One thing that we are constantly reminding ourselves of, usually in an unconscious way, is that is not the mainstream that points the way, it is Art itself what molds the mainstream. ~ Brazilian Art, where the relationship with the corporeal is also present, the political content is often disguised with humor, concerning more internal cultural affairs. Citing recent Brazilian artists, Lygia Clark (with her ‘art therapy’) and Helio Oiticica were both (as some others) concerned with the physical relationship between the work of art and the spectator; at that same time, Sebastiao Salgado was constructing his striking photo- graphic essays on the exploitation of the working men in Minas Gerais, denouncing the blatant violations of human rights perpetrated in those mines. Brazil's culture is somehow more distant from its neighboring countries, which have more common characteristics between them. The southern part of the continent was violently colonized by European immigrants, mostly from Spain and Italy - almost entirely razing the native population from those lands. Today, the population is more Europeanized than in the rest of the continent; still the social problems that they face are not different from the other countries. General con- cerns in Latin America, such as labor, racial differences and violence are unfortunately common in all countries, from Chile up to Mexico and across the border. Nevertheless, as | have already stated above, the cul- tural movements vary between nations. Even though in Mexico as well as in Brazil there was a movement called 'Ruptura’, in each of them it was a different conjunction of ideas that inspired their creation, as well as different time frames. Both (as their name states) were an attempt, mostly successful, to break through the direction in which art had been going until then. Mexico is maybe the first country to bring modernity to its art scene, and the first one to export artistic talent with the Muralists (mainly Siqueiros, Rivera and Orozco) and other artists such as Frida Kahlo. Mexico was followed closely by Brazil, then Venezuela, Argentina, and Colombia. Today Mexico City and Sao Paulo are the predominant art centres in Latin America. The largest recognized Latino art event taking place is the Sao Paulo Biennial, and Mexico city is the biggest art metropolis. But it is across the border and on the border with the United States that Mexico has engendered one of the main out-of-the-mainstream movements Latinos have produced so far. The Chicano Movement, a movement that has been going on since the Sixties, and that partly (or even mainly) wants to salvage the hybrid culture of Latino settlers in the south of North America, has maintained a radical position for more than twenty years. The problems that they face in North America are not very differ- ent from those present in other cultural settlements, Native Americans being a good example. Many of the contemporary artists working in California are of Latino origin, in the Summer '99 issue of the Mexican magazine Poliester, subtitled "Los Angeles", and entirely devoted to the cross-cultural phenomenon in L.A., they are talking of post-Chicano art. Even though Latin American countries have many common characteristics, their development is parallel but not shared. Therefore it is not accidental that each country has a dif- ferent point of departure and aesthetic expression. The _ near monopoly of the Spanish language and world atlases have homogenized, squeezing us into one page, but the real space is very wide and abrupt. Communication has played a very important role in our development, as well as transportation, because of precarious means or the total lack of it. Still today, many more people than those who can, can't have access to global information and culture, and many countries are still far behind in modernization. The metropolis and megalopolis are being developed at a different pace than the rest of the countries, and society, as well as culture, has had to skip at least a decade of its organic development in order to catch up with the post- modern world. “It is against numerous obstacles that artists from South and Central America have managed to get by and get out into the world. The near future may show a path where : hybridization will also mean hybridized art, but | think we can find a light to help us keep it from those obscure extremes. So far as today, First World governments and multinationals have had access to our natural and human resources even more so than ourselves. Nevertheless, the present is showing us more than just one way; it offers a split way where both sides are equally accessible. On one side is the seductive high culture's open doors to the falla- ciously called Latino Boom (a term that began with an intellectual movement from mid 20th century, that is not less flattering than dangerous for a group of artists and writers of much younger generations). By passing through those doors and consenting fusion we would be facing the large possibility of drainage of unreal cultural resources twisting or replacing the true ones. On the other side, that empathy for the ‘Other' might be used on our behalf so that audiences ‘learn' to appreciate and value the art of a true Latin American nature. We cannot forget that Art is communication and not a necessity. This is what affects Art constantly, but this is also what frees it from being restrained by rules or dogmas; this allows it to free itself constantly from paradigms, to be in constant flux. Handling that empathy wisely and consciously could lead to a future materialization of an effort that has been going on for almost a century, that of placing Latin American cul- ture as a unique one that has run parallel to the many oth- ers. Art has the possibility of standing beside the line of events and showing it from within a society, even though its core will always remain the same: the people. It is not part of a unified system, for there is not one; it is another realm as free from systems and mainstreams as we want it to be, though not oblivious of them. One thing of which we are constantly reminding ourselves, usually in an unconscious way, is that is not the mainstream that points the way, it is Art itself what molds the mainstream. If we took the institutionalized as point of departure for con- structing and judging Art we would be subjecting Art to its own creation. One thing that we are constantly reminding ourselves of, usually in an unconscious way, is that is not the mainstream that points the way, it is Art itself what molds the mainstream. @28 Brazilian Art, where the relationship with the corporeal is also present, the Political content is often disguised with humor, concerning more internal cultural affairs. Citing recent Brazilian artists, Lygia Clark (with her ‘art therapy’) and Helio Oiticica were both (as some others) concerned with the physical relationship between the work of art and the spectator; at that same time, Sebastiao Salgado was constructing his striking photo- graphic essays on the exploitation of the working men in Minas Gerais, denouncing the blatant violations of human rights perpetrated in those mines. Brazil's culture is somehow more distant from its neighboring countries, which have more common characteristics between them. The southern part of the continent was violently colonized by European immigrants, mostly from Spain and Italy - almost entirely razing the native population from those lands. Today, the population is more Europeanized than in the rest of the continent; still the social problems that they face are not different from the other countries. General con- cerns in Latin America, such as labor, racial differences and violence are unfortunately common in all countries, from Chile up to Mexico and across the border. Nevertheless, as | have already stated above, the cul- tural movements vary between nations. Even though in Mexico as well as in Brazil there was a movement called ‘Ruptura’, in each of them it was a different conjunction of ideas that inspired their creation, as well as different time frames. Both (as their name states) were an attempt, mostly successful, to break through the direction in which art had been going until then. Mexico is maybe the first country to bring modernity to its art scene, and the first one to export artistic talent with the Muralists (mainly Siqueiros, Rivera and Orozco) and other artists such as Frida Kahlo. Mexico was followed closely by Brazil, then Venezuela, Argentina, and Colombia. Today Mexico City and Sao Paulo are the predominant art centres in Latin America. The largest recognized Latino art event taking place is the Sao Paulo Biennial, and Mexico city is the biggest art metropolis. But it is across the border and on the border with the United States that Mexico has engendered one of the main out-of-the-mainstream movements Latinos have produced so far. The Chicano Movement, a movement that has been going on since the Sixties, and that partly (or even mainly) wants to salvage the hybrid culture of Latino settlers in the south of North America, has maintained a radical position for more than twenty years. The problems that they face in North America are not very differ- ent from those present in other cultural settlements, Native Americans being a good example. Many of the contemporary artists working in California are of Latino origin, in the Summer '99 issue of the Mexican magazine Poliester, subtitled “Los Angeles", and entirely devoted to the cross-cultural phenomenon in L.A., they are talking of post-Chicano art Even though Latin American countries have many common characteristics, their development is parallel but not shared. Therefore it is not accidental that each country has a dif- ferent point of departure and aesthetic expression. The near monopoly of the Spanish language and world atlases have homogenized, squeezing us into one page, but the real space is very wide and abrupt. Communication has played a very important role in our development, as well as transportation, because of precarious means or the total lack of it. Still today, many more people than those who can, can’t have access to global information and culture, and many countries are still far behind in modernization. The metropolis and megalopolis are being developed at a different pace than the rest of the countries, and society, as well as culture, has had to skip at least a decade of its organic development in order to catch up with the post- modern world. It is against numerous obstacles that artists from South and Central America have managed to get by and get out into the world. The near future may show a path where hybridization will also mean hybridized art, but | think we can find a light to help us keep it from those obscure extremes. So far as today, First World governments and multinationals have had access to our natural and human resources even more so than ourselves. Nevertheless, the present is showing us more than just one way; it offers a split way where both sides are equally accessible. On one side is the seductive high culture's open doors to the falla- ciously called Latino Boom (a term that began with an intellectual movement from mid 20th century, that is not less flattering than dangerous for a group of artists and writers of much younger generations). By passing through those doors and consenting fusion we would be facing the large possibility of drainage of unreal cultural resources twisting or replacing the true ones. On the other side, that empathy for the ‘Other’ might be used on our behalf so that audiences ‘learn’ to appreciate and value the art of a true Latin American nature. We cannot forget that Art is communication and not a necessity. This is what affects Art constantly, but this is also what frees it from being restrained by rules or dogmas; this allows it to free itself constantly from paradigms, to be in constant flux. Handling that empathy wisely and consciously could lead to a future materialization of an effort that has been going on for almost a century, that of placing Latin American cul- ture as a unique one that has run parallel to the many oth- ers. Art has the possibility of standing beside the line of events and showing it from within a society, even though its core will always remain the same: the people. It is not part of a unified system, for there is not one; it is another realm as free from systems and mainstreams as we want it to be, though not oblivious of them. One thing of which we are constantly reminding ourselves, usually in an unconscious way, is that is not the mainstream that points the way, itis Art itself what molds the mainstream. If we took the institutionalized as point of departure for con- structing and judging Art we would be subjecting Art to its ‘own creation.