The anthem, the shield, the flag of the country where we were born, constitute the seal that in any place we identify as our own and no matter how banished or isolated we are, it undoubtedly comforts and serves as a consolation to be reunited with these banners.
No matter the age, the circumstance, the social background, the ideological affiliation, the academic education, the cultural background, the flag, at least what I learned since I had the use of reason, is sacred: it does not touch the ground, when it is folded it is held between two so that it does not fall to the ground, it is raised at dawn and lowered when the sun goes down, it is raised at half-mast as a sign of national mourning for a catastrophe or a loss that mourns, it is given as a decoration for feats transcendental, if it deteriorates, is burned and its remains are buried as a sign of respect, in short, it is honored.
So, I wonder what the argument is that the use given to the flag as an exhibition piece justifies ignoring the national traditions and therefore goes unnoticed or, what is worse, there are those who are offended by the criticism of irreverence or approve the deliberate use given to the national flag, alleging a manifestation of rebellious, contemporary and misunderstood art.
But there is much more that I consider violated and without fear, as I said before, of my opinion being classified as retrograde, I will leave it exposed. I am referring to the venue where the so-called “performance” took place, which, like so many other words, has become a recurring term of an intellectual category that, apparently, some of us do not reach.
The Freedom Tower, just over one hundred years old, whose perpetuity in the ultra-modern architectural environment that surrounds it is due precisely to an act of respect for a symbol of traditions, was the place where the visual artist, Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara found space for the first public presentation of his works, and among them, a representation with the Cuban flag.
I assume that the decision to offer Otero Alcántara this site is based on the trajectory of his work, on what it represents that, being a young man of humble origins, he bravely and bravely faced the Cuban dictatorship that arrested him more than once, subjected him to punishment cells, motivated him to long periods of fasting and held him unjustly for the last five years for having stood up to demand the rights of an oppressed population. From that courage of Otero Alcántara, who subscribes to this text and this newspaper, we have been information platforms in a systematic way.
On the walls of the Freedom Tower, still restored, you can still hear the echo of the first refugees who arrived in exile in the 1960s. Many did not manage to see the centenary of the building, but those who did survive to commemorate it, donated personal and family objects to that site of so much symbolism, belonging to a generation that is still forced to reinvent itself and integrate, despite being discriminated against, suffering from shortages and the total loss of the link with Cuba, He always ensured to preserve the moral height of the fragmented nation.
After witnessing in video materials posted on networks the meeting held by Otero Alcántara at the inauguration of his first exhibition in Miami at the Freedom Tower, and observing with amazement the bundle of fabrics to which the flag given by the artist to his guests was reduced, there are several questions that I take the liberty to ask, although perhaps they will not find an answer because also on networks I have seen the position of those who, even in a threatening way, give warnings to those of us who do not applaud the poses of the visual artist who We assume as rudeness, not only towards the nation, but also personal, because each of us is a piece of that island.
Could it be that, when choosing the Freedom Tower as an exhibition venue, the art and history experts close to Otero Alcántara spoke to him about what that building was and means for Cuban exiles? Could it be that being young and newly arrived in a place imposes the need to ignore what has been brewing for almost seven generations? Could it be that to achieve Cuba’s freedom it is necessary to violate all types of symbols and deny the inherited value system? Could it be that the new scenario of confrontation stopped being all Cubans vs. dictatorship and is now encouraged – expressly or out of apathy – between national traditions and disruptive positions that despise and deny what we have been? Could it be that, to recover Cuba, creativity and spontaneity also require a touch of indolence? Could it be that the authenticity of our idiosyncrasy has been transformed to such an extent that it is unknown to some of us?
And I warn – now I am the one who gives the warning – that I am not convinced by the pretexts that it is artistic casualness; Art, in my opinion, ceases to be art when, by virtue of appearing innovative, it seeks to impose itself with codes and poses that are presented from the choteo. One thing is satire, absurdity, figurative art, realism in its bloodiest expressions, manifestations that have always been a reflection of moments in history. Another is to try to camouflage affront under what tries to be represented as the consequences of extraordinary experiences.
In Cuba, the one I left 22 years ago, when we had already gone through the effects of a so-called Special Period, when we also suffered extensive blackouts, we went to bed hungry and woke up with a glass of sugar water; We wore torn shoes and ate food shared among neighbors, when since then survival had become the method of life, urbanity was never at odds with poverty.
I have always known that art and social consciousness are a reflection of its time and consequently that the way in which Cuban society manifests itself is the mirror of the reality of a country in structural and anthropological ruin. However, I reiterate, the symbols are respected. Otherwise, and if disrespect for symbols and traditions constitute a new form of expression, why does Otero Alcántara endorse those he exhibits as a practitioner of religious creeds, which, as he shows, he does revere. It must be because this is a part of his ideals that he does take seriously, as appropriate, or because he foresees the consequences of not doing so.
I do not belong to the so-called historical exile, to those who have the Freedom Tower as a temple of Cubanness because it was their first refuge, but I did learn that it is a place where to enter you ask for permission out of respect for all the memories that are protected there and once inside, even to celebrate, you maintain composure.
When I write these letters I do it with a mixture of anger and amazement because I consider that those who do not show interest in respect should not be offered all the spaces, because they must be earned; but also, because if the artistic conceptualization that is alluded to to support the reasons for so much nonsense ignores the foundations on which the nation was based for centuries, then the question that remains unanswered is whether those of us who resist giving up what we have been and learned have no place in the new Cuba that apparently has been taking shape and there are many that we do not know.
