Home

Victor Brecheret is the emblematic artist of the modernist movement in Brazil. His sculpture as basis of a revolutionary, contemporary language structure is perhaps a unique manifestation worldwide. As from the inception of Impressionism, which is regarded as a historical milestone, the discussion involving the representation of reality, i.e. the conceptual notion of art, has addressed two-dimensional compositions. Ever since last century, painting has been the actual leader of aesthetic revolutions. However, this does not hold true for Brazil.

Although Brazilian Modernism did not begin with the Semana de Arte Moderna (Week of Modern Art) in 1922, this movement successfully polarized the issue between academic and modern art, furthermore, it became a radiating center for new ideas and a target for its opponents. And, during the Semana de Arte Moderna, the core exhibit that imparted consistency to the art show was Victor Brecheret’s expressive and monumental production.

The world of ideas is the world of art where concepts inform and guide cultural manifestations. But art differs from other forms of knowledge in that concepts and ideas must be tried and materialized into form. Beyond form, there is no art, but mere approximations with philosophy, sociology, politics and so on – all of which are extremely important, though still far from resembling art. Evidently art, as a form of knowledge, contains elements of the social world that, despite including philosophy, sociology, politics and mysticism, do not sufficewhen regarded individually.

It is precisely within this context of art´s specificity that Victor Bracheret´s work provides a base for all artistic manifestations of the Brazilian modernist trend. We realize that Victor Brecheret was not first modernist artist to show publicly. Before him, Lasar Segall har shown his Brazil, in 1913. His show prompted a warm and friendly response from a public that was not prepared to contend him. Besides, Segall probably did not have the adequate profile to become number-one public enemy. This role was assigned to Anita Malfatti, who had studied abroad and returned to Brazil in 1917. In that year, her first art exhibition in Brazil was harshly reviewed by Monteiro Lobato, who discussed two possible identities for her production: mystification or paranoia.

Monteiro Lobato´s critique is the most famous essay of Brazilian Modernism. Unlike the modern trend, it is a contentious article where the author addresses the essential issues concerning the assertion or negation of Modernism; the dissolution of form; the cult of narcissism; the undefined limits between art and emotional manifestation, and the advantages and mystification accessiblr to art through the detachment of canons. By inverting some meanings that Monteiro Lobato stated as true, we will have plenty of contemporary ideas which include narcissism, the breaking of limits, the emphasis on emotion in detriment of form, and the search for de-materialization of art. In art this situation is quite usual, i.e. to have critics pointing out the presumed deficiencies of a cultural movement and establishing the parameters of a new proposal. The name impressionism, coined in derision by journalist Louis Leroy who commented on the title of a painting by Claude Monet, was later accepted by the artists themselves. The name Cubism also originated in a jibe by critic Louis Vauxcelles.

The article written by Monteiro Lobato, who at the time was one of the most influent Brazilian intellectuals, permitted the assemblage around modernist ideas, the defense of the artist who had been victim of such violent critique, and the opposition between the academic canons and the new approaches of the artistic vanguard. And, without her consent, Anita Malfatti became the martyr artist of Brazilian Modernism.

Thus, in a discreet manner as in Segall´s case, and in a rowdy manner as in Malfattí´s case, the pioneers of Modernism publicized their proposals. The Semana de Arte Moderna of 1922 cast light onto these issues and became symbol of a new age. This celebrated movement gathering artists of traditional expression such as Graça Aranha, and artists who proposed new languages, such as Oswald de Andrade, offered for meditation this unique datum related to the visual arts; its leaning on sculpture for support.

Impressionism is a movement of artists who expose the world´s fluidity, light as a character that reveals reality, and the unreality of perception. For this reason they depict the same scene several times, from the same angle, but at different times of day. Light reveals new realities. Divisionism works with eye perception; it demands the viewer´s participation and employs the third color, i.e. the color formed in the eye retina. Fauvism brings emotion closer to representation and places human participation in the formation of the concept itself. Expressionism transforms feeling into the main art datum, as seen not only in Vincent Van Gogh´s representation of this revolutionary approach, but also in the renowned painting by Edvard Munch, The Shriek. Suprematism addresses form and the abstraction of form. Kasimir Malevitch tells, in a letter, about the pure artistic feeling derived from “unmasked” art. Cubism displaces the art of seeing to focus on something we know exists. In the two-dimensional canvas the object is decomposed and analyzed into geometrical planes. This art concerns representing objects as they are known and not as they appear. Nearly by chance, in this extremely brief paragraph length we observe that painting has consistently revolutionized the art of our time. The great sculptors of our time include two extraordinary masters – Constantin Brancusi, of Romania, and Alberto Giacometti. Of Switzerland -,in addition to Gabo, Pevsner and Henry Moore. However, they did not lead cultutal movements neither did their works serve as example for changes, though time has revealed the extent of the deep transformations imparted by great works such as those of Brancusi and Giacometti. A symbol of this prevailing two dimensional representation is the female figures of the first Cubist canvas, Les Demoiselles d´Avignon, painted by Pablo Picasso in l907. The faces of the three figures resemble African masks, that is to say sculpted forms transformed into painting

On most instances the analyses of the Week of Moderns Art and Modernism place emphasis an Oswald de Andrade´s writings and Tarsila do Amaral´s painting. Although I agree that these two characters clearly deserved all due reviews and attention, I believe that a more critical, and less idolizing analysis of their work would be more constructive. But the lack of awareness about the unprecedented importance of sculptor Victor Brecheret must be offset.

Sculpture as changed substantially in the last few decades. It has de-materialized itself, lost its contours and, like pointing questioned its own support. Art discusses its own nature and no longer produces representations. Therefore, its support is no longer necessarily a rectangular canvas or a rock. Nowadays the support results from the artist´s choice. It could be the earthen ground, appropriated industrialized objects or even an ephemeral set of articulated pieces. Presently we are witnessing a confusion in relation to concept and terminology: while an object is unduly looked upon as a sculpture, spatial representations are regarded as sculptures. These production belong in a different artistic category. Probably this book on Victor Brecheret is not the best forum for a lengthy discussion of such matter. However it should be mentioned, for I believe this cultural misunderstanding explains the historical lapse concerning the sculptor and his work. Likewise, it should be noted that despite the media and the official art circuits having announced the end for sculpture, contemporary sculptors present a dynamic production featured in urban public spaces, and continually engage in the study of three-dimensional forms.

Contrarily to the present-day art trends, sculpture is does not favor unencumbered viewing. It rejects offhand interpretations and commitments based solely on faith. Sculpture reveals a definite form; it presents a tangible, definite, three-dimensional reality and forces the viewer to observe its contours from all angles, check its limits and esteem its attributes of light and shade. Sculpture is an artistic medium that is only reached through actual engagement and sensorial closeness in a shared perceptive experiment. Sculpture could also be said to involve organization. It is a construction project. More than any other art technique, it requires from its makers a loyalty to material, technique and artistic knowledge. Since times immemorial, sculpture has been designated as the formal synthesis of its epoch and it cannot be performed without an in-depth understanding of technique and artistic knowledge. Furthermore, sculpture cannot be conceived without the knowledge of its time.

Victor Brecheret´s life is a straight line drawn from vocation to learning and to the making of a sculpture production that is matchless in the country. He belonged to a small group of artists whose labor determines the period in which he lived. As from the inception of the Modernist movement there is no sculptor among Brazilian artists whose production is so ample, influent and indicative of such rich and permanent issues and paths like Brecheret. In its labor he addresses a variety of issues that become permanent themes: sculpture ´s occupation of urban space; trade and talent; the contemporary possibilities of figuration; the ties of current sculpture with totemic sculpture; the artist ´s learning process; the artist´s silence in response to social rejection and approval; sculpture as historic testimony; materials and sculpture making; the purpose of sculpture and utilitarian art. All these issues remain current despite the artist´s death in the mid 1950's.

Upon looking back, one becomes impressed with the entanglement of desires in a life organized in such logical manner. Victor Brecheret was a silent man. Actually, sculptors of Brecheret´s prominence are usually silent individuals. They are preoccupied with great dimensions, a majestic scale and its proportions. Furthermore, they are forced to think about the resistance and behavior of materials, and on the financing of this true construction project. Individuals with an inclination for the Cyclopic talk little. The heroes of great labors have little time to chat. In his youth days Brecheret already showed a reserved temperament, even though his destiny had not been clearly defined. As many other São Paulo youths he attended the Liceu de Artes e Oficios (School of Arts and Crafts) a sure career path for artists, sophisticated craftsmen and manufacturers whose products required quality and skillful design. At age 16 he picked up on a street of downtown São Paulo a printed flyer featuring Auguste Rodin´s picture.

Young Brecheret was deeply touched with his find. And, while unceasingly contemplating the sculptor´s picture, he fancied the universe that constituted the Sculptor´s life. He had a glimpse of a new world, in a clumsy, startled manner, he gazed at both Rodin´s picture and destiny. He was struck bi the insight. The perception of his own destiny, the awareness of his mission and the tragic sense of vocation have this terrifying effect, In a street of São Paulo Victor Brecheret found his identity and his destiny on a piece of paper. A few considerations are due at this time. His family did not have substantial financial means and Victor Brecheret – who was very mature for his time and his age, as usually happens with introverted individuals - was well aware of it. He was a quiet young man, always immersed in his own thoughts, and possibly his family was startled when he clearly stated his career choice. And it is also possible that he was startled with his family´ s reaction. For example, his uncles took their savings to sponsor Victor ´s trip to Europe and his training for the new career. In those days he did not realize that people´s great confidence in him was inspired by his serious, hard-working and prudent manner. This episode is described in detail by Brecheret, journalists and critics in Mário da Silva Brito´s book. Antecedentes da Semana de Arte Moderna.

Excited with the idea of becoming a sculptor, in 1913 Victor Brecheret boarded a ship for Rome. Upon returning to Brazil, in l919, he felt out of place after uselessly trying to locate his old art school colleagues. “ I had become an alien in my own country,” he said. At that time Ramos de Azevedo, a well-known architect and Brecheret´s school contemporary, let him use an office at the then-unfinished Palácio das Indústrias building. In this facility he set up his atelier where he worked hard, under precarious conditions, to produce his forms of grandiose proportions. At this atelier he was discovered by chance, as part of a juvenile parody, by the leading group of the modernist trend. And in so doing they discovered that this unknown sculptor named Victor Brecheret perfectly matched the aspirations of the restless group.

On that day Emiliano Di Cavalcanti, Helios Seelinger, Oswald de Andrade and Menotti del Picchia had gone to the Palácio das Industrias to visit an exhibition of mockups for an intended Monument to the Independence. At the building the group was informed that”…there´s a sculptor working up there; he´s a peculiar sort, very quiet, and he makes these huge, strange”(as told by Oswald de Andrade and Brecheret in Brito´s book). The foursome went upstairs looking for fun. Instead, they met a suspicious artist used to peoples´s lack of discernment in a backward society. And Brecheret ´s production left the group in complete awe. That was precisely the work they were needing to serve as concrete basis for their concept of modernity.

On January l5, l920 Menotti published, with the pen name Helios, a critique on Brecheret: “…speechless as a fish … modest as a rabbit … I don ´s know of a more imaginative and original talent among our artists; his technique, perfected during his contact with European masters, is dexterous and modern; while abiding by realistic fatality of the physiological models, his Michelangelo-like torsos gain spirituality through the boldness of their admirable stylization, conforming themselves with the anatomical animalities to create a deep, impressive and superb soul. Let´s hope the São Paulo population can appreciate his genius.”

One month later it was the turn of the direful Monteiro Lobato to review, on Revista do Brasil, two of Brecheret ´s sculptures, Despertar and Eva. He wrote: “Let us stop to admire together this superb manifestation of the great art. Let us admire it unrestrictedly, for this is true art; this is the fine, great art that deeply touches the serious and sensible viewer.”

Under the pen name of Ivan, Oswald de Andrade justified his excitement over the “discovery.” He wrote: “ …in Europe, Brecheret did not apply himself only to the study of anatomy taught in school. A clearly bright individual with a strong cultural background that was rare in this slowly developing country, he surveyed and embraced the modern trends in sculpture, thus becoming a nearly unique artist in our environment. Brecheret is an updated and dynamic artist among the puppets that still reflect the European art movement of 50 years ago.”

Thus, Lobato and Andrade unexpectedly joined their forces in favor of the new trend. This article bi Oswald de Andrade brings a greatly intuitive statement about the procedure and the attitude of the artist who, three decades later, would be acknowledged for combining symbol and primitive art. He wrote: “… Brecheret does not reflect only the modern ideas. He is not a mirror, he is a live source of creation. With impressive consistency he combines the eloquent utilization of the symbol and the healthy innocence of primitive art. He fully perceives the extent to which these modern sculptors tend to become obsolete…”

Perhaps at that time there was not enough modernist production to show. Emiliano Di Cavalcanti was a draftsman. Tarsila do Amaral was still in Europe studying art. Struck hard by Lobato´s critique, Anita Malfatti, who had pioneered the public showing of Brazilian modern art, had cut down her production. Though certainly expressive, the work she exhibited included many of the paintings she had show in 1917. The most vigorous production was that of Vicente do Rêgo Monteiro, a painter from the state of Pernambuco. With a set of 12 sculptures, Victor Brecheret was the most outstanding presence in this exhibition, and his work fulfilled a social necessity. A few art historians wonder at the amount of praise devoted to Victor Brecheret by the Brazilian modernists. Historians attribute this praise to the circumstances of that time. Notwithstanding, Brecheret became a character of two novels: Os Condenados (The Convicts), by Oswald de Andrade, and O Homem e a Morte (Man and Death), by Menotti del Picchia; and Mário de Andrade attributed to his contact with Brecheret´s word the disposition that inspired his book Paulicéia Desvairada. Actually, it was Mário de Andrade himself who stated: “… the early modernist movement had two props. One was Anita Malfatti and the, Victor Brecheret.” Now, considering that artist became a character of novels written by prominent writers; that he inspired, through his work, the creative process of such an important writer and intellectual as Mário de Andrade; and that he provided the key work for the emergence of the modernist movement, we may conclude that he yielded the essential forms of this trend.

Actually, this is what the art process is all about. The artist formalizes. He introduces new things, things that were still unknown. He adds a creature of the spirit to human society. This new vision is called art, and the new form conceived and materialized by the artist is new because it did not exist before. However, this new form is recognizable because its constituents already existed, in a fragmented way, in the works of the artist ´s human contemporaries. He provides form to the fragments. The artist creates sense. It is precisely because he provides form to the informal and subjects chaos to the world of form that the artist repeats in his production, within his human conditions, the original myth, i.e. the creation of the world. He transforms chaos into cosmos, and we are capable of recognizing his work because it is made of elements that integrate our repertoire, although still as part of chaos. Is this not precisely what Victor Brecheret accomplished in his time, as observed by some of his main contemporaries including Menotti del Picchia, Monteiro Lobato, Oswald de Andrade, Mário de Andrade and Emiliano Di Cavalcanti?

In Brazil there were the ideas and the desire for Modernism striving to find their object.

There was ideology awaiting the symbol.

There was Modernism awaiting Victor Brecheret.

In the late 1940s Victor Brecheret approached that which he called “a national motif” in a different manner than he had addressed the Monumento às Bandeiras (Monument to the Pioneers) This time he did not address the racial saga, i.e. the heroic tract of the country´s construction. He sculpted Mãe Índia (Indian Mother, 1948) Veado Enrolado (Curled up Deer, 1947/48), Luta da Onça (Fighting Jaguar,1947/48),O Índio e a Suassuapara (Indian and Suassuapara, l95l) and luta dos Índios Kapalalos (the fight of the Kapalalo Indians, l954), among other works made in terra-cotta, bronze and stone. In 1948 brecherethad stated: “… a new mode, another style of sculpture, a type of sculpture that is legitimately ours (Brazilian)…”

However, the expressions national motif and Brazilian art should be defined. According to the consensus it seems that national refers to the saga of the original bands of pioneers who set out to conquer new lands and to expand the agricultural and commercial frontiers. Alternatively, it could refer to the industrial development or to accomplishments in sports. Victor Brecheret ´s statement indicates that he intended to approach the autochthonous roots which are, actually, quite distant from the notion of Brazilian nationality. In this case, the artist finds in the pre-Cabralian civilizations a source of vigor, stimulation and existential truth. In my opinion, the key word in the artist´s statement is “legitimately.” The preoccupation with legitimacy is a constant issue in modern art. The historical society to which we belong is envious of the authenticity and legitimacy of art produced by mythical societies.

In mythical societies of circular time and totemic art, the production of an artwork is twice authorized by the tribe and by the ancestors or protective entities. Word instruments are sacred and the “artist” (thus improperly designated) receives the manna through which creative energy flows. The work produced becomes the spiritual center of the community. It belongs in that place; it is unique and has an aura. The work is authentic and represents the community´s needs and spirituality; and its author was commissioned both by heaven and earth. Such absolute legitimacy provokes the envy of artists of historical societies who remain distant from the public, treading their adventurous individual paths, feeling insecure with respect to language and constrained by the market demands for new products and new packaging.

And despite being oriented toward the discussion of its own nature and detached from the representation of images, historical art aims at becoming the spiritual hub of humanity. Even the discourse of who intend to break away from language, deceive the art circuit and provoke an emotional as well as conceptual shock on the public feature an attitude of conceit and intervention in the social life and individual life of the community. He intends to modify behavior patterns and ways of being. This undisguised willingness to intervene in the social organism contains the messianic desire to create a work capable of “saving” unaware individuals. The artist has the same religious attitude of saints who urge man to “wake up”

Furthermore, the concept of historical society itself is undergoing changes. It no longer refers to linear time, but to relative time. The first theory on Relativity was conceived in 1905. Man stopped being the rational master of nature to become an interdependent being endowed with a shadow (his unconscious) that is greater than his conscience. The myth of rational and dominating omnipotence was destroyed. The conceptual changes of inner time and physical time, to mention only a couple, are determining. And the shadow, i.e. the other who inhabits man allows us to discern the existence of something different from us. It is the principle of alterity. Although I do not intend to dwell on this issue, I wish to state that these new concepts increasingly allow the valorization of civilization different from ours. Some of the greatest artists of our time such as Constantin Brancusi, Henry Moore, Pablo Picasso, Juan Miró and Paul Klee have come very close to the societies once known as primitive, whose forms they utilized in their works. Other artists, such as Paul Gauguin, were able to physically experience this contact. Our Victor Brecheret also swerved in this direction. Possibly the terminology and the fantasy of innocence are not the same employed today, but Oswald de Andrade´s article is essentially foretelling .

What did Brecheret seek in his approximation with the autochthonous? He certainly sought legitimacy, like everyone else. But, it seems to me, his main encounter was with the mythical character of totemic art. He also created a few forms of high mythical value. His stones are circular; they do not have a beginning or an end must be viewed as a whole. The correct viewing of these stones featuring incision requires that one gets ready the spirit, rather than the eyes. It requires a type of approximation ritual. In mythical societies time is not linear and the idea of progress is not present. In the best case, man´s destiny is to track over the same paths treaded by the ancestral founders of that community. And at each new turn the clock is zeroed and the path is renewed. The heavenly bodies and the earth follow their trajectory and return to the beginning. Brecheret worked with perception of the eternal return.

Actually stones, the support and the world are circular. We may travel them in their near totality and we will return to the point of departure. Language is established on this support. It is an incision, a line, a story told in its own world. The incision of stone is the narration of a very simple story of confrontations, oppositions, struggle of opposites and movement on the mirror. It is the story of man in his relationship with nature and with himself, his primordial interaction with nourishment and myth (in and outside himself), and his relationship within the species (maternity, struggle and so on).

In addition to representing earth itself, stones may be a message from heaven. For this reason stones are worshipped in several places throughout the world. They came from heaven and they are the memory of humanity. As shown in the examples of the Mayas end the Aztecs, on the American continent, civilizations disappear and stones remain. Can anything be more touching for a sculptor than this human memory contained in stones?

The encounter with art of other civilizations is equivalent to the knowledge of other ways of being. The artist expands his conscience, discovers new procedures and animic, magical or tellurian forces. He comes into contact with socialand religious significations. It is a way to reinstate art and spiritual production as the center of his activity and, in turn, to develop an antidote against the modern dichotomy established between art and public, marketable bgcolor="#FFFFFF" art and totemic art.

Furthermore, stones is at the origin of man. The original man to take a stone and utilize it as a weapon or instrument created civilization, language and the first work of art. He introduced stone in the realm of signification. A similar attitude demonstrated by Orientals who take home a stone they find. He who finds the stone becomes its author. That which previously was merely a stone on the road, later becomes a being with its own identity

There is yet another situation where the artist creates a Japanese garden. He seeks a stone for his garden. These is only a possible stones for a particular spot. No matter how long the search may be, it will only end when he finds the proper stone. This singular stone found by a single man belongs in a particular spot. In this case the landscape project is both a work of art and Tao, i.e. the path or the means for perfecting the spirit.

In brecheret ´s attitude we discern this desire to produce a legitimate, authentic, unique work that doubles as path. It is possible for the artist to find the path to the identity that was always present in his work deeply impressed by personal poetics. Incidentally, this fact justifies the recurrent works in which he return to, revisits, apparently obsolete phases of his own production. In this case Brecheret seeks to find memories of his own history that will promote his re-encounter with himself.

Thanks to his market presence in São Paulo, Victor brecheret is known as the city´s sculptor of public art. However the artist´s projection is due mainly to the quality of his work easily verified in his two major sculptures located in public places, Monumento ás Bandeiras and Mise au Tombeau (1923), the Guedes Penteado gravestone at the Consolação cemetery, in São Paulo. In total there are seven of Brecheret´s sculptures in public places and another ten in semi-public places such as the State Government Palace, chapels, bank offices, the Jockey Club and so on. The two main sculptures have already been thoroughly analyzed: Mise au Tombeau, by art historian Luiz Marques in the book Brecheret, and Monumento às Bandeiras, by Marta Rosseti Batista in the book Bandeiras de Brecheret.

It is worth mentioning the history of the Monumento às Bandeiras as a photograph of the time. In 1920, when the country prepared to celebrate the centennial of its independence from Portugal, the construction of a monument was suggested as part of the celebration events. The exhibition of the monument mockups organized at the Palácio das Industrias – which turned out to be the direct reason for the encounter between the modernist group and Brecheret – was also part of these plans. In turn, Washington Luis, then head of São Paulo state, proposed the creation of a monument to honor the early groups of Portuquese pioneers (Bandeiras) in Brazil. The selection committee, which included Monteiro Lobato, Menotti del Picchia and Oswald de Andrade, selected the mockup created by Brecheret.

In late June 1920, Menotti del Picchia Published on the Correio Paulistano the first news about the winning design. On July 28 the mockup was released for public showing at Casa Byington, in downtown São Paulo. Brecheret ´s project was enthusiastically approved by the public, by the media and by oresident Washington Luís.

In the meantime the Portuguese colony presented the city government with plans for a monument on the same theme, i.e. the saga of Portuguese pioneers, commissioned to Portuguese sculptor Teixeira Lopes. To resolve the ensuing controversy, to which Menotti de Picchia contributed with a nationalistic and xenophobic exhortation – “…a Brazilian memorial must be entirely Brazilian …no consent should be granted for alien soul and technique to be impressed on the bronze that shall immortalize the glories of our race” – neither monument project was approved by the State. As result, the mockup was integrated to the Pinacoteca do Estado collection, and the erection of the Monumento às Bandeiras was concluded in 1953.

Victor Brecheret had objective plans for his career as an artist. He wished to learn his trade and develop personal forms of expression. At age 16 he arrived in Roma and gave up the idea of attending the School of Fine Arts as he felt he lacked qualifications for admission. Instead, he took lessons from an academic sculptor, Arturo Dazzi; he visited museums, closely analyzed monuments, and informally attended classes at the School of Fine Arts. In 1916, at age 22, Victor Brecheret was awarded the first prize at the International Fine Arts Exhibition. In those days he was inspired and deeply touched by the works of Mestrovic, Bourdelle and Rodin.

In 1919 Victor Brecheret returned to Brazil and set up his atelier at the Palácio das Indústrias, where he met the modernist group under the afore-mentioned circumstances. In April 1921 he exhibited his sculpture Eva (Eve) at Casa Byington. This sculpture, featuring a noticeable influence from Auguste Rodin´s work, was received with favorable reviews. This first show resulted in two achievements for Brecheret: the work was purchased by the city government and he was granted a scholarship that allowed him to travel and study in France.

In Paris, Brecheret`s work was awarded the first prize among 4,000 sculptures at the Salon d Áutumne. Also in that city he witnessed the cultural struggle and maintained contact with artists such as Picasso, Satie, Stravinski, Brancusi, Léger and Cocteau. In that period he showed in several French art salons and actively participated in the art life of a large city. Although he was sill in Europe at the time of the Semana de Arte Moderna (1922), Brecheret counted on the help of his friends to show 12 sculptures at the event. Upon returning to Brazil, the artist organized his first solo exhibition in this country, held in 1930. After that, Victor Brecheret found work and received all types of awards even in a country where the principal market for sculpture comprised public monuments and gravestones. The artist´s influences and sources of inspiration are often theme for discussion. Probably the sources for 20th-centurysculptors are limited to three or four main trends. Constantin Brancusi impresses for his fantastic imagination, the mysticism oh his figures and , mainly, his approximation with the procedures and the feelings of mythical societies. Henry Moore is known for the monumental proportions of his figures, his everyday themes and the vitalization of voids, which is something he learned by studying pre-Columbian sculpture. Gabo and Pevsner are influential for their connections with the industrial thought, their ideas that near drawing and their kinetic experience. Alberto Giacometti is famous for rendering man’s expressive and desolate existential universe and the tragic nature of his work. A few other individuals also influenced Brecheret’s production, including his private tutors, art teachers devoted to specific subjects, and a great number of artists who proposed new means of communications or dispute.

In Victor Brecheret’s work, Auguste Rodin’s conception clearly influenced the body conformation of figures, the tension between volumes and the expressive nature of forms. Likewise, Bourdelle’s influence is noticed in the large number of important works by Brecheret produced in the geometric style characteristic of Art Deco. However, Brecheret’s great talent is so obviously demonstred not only in great monuments such as Monumento às Bandeiras and Mise au Tombeau, but also in smaller sculptures, that it becomes hard to picture a direct influence by a single artist. Instead, Brecheret’s production features a confluence of styles and conceptions. Perhaps Maillol, whose work was widely shown in Brazil, may have contributed toward his conception of feminine forms, their harmonious volumes. However, in different phases of his history, Brecheret’s personal poetics comes forth in such strong and assertive manner that it minimizes any direct influence – except, evidently, that to which all artists of our time are exposed.

I believe we should place Victor Brecheret among the important sculptors of his time. The recent vintage of exhibitions, catalogs, biographical surveys and critical essays on his production comes to prove that his importance is acknowledged by a growing number of scholars.

JACOB KLINTOWITZ

Critic of Art

"L'Art en Effervescence - 100 ans de Salon d'Automne 1903 - 2003 by Noël Coret".

Certificate provited by artist daugther!