In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

TOWARD A MODEL OF SOLIDARITY ART SYSTEMS UNDER DICTATORSHIP The case of the arpillera suggests that under a dictatorship, for a solidarity art system to emerge, it is necessary to have people eager enough to make the art that they are willing to risk the dangers involved, or eager and not fully aware of the danger, and willing to overcome other barriers such as gender expectations and difficulties with group formation. Severe economic hardship or harsh repression give rise to a pool of individuals willing to make art if in doing so they can obtain money or a therapeutic release from their anguish. In Chile, the desperate political or financial situation in which shantytown families found themselves, caused in part by neoliberal austerity measures, politically motivated firings by companies, and the national security doctrine, produced women willing to make arpilleras. Also necessary for a solidarity art system is the existence of people willing to buy. Because of the dangers involved in openly selling solidarity art with anti-regime messages inside the country, it usually becomes necessary to sell abroad. If there has been media coverage abroad of the repression, poverty, or other problems in the country in which the artists live, and if this coverage is ongoing, this provides the primary condition for buyers to emerge: a public sufficiently aware of what is happening to be open to purchasing solidarity art. This awareness makes for a potential solidarity market of buyers, who might see an artwork at a stall, ask about it, be moved by what the seller tells them, and buy. In such cases, the artworks and seller’s explanations “make concrete” what the buyer had heard from the news. Interest in President Allende’s democratic election had been so great, and the Pinochet government’s acts of violence and 10 Conclusion 253 Conclusion repression so sensational and numerous, that foreign journalists wrote about Chile and television employees beamed images of military violence around the world in the early days of the dictatorship, such that large numbers of Europeans and North Americans learned what was happening there. The fact that Chile was already on Europeans’ and North Americans’ “radar screen” helped produce a potential solidarity market. A further requirement for solidarity art systems to emerge is the existence of sellers who inspire trust that buyers’ money will go to the artists. The sellers are mostly refugees from the country in which the art is made, and local human rights activists. They explain to buyers who the artists are, the conditions under with the art is made, and the meaning it holds. It is helpful for the emergence of a solidarity art system to have the protection and support of a powerful institution with some immunity to attacks by the government, such as the foremost religious organization in the country. Such an institution may aim to assist the poor and survivors of human rights violationsorwishtohelprebuildcivilsociety,anditmighthelpsetupart-making groups and sell the art as a way of doing these things. It may offer such support despite the fact that its goals may be far removed from the encouragement of artistic development, and it may offer it despite initial internal opposition, as a consequence of a series of unexpected circumstances and the determination of one staff member. If the artists lack contacts abroad to whom to send their work, this organization may have the social capital necessary to build up an international distribution system, and enough resources to pay for the initial transportation costs. The organization may also provide a means of selling in the country itself, on its own relatively protected premises. Helpful, also, are the rooms in which to meet, a sense of safety, courses, assistance with acquiring raw materials, and occasional financial support that such an organization may offer. Any moral authority, reputation as defenders of human rights, and immunity from attack that the organization might have are important because in a context in which to meet as a group is dangerous, these assets make people less afraid to join art-making groups that meet on its premises. In Chile, it was the moral authority and power that the Comité, Vicaría, and Catholic Church enjoyed that made them able to offer protection and support; they were the only oppositional organizations that the regime could not violently confront, and the arpilleristas trusted them.1 Hence an institution powerful enough to offer support and protection can be very helpful in the emergence of a solidarity art system. In addition, the...

Share