The art world is a mockery. Not the art itself, but the institutions and characters that make it up. This opinion -false and subjective as all of them- is based upon the feeling of being ripped off. And that is exactly how one feels after learning this strange anecdote. It is a chapter in the history of Mexican art that few know about, but it gives one food for thought.
Helen Escobedo –Elena Escobedo Fulda– was a Mexican artist, photographer, sculptor, and cultural manager. Her training began at the early age of 15 when she began her preparation at Mexico City College, a school for wealthy people in the middle of the last century. In addition, her family’s friendship with characters such as Gunther Gerzso, Germán Cueto, Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo, and other great figures of art, made her enter immediately into the most important cultural circle at the time. Her artistic vein was always clear and she developed it throughout her life.
The path of sculpture would have built her a promising future; with a constant search for new materials and experimenting with shapes, textures, and sizes, Helen knew how to open a vast and fruitful path for herself.
Among other things, she took art out of museums. She got people to interact with the pieces, modifying the urban space. ‘Doors to the wind’, the Sculptural Space in UNAM by its acronym in Spanish (Autonomous University of Mexico) is one of her most outstanding pieces we can highlight -a piece which she planned together with Manuel Felguérez, Mathías Goeritz, Hersúa, Sebastián and Federico Silva-, the ‘Inverted Cone’ in Zacatenco, and ‘Coatl’ also in UNAM.
She was also director of the University Museum of Sciences and Arts (MUCA) and the Museum of Modern Art (MAC), both in UNAM, where she worked successfully and achieved great cultural achievements for the country. In other words, Mexico’s artistic activity in recent decades would be unthinkable without her.
The “cultural crime”
We could not reproach Helen for her contribution to Mexican culture, except for an obscure episode that is usually hidden from public opinion; she destroyed Juan O’Gorman’s house, which was considered by many as a priceless architectural jewel.
It happened in 1969 when the architect’s house was put up for sale and Helen Escobedo acquired it. According to some, this sale was not accidental at all; O’Gorman was confident that, in her hands, the house would be protected or, at least, still standing.
“The house I built at No. 162 San Jeronimo Avenue was, unquestionably, an example of architecture in tune with the Mexican current of national and regional art, and for that reason, architects do not grant it value,” the artist confessed in a text. He continued, “with this destruction, the most important architectural work of my life was eliminated“, the text is entitled, “The sale of my house at San Jeronimo No. 162 to Mrs. Helen Escobedo and its destruction due to ignorance“.
It was a surrealist house; inside it looked like a cave and outside there were large murals of Aztec Gods. The volcanic environment of the city made it the perfect place for it to be built. In this regard, El Universal, a Mexican newspaper, recently published an interview with architect Carlos González Lobo, who said that the artistic community fought to stop the demolition because it was “one of the masterpieces of modern architecture.”
Everything fell apart, the only thing he was left with was a door, and he affirmed that “there was a willingness to destroy the work, a will, and that is very ugly,” said the architect.
It should be taken into consideration that O’Gorman is not just any architect; after studying at the San Carlos Academy, he introduced functionalist and organic architecture in Mexico. Among other things, he designed the Casa Estudio Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Museum, as well as the murals at the Ministry of Communications and Transportation the murals at UNAM, and the Anahuacalli Museum.
Escobedo, a true authority on Mexican art, was not unaware of the aesthetic and historical value of this place. So why did she decide to demolish almost all of the construction? Was it true that she did it on purpose and with malice? Did she intend to demonstrate something with this action? If so, we do not know now and probably never will. We may as well believe that she had strong reasons to do so and give her the benefit of the doubt. However, there are still some unresolved issues.
These do not correspond to the fact itself, but to the conception that is held about art and the pretended authority that the so-called artists assume.
It might as well be that Helen would have had every right to make the modifications she believed pertinent because it was her private property, even if it had been designed by O’Gorman or by any artist in the world, it was now hers and she could have done with it as she wished, but the uncomfortable question arises: Could she have deprived us of one of the most valuable constructions in the field of Mexican architecture?
On the other hand, we cannot ignore that Escobedo was not an inexperienced person nor did she know all the implications that these radical modifications would bring. In other words, it is possible that under her prepared criteria, she saw in this construction an opportunity to do something better. So, should we judge her for having a different opinion about the value of O’Gorman’s work? Wouldn’t it be legitimate for her to see this house as worthless?
Moreover, can we judge an artist with Helen’s trajectory by this decision? Would we forget her transcendence in the cultural life of Mexico just because of this decision? Surely not.
We all make mistakes and this could have been one of hers. It is even possible that the versions that have reached us are not entirely objective and that other causes forced the demolition of this place.
What is true is that a kind of uncertainty remains open. It is impossible to pronounce a judgment between two geniuses of art. This is not only because of its difficulty to do so, but also because if it is the artists themselves who annihilate art, what is left for us, the spectators? How can we continue to attribute universal and sublime values to artistic activity?
This story was originally published in Spanish by Cultura Colectiva.
