Gazes on water. The trajectory of modernity in
the images of Buenos Aires from the Rio de la Plata: 1910-1936 [1]
Catalina
V. Fara [2]
* *
*
Amongst the clouds swiped by the Pampero rise the
massive forms of large cranes [...] Prosaically flat banks, indistinguishable from the water were
it not for an uncertain line and some vague thickets of palm trees; no
landscape movement, and, therefore, no background frame.[3]
1.
With
these words, the French politician Georges Clemenceau described his arrival at
the port of Buenos Aires in 1910. The “prosaically flat” coasts received him as
well as many other European travellers; the first image they saw from the ships
was the city skyline over the Rio de la Plata. The towers and domes of the
churches outweighed the horizontality of the landscape, and that is how this
skyline became a stereotype that prevailed in prints and watercolours from the
late 18th century well into the 19th century.
2.
The
inclusion of Argentina in the world trade market, together with the establishment
of the port and the country’s financial development, resulted in the appearance
of the first skyscrapers in the city, a response to the requirements of the
economic power of foreign companies settled in our country; the higher they
rose, the greater the symbolic display of their economical power.[4]
In the beginning of the 20th century, the height of the buildings progressively
started to rise. In spite of this, the substrate of the repertoire of the
colonial city associated with the above-mentioned prints predominated, but now
in comparison with a modern city that grew in both size and height. In the
periodical press, the profile of old church towers was compared to the desired
skylines of New York or Chicago. The images of Buenos Aires started showing a
modern city with its new buildings, gradually turning its back to the river,
which left its silent presence in urban representations.
3.
In the
present paper, we will analyse the modernization of the city of Buenos Aires
taking as a starting point the images of the city’s urban landscape, which
symbolizes its connection with the Rio de la Plata. We will examine how the
skyline views from the river, depicted by travellers in the 18th and 19th
centuries, configured a repertoire of images of “La Gran Aldea” (The
Great Village) in the early 20th century. The ideas of testimony and document
will be stretched while analysing the use of this colonial imagery in a moment
of intense modernization and changes in the urban layout during the period
comprising 1910-1936. The artists’ re-signification or neglect of these motifs
will be tracked in order to analyse how these images of the past operated to
build, by contrast, the imaginary of a modern metropolis.
Panoramas of
Buenos Aires from the river or the views of a city between two infinitudes
4.
The
views of cities “from the ships” refer to a long history connected with
cartography and the Netherlands’ pictorial tradition as from the 16th century.
They were an effective model for giving an account of the locality and for
completing the visual information of the coastal profiles, and included the
outline of the most significant buildings referenced with numbers or letters.
The various elements were organized with a “convincing verisimilitude” which
accounted for the represented site, usually with a high viewpoint or a spatial
rotation. This canon spread throughout Europe and was the basis for the
development of most of the urban landscapes until well into the 19th century.[5]
The iconography of Rio de la Plata between the late 18th and mid-19th centuries
was linked to these practical functions of geographical reconnaissance, perhaps
to prove the existence of a “city with towers”[6]
situated between two immensities: the river and the pampas. Church
steeples and domes led to a convention that worked as a background for numerous
decorative prints and which was recurrent in most of the city’s representations
before the 20th century.
5.
This
iconographic motif first appears in the so-called Vingboons’ Watercolour
(1628), where the vertical lines of the few buildings over the river’s
horizontality are a spatial reference point and, at the same time, a plastic
device. However, considering that the portrayed buildings do not correspond to
those existing at that time, this watercolour does not seem to come from
on-site observation, but rather, from a re-elaboration based on written
testimonies.
6.
Local
historiography[7] recovered these motifs and considered the
works by Fernando Brambila, who took part in the Malaspina Expedition
(1789-1794), as the first “reliable” representations of the city of Buenos
Aires. In 1925, Alejo Gonzalez Garaño found two panoramas by the Italian artist
in Madrid: View of Buenos Aires from the river [Figure 1] and View of
Buenos Aires from the southeast [Figure
2].[8]
The first one presents a set of buildings disposed in parallel to the coastline
around a central axis where the Cabildo, the fort, and the Cathedral are
situated. In this view, as in others of his authorship, Brambila included
elements related to the specific locality with more or less fixed spatial
patterns. In the second view, the city is a heterogeneous collection of
buildings no longer displayed parallelly as in the panoramas from the river.
Possibly taken from the southern part of the coast, it shows an elevated
stretch of land with a series of oxen-pulled carts in the foreground. The
presence of a costumbrista scene was a typical resource in this type of
representation, in which nature’s threat was neutralized by the introduction of
picturesque elements.
7.
Bonifacio
del Carril argues that Brambila’s View of Buenos Aires from the Southeast
was the only view of the city that circulated extensively until the publication
of Emeric Essex Vidal’s watercolours in 1820, in London, entitled Picturesque
Illustrations of Buenos Ayres and Montevideo.[9]
According to Penhos, this image is closely related to the environment and the
pampas, and therefore the coastal vision “opening towards the river and to the commerce
with the mother country and the world completes itself with Buenos Aires
connected with the inland and its resources”.[10]
This print was later published in the book Voyage dans l'Amérique travel
Méridionale by Felix de Azara in 1809, which led to a series of
reproductions in various editions of other European countries.
8.
Throughout
the 19th century these images acquired a commercial purpose and circulated as
collectible prints in travel albums or illustrated magazines from around the
world. In all of them, the vastness of the sky, water or earth predominates
over small scenes usually on the lower border of the compositions. Ships on the
shore, oxen-pulled carts, washerwomen, some strollers or whole armies pass across
these stereotypical views of the city and the river. In this sense, its
performance as an established iconographic motif resulted in various
reinterpretations and re-elaborations by other artists, as seen, for example,
in an oil painting by the English artist Richard Adams, dated around 1832 [Figure 3]. This view of the city from the northern riverbank
uses the same elements present in the prints and watercolours circulating at
the time: the profile with the Fort’s buildings, the church of La Merced and
the Cathedral in the background, and in the foreground, costumbrista
scenes of washerwomen, water carriers and carts.[11]
9.
The
limited amount and variety of representations of Buenos Aires in comparison to
other Latin American ports may have to do with the disappointment caused by
these coasts in relation to those of cities like Rio de Janeiro, whose scenery
surrounded by the hills of the Guanabara Bay provided a unique artistic scene
combining nature and city.[12] Indeed, for most travellers visiting
these latitudes, the flat Buenos Aires coasts were everything but sublime.[13]
This impression still persisted in the first decades of the 20th century, as
evidenced once again in the words of Clemenceau,
10.
A
riverbank without landscape scenery is not suitable for decorative
configurations. Medium vegetation. Dirty ochre water that is neither red nor
yellow.
11.
Nothing
is found there for the eye to enjoy. Therefore, I have not seen the sea of
Buenos Aires more than twice: upon arrival and on departure.[14]
12.
The fact
that he has only seen the river when arriving and leaving the city is not
surprising, as explained below. These assessments regarding the irrelevance of
the riverbank were in contradiction with the ones made by those who, once
disembarked, expressed their admiration vis-à-vis the order of the streets and
the scale of the buildings. Besides the discussions concerning the urban layout
of Buenos Aires, even after the Centennial, the beauty of the grid overlying
the infinity of the river and pampas was underlined:
13.
That
is Buenos Aires. It does not have the picturesque crossroads of the old cities
[...] Streets are straight, long, and the city displays itself in the perfect
structure of a checkerboard. Is it ugly? It is beautiful! The straight line is
beautiful when it is interminable, and Buenos Aires is laid on straight and
endless lines, because its founders, their followers and the men of today
conceive beauty as that which is infinite.[15]
14.
Therefore,
the river and its views were losing their demarcation function and the city’s inland
began to take the lead both in stories and images, as discussed below.
Building
imaginaries of modernity
15.
Between
representation or contemplated image and the daily experience of a locality,
there is a wide range of documents, discourses and images recorded in different
formats and languages whose signifying density allows us to think of them as a
kind of network of articulated urban symbols. As argued by Angel Rama[16],
American cities have, in addition to their material life, a symbolic existence
linked to the order of signs in general and to writing in particular which
assumes, amongst other operations, the task of describing and explaining the
permanence and changes of the physical city. Similarly, values, cartographies
and stories are established with which spatial representations and identity
roots are created for the population. Urban space transformations are essential
elements for the construction of the historical memory of the citizens; they
become suggestive sites which are constantly refunctionalized and updated.
16.
After
1880, when Buenos Aires was declared the capital city of the Argentina,
Torcuato de Alvear, the first mayor, proposed a new image of centrality of the
city based on the monumentality of its urban space. Thus, he promoted the
building of public works based on a modern and Europeanizing conception. Some
of the more outstanding changes in the city centre were the demolition of the
archway in order to unify the Victoria and 25 de Mayo squares in what today is
the Plaza de Mayo, and the opening of the Avenida de Mayo connecting the Plaza
with Avenida Callao, one of the boundaries of the consolidated city.[17]
The creation of a new port was one of the main purposes of Alvear’s project,
since the old port of Riachuelo was no longer appropriate for the growing
overseas trade carried out in the city. The location and construction of the
new port facilities were the main concern of the national and local leadership
for nearly half a century of failed projects, discussions and debates, until
its final inauguration in 1898.[18]
17.
From
the works started during Alvear’s administration, the public space was built
like a stage set into which the values of the community were
built for an immediate effectiveness according to the correspondent
socio-political context.[19] Consequently, many photographs helped to
consolidate an image of the new configuration of the city in the minds of its
inhabitants. Some of the series that circulated most in the period were those
taken by the Witcomb house.[20] This studio had been one of the most
important ones since the end of the 19th century, and its albums with shots of
large buildings and monuments had a wide circulation in various domains. The
periodical press frequently published photos from the archive of this studio
along the period we are herein addressing.[21]
Another one of the most recognized photographic series was Emilio Halitzky’s,
which documented the new physiognomy of Buenos Aires aiming at propaganda in
the album Mejoras en la Capital de
la República Argentina.[22]
Alvear’s plan was imposed in order to transform the city according to its new
symbolic position and intended to provide a modern design and improved
infrastructure, propositions that would also guide the subsequent urban reforms
during the 1920s and 1930s.
18.
For
the Centennial of the May Revolution (1910), Buenos Aires sought to build its
image as a symbol of a young nation and a South American cosmopolitan centre.
Urban transformation processes occurring since the late 19th century had been
generating new modes of spatial perception thanks to recent building
legislations, the extension of transport networks – subways, buses and tramways
– and the expansion of sewerage and electricity networks. These measures aiming
at modernization made space be converted into a “representative fiction that
took advantage of a collective unconscious constructed from discourses,
rhetorics, objects, exhibitions and even social practices that had come from
foreign contexts and imposed themselves, establishing image guidelines as if
they were their own”.[23]
19.
The
aim was to place the young capital amongst the great cities of the world.
However, its vertiginous growth caused a fast building and demographic
densification, traffic congestion and poor hygiene conditions that were the
core of the municipal leaders’ concerns. Then there were two conflicting views
regarding this process: on the one hand, a current that tried to retrieve the
colonial past, characterized by the nostalgic emphasis on a kind of mythic life
in a pre-industrial city, distant from chaos and in contact with nature; and on
the other hand, the vision of the new stylistic avant-garde, which in the 1920s
expected modernity to be vehiculated through urbanism.
20.
In
this context, the imagery of the colonial “Great Village” that had begun to
take shape in the late 19th century was finally outlined. Therefore, the city
panoramas seen from the river, the costumbrista scenes and the city
landscapes expanded their circulation in various fields and in multiple medias.
The works of foreign artists residing in our territory such as Emeric Essex
Vidal and Charles H. Pellegrini were retrieved by a gaze that qualified them as
“picturesque” due to their spontaneous beauty that combined nature and
civilization. The various representations of the old colonial city were
contrasted to those showing the new face given to Buenos Aires; therefore, they
began acquiring a significance that, in most cases, worked as a contrast,
indicating the strength of the young capital over the precarious past that had
been left behind.
21.
As
mentioned above, the Argentinian historiography retrieved these images of the
colonial past towards the 1920s. Over the following decade, this retrieval was
accompanied by a series of exhibitions in galleries and art venues displaying
pieces from private collections, many of which gradually became part of public
collections. Widely accepted by critics and the public, these exhibitions
certainly helped to crystallize the imagery of the colonial city by granting an
extensive visibility to these images, which, in turn, were largely discussed in
the periodical and illustrated press. The most prominent were those held at the
Association of Friends of Art, which presented major retrospectives with
catalogues including detailed and critical analyses of the works. For example,
the one on Charles Henri Pellegrini in 1932, the watercolours by E.E. Vidal in
1933 and the one on Pallière in 1935.[24] To this series of exhibitions we can add
the one held in 1939 in the Buenos Aires Institute of Numismatics and
Antiquities, with views of Buenos Aires from the collection of prints of
William H. Moores;[25] they were later published and edited by
the City Council in 1945 under the title Estampas y vistas de la ciudad de Buenos Aires.[26]
22.
During
the period comprised between 1910 and 1936, the circulation of these images of
the 18th and early 19th centuries took place due to exhibitions, their analyses
by academics and their appearance in different ways in the periodical press. To
these factors we can also add their appropriation in the form of postcards like,
for example, the series published by the Association of the Friends of the Arts
in 1930, which had a circulation of 162,000 copies.[27]
Among the illustrations seeking a new historiographical narrative of Argentine
art, six works by C.H. Pellegrini[28] and two by E.E. Vidal[29]
were included. Although the fact that these prints belonged to the collection
of Garaño Gonzalez, a member of the executive committee of the Association,
justified their choice, their inclusion in a corpus of images supposedly
representative of Argentine art shows the status they acquired within the
visual culture of the period. But above all, this strengthened their
circulation as images which belonged to the past of the city, taking a key role
in shaping the colonial imaginary of Buenos Aires.
Modernity turns
its back to the river
23.
Together
with the projects for the city and the country, in operation in the urban and
architectural development, the construction of a local/national identity was
condensed in different ways in the works of art. Therefore, a dialogue between
state planning policies and architectural and artistic productions was
generated. In the city centre, tall buildings appeared as threatening presences
casting their shadow over the low houses, which gradually disappeared and were
relegated to the suburbs. It is there where the artists went in search of
motifs that reminded them of the city of bygone days. A consequence of the
implementation of various development plans, the city began to turn its back to
the river, and this absence will be a key for analysing urban images produced
between 1910 and 1936.
24.
In
such images, the Rio de la Plata, which for centuries had been the essence and
mark of identity in the images produced until the early 20th century, appears
as an almost circumstantial element. The images started favouring large harbour
buildings with their modern technology, emphasizing the harbour’s importance as
a doorway into and out of the city, towards the world. The views from the river
had definitely lost their functionality as representative images of the city,
now looking at itself from within. Accordingly, the river became a subliminal
presence, maintaining its status as the historical origin of urbanism, but
ignored as part of the city’s geography and faded into oblivion as a pictorial
motif.
25.
This
situation generated a series of problems caused by an urban planning that had
ignored the river as a source of recreation for its residents and an oasis for
the hygiene of the city, testified by documents of all kinds,
26.
It
is exasperating to observe that the inhabitants of a city born on the banks of
the river that surrounds it on three sides cannot easily reach the river, nor
see it to enjoy its beneficial effects. It seems that everything imaginable has
been done to ward off the city from the river. [...] We have accumulated a
number of obstacles, barricades, and anti-aesthetic horrors to deprive the
Buenos Aires citizens from enjoying a bit of horizon, of blue sky, of the
suggestive immensity of its generous river.[30]
27.
Both
the local and the national governments proposed a number of projects seeking to
remedy this situation, highlighting the importance of a healthy environment according
to the demands of modern life. Although not completely materialized and facing
great difficulty in their implementation, the creation of the Balneario Municipal
(1918) and Benito Carrasco’s plan for the Costanera promenade are some
examples of the few attempts to recover the river for Buenos Aires.[31]
28.
Therefore,
clearly the river was excluded from urban planning as a component of natural
landscape in the organization of the city, downgrading its importance except
for the port’s activities. We can raise a hypothesis about the “oblivion” of
the Rio de la Plata by Buenos Aires, which is an issue that will remain to be
more deeply investigated in future research work. The river represented a
latent threat to the city in various aspects, both natural (floods, storms),
and economic (due to the difficulties it presented to navigation, the problems
regarding the construction of the port, etc.). A social component could be
added, represented by the problems some sectors professed regarding the arrival
of immigrants, whose entrance door was precisely the river.
29.
The
visual and discursive images in circulation helped the people to know and to
recognize themselves in order to define an urban identity to be projected on
the national and international scene.[32] The representations of the urban
landscape had an outstanding connection with the ways of perceiving and
evaluating new architectures and, especially, the material changes in the
layout and general appearance of the city. Inasmuch as this transformation took
place before the population’s eyes, the images that were produced were
considered as a material and symbolic condensation of this change; most of them
celebrated the grandeur of the new buildings, the elegant avenues and, of
course, the new port facilities. During this period, the permanent landscape
heterogeneity of Buenos Aires, consisting of fragments from different times,
was being constituted and established as a general characteristic. This heterogeneity
acknowledges the coexistence of architectures corresponding to very different
times on the same block, and whose contrasts overlap, producing a somewhat
ambiguous image.[33]
30.
In
Buenos Aires, the discussions concerning the various urban renewals went public
through specialized media, illustrated weekly magazines and daily newspapers.
The proposals were directly related to urban planning at an international
level, whose premises were interpreted and applied to the local case. The
discussion was between advancing Spanish-colonial models and defending the
European ones, rejecting Spanish-Creole traditions. The urban fabric provided
places for intersecting discourses and practices, with their corresponding
conflicts of interest. The streets wove networks that materialized various
solutions and multiple aesthetic itineraries, by means of which the city was
imagined, built and described.
31.
The
intersections and the overlap of textual and visual narratives in printed means
– newspapers, magazines, and books – multiplied and spread the various images
of the city amongst its inhabitants. Photographs proliferated in the various
editions, and in them a remarkable amount of city landscapes gradually
appeared, vindicating the power of periodicals as a means favouring the
development and expansion of visual culture. So one of the possible ways to
understand the construction of a modern urban imagery is to analyse the
circulation of printed means, examining the place of the images of the city in
periodical publications. The metropolis offered new ways of access through
these images that accompanied the process of urban development, while
contributing to the creation of new consumption patterns.
32.
During
the 1920s and 1930s, the economic growth and the significant arrival of
immigrants generated new educational and recreational needs. Educational
policies aiming at the immigrants’ schooling increased and, in a few years, the
access to secondary education increased the number of literate citizens
twofold.[34] Together with the diversification of the
reading metropolitan population, publications addressing the various groups arose,
especially those dedicated to the middle class aspiring for social ascension.
Magazines were part and result of a developing domestic market and, responding
to the expectations of renewed consumers, magazines such as Caras y
Caretas, El Hogar, Plus Ultra and Atlantida were published.[35]
33.
In
this context, images of a vibrant Buenos Aires appeared in the periodical
press, in contrast with the imagery of the colonial city represented in
watercolours and prints mentioned at the beginning of this article [Figure
4]. Together with the
19th century photographs, the watercolours and prints constituted a corpus used
as testimony and document of the bygone city. The visual and textual discourse
had a duality, because the “colonial” images could be presented according to a
nostalgic interpretation of a lost and longed-for past, or even as proof of a
past overtaken by contemporary developments; testimonies and documents are set
in tension in this new reprocessing and re-signification of the travellers’
images. This corpus was also used in official publications, where its role went
beyond a mere illustration of a historical account of the evolution of the
urban centre. It would be operating once again as proof of what had been
surpassed, a counterpart of the aspired progress. Let us take an example.
34.
In
1923, the mayor of Buenos Aires, Dr. Carlos Noel,[36]
designated the Comisión Municipal de Estética Edilicia, whose aim
was to study and to implement a general plan for the city, still under the
Regulation of 1910, which had a very limited and controversial scope. In 1925,
the Commission presented the Proyecto orgánico para la urbanización
del Municipio. Plano regulador y de reforma de la Capital Federal, where
global solutions to major urban problems such as road traffic, the expansion of
green areas and the extension of the city’s general layout were included. The
project proposed a “regular and balanced” planning for the centre and left the
“suggestive and picturesque”[37] for the suburbs. In this regard, it
established the construction of an “adequate” symbolic centre for the city,
requiring the demolition of the City Hall, the Cathedral and part of the
Government House, in order to open the Plaza de Mayo towards the river,
building a monumental entrance flanked by two tall towers. This planning
defined the character of the city as the entrance door to the country, as a
cultural, intellectual, commercial, port and national administrative centre.
35.
Noel
Martin’s role[38] was fundamental in developing this plan because
of his knowledge, historical research and aesthetic ideas. Regarding urban
issues, he sought to reconcile “modern” or “mechanistic” life with “spiritual”
needs involving the recovery of local history and traditions.[39]
Noel included a chapter devoted to the historical development of the city,
based on the literature, cartography and existing documentation published so
far, with reference to historical and international models of urbanism, and
finally proposing an adapted version of them for Buenos Aires. This article,
beyond its value as a historical compilation, is interesting due to the
description and incorporation of a large number of plates, including
watercolours by Charles H. Pellegrini,[40] etchings by César H. Bacle and 18th
century engravings of views of the city from the river. We can therefore infer
that the majority of these images had already been incorporated to the
hegemonic imagery of colonial Buenos Aires, and one may think that their
inclusion in an official plan responds to its association with the past of the
city as a “Great Village”. In addition to these, a group of photographs of the
Witcomb studio were incorporated and their reproduction in the pages of the Plano
Regulador can only respond to its acceptance as an accurate historical
record.
The Riachuelo
landscape between the industrial sublime and a picturesque refuge
36.
Modifications
in the Buenos Aires urban layout brought forward responses of artists
interested in the aesthetics of the city; they not only represented it, through
their works they also sought its discovery and transformation. The urban
landscape was a recurring motif for the literary modernism of the Florida
group and the figurative avant-garde by the artists of the Grupo de
Paris, as well as for the realistic exposure by the Artistas del
Pueblo and Boedo intellectuals.
37.
Towards
the mid-1910s some artists began to develop urban views that recalled the
colonial Buenos Aires, taking as a source the aforementioned corpus of images
(travellers’ prints, the works of foreign artists living in the city in the
early 19th century and photographs of the 19th century). Leonie Matthis, Juan
Carlos Alonso or Luis A. Leon started presenting these “colonial” motifs as of 1910
in the most important exhibition venues of the city, such as the Witcomb
Gallery.[41] Their selections were entitled “Colonial
Buenos Aires” or “Old Buenos Aires”, and accounted for the existing interest in
the recovery of a lost past. The success in terms of criticism and the
important presence of notes on and reproductions of their works in the
periodical press indicate the wide circulation of this nostalgic discourse.
38.
At the
same time, other artists cultivated the port’s motif juxtaposed with the
industrial landscape in works that can be seen as a praise of modernization and
technological progress, enabling the possibility of considering an industrial
sublime. This same type of images also prevailed in the illustrated press
which, as we have seen, took up the discourse of modernization of the city, in
this case giving priority to bird-eye view panoramas or photographs of enormous
port and industrial buildings. The large volumes of cranes and factories
acquire prominence, for example, in the works of Alfredo Guttero,[42]
whose plastic language, not by chance, is related to the postulates of the
early avant-garde and the premises of the retour à l’ordre
of the inter-war period.
39.
Let us
consider the prevalence of the harbour motifs in the works presented to the
National Fine Arts Salon as a parameter of their symbolic impact. The supremacy
of landscape over other genres such as portraiture and still life is striking
as from the 1920s. Combining elements of academic naturalism and impressionist
devices, the picturesque is the common denominator in most of these works. The
problem of landscape as a subject of national painting was one of criticism’s
central topics during the period, since landscape was considered by many as the
most appropriate genre for defining the characteristics of Argentine art.
40.
The
progressive increase of urban landscape works displayed in the Salon from 1911
until the end of the 1930s stands out. The number of works presented as from
the 1920s reveals how the city is already the centre of the concerns of
intellectuals and artists, being one of the parameters that define modernity
both in aesthetic and ideological terms.
41.
Within
urban representations, the “seascape” or port themes are the most numerous.
They present some of the elements of those views of the Rio de la Plata, such
as costumbrista scenes, but now in tension with that which is modern.
Beyond the differences in aesthetic affiliations, we can find some common
elements and continuities related with the urban imaginary constructed from
various fields, including the periodical press, literature and urbanism’s
discourses. This genre is maintained with remarkable power, both in paintings
and prints, and some artists exhibiting regularly at the Salon, such as Italo
Botti[43]
or Justo Lynch[44] were entirely devoted to this subject.
Their approach to the subject has picturesque tones, often highlighting the
atmospheric or emotional elements of the landscape.
42.
Port
themes overlap with the motifs of the Riachuelo riverbank, which has very
distinct characteristics. A peaceful ambiance is predominant in the works
depicting the neighbourhood of La Boca, the harbour activity and the metal and
wooden houses, which constitute the idyllic topic of the riverside and which
will be repeatedly revisited with different nuances. These elements are
present, for example, in the works of this neighbourhood’s artists such as
Fortunato Lacámera,[45] Victor Cunsolo [Figure
5] [46], Alfredo Lazzari [Figure 6] [47], or Benito Quinquela Martín.[48]
Similarly, they appear in photographs of this southern part of the city, and
are also the highlighted points in the copious notes on the neighbourhood
published in the periodical press.[49] In addition to these topics, that of
Riachuelo as a hypothetical scenario of the founding of Buenos Aires, along
with the cultural heritage of the immigrant working population, will
crystallize the symbolism of both the neighbourhood and its representations.
These attributes were complemented with elements that can be seen as signs of
modernity; iron bridges that cross the Riachuelo, and in particular the
Avellaneda Bridge, revisited by painters, filmmakers, poets and photographers,
both for its imposing presence on the river due to its monumental size, and for
being a metaphor of modernity’s technical utopia containing the dialectic of
practicality and aesthetics, a symbol of the neighbourhood’s identity.
43.
By
1840, with the port’s prosperity and the settlement of workers and immigrants
in that area, the first literary and visual depictions that defined it as a
special and differential landscape from the rest of the city were produced.[50]
Therefore, this kind of views responds to a long tradition of symbolic
construction that dates back to the 19th century, since the establishment of
the Riachuelo as a city boundary and its inclusion in the cartography of Buenos
Aires.
44.
We find
two recurring views on the works of the Riachuelo riverbanks: one towards the
shore, where the boats, the water in the foreground and wooden houses or
factories as background prevail; and another from the shore, where the port
movement or scenes of everyday life (as street vendors or fishermen), iron
bridges crossing the river and factories with chimneys in the background stand
out. However, most of the works combine both perspectives, condensing all or
most of the above-mentioned elements.
45.
During
the period between the opening of the Salon in 1911 and 1936, there were 569
works of urban landscape exhibited, of which 182 correspond to motifs of
Riachuelo and La Boca, about 30% of the total. Of the 381 works reproduced in
the respective catalogues, nearly 40% are works whose topic is La Boca, being
the most numerous. These indicators reflect the prominence of this area as a
source of paintings that, albeit urban issues, have nothing to do with the
landscape that could be seen from the city centre.
46.
Nevertheless,
excluding a few artists who pursued a similar language to the Italian
Novecento’s, such as Fortunato Lacámera and Victor Cúnsolo, there is a
predominance of the same constituent elements of the aforementioned local
landscape. Within the general characteristics of the neighbourhood, there was a
quest for spontaneous beauty, with natural elements in harmony with simple
architectures, and allusions to labour through the presence of workers or
objects such as boats and cars. The juxtaposition of these elements became
almost a convention. The significance of these paintings over time is
noteworthy, as well as in an equally considerable amount of photographs of this
area in the periodical press, including reproductions of some of the works
exhibited at the Salon.
47.
These
photographs accompanying articles, short stories or as part of purely graphic
records are framed in a similar way as the works exhibited at the Salon, depict
the same issues and have the same recurring elements. Consequently, it can be
assumed that, as these images had a wide circulation, they were familiar to the
artists. So here we can begin to understand how the appropriation and
re-elaboration of urban landscapes, in different languages and supports, would
be delineating the various imageries of the city.
48.
Every
city recognizes multiple time frames, and in Buenos Aires the colonial stratum
was frequently used nostalgically or as a situation to be bettered. The
circulation of a corpus of images (prints and watercolours of the 18th and 19th
centuries, and photographs of the 19th), taken as evidence of the past of the
“Great Village”, was contrasted with representations of the new and modern
Buenos Aires, under construction and constantly changing.
49.
For
centuries, the image identifying Buenos Aires was that of its skyline over the
Rio de la Plata. This stereotypical motif prevailed until the urban plans
changed the urban layout of the city and turned its back to the river since the
construction of the port in the late 19th century. In the early 20th century,
the river stopped being considered as a core element of urban identity and the
new buildings became more important in defining the image of a modern city. The
artists, sensitive to the changes of their times, turned to other areas of the
city where they could find the characteristic features they had previously seen
in the river. Therefore, the coastal “front” was no longer a recognizable image
for its inhabitants and the Riachuelo riverbank was redefined as its visible
expression, which became the enduring and recognizable image of the city. The
number of representations of this area produced and in circulation since then
condenses an iconography considered even today as one of the most
representative of Buenos Aires.
Bibliographic references
AA.VV. Panoramas.
A paisagem brasileira no acervo do Instituto Moreira Salles. Río de
Janeiro-Sao Paulo: IMS, FAAP, 2011-2012. [Catalogue]
AA.VV. Archivo Witcomb
1896-1971. Memorias de una galería de arte. Buenos Aires: Fundación
Espigas, FNA, 2000.
AMIGO, Roberto;
BALDASARRE, María Isabel (eds.). Catalogo razonado del Museo Nacional de
Bellas Artes. Buenos Aires: Arte Gráfico Editorial Argentino, 2010.
ARTUNDO, Patricia;
PACHECO, Marcelo. Amigos del Arte 1924-1942. Buenos Aires: MALBA, 2008
[Catalogue]
CLEMENCEAU, Georges. La
Argentina del Centenario. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 2002.
[1911].
Comisión de Estética
Edilicia. Proyecto orgánico para la urbanización del Municipio. Plano
regulador y de reforma de la Capital Federal. Buenos Aires: Intendencia
Municipal, Talleres Peuser, 1925.
Colección cronológica
de vistas de Buenos Aires. Buenos
Aires: Instituto Bonaerense de Numismática y Antigüedades, 1939. [Catalogue].
CONTRERAS, Leonel. Rascacielos
porteños. Historia de la edificación en altura en Buenos Aires (1580-
2005). Buenos Aires: Gobierno de la ciudad de Buenos Aires, 2005.
CARRIL, Bonifacio del;
AGUIRRE SARAVIA, Aníbal. Monumenta Iconographica. Paisajes,
ciudades, tipos, usos y costumbres de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Emecé, 1964.
CARRIL, Bonifacio del;
AGUIRRE SARAVIA, Aníbal. Iconografía de Buenos Aires. La ciudad
de Garay hasta 1853. Buenos Aires: Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires,
1982.
DOMÍNGUEZ, Elena. Una vez
más, el río. Utopía y realidad. In: SAAVEDRA, María Inés (dir.). Buenos
Aires. Artes plásticas, artistas y espacio público 1900-1930. Buenos
Aires: Vestales, 2008.
GONZÁLEZ GARAÑO, Alejo. Iconografía
argentina anterior a 1820. Buenos Aires: Emecé, 1943.
GORELIK, Adrian. La
grilla y el parque. Espacio público y cultura urbana en Buenos Aires,
1887-1936. Bernal: UNQ, 2010 [1998].
GUTMAN, Margarita. Noel y
el urbanismo: ideas, planes, proyectos. In: AA.VV. El arquitecto Martín Noel.
Su tiempo y su obra. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, 1995.
MALOSETTI COSTA, Laura;
PENHOS, Marta. Perfiles de la ciudad. Aspectos de la iconografía de Buenos
Aires entre los siglos XVII y XIX. In: V Congreso Brasileiro de Historia da
Arte. Cidade, Historia, Cultura e Arte. Sao Paulo: Universidade de
Sao Paulo, 1993.
MÉNDEZ, Patricia. Fotografía
de arquitectura moderna. La construcción de su imaginario en las revistas
especializadas. 1925-1955. Buenos Aires: CEDODAL, 2012.
MOORES, Guillermo H. Estampas
y vistas de la ciudad de Buenos Aires 1599-1895. Buenos Aires:
Concejo Deliberante de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 1960 [1945].
NOVICK, Alicia; PICCIONI,
Raúl. Buenos Aires. Lo rural en lo urbano. In: AAVV. Ciudad/Campo en las
Artes en Argentina y Latinoamérica. III Jornadas de Teoría e
Historia de las Artes. Buenos Aires: CAIA, 1991.
PENHOS, Marta. Ver,
conocer, dominar. Imágenes de Sudamérica a fines del siglo XVIII.
Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2005.
PRIVITELLIO, Luciano de. Vecinos
y ciudadanos. Política y sociedad en la Buenos Aires de entreguerras.
Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2003.
RAMA, Ángel. La ciudad
letrada. Montevideo: Arca, 1995.
REESE, Thomas. Buenos
Aires 1910: representación y construcción de identidad. In: GUTMAN, Margarita;
REESE, Thomas (eds.). Buenos Aires 1910. El imaginario para una gran
capital. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 1999.
SARLO, Beatriz. Una modernidad
periférica: Buenos Aires 1920 y 1930. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 2007
[1988].
SILVESTRI, Graciela. El
lugar común. Una historia de las figuras del paisaje en el Río de la Plata.
Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2011.
SILVESTRI, Graciela. El
color del río. Historia cultural del paisaje del Riachuelo. Bernal:
Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 2003.
SILVESTRI, Graciela.
Cuadros de la naturaleza. Descripciones científicas, literarias y visuales del
paisaje rioplatense (1853-1890). In: Theomai, Universidad Nacional de
Quilmes, nº 3, 2001. Available at: <http://revista-theomai.unq.edu.ar/numero3/artsilvestri3.htm.>
Accessed on 2/10/2013.
TELL, Verónica. Sitios de
cruce: lo público y lo privado en imágenes y colecciones fotográficas de fines
del siglo XIX. In: BALDASARRE, María Isabel; DOLINKO, Silvia (eds.). Travesías
de la imagen. Historias de las artes visuales en la Argentina.
Buenos Aires: Eduntref-CAIA, 2011.
TELL, Verónica.
Reproducción fotográfica e impresión fotomecánica: materialidad y apropiación
de imágenes a fines del siglo XIX. In: MALOSETTI COSTA, Laura; GENÉ, Marcela
(comps.). Impresiones porteñas. Imagen y palabra en la historia cultural
de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2009.
_____________________________
[1] Translation by Elena
O’Neill.
[2] CONICET – IDAES/UNSAM,
Argentina.
[3] CLEMENCEAU, Georges. La
Argentina del Centenario. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes,
2002 [1911]. p.13. Invited to the celebrations of the
centenary of 1910, Georges Clemenceau’s (1841-1929), impressions on his visit
to Argentina appeared during the first months of 1911 in L'Illustration
of Paris.
[4] See CONTRERAS, Leonel. Rascacielos
porteños. Historia de la edificación en altura en Buenos Aires (1580-
2005). Buenos Aires: Gobierno de la ciudad de Buenos Aires, 2005.
[5] See PENHOS, Marta. Ver,
conocer, dominar. Imágenes de Sudamérica a fines del siglo XVIII. Buenos
Aires: Siglo XXI, 2005.
[6] MALOSETTI COSTA, Laura;
PENHOS, Marta. Perfiles de la ciudad. Aspectos de la iconografía de Buenos
Aires entre los siglos XVII y XIX, In: V Congreso Brasileiro de Historia da
Arte. Cidade, Historia, Cultura e Arte. São Paulo: Universidade de Sao
Paulo, 1993.
[7] Amongst the most
important, GONZÁLEZ GARAÑO, Alejo. Iconografía argentina anterior a 1820.
Buenos Aires: Emecé, 1943; MOORES, Guillermo H. Estampas y vistas de la
ciudad de Buenos Aires 1599-1895. Buenos Aires: Municipalidad de la Ciudad
de Buenos Aires, 1945; CARRIL, Bonifacio del Carril; AGUIRRE SARAVIA, Aníbal. Monumenta
Iconographica. Paisajes, ciudades, tipos, usos y costumbres de la
Argentina. Buenos Aires: Emecé, 1964; CARRIL, Bonifacio del; AGUIRRE SARAVIA,
Aníbal. Iconografía de Buenos Aires. La ciudad de Garay hasta 1853.
Buenos Aires: Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 1982.
[8] For an expanded
analysis of these prints concerning their context of production and
circulation, see PENHOS, Marta. Ver, conocer, dominar. Imágenes de Sudamérica
a fines del siglo XVIII. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2005, pp. 329-339; and
SILVESTRI, Graciela. El lugar común. Una historia de las figuras del
paisaje en el Río de la Plata. Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2011, pp. 42-58.
[9] CARRIL, 1982, Op.cit.
p.132.
[10]
PENHOS, Op.cit. p. 338.
[11] Work belonging to the
collection of the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes in Buenos Aires. Cf. the
scholarly file of Roberto Amigo. In.: AMIGO, Roberto;
BALDASARRE, María Isabel (eds.). Catalogo razonado del Museo Nacional
de Bellas Artes. Buenos Aires: Arte Gráfico Editorial Argentino, 2010.
Online version available at http://www.mnba.gob.ar/coleccion/obra/5293. Accessed
on 2/10/2013.
[12]
Cfr. AA.VV. Panoramas. A paisagem brasileira no
acervo do Instituto Moreira Salles. Río de Janeiro-Sao Paulo: IMS, FAAP,
2011-2012. [Catalogue].
[13]
Cfr. SILVESTRI, Graciela. Cuadros de la naturaleza.
Descripciones científicas, literarias y visuales del paisaje rioplatense
(1853-1890). In: Theomai, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes,
nº 3, 2001. Available in http://revista-theomai.unq.edu.ar/numero3/artsilvestri3.htm.
Access on 2/10/2013.
[14] CLEMENCEAU,
Op. cit. p. 19.
[15]
GERCHUNOFF,
Alberto. Buenos Aires, metrópoli continental, La revista de América,
Paris, n°23-24, January-May 1914. Apud GORELIK, Adrian. La grilla y
el parque. Espacio público y cultura urbana en Buenos Aires, 1887-1936.
Bernal: UNQ, 2010 [1998], pp. 269-270.
[16]
Cf. RAMA, Ángel. La ciudad letrada.
Montevideo: Arca, 1995.
[17] This opening did not
yet establish a civic-political axis between the executive and legislative
powers, since the decision of placing the National Congress at the west end of
the artery was taken later. In structural terms, this line connecting the centre
with one of the borders of the city followed the Spanish grid that had
conceived the entire city. Cfr. GORELIK, Op.cit.
[18] Between 1887 and 1898,
Puerto Madero was built adjacent to the area of the city centre, which meant
the loss of the view overlooking the river, which was now hidden by docks and
cranes. It soon proved insufficient, so the construction of the Puerto Nuevo
(new port) was decided, and carried out between 1911 and 1925.
[19] Cfr.
GORELIK, Op.cit.
[20] Cfr.,
among other studies: TELL, Verónica. Sitios de cruce: lo público y lo privado
en imágenes y colecciones fotográficas de fines del siglo XIX. In: BALDASARRE,
María Isabel; DOLINKO, Silvia (eds.). Travesías de la imagen. Historias
de las artes visuales en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Eduntref-CAIA,
2011; AA.VV. Archivo Witcomb 1896-1971. Memorias de una galería de arte.
Buenos Aires: Fundación Espigas, FNA, 2000.
[21] For example, Buenos
Aires Antiguo, Caras y Caretas, Buenos Aires, year XXVII, n°
1369, December 27th, 1924.
[22] Cf.
TELL, Verónica. Reproducción fotográfica e impresión fotomecánica: materialidad
y apropiación de imágenes a fines del siglo XIX. In: MALOSETTI COSTA, Laura;
GENÉ, Marcela (comps.). Impresiones porteñas. Imagen y palabra en la
historia cultural de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2009.
[23]
MÉNDEZ, Patricia. Fotografía de arquitectura moderna.
La construcción de su imaginario en las revistas especializadas. 1925-1955.
Buenos Aires: CEDODAL, 2012. p.118
[24] The majority of the
exhibited works belonged to the collection of Alejo Gonzalez Garaño.
[25]
Colección cronológica de vistas de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: Instituto Bonaerense de Numismática y
Antigüedades, 1939.
[26] MOORES,
Guillermo H. Estampas y vistas de la ciudad de Buenos Aires 1599-1895.
Buenos Aires: Municipalidad de la ciudad de Buenos Aires, 1945. A revised edition was published in 1960 by the Buenos Aires City Council.
[27] ARTUNDO, Patricia;
PACHECO, Marcelo. Amigos del Arte 1924-1942. Buenos Aires: MALBA,
2008 [Catalogue].
[28]
Plaza de
la Victoria (south side), Exterior view of the Recoleta, View of the Archades,
Santo Domingo, Plaza de la Victoria (east) and Plaza de la Victoria (north).
[29] Santo Domingo and Cabildo and Cathedral.
[30] Las perspectivas de la
metrópoli. La ingeniería. Fortnight publication of the Centro
Nacional de Ingenieros. Buenos Aires: year 20, n°3, October 1st, 1916,
p.169-171.
[31]
Cf. DOMÍNGUEZ, Elena. Una vez más, el río. Utopía y
realidad. In: SAAVEDRA, María Inés (dir.). Buenos Aires. Artes
plásticas, artistas y espacio público 1900-1930. Buenos Aires: Vestales,
2008.
[32]
REESE, Thomas. Buenos Aires 1910: representación y
construcción de identidad. In: GUTMAN, Margarita; REESE, Thomas (eds.). Buenos
Aires 1910. El imaginario para una gran capital. Buenos Aires:
Eudeba, 1999.
[33]
NOVICK, Alicia; PICCIONI, Raúl. Buenos Aires. Lo rural en
lo urbano. In: AAVV. Ciudad/Campo en las Artes en Argentina y Latinoamérica.
III Jornadas de Teoría e Historia de las Artes. Buenos Aires: CAIA, 1991.
[34] Cf.,
among others. SARLO, Beatriz. Una modernidad periférica: Buenos Aires
1920 y 1930. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 2007 [1988]; PRIVITELLIO,
Luciano de. Vecinos y ciudadanos. Política y sociedad en la Buenos Aires
de entreguerras. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2003.
[35] Caras y Caretas (1898-1939); El Hogar (1904–1962); Plus
Ultra (1916-1930); Atlántida (1911-1952); El Gráfico (1919 –
until today); Billiken (1919 – until today).
[36] Mayor of Buenos
Aires between 1923 and 1928.
[37] Comisión de Estética
Edilicia. Proyecto orgánico para la urbanización del Municipio. Plano
regulador y de reforma de la Capital Federal. Buenos Aires:
Intendencia Municipal, Talleres Peuser, 1925. p. 293.
[38] Martín Noel
(1888–1963). Architect. Director of the National Commission of Fine Arts from
1920 to 1931, member of the National Academy of Fine Arts since 1936. Jury of
the National Fine Arts Salon between 1915 and 1930.
[39] Cf. GUTMAN, Margarita.
Noel y el
urbanismo: ideas, planes, proyectos. In: AA.VV. El arquitecto Martín Noel.
Su tiempo y su obra. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, 1995.
[40] Cf. CORSANI, Patricia.
El perpetuador del Buenos Aires antiguo. Rescate y revalorización de la obra de
Carlos Enrique Pellegrini: la exposición-homenaje del año 1900. In: SAAVEDRA,
María Inés (dir.). Buenos Aires. Artes plásticas, artistas y espacio
público. 1900-1930. Buenos Aires: Vestales, 2008.
[41] Amongst the exhibitions,
the following stand out: Leonie Matthis: Witcomb Gallery, 1912, 1913, 1914,
1917, 1919, 1922, 1925: “Buenos Aires antiguo y moderno”, 1927,1928, 1931. Juan
Carlos Alonso: Witcomb Gallery, 1922, 1924: “Buenos Aires colonial”. Luis A.
León: Witcomb Gallery, 1930 “Motivos coloniales”.
[42] Alfredo Guttero
(1882-1932). In 1904, he obtained a grant to study with Maurice Denis in
France, where he remained until 1917. After 23 years in Europe, he returned to
Argentina in 1927. He developed the pictorial technique of “Plaster”, based on
a plaster paste and pigments bound with glue, applied usually on wooden
supports. He won the first prize at the National Exhibition in 1929. In 1931,
he organizes the “Hall of Modern Painters” in the Asociación Amigos
del Arte.
[43] Italo Botti
(1889-1974) studied at the National Academy of Fine Arts. In 1914, he
participated for the first time in the National Salon. The themes that
characterize his production are the Riachuelo landscapes and the port activity.
[44] Justo Lynch
(1870-1953) studied at the Asociación Estímulo de
Bellas Artes. In 1905, he travelled to Europe,
establishing himself in Madrid and Paris. He was one of the founders of the
Nexus group. He devoted himself to transcribe the La Boca neighbourhood and
facts of the Argentinian naval history.
[45] Fortunato Lacámera
(1897-1951) began his artistic training with Alfredo Lazzari in 1912. In 1919,
he participated for the first time the National Salon. In 1922, he held his
first solo show at the Chandler Hall and in 1940, he founded the “Agrupación
Gente de Arte y Letras Impulso”.
[46] Victor Cúnsolo
(1898-1937). Born in Sicily, Italy, he arrived in Argentina in 1913. In 1918,
he entered the Academy of Painting of the Sociedad Unione e
Benevolenza of the La Boca neighbourhood. In 1928, he exhibited in the Asociación
Amigos del Arte and between 1927 and 1931 and between 1933 and 1935, he
participated in the National Salon exhibitions.
[47] Alfredo Lazzari (1871-1949).
Born in Lucca, Italy, he studied at the Royal Institute of Fine Arts in Lucca
and at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Florence. He arrives in Argentina in
1897 and held his first solo show at the Witcomb Gallery in 1935.
[48] Benito Quinquela
Martín (1890-1977). In 1904, he studied with Alfredo Lazzari at the
Conservatory Pezzini-Sttiatessi. During the following years he traveled and
exhibited in Brazil, Cuba, United States, Spain, Italy, France and England. In 1938,
he founded the “Museo de Bellas Artes de La Boca de Artistas Argentinos” that
today carries his name.
[49] For example, Un día de
trabajo en La Boca del Riachuelo, La Prensa, Bs. As. July 2nd
1931; GUTIÉRREZ, Ricardo. Isla Maciel, La Prensa, Bs. As., May 15th,
1932; AMADOR, F.F. de. El cementerio de los barcos, Aconcagua,
Bs. As., Year I, n°6, vol. 2; Por La Boca del Riachuelo, Aconcagua,
Bs. As., year I, n°10, vol. 4, November 1930; Por los barrios de La Boca, Caras
y Caretas, Bs. As., year XXIII, n°1116, February 21st, 1920; Puente sobre
el Riachuelo, Caras y Caretas, Bs. As., Year XLII, n° 2131, August 12th,
1939.
[50] See SILVESTRI,
Graciela. El color del río. Historia cultural del paisaje del Riachuelo.
Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 2003.