composes not only the
letters which he signs, but also those signed by Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho.10
Such is the case, for example, of the missive that
Matarazzo Sobrinho sends to Marcel Duchamp on 19 July,
agreeing with René Drouin’s recommendation that
Duchamp select the works in New York. He asks the artist
to immediately send the list of works and information for
the catalogue. He also enquires about the scheduled date for
shipment of the works.
Two days later, Leo Castelli—newly in charge of the
“production” of the US dispatch—sends the list of works to
Brazil. The selected artists for the “Contemporary Painting”
section are: Joseph Albers, William Baziotes, Ralston
Graworf, Smart Davies, William De Kooning, Burgoyne
Diller, Enrico Danati, Jimmy Ernest, Esteban Francês, Susy
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The MAM witho ut Duchamp
Frelinghuysen, Albert E. Gallatin, Fritz Glerner, Ashile
Gorky, Adolph Gottlieb, Morris Graves, Stanley William
Hayter, Hans Hoffmann, Leon Kelly, Karl Knaths, Jacqueline
Maciver, Roberto Matta, Elsa Modell, George Morris, Robert
Motherwell, Wolfgang Paalen, Rice Pereira, Jackson Pollock,
Ad Reinhardt, Mark Rothko, Kay Sage, Attilio Salemne, Sonia
Sekula, Leon P. Smith, Janet Sobel, Mark Tobey and Alfred
Russell; the section named “American Pioneers” includes
work by artists such as: Arthur G. Dove, Katherine S. Dreier,
Lyonel Feininger, John Marin, Georgia O’Keeffe, Joseph Stella
and Man Ray; in the “Others” section: El Lissitzky, Kasimir
Malevich, Juan Miró, Piet Mondrian, Amédée Ozenfant,
Kurt Schwitters, Yves Tanguy and Theo van Doesburg; and
the “Sculptors” are: Alexander Calder, Marie Callery, Naum
Gabo, Peter Gripper, Richard Lippold, Maria Martins, Isamu
Noguchi, Anton Pevsner and David Smith.
At the end of the month, Matarazzo Sobrinho sends
a telegram to Castelli asking of the total weight of the
shipment, and the following day writes to the American
art dealer to send his thanks for the efforts of the three
collaborators in New York and to reinforce the request for
information about the artists and pieces for the catalogue.
Castelli promptly replies, sending the information
requested and photographs for the catalogue. There
are 71 works in all, including paintings and sculptures,
packed in ten boxes, ready to be shipped, pending just the
documentation.
In early August, Marcel Duchamp answers Matarazzo
Sobrinho’s letter written in mid-July. He informs that Leo
Castelli has already sent the information requested by the
chairman of the São Paulo Museum of Modern Art and shows
satisfaction with the selection of works by American artists:
For my part, I should say that around 40 painting that Messrs.
Janis, Castelli and myself have chosen form a very representative
set of the abstract movement in the United States. In fact,
we have added here and there a few semi-abstract pieces
so as to eliminate the monotony of a theoretical rigor.
It is interesting to note that Duchamp, Castelli and
Janis take the liberty to give a personal interpretation of the
Frenchmen’s proposal. By justifying the inclusion of some
“semi-abstracts” in the show, they make it clear that they are
not in total agreement with Degand’s theoretical precepts.

On the other hand, Degand also does not seem to
display great efforts to include the Americans in the opening
exhibition. In a draft of a letter addressed to the Rio de
Janeiro journalist Paulo Bittencourt, on 14 October 1948,
Degand states that he does not miss the young painting of the
United States, “parce que, en général, elle ne vaut pas grande chose”
(because, in general, it is not worth a great deal). The sentence
was crossed out the following note added in pencil: “Modified
by order of Mr. Matarazzo.” The far from diplomatic phrase
was removed in the official version of the letter.
In the second week of September, Nelson Rockefeller
comes to São Paulo on business: he stays just a few days,
but reserves time to visit the Abstract Art Exhibition—with
the recently-arrived works from Paris—at the Matarazzo
Metalworks, the provisional headquarters of the São Paulo
Museum of Modern Art.11
In mid-September, Matarazzo Sobrinho writes to the
US magnate, thanking him for his visit and reiterating the
interest in an interchange between the São Paulo and New
York Museums of Modern Art. He sends the by-laws of the
new museum and encloses the list of the Board of Directors
and the Management, as well as the schedule of activities.
He takes the chance to thank Rockefeller for the three
works lent by the MoMA in New York for the abstract art
exhibition and asks to borrow some films for the show.
Almost concurrently, Cicillo Matarazzo sends a letter
to Leo Castelli, introducing Maurício Verdier,12 whom
the São Paulo Museum has put in charge of following the
dispatchment of the works from the United States.
Meanwhile, in the United States, Verdier cables the patron
of the arts to inform him of a meeting arranged with Leo
Castelli and that the date for shipment of the works is 8 October.
Parallel to the conversations held with the United States,
Léon Degand sends a letter to Buenos Aires,13 negotiating
the touring of the show and explaining the concept of
the exhibition, which at the time is entitled Current Non-
Figuration Trends in the Plastic Arts. Degand explains in brief
that the exhibition is composed of two parts: one of entirely
abstract art, without any reference to the outside world, and
another of works which may be considered non-figurative,
but preserve some contact with reality. According to the
critic, there are both young and mature artists, of diverse
nationalities and who represent various different trends. The
works of art will come from Paris and New York. At the time,
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
R egina Texeira de Barros
the tour of the show is scheduled to include Rio de Janeiro,
Buenos Aires and Montevideo—but in the end the Uruguayan
capital does not host the exhibition.
Everything seemed to be going well until, three
days before shipment, there is an unexpected hitch. Leo
Castelli presents his expenses chart, amounting to roughly
US$ 3,300. The art dealer alleges to have received only
US$ 1,500 from René Drouin and asks Maurício Verdier to
make up the difference of US$ 1,800.
Upset and not knowing what to do, the executive officer
of the Matarazzo Metalworks telegraphs his boss to tell him
of the situation and ask for instructions as to how to proceed
in regards the deadlock. Cicillo sends his coordinates on the
next day, 6 October, also by telegram: he insists that all the
freight expenses have already been paid and that Castelli
should demand that René Drouin pay the difference. As the
issue is not immediately resolved, Leo Castelli temporarily
suspends the shipment and goes after Drouin.
The correspondence between Matarazzo Sobrinho and
René Drouin had become rather scarce. According to the
records, in July Cicillo had notified Drouin of the Léon
Dugand’s arrival in São Paulo. After that, the chairman of
the São Paulo Museum of Modern Art had written to the gallery-
owner on 15 September, agreeing with Drouin’s proposal
to air freight the sculptures which did not come by vessel.
In the letter, the patron of the arts brings news about the
bureaucratic proceedings for importing works from the
United States.
On 1 October, the Drouin Gallery sends Matarazzo
Sobrinho the list of sculptures to be sent to Brazil and
information about the artists, to be included in the
catalogue. On the same day, René Drouin writes to Degand
and dwells on some details of the abstract art exhibition,
such as the prices of the Kandinsky pieces.
On 6 October, with chaos already installed in New York,
the Drouin Gallery, unaware of anything, sent a letter to
Léon Degand, informing of a change in the value of the Arp
pieces. On the same day, as soon as the chairman of the MAM
receives the first telegram from Maurício Verdier, he cables
René Drouin, to expound the situation. Bear in mind that,
according to the contract they signed on 29 January that year,
all the expenses were to the account of Drouin. He orders
Drouin to telegraph Leo Castelli immediately, so as to ship the
works to São Paulo without delay.

Two days later, on 8 October, the scheduled shipment
date from the United States, Matarazzo Sobrinho sends
another cable to Maurício Verdier with more radical
directions: “I have already paid Drouin five thousand dollars
stop i prefer to suspend the exhibition if Drouin does not
uphold the contract stop.”
Faced with an imminent international scandal, Drouin
tries to resolve the problem. He telegraphs Matarazzo
Sobrinho, proposing to suspend the dispatch of the Paris
School sculptures—which would be sent to Brazil by plane—in
order to cut costs. At the same time, he suggests that Leo
Castelli remove the paintings from their frames, also to
reduce shipping expenses.
René Drouin was unable to stick to his financial
projections and the amount now requested by Leo Castelli
represents 36% of the entire initial budget. Probably due to
the precarious situation of the gallery—in the context of a
country still very much recovering from the effects of the
post-war European economy—Drouin had no way of meeting
the New York art dealer’s demand. The loss, not only of a
material nature, but also of a moral order, resulting from the
failure to pay this debt would be considerable, both for the
Americans and the Brazilians.
In brief, the works selected by Duchamp, Janis and
Castelli did not partake in the exhibition which was finally
named From Figurativism to Abstractionism because René
Drouin did not honor his commitments, neither with
the Americans nor with Francisco Matarazzo Sobrinho.
Everything was ready for the off, the works packed and
boxed, when Drouin vanished with the money meant for
the dispatch, resulting in the cancellation of the American
participation in the opening exhibition of the São Paulo
Museum of Modern Art.
After a few days, Matarazzo Sobrinho writes to Cícero
Dias, who by now had resumed his activities in Paris.
He explains the problems with the American shipment,
encloses a copy of the contract signed by Drouin and asks
him “dearly to examine the case with Drouin and write me
your opinion about the matter.”
Dias, with his attention on the birth of his daughter
Silvia, answers almost one month later, clarifying that he
had immediately sought Drouin, who had promised to write
to Cicillo, “giving detailed explanations of all the troubles.”
He says in confidence:
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The MAM witho ut Duchamp
Between you and I, Drouin is an honest man, but very
disorganized, and that was my impression. . . . As regards
the Drouin Gallery, it is in a terrible financial state, that
is what I have heard, he himself admitted to me that he
was going through a serious crisis, indeed a crisis which
other galleries are also suffering at the moment.14
Located by Cícero Dias, René Drouin writes to Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho on 20 October, trying to explain the
events with barely convincing arguments:
Perhaps right from the outset Degand and myself did not
share the same vision of the exhibition, with the exception
of the veterans, about whom we agreed; in relation to
the younger artists, it was most important to show the
different developments of non-figurative art. And the
contingent from France is not my selection, but his.
In early November, the chairman of the São Paulo
Museum of Modern Art replies to René Drouin’s letter, in a
very firm manner:
As per the terms of our agreement of 29 January, signed in
São Paulo, you guaranteed to me that with credit to the value
of five thousand dollars, which I paid, the exhibition could be
executed with 100 to 150 pieces, in satisfactory conditions.
With the American participation, the total number of works
did not exceed 150.
The American participation, both in terms of the
selection and the numbers, was established by Messrs.
Marcel Duchamp and Sidney Janis, with the cooperation
of Mr. Castelli, with complete autonomy.
Such selection and number were accepted without any
discussion. Mr. Castelli sent me the list of the works, and
I arranged an import license for those works. The works
were in cartons, ready for shipment, when Mr. Castelli
claimed a supplementary two thousand dollars.
Given that you guaranteed to me that the amount of five
thousand dollars would be enough for the satisfactory
organization of the exhibition, that supplementary expenses
would be covered by yourself and that, having already
provided the travel expenses for Léon Degand and the
catalogue expenses, I did not consider for a minute the
possibility of responding favorably to Mr. Castelli’s demand.

Mr. Castelli has suspended the shipment of the American
participation, I regret to say. Admitting that, after intervention
on our part, Mr. Castelli reviews his decision, we are afraid that
the works sent from New York will only arrive after the opening
of the exhibition; and, at any rate, will not feature in the
catalogue. To produce the catalogue, we really could not wait
any longer to be sure of receiving the shipment from New York.
I have never dispensed with the American participation nor
proposed to reduce it. I only refused to pay a supplement
which was not provided for in our agreement.
I have not asked you to withdraw from our organization.
But, if it were impossible to fulfil the duties imposed by
our agreements, I would have appreciated it if you had
warned me without delay and would like you to get on
with defining the value of my reimbursement, considering
the failure to dispatch the shipment from New York.
Drouin vanishes. However, there are many involved in
the problem caused by the gallery owner and numerous
explanations and justifications are sent by letter. In late
November 1948, Léon Degand sends his version of the facts
to Cícero Dias. He remarks to the cultural attaché that
Francisco Matarazzo Sobrinho had written a letter to René
Drouin stating that, due to the New York incident, it would
be timely to settle the contract which Drouin was unable to
honor. Degand then says:
You see, if Matarazzo suffered a material and moral loss,
I suffered likewise, in a professional manner. As due to
the absence of the New York work, the exhibition was
mutilated, very incomplete—the Young Americans were
missed, without a doubt, as were Mondrian, Pevsner,
Gabo and several others on whom I was counting.15 People
could accuse me of voluntarily ignoring those artists.
In mid-December, Cicillo Matarazzo writes to Cícero
Dias telling that René Drouin has not sent any more news.
Seeing that Drouin is unable to fulfill that which had been
agreed, Matarazzo suggests a form of compensation for
the losses caused: the gallery owner could donate “some
paintings (this time not abstract paintings) to the São Paulo
Museum of Modern Art.”
One week later, on 21 December 1948, Léon Degand
writes to René Drouin:
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The MAM witho ut Duchamp
My dear Drouin,
I gave myself plenty of time to wait—to wait for news
from yourself—before expressing my shock in relation
to the stance you have adopted in my regard.
You saw it fit to accuse me in your last letter to Mr. Matarazzo,
arguing that I had opposed the shipment from New York.
Now, I did not oppose the shipment in any way whatsoever.
I was told that Mr. Castelli was given US$ 1,500 by yourself for
the freight from New York to São Paulo. Marcel Duchamp and
Sidney Janis were in charge of the selection, as J.J. Sweeney
refused to do it.16 Their selection was accepted without
discussion. The import license was sent. Under the terms
of the contract, you would assume all the supplementary
expenses. If, at the time of shipping the boxes from New York,
you had paid the supplementary US$ 2,000 demanded by
Mr. Castelli, those boxes would be here now, having arrived
a long time ago, and the works contained in them would all
have featured in the catalogue.
. . . I am sending a copy of this letter to Alberto Magnelli,
Cícero Dias and to Mr. Castelli, allowing myself to clarify
the situation later to Marcel Duchamp and Sidney Janis,
so that there is no misunderstanding between them and
myself as regards the moral aspect of the exhibition.
In the first days of 1949, Francisco Matarazzo Sobrinho
writes to Marcel Duchamp to thank him for his dedication
and informing him about the reasons behind the serious
“mutilation” of the exhibition. He explains the Drouin case
in detail and remarks that, in the catalogue for the Abstract
Art Exhibition, the absence of the American participation was
attributed to current difficulties in international relations.
He deeply regrets the fact that Duchamp is involved in the
incident.
The next day, it is Léon Degand’s turn to apologize to
Marcel Duchamp for the problems caused. He explains
his version of the facts and asks Duchamp to pass on the
contents of the letter to Sidney Janis.
Copies of the two missives addressed to Marcel Duchamp
are forwarded to James Johnson Sweeney and Anton Pevsner,
to inform them of the incident which occurred in New York,
in order to avoid gossip and future misunderstandings. In the
letter to Pevsner, Degand is slightly more condescending in
relation to Drouin:
 The MAM witho ut Duchamp

I am convinced that there was no dishonesty on

his part. I believe that, purely because of the poor
financial state of his business, he was overwhelmed
by the excess of commitments that he assumed.
Nonetheless, this is no consolation. Despite everything,
we suffered serious losses, both materially and
morally. Our exhibition shall not be that which it
should have been. I absolutely do not want to be held
responsible for the shortcomings that it presents.

Two days later, Francisco Matarazzo Sobrinho apologizes

to Sidney Janis for the situation.
Almost one year later, in December 1949—when
Degand (who had left his post as Artistic Director of the
MAM) and the From Figurativism to Abstractionism exhibition
was already part of the museum’s history—Sidney
Janis writes to Cicillo Matarazzo, offering an exhibition
of US abstract artists. No doubt Janis had exchanged
correspondence with Matarazzo Sobrinho on several
occasions during the preparation of the opening exhibition
for the MAM. However, in this missive from 1949, Janis
oddly introduces himself to Matarazzo Sobrinho as the
current business partner of Ms. Hildegarde J. Prytek, “who
was a partner of Karl Nierendorf for many years, until his
death,” as if Matarazzo did not know of the existence of the
New York art dealer.
On the same day, Hildegarde Prytek writes to
Matarazzo Sobrinho, describing her experience alongside
Nierendorf. When he died all of a sudden, the Gallery was
liquidated and she fell seriously ill and was unable to work
for almost two years. Following a period in Switzerland and
Italy, she resumed the work. “My new partnership is with
Mr. Sidney Janis, who recently resigned from the position
of advisor to the New York Museum of Modern Art, where
he worked for 14 years, to open his own gallery.” She
asks Cicillo to invite Janis to visit São Paulo, as, according
to Prytek, the former MoMA advisor would be entirely
suitable to help him guide the São Paulo Museum of Modern
Art in “the right direction…”

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Notes
1. The question becomes even
more intriguing as Duchamp’s level
of commitment to the project in
Brazil certainly became increasingly
confused with the affair he was
carrying on, since the early 1940s,
with the Brazilian artist Maria
Martins, who was married to the
Brazilian ambassador in New York.
Duchamp was inspired by Martins
to create the feminine body at the
center of Étant donnés: 1. La chute
d’eau, 2. Le gaz d’éclairage, a work
he was secretly working on during
the same period that he was called
upon to select the works for the
exhibition at the MAM.
2. It should be highlighted that
the desire to found a modern art
museum in São Paulo is not an
unreasonable fancy on the part
of Matarazzo Sobrinho. On the
contrary, it corresponds to a series of
expectations that had built up on the
São Paulo sociocultural scene: In April
1946 the journalist and art critic Luís
Martins had launched a campaign
to create a modern art museum for
the city. That article had provoked an
intense debate, published over the
space of two months by the local
press, with the participation of
individuals ranging from the Mayor
of the city to several intellectuals
who were against or in favor of the
project. In late November of the
same year—hence a few days after
Matarazzo Sobrinho and Yolanda
Penteado’s wedding—Nelson
Rockefeller, while visiting Brazil,
had offered thirteen works as an
incentive for the creation of the
modern art museums of São Paulo
and Rio de Janeiro, the by-laws
of which were to be based on the
successful model of the New York
Museum of Modern Art. Furthermore,
at the same time as Cicillo, Francisco
de Assis Chateaubriand Bandeira
de Mello, owner of the huge
communications network Diários
Associados, was keenly dedicating
his time to the campaign to build
the São Paulo Art Museum (MASP)—
which ended up happening a few
months before the foundation of the
MAM-SP.
Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
3. Letter from Cícero Dias to Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho, s.d. (probable
date: late Nov. 1947).
4. Letter from Francisco Matarazzo
Sobrinho to Cícero Dias, 8 Dec. 1947.
5. Letter from Cícero Dias to Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho, s.d. (probable
date: early 1948).
6. Despite Sidney Janis having
occupied the post of advisor of
the New York Museum of Modern
Art for over a decade, there is no
indication of his involvement in
the preparation of the Abstract
Art Exhibition while he was a
representative of the New York
museum.
7. Letter from Cícero Dias to Francisco
Matarazzo Sobrinho, 18 May 1948.
8. In the original conception, the
young artists would partake with
two pieces each.
9. Four by Jean Arp (one relief and
three bronze); one by Julio Gonzales
and one by Étienne Béothy.
Cf. document of the temporary
permanence of the works from Paris
which were part of the opening
exhibition of the São Paulo Museum
of Modern Art, 25 June 1949.
10. Numerous manuscripts written
in Degand’s handwriting in French
were found and subsequently
translated into English and signed
by Francisco Matarazzo Sobrinho.
11. This fact relates to two
other issues: Firstly, as from its
creation the Museum of Modern
Art has suffered the problem of
its headquarters, which have
always been provisional. (Its
later divisions, the Museum of
Contemporary Art of São Paulo
University and the current Museum
of Modern Art, have always
had this issue on the agenda.)
Secondly, for Cicillo Matarazzo,
the Museum of Modern Art was
an extension of his estate. The
fact that the Museum would
provisionally be housed in the
Matarazzo Metalworks—located at
Rua Caetano Pinto, in Brás—reveals
the confusion that prevailed in
this regard. It would have been
more suitable to use the Municipal
Library to hold such exhibitions,
as was done in the case of the
lectures promoted by the MAM
before the renovation of its
headquarters, rented on Rua Sete
de Abril, was completed.
12. Maurício Verdier was an executive
officer of the Matarazzo Metalworks.
Cicillo sends an executive officer
of his company to look after the
Museum affairs, which explains the
idea that Matarazzo Sobrinho makes
no distinction between his private
business and the business of the
Museum of Modern Art.
13. Letter written in French,
unsigned, s.d. [Degand’s
handwriting, addressed to
Buenos Aires, probably to
Marcelo De Ridder. Probable date:
Between late July and early October
1948.] The exhibition curated by
Degand, now entitled Abstract
Art, marks the inauguration of the
Buenos Aires Institute of Modern
Art, in July 1949.
14. Letter from Cícero Dias to
Francisco Matarazzo Sobrinho,
10 Nov. 1948.
15. Works by Miró and Calder were
also included in the list of pieces
coming from New York. However,
works by these artists were located
in private collections in São Paulo,
ensuring their presence in the
exhibition.
16. It is likely that Degand invited
Sweeney to participate in the
formatting of the Abstract Art
Exhibition during the International
Congress of Art Critics, which took
place in June 1948, in Paris.
10