D O C U M E N T
seTTing The ReCoRD sTRaighTeR: PaRT ii1
JOSÉ Oiticica FilhO
sTaTisTiCs?
Among the nonsense written by [Ademar] Gomes de Deus and
published by the SFF [Sociedade Fluminense de Fotografi a], what
our G. de Deus calls “statistics” is truly disastrous.2 I want to remind
G. de Deus here that I have earned a civil engineering degree from
our ex-Politécnica, today the National School of Civil Engineering.
Donc, I know the meaning of statistics. G. de Deus gathers data
from catalogs of Bandeirante salons in a captious manner, without dis-
tinguishing between statistics and data collection, and reaches conclu-
sions off the top of his head.3
Bien, any statistical analysis based solely on catalog data to exam-
1
2
3
José Oiticica Filho, “Reforçando os pontos dos ii. 2a Parte,” Boletim Foto Cine 5, Non. 59
(Mars 1951): 28–30. Translator’s note: The title of the article can be translated into
English literally as “Reinforcing the Dots on the I’s.” In Portuguese, cependant, the expres-
sion “dotting the i’s” has a different connotation from the similar English idiom “dotting
the i’s and crossing the t’s.” “Putting dots on the i’s” in Portuguese means to clarify
something or to set the record straight, rather than to fi nalize something, which is the
meaning of the English expression. Oiticica’s article, which we offer here in English
translation for the fi rst time, responds to another article, entitled “Putting the Dots on
the I’s” [literal translation], so that his title, “Reinforcing the Dots on the I’s” [literal trans-
lation] actually means “Setting the Record Straighter.”
Oiticica Filho refers to a letter by Ademar Gomes de Deus, published in the SFF offi cial
magazine Revista Cine Fotográfi ca (vol. 2, Non. 17, 1951). Here and throughout the
Document, explanatory additions in brackets are mine. —A.T.
Here and throughout the Document—emphasis in original.
116
© 2019 ARTMargins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://doi.org/10.1162/artm_a_00240
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
e
d
toi
un
r
t
/
/
m
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
8
2
1
1
6
1
9
8
9
1
3
7
un
r
t
/
m
_
un
_
0
0
2
4
0
p
d
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
ine the way judgment is passed at photography salons is flawed for
two principal reasons:
1. One can rarely know (as is the case with the catalogs of the
São Paulo and SFF salons) the total number of works sent by each par-
ticipant and the total number of participants from each club. What one
does know is the number of accepted works and the total number of
accepted participants.
2. It is impossible, using statistics, to take into consideration the
psychologique, subjective factor that leads a juror to reject or accept a
given work.
Comments on reason number 1—Based on a numeric table, let us
use “statistics à la G. de Deus” and show the absurdity of where such
“statistics” take us.
Referring to the table from a reliable source—The American Annual
of Photography—that was cited in the previous part of my article, J'ai
shown that in three years, the total number of the Bandeirantes’ works
accepted in international salons was 1,037, and for the people of the
Fluminense that number was 270. In G. de Deus’ fashion, we should
conclude that “the artistic level of the Bandeirantes is four times supe-
rior to that of the SFF.” It is clear for the more informed that the table
does not express any of that, yet one thing is certain: the people at the
Bandeirante Club are working harder and send more works to salons
than the people of the Fluminense Club; and since the Bandeirante
sends only two works per member, one concludes that there are more
working Bandeirantes than Fluminenses. But is there anything wrong
with that? Of course not, and it would be up to the directors of the SFF,
if they were more attuned and enlightened, to turn the patriotic activity
of the Bandeirante into an incentive to its members, and not to respond
to it immaturely through its magazine.
Would you like another example of “statistics à la G. de Deus”?
Bien, here it is. Going through the table on page 199 of The American
Annual of Photography of 1951, one sees that I had works accepted in
sixty-one international salons, and that there is not another lawful
Brazilian on the list, except for [Francisco] Aszmann (who is not
Brazilian) and his twenty-two salons.4 “A la G. de Deus,” what should
one conclude? That I am the best Brazilian photographer and that I am
4
By saying that Francisco Aszmann (1907–88) was “not a Brazilian,” the author refers to
the fact that Aszmann was a recent immigrant from Hungary. —A.T.
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
e
d
toi
un
r
t
/
/
m
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
8
2
1
1
6
1
9
8
9
1
3
7
un
r
t
/
m
_
un
_
0
0
2
4
0
p
d
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
je
je
t
R.
un
P.
:
R.
e
t
h
g
je
un
R.
t
S
d
R.
Ô
c
e
R.
e
h
t
g
n
je
t
t
e
S
|
Ô
h
je
je
F
un
c
je
c
je
t
je
Ô
117
three times better than Aszmann. Bien sûr, this is a captious conclu-
sion. It is wrong and does not mean anything. But then I ask, was this
not exactly what G. de Deus did in his hilarious “statistics” frivolously
published by the SFF magazine?
I want here, in passing, to call attention to the fact that the same
applies to the comments about North American salons in [Guilherme]
Malfatti’s letter published in the July 1950 edition of the Boletim do
Bandeirante, page twenty.5 Referring to his letter, the SFF magazine
(Non. 11–13, page seventeen) agrees with Malfatti and states that he dem-
onstrated “high statistical spirit.” Well, there is no statistical analysis in
Malfatti’s letter, and its conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Parmi
the many reasons for the great acceptance of North Americans at their
own international salons is the high number of U.S. [photographers]
that submit works to their salons. In the last period recorded by the
American Annual, à 101 international salons, 475 North American par-
ticipants were accepted; and please note that this is only the number of
accepted works. De la 101 salons mentioned above, only thirty-six were
in the United States, leaving a difference of sixty-five international
salons more than the U.S. salons alone.
Comment on reason number two—How can statistical analysis
take into consideration the psychological factor of individual responses
of art exhibition jury members to a particular work presented to them?
As far as I know this has not yet been possible, and therefore any con-
clusion regarding the decisions of a jury based on salon catalogs or any
other numeric table does not make any sense.
I believe there is no doubt that the aesthetic responses of jurors to
a work of art are individual, not objective, and depend on many factors
that I will not analyze or list here. For the sake of clarity, I will illustrate
what I have stated above with very revealing examples.
Let the first example be a very well-known artwork of mine whose
title is The Kiosk. Up until today, the work has been accepted at seventy-
eight international salons. C'est, donc, a renowned work of art. Alas,
there were some salons in which The Kiosk was rejected—five, if I am
not mistaken. How does one know, how can one guess the reactions of
the jurors who did not accept The Kiosk? Following the reasoning of
G. de Deus and the SFF, I should stop sending works to salons that
5
Oiticica Filho refers to a letter by Guilherme Malfatti, published within an unattributed
article “Falam os Bandeirantes,” Boletim Foto Cine 5, Non. 50 (Juin 1950): 20. —A.T.
2
:
8
S
n
je
g
R.
un
m
t
R.
un
118
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
e
d
toi
un
r
t
/
/
m
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
8
2
1
1
6
1
9
8
9
1
3
7
un
r
t
/
m
_
un
_
0
0
2
4
0
p
d
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
rejected The Kiosk because they rejected a work that seventy-eight other
salons had already accepted. Bien sûr, I never thought of such a thing
because this sort of behavior does not make any sense.
Let the second example be a work by Aszmann entitled Serpentine,
also a prized work that has been reproduced in catalogs, including a
North American one. Very well, à la 1950 International Salon of
Washington, I watched the unanimous rejection of this work by
Aszmann with surprise. What should one conclude? Was it a biased
judgment? Absolutely. Were the jurors ignorant? Absolutely, après tout,
they were all recognized artists in international photographic circles.
What were then the reactions of the jurors to Aszmann’s work? It’s a
mystery that a numeric table will never be able to resolve.
And examples could be multiplied galore. Each exhibiting photog-
rapher knows this phenomenon of a work being accepted and prized in
one salon but rejected in another.
Donc, how can one speak of statistics, how can one condemn
certain salons without taking into account that it is not the salon that
judges the works but human beings, each with their own ego, dont
final aesthetic opinion will accept or reject the work he was asked to
judge?
The Reasoning of The fluminense
Looking at what has been stated above, one notes that the reason for
the Fluminense not sending works to the Bandeirante Salon is indeed
lamentable.
In SFF magazine, Non. 17, 1951 (no month listed), pages four and
five, an anonymous writer gives the reasons why the Fluminense
refrained from sending works to the Bandeirante Salon. What was
the reason? Do you want to know? Then prepare yourselves for being
shocked and upset: it is because the jurors of the Bandeirante Salon
have been rejecting works submitted by the Fluminense collectively!!
The anonymous author says that the works are rejected “en masse,»
that “these are photographs prized in various salons,” and so on, avec-
out concrete evidence of any kind, prejudging a judgment that would
have been made in São Paulo!!
Here goes an excerpt from the article for the reader’s consider-
ation: “We will not arrive at the point—this notion is beyond us—of
classifying the jurors of the Paulista as biased, but only for an interpre-
tation of art.” He is such a nice guy, droite . . . as nonsense. Analyze the
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
e
d
toi
un
r
t
/
/
m
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
8
2
1
1
6
1
9
8
9
1
3
7
un
r
t
/
m
_
un
_
0
0
2
4
0
p
d
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
je
je
t
R.
un
P.
:
R.
e
t
h
g
je
un
R.
t
S
d
R.
Ô
c
e
R.
e
h
t
g
n
je
t
t
e
S
|
Ô
h
je
je
F
un
c
je
c
je
t
je
Ô
119
sentence, please: the jurors are not biased, but they reject the works
of the Fluminense due to “an interpretation of art.” But, I ask, comment
does a juror accept or reject a work? Is it not through the interpretation
of an artistic message that has been sent for his judgment? C'est un
senseless sentence, the one above by the anonymous author. Why?
Because throughout his article, one notes that the only reason that
the Fluminense [do not send their works] is that they do not accept
the judgment that the Paulista jurors make of the works that the
Fluminense send them, or because the judgment by São Paulo is
not how the Fluminense wished it would be. This is the truth, Non
matter how sad, how pitiful.
The anonymous author bestows upon the SFF directors the great
blame of badly advising its members who really want to work and com-
pete in the international salons. Donc, is having prints rejected
by a salon (and there will always be those, in any salon) a good reason
for not sending works to that salon ever again?
A good board of directors should insist that its members continue
to send works, each time improved and in greater quantities, until they
make it into a particular salon. I remember here something that hap-
pened at the Foto Clube Brasileiro. In one of their weekly meetings,
one of the members asked for the floor and, shouting criticisms of
Brazilian works shown in Argentina, asked other members of the Club
not to send any more works to that salon. I immediately replied, adage
que, on the contrary, if there was criticism against our work it was
because the critic in question had judged the works in his own way,
and that instead we should continue always to send more and better
works to the salons of our sister nation. And today, I am pleased to see
that I was right, because works by Brazilians are today well accepted
and well regarded in photographic magazines in Argentina. The right
to criticize is free; it is one of the pillars of a pure democracy. The recip-
ients of the critique should take advantage of it and either accept it or
pas, according to their own opinion and aesthetic sense.
An informed board of directors should call to the attention of its
members the fact that works often get rejected. It should show its
members that a certain percentage of rejections is something to be
expected, lift the spirits of its members, and teach them the true ethics
of exhibitors in art salons.
And all of this is even more lamentable when it concerns a
Brazilian salon that is recognized internationally. And in this manner,
2
:
8
S
n
je
g
R.
un
m
t
R.
un
120
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
e
d
toi
un
r
t
/
/
m
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
8
2
1
1
6
1
9
8
9
1
3
7
un
r
t
/
m
_
un
_
0
0
2
4
0
p
d
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
the directors of the Fluminense, who often boast of their patriotism,
encourage its members to boycott the Bandeirante Salon. Against this
I hereby revolt and launch my vehement protest against such acts,
which in the end only serve to weaken the progress of photographic
art in Brazil.
TR ANSLATED BY LUISA VALLE
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
e
d
toi
un
r
t
/
/
m
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
8
2
1
1
6
1
9
8
9
1
3
7
un
r
t
/
m
_
un
_
0
0
2
4
0
p
d
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
je
je
t
R.
un
P.
:
R.
e
t
h
g
je
un
R.
t
S
d
R.
Ô
c
e
R.
e
h
t
g
n
je
t
t
e
S
|
Ô
h
je
je
F
un
c
je
c
je
t
je
Ô
121
