I n t e r v i e w    w i t h   N i c o l a s   V l a v i a n o s               Mário Chamie
São Paulo, 1974

— You are a rare example of artistic development and coherence from the early stage to the present. Are there any interruptions in your work or do you consider output and research as a constant continuity?

— I did break away from the archaic structures of thought and action that dominated me for several years. After that, working constantly in sculpture, I managed to attain a state of constant vigilance in which work and research developed simultaneously. It is obvious that to clear and overcome my doubts, at given moments, I did have to rely on information around me. But in general, every new work of art that I make is based on my former pieces.


— Your sculpture possesses a language of its own with a distinctive meaning and expression. In order to attain this did you find it necessary to participate in mainstream movements or did you work in an individual and autonomous way?

— My language is the result of a certain isolation here, in Brazil. By the way, I have never been connected with any movement. But I am connected with problems influencing our environment. Usually, formal and aesthetic trends do renew themselves and this renewal is often accomplished from the outside to the inside. My works are images or rather visual metaphors that are variations of a central image. The aesthetic or formal considerations appear regarding this central image instead of being imposed a priori. I prefer to work from inside towards the outside, constantly careful not to loose contact with the present reality.


— The contemporary and the present are not always the same thing. What is contemporary is not always present. Do you make any distinction between them? If so, in which way?

— As long as one acts with responsibility, I do. In my opinion, to re-create or re-invent what has already been created or invented indicates a person’s ability but it is at the same time, a sign of confusion in artistic production. Art is not an isolated fact, but it is a continuous and progressive process. Taken this way, "present" is what explores today’s potentialities at all levels, while "contemporary" is what possesses already known ingredients or information.


— One is impressed by the constant use of materials like copper, steel or bronze in your works. Is there any connection between these materials and the symbolic, human and dramatic solutions characteristic of your sculpture? Could you express the same thing by means of other materials?

— Materials, as well as tools and methods of work are ways of creating a work of art. They are not chosen nor used by chance. They appear and develop together with the person using them, constantly testing the artist’s sensibility. I believe that I could express the same thing through other means. But solutions would have to be different. Aesthetics not ideas, depend on materials.


— Your latest works of art seem to underline certain elements which are quite typical. For instance: the contrast of the geometric and the organic, of the mechanical and the vital, of reason and intuition, of the virtual and the real. Does this illustrate the contradiction of our technological civilization where man is divided between cold logic and the necessity for flights of fantasy?

— I think that to be a "human being" entails the dichotomy or rather the co-existence of animal impulses with rational intellect. Art has always depended on these sources, the Appolinean and Dionysian elements being present throughout art history. Today, because of social, psychological and other reasons, this dichotomy is more stressed and may be recognized immediately. The struggle between Jacob and the Archangel is not over, it is present as an eternal challenge to our very existence as civilized and social beings.


— Your sculptures possess a poetic meaning which is expressed by metaphoric references of great force. Two appear very frequently, the tree and the bird. Both seem to be live ghosts, with latent movement contained in the reflection of the smooth surface of the metal, in its rough texture or in the vegetal interlacing of knots and rigging. All of them spring from a solid base. Does this mean that the universe of modern man is a new space, in which live natural shapes and mechanical and industrial shapes are integrated? Or would it rather be the anticipated dream of devastation?


— This question is directly concerned to the one before. In my opinion, there is one universe which is diversely manifested. Plants, birds and men (also constantly present in my work), are phenomena of the same vital force, in contrast to the phenomena of the human intellect. Being an optimist, I rather tend to agree with your first statement. The universe of modern man is a space constituted by the shapes and forces both of natural nature and artificial surroundings. Our fear of devastation is also our consciousness of our individual frailty. I do believe that humanity will find the means to overcome this.


— Your objects do not possess predetermined nor privileged space. Wherever they are, they make space adapt itself to their function. Could this possibly make up for the fact that they are sculptures which are neither "open" nor made to be manipulated by the public?

— There is confusion regarding works of art which are "open" or manipulated. In a way, it is an attempt to adopt some trends of the consumer society in which the possible buyer is being persuaded that he is really buying "several objects" for the price of only one object. By the way, it is curious that so much is said about "open" works of art instead of "open" art. This emphasizes the object instead of the subject. I tend to believe in open minds that are able to enjoy the simplest and the most complex structures. I presently think that if one can avoid distracting the spectator by "manipulation" of the work of art, the more precise the information will be. Diverse elements form art and modern society so that there are different levels of interpretation.


— In what way would you situate your work within the so-called Brazilian tradition?

— I do not believe that there is a Brazilian tradition, least of all in sculpture. There is, however, a Brazilian environment. This environment as well as information from other sources influences my work, as well as that of other Brazilian sculptors. Due to this fact, sculpture in Brazil, and art in general, tend to be more vigorous and independent. This might seem contradictory, but it is understandable, since tradition often acts as a hold up which may be overcome only by a lot of courage. It is very comforting to place oneself within a tradition and act according to its guidelines.


— Calder freed sculpture from weight, Tinguely gave prestige to movement in sculpture while Takis, also a Greek, introduced magnetic sculpture. Within the context of these possibilities how do you situate your works and your solutions?

— As you say, these are the options adopted by Calder, Tinguely and Takis. Numberless other possibilities exist. Art, in the manner of life, feeds on everything within its reach and also feeds on itself. Every artist chooses his own way of expression. It is wrong to claim that a certain method of expression is more valid or more adequate than another. All are valid and adequate and have to be transcended by the result.


— In your sculptures you do not mix themes with problems. Are the problems that are present in them an investigation into the human condition or are they the testimony of individual experience?

— Both. Individual experience is the sum of human knowledge in relation to his destiny. The effort to influence this destiny poses a problem. My problem is how to find a relationship between mechanism and vitalism. In a way, I leave the answer to the observer.

Mário Chamie
São Paulo, 1974