what audacity: learning from artacho jurado

Differing greatly from typical photographs of twentieth-century architecture – which often portray formal encounters, the accuracy of physical dimensions, and the beauty of certain buildings – the photographs of the buildings designed by João Artacho Jurado and executed by Aurélio Jurado Artacho, the brothers and business partners of Construtora Monções, display poses of their family members dressed in gala attire, highlighting the details of their work. Diva, the only daughter of João and Mercedes, often appears in the images cutting the opening ribbon at inaugurations, which were attended by politicians and movie and television stars. 1In other images appear the employees of Monções, all of them invited annually along with their families to Christmas parties, which always took place at the Louvre building, with clowns and performers and presents for all. Artacho maintained long relationships of trust and friendship with his employees, the possible subject of another series of interpretations. Photography would serve architecture in two ways: firstly, to portray it as an aesthetic object; secondly, to promote a lifestyle, as well as revealing the emotional and familial relationship with which Artacho treated his buildings. Artacho and his family lived in several of the buildings that he designed. He took pleasure in every detail of the buildings, whether under construction or handed over to the new owner, thoroughly drawing them and disseminating them to exhaustion even after they were ready and oftentimes had even already been sold.

Artacho Jurado practically gave no interviews. Neither did he keep notes and sketches in diaries, nor did he leave behind a library of his referenced books and documentation. Shying away from the stereotype of the creative artist and intellectual, he neither read nor wrote habitually. This helps to explain the scant bibliographic material about Monções, as well as the general academic uninterest with his supposed bad taste and disregard for the academic canons of architecture. I posit the following essay, however, based on the accounts of family members, with whom I’ve visited with during recent months (in addition to Diva, several times I spoke with Silvia and Marco Aurélio Jurado, Aurélio’s children; Luli Penna and Teca Eça, Aurélio’s granddaughters), drawings and photographs from the family archive that I had access to, and, also, based my own experience with his buildings. This is, therefore, a work of fiction controlled and founded by memories, emotions, and gestures by those who knew him intimately and participated in crucial moments, especially during times of crisis at the construction firm.

The brothers who would come to be business partners at Monções were the children of Ramon and Maria Dolores, Spanish immigrants from Málaga. Their mother was Catholic (so much so that the brothers built her a building to live in, in Pompéia, right next to a church); their father was an atheist and an anarchist who worked at General Motors and was fired in the wake of the Great Depression in 1929. Unwilling to allow his children to swear to the flag, he removed them from school while still young, and they began homeschooling. Aurélio initiated his working life as a delivery boy, attending commerce school and becoming an accountant. João enrolled at a vocational school for perspective drawing and began designing neon signs; shortly after, he began to design the booths for industry fairs that promoted inventions of the time (the 1940s). 2These fairs formed the beginning of the process that led to the Ibirapuera Park, years later, with the Pavilions that would be designed by architect Oscar Niemeyer.

According to his family members, João was a perfectionist, a selftaught observer, solitary and self-centered. With extensive knowledge of perspective, besides an excellent spatial perception and disposition to manage staff and employees, he was able to execute the buildings in his way, with large and increasing acceptance by his clients. Artacho spent most of his time working at the construction company, which was located at 140 Rua Barão de Itapetininga, one of the most elite commercial addresses of the time. He habitually lunched at Mappin, a restaurant frequented by politicians, businessmen, and other potential business partners. On the weekends, family members recount the two brothers driving around the city looking for lots to build in. Both their homes and offices often had large windows with city views (for Artacho, it was important to design windows from which one could see the city while seated in an armchair), where he would smoke cigars and listen to opera, his greatest passion; where, in the middle of the night, he would design his buildings (most of them were designed in the same apartment that João and his family lived, in the Piauí building, the first by Monções in Higienópolis).

Artacho’s focus on quickly selling his buildings and amassing wealth should not reduce or simplify the meaning of his work. 3The meanings of their projective decisions can be rehashed in the present: if they were already considered the simple consequence of marketing for the sale of apartments, contrasted by the defense of the social function of architecture, for example, today it can be counterposed to certain problems of modern architecture, which only became evident later. It’s necessary to remove from Artacho any pejorative preconception (imprecise, wrong, tacky; the constructor of spaces without order, badly dimensioned) or those of value (icon, cult, desired). We should escape from the realm of “liking” or “not liking” in art and architectural criticism, and see these buildings as agents that deserve that we see from their perspective. See YANEVA, Albena. Mapping Controversies in Architecture. Surrey: Ashgate, 2012. Decorative items were not chosen only to make an impact and quickly sell the units alone. Despite the high cost of those details, and to the opposition of architects of the time, Artacho demanded that the buildings be constructed in this way, because he wanted for his buyers and himself to experience visual pleasure in their future day-to-day. His work with neon signs, fair booths, and his pastime of listening to and frequenting the opera (he was obsessed, and purchased season passes for the Theatro Municipal de São Paulo), for their part, would provide the biographic and aesthetic grounding from which he would find his creative path.

Artacho began his career designing neon signs. Years later, when expanding the plans for common areas, he included a space for publicity on the top floor of the buildings, which would cheapen or even nullify homeowners association costs. Aside from financing the maintenance of leisure spaces, these glowing ads reinforced the entertainment quality of his buildings: an architecture more about communication than space, conceived in unison with popular culture, instead of an erudite sensibility. It was a mutual relationship. The buildings would blur with the glow and visual extravagance of the neon signs, making them barely discernable from a distance, converting them into lighthouse-buildings, that, like the glowing signs (sometimes with, sometimes without brands to advertise) would blink through the banal, gray quotidian of the city.

Until the 1930s people resisted living in buildings not only for their association with tenements, but for fear of tragedy. 4See. DEBES, Ruy. Artacho Jurado: Arquitetura Proibida. São Paulo: Editora Senac, 2008. Artacho would attract his buyers by promoting leisure spaces in the lobbies and rooftops of his buildings. A condo-club, accessible to the middle class, that would provide something beyond the apartment only as the space for the family’s day-to-day. 5A client of Monções could also host parties in the very place in which they lived, something exclusive, before then, for members of the elite, who hosted parties in their homes or in clubs that they were members of. His buyers could benefit from a park-like coexistence (from which his architecture began) – the so-called “Disneyland architecture,” one of the terms used to critique him – where adults and children could play during the leisure time imposed by modern city life. The building’s environment would approximate an amusement park, promoting community and gratification. Not unlike Las Vegas, where the American working class could imagine for a few moments that they were members of the jet-set, 6See SCOTT BROWN, Denise; VENTURI, Robert; IZENOUR, Steven. Learning from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977. the Artacho Jurado buyer, largely Paulistas from the countryside, could dream, forever, despite the increasing harshness of city living, that they lived in an endless summer club.

Artacho was not a fan of drink or games of chance (as a child, he heard stories about his grandfather, who had lost all his money in Spain to his vices). According to family members, he would only attend social events that could positively influence Monções’s business. He was not the typical twentieth-century playboy architect. Moreover, he sold his buildings to a public that was not necessarily typically bon-vivant. He would, however, create experiences that would incorporate several spaces for desire, pleasure, and enjoyment (for the economically-mobile worker, who would have been restricted during that time only to holidays or Sundays), inverting the city’s paradigms of work and discipline of the era. 7See. PRECIADO, Paul. Pornotopia: arquitectura y sexualidad en “Playboy” durante la guerra fría. Barcelona: Editorial Anagrama, 2010.

In this way, Artacho grasped the imaginary of the time, fulfilling dreams, desires, and aspirations rather than imposing an idea of what Man should be. 8According to family members, for the modernists the most important was the Social, and for Artacho it was the Individual. In another way, the authors of Learning from Las Vegas make a similar defense, corroborating the parallels between postmodernism and Artacho Jurado: “Developers built for markets, not for Man, and probably caused less harm than would authoritarian architects, if they had their power.” In doing so, he would transform his buildings into dramatic scenarios, not unlike those of the opera or cinema. Those who inhabited them would be stars, even if only through aesthetic illusion. A film to be lived in the quotidian, as if every day was special, and not banal; where buyers’ fictions could become a palpable reality. 9The apartments with smaller layouts, one-bedrooms, such as the Viadutos or the Louvre, for example, have many elevators and a private hall for every two units, giving off the impression of luxury and grandiosity. However, unlike the current real estate market, which seems to sell a marketing dream that disappoints once inhabited, Artacho’s development model was not of increased profit for the developer by reducing the quality of the building

Artacho’s abundant use and variety of decorations in his buildings was central to creating this fantasy, directly related to the image and illusion of a film set. The ornaments he designed were mixed, without hierarchy or discrimination, with items readily available in the construction industry, pairing one with the particularities of another. 10The family recounts how Artacho designed a bathroom with blank sinks, non-existent on the market of the time. He requested that Celite launch this color; and, since then, it has been a part of their line, without the necessity of Artacho’s authorial rights. He would design, compile and compose all the items in minute detail, and, not unlike an artisan, he would rarely repeat them, even when citing his own work, connecting the works to the image that distinguished them in the landscape. 11Reminiscent of Antoni Gaudí’s work.

He did not, however, establish his work primarily in search of career recognition as an artist-author. It was a job like any other, but he did it in unexpected ways, opened up to outside references attached to the project. This neither pollutes nor glorifies his production, but would instead provide the meaning of his construction: accumulation. Artacho would compose his buildings as a radical collage of elements; altering the project during the construction phase, sometimes in response to client demands. The building would emerge as the least predictable part of this operation. 12The curatorial work of the Dutch architect and thinker Rem Koolhaas for the 14th Venice Architecture Biennale (2014) highlighted how architects and critics privilege the totality of projects to the detriment to each constituent part: “The fact that elements change independently, according to different cycles and economies, and for different reasons, turns each architectural project into a complex collage of the archaic with the current, of the standard with the unique, of mechanical smoothness with bricolage.” See KOOLHAAS, Rem. “Elements of Architecture”. In: fundamentals catalogue. 14. Mostra Internazionale di Architettura. Veneza: Marsilio, 2014.

The Monções buildings were meant to be seen from the front – in back, there is nothing of constructive solidity. “For him, structural truth was not important; what mattered was the visual result achieved”. 13LEME, Maria Eugenia França. Re-Conhecendo: Artacho Jurado. Trabalho Final de Graduação, FAU-USP. São Paulo, 1994. Free translation. The Bretagne project is paradigmatic in this sense: its position was inverted in relation to its initial project, privileging the view (beauty) over sun exposure (the technical aspect). The visual was absolutely privileged over structure (even if it has resisted over time better than concrete architecture, for example), constituting an architectural effect that to this day provokes polarizing reactions.

The buildings designed by Artacho were condemned by some Paulista architects, who consider it decorative, imprecise, tacky, kitsch, and eclectic. Eduardo Corona, a professor at FAU-USP, was perhaps Artacho’s chief critic. In 1958, he published in an edition of Revista Acrópole an article entitled What Audacity!, aggressively critiquing his work as “an aberration,” something “not to be imitated,” “the opposite of contemporary architecture,” and “wrong, from top to bottom”. 14See. CORONA, Eduardo. Que audácia!. Revista Acrópole 232: 3. São Paulo, 1958. Free translation. In response to Monções’ success, the IAB (Instituto de Arquitetos do Brasil, the Brazilian Architectural Institute), by all accounts, increased the registration requirement by CREA (Conselho Regional de Engenharia e Arquitetura, the Regional Council of Engineering and Architecture) for the construction of buildings. Newspaper columnists called Artacho a “hustler,” commentary that, according to the family, mixed with “that guy who used to make amusement parks and now makes buildings”. 15The humiliation that the family experienced after the company’s collapse mixed with the fact of Artacho’s being, in a certain way, an emerging immigrant building in the neighborhoods of the established Paulista elite; of not being an architect and having had a commercially successful career in the industry. The parents of Aurélio’s classmates forbade them to visit the Jurado’s home, especially after Monções began to be the target of attacks against its supposed commercial integrity; a fact that, of course, deeply troubled João. The family justified these events by adjusting the portions of apartments in accordance with inflation, which took off in Brazil at that time. According to family members, neither Artigas nor Paulo Mendes da Rocha liked his buildings. More recently, the architect Fernando Forte considered it “pseudo-modernism diverting attention away from the innovative architecture that was changing the culture of the country. (…) He practiced an architecture that, more than anything, probably confused Paulistanos about what was modernism”. 16See. FORTE, Fernando. Polêmico Artacho do Kitsch ao Cult. Revista aU, edição 174, setembro 2008.

For Architecture, specialization and training (be they more closely linked to engineering or art) are necessary; a tradition, supposedly, responding to another; and the justification of choices is, especially after modernism, scientific, based both on studies of construction techniques and the history of architecture. Intuition is occasional and eclecticism undesired. 17For the modernists, meaning should be transmitted by characteristic inherent to the form. Form should follow function, structure, and method of construction. On the other hand, the exaggeration of structure and program can be considered as an ornament of modern architecture. In truth, this is not a criticism of ornament itself, but its supposed bad taste in relation to the aesthetic inventions of the modernists. It is also a strategy of erasure. By the way, “eclectic” is how Architecture condemns that which strays from its precepts, not unlike how scientists create guidelines for experiments; it’s a similar strategy of differentiating and excluding. 18See. LATOUR, Bruno; WOOLGAR, Steve. La vie de laboratoire: La production des faits scientifiques. Paris: La Découverte, 1988 [1979]. Over the course of the twentieth century, artistic originality in Brazil was in constant tension with the “eclectic” past (considered elitist and Europeanized) as well as the “modern” future (also marked by European teachings, even under the pretext of integrating construction within a national identity).

Artacho’s architecture has nothing scientific about it, nor does it follow the aesthetic prescriptions of the modernist architectural vanguard. He affirmed the construction of environments that were anything but sober or temperate; but instead bright, shiny, and antiseptic; the opposite of the sobriety of concrete homes that began to appear in São Paulo. 19Artacho was the contemporary, for example, of the architect Gregori Warchavchik, who was heavily criticized by the mayor of São Paulo at the time, Cristiano Stockler das Neves, who was also a founder of the Mackenzie architecture school, and who later would become closer to Artacho. “Imagine what will become of the Garden City if these tomb-like homes of reinforced concrete continue to appear. The devaluation of this land would be inevitable, which would seem to be more of an extension of Araçá.” On the other hand, and during another time, he decalred that “Monções is to be congratulated. They made a building for the body and for the spirit, which is not only a machine for living – the kind invented by materialism, that mimicry adopted, that snobbery fomented”(Debes, op. cit.) He created them from the plurality and simultaneity of his references. An improvisation of styles, images, and heterogeneous information applied all at once, constituting its own aesthetic: hyper-allegorical and maximalist; within a scenery of excess, dreamlike and fun; nothing dead, but absolutely living. 20There were, however, other aesthetic movements developed in Brazil during the twentieth century that are marked by mixture, ignoring any ideology of purity, especially Antropofagia and Tropicália. It seems evident that Artacho did not read about or come to know this aesthetic production, but intuitively he shared their thoughts.  

Artacho’s pout-pourri or assemblage would appropriate modernism: the marquees atop his buildings were considered to be copies of Pampulha, at the front of the Louvre, very similar to Rino Levi’s constructions, for example the Prudência building, the entrance to the Pacaembu building, or the Cine Marabá. However, if he did reference the modernists, he would still adorn them with tiles and colorful ornaments (his architecture has been compared to Niemeyer’s Barbie House). Therefore, rather than simply imitating them, he produced in his own way (condemned as tacky and infantile).

Jurado was not focused on being respected by the critics, and wasn’t stopped by them; but, on the other hand, he would compete with other architects of the time for the same clientele. Artacho wanted his buildings to be seen as icons of the city, and he treated them as potential tourist sites. There are reports of a tourism bus hired by Monções that would take clients interested in the Bretagne building to the city of Santos so they could see their buildings on the coast. This reveals his greater interest in the mark that his buildings would leave than the supposed necessity of their architectural validation.

Decades after Monções closed, the history of the Artacho Jurado family is still being written. Recently, an exhibition was held entitled “Edifício Planalto: 60 Years of Color in São Paulo,” at which some of Artacho Jurado’s original drawings were exhibited in the building’s entryway. A series of numbers, scrawled in the margins, can be quickly noted in the now-framed plans, making up a type of account, probably about the number of apartments that could be sold in that format, to calculate the commercial viability of the project. Also exhibited were a table and two armchairs with the label, “Attributed to Artacho Jurado” The family members of Artacho present at the opening did not recognize the furniture pieces, all of them appearing to see them for the first time.

Also in recent months, family members reported that they were called to a condo meeting at the Apracs building with the goal of collecting signatures to have it recognized as a building designed by Artacho Jurado. Because of the financial difficulties of Monções, which peaked during the building’s construction, the building was finalized by the family of Chiquinho Scarpa, whose last name was inverted to title the building. For now, the building has not yet been declared historic property as desired by the residents, but it has recently received, from Conpresp, the municipal organization for preservation, the Seal of Cultural Value of the City of São Paulo.

30 years after his death, this process of legitimization of Artacho’s work contradicts and brings new elements to his trajectory. These recent images and events are evidence that Artacho never imagined that one day his drawings and furniture would be displayed as the work of an architect-artist-designer. As we know today, his buildings were attributed to Monções, since he was not formally allowed to sign them. Artacho was always disliked by the select group of modernist Paulista architects, and his need to fit in became secondary, something that never stopped him from building the projects he believed in.

Furthermore, he had no concerns regarding the reproduction of his creations. Each building inspired him to create completely new and different plans – the chandeliers are perhaps the greatest mark of this –, but he did not design them looking for any sort of authorship credit over these objects (much less so, eventually, to be reproduced). The pleasure was not in the signed and imitated chandelier (or not even in the actual buildings), but in the realization of seeing exactly what he wanted to see built, and, why not, quickly sold. He took pleasure in each new undertaking, drawing everything anew, instead of exhausting the same objects. We don’t know what came first: the desire to sell or to design.

Despite having been considered excessively original, Artacho would sample in his own work that of others, without any regard for the longevity of his design. Copies always interested him more than the original, and the final result was absolutely different from that which inspired him. What mattered to him was poetry, not the poetic style. He did not see the necessity of building in accordance with a school that would validate his creations and teach it to others.

To categorize him today to as a modernist or as a precursor to post-modernism is irrelevant. Artacho was a builder, never an architect – absorbed by material choices instead of the architectural ideas that his work would eventually assume and elicit. Courageously self-taught, lacking formal training, he bet on an architecture of peculiar taste, taking chances on a risky market. He protected himself as much as he could from embarrassment by critics, academics and Paulista high society, and the Revolution that architectural currents preached across Europe, and in São Paulo as well. He did not respect, disrespect, or he create a new school or tradition. He would combine disparate references, from monarchists to modernists, probably with little clarity about the politics implicit in them, but nonetheless personified in his iconic buildings, constructed in the middle of late capitalism in a country marked by its mixture of the old with the new, the traditional with the foreign, the tropical with the cosmopolitan, and, since then, eternally of the future. All of which makes his buildings extremely current, and, above all, why not, symbolic.

Louvre building under construction, no date. Photography: Studio Zanella
Louvre building under construction, no date. Photography: Studio Zanella

 

An apartment of Louvre building under construction, no date. Photography: Studio Zanella
An apartment of Louvre building under construction, no date. Photography: Studio Zanella

*

This text was originally published in the book the autobiography of monalisa (museu do louvre pau-brazy, 2016) and revised in June, 2021.

*

  • 1
    In other images appear the employees of Monções, all of them invited annually along with their families to Christmas parties, which always took place at the Louvre building, with clowns and performers and presents for all. Artacho maintained long relationships of trust and friendship with his employees, the possible subject of another series of interpretations.
  • 2
    These fairs formed the beginning of the process that led to the Ibirapuera Park, years later, with the Pavilions that would be designed by architect Oscar Niemeyer.
  • 3
    The meanings of their projective decisions can be rehashed in the present: if they were already considered the simple consequence of marketing for the sale of apartments, contrasted by the defense of the social function of architecture, for example, today it can be counterposed to certain problems of modern architecture, which only became evident later. It’s necessary to remove from Artacho any pejorative preconception (imprecise, wrong, tacky; the constructor of spaces without order, badly dimensioned) or those of value (icon, cult, desired). We should escape from the realm of “liking” or “not liking” in art and architectural criticism, and see these buildings as agents that deserve that we see from their perspective. See YANEVA, Albena. Mapping Controversies in Architecture. Surrey: Ashgate, 2012.
  • 4
    See. DEBES, Ruy. Artacho Jurado: Arquitetura Proibida. São Paulo: Editora Senac, 2008.
  • 5
    A client of Monções could also host parties in the very place in which they lived, something exclusive, before then, for members of the elite, who hosted parties in their homes or in clubs that they were members of.
  • 6
    See SCOTT BROWN, Denise; VENTURI, Robert; IZENOUR, Steven. Learning from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977.
  • 7
    See. PRECIADO, Paul. Pornotopia: arquitectura y sexualidad en “Playboy” durante la guerra fría. Barcelona: Editorial Anagrama, 2010.
  • 8
    According to family members, for the modernists the most important was the Social, and for Artacho it was the Individual. In another way, the authors of Learning from Las Vegas make a similar defense, corroborating the parallels between postmodernism and Artacho Jurado: “Developers built for markets, not for Man, and probably caused less harm than would authoritarian architects, if they had their power.”
  • 9
    The apartments with smaller layouts, one-bedrooms, such as the Viadutos or the Louvre, for example, have many elevators and a private hall for every two units, giving off the impression of luxury and grandiosity. However, unlike the current real estate market, which seems to sell a marketing dream that disappoints once inhabited, Artacho’s development model was not of increased profit for the developer by reducing the quality of the building
  • 10
    The family recounts how Artacho designed a bathroom with blank sinks, non-existent on the market of the time. He requested that Celite launch this color; and, since then, it has been a part of their line, without the necessity of Artacho’s authorial rights.
  • 11
    Reminiscent of Antoni Gaudí’s work.
  • 12
    The curatorial work of the Dutch architect and thinker Rem Koolhaas for the 14th Venice Architecture Biennale (2014) highlighted how architects and critics privilege the totality of projects to the detriment to each constituent part: “The fact that elements change independently, according to different cycles and economies, and for different reasons, turns each architectural project into a complex collage of the archaic with the current, of the standard with the unique, of mechanical smoothness with bricolage.” See KOOLHAAS, Rem. “Elements of Architecture”. In: fundamentals catalogue. 14. Mostra Internazionale di Architettura. Veneza: Marsilio, 2014.
  • 13
    LEME, Maria Eugenia França. Re-Conhecendo: Artacho Jurado. Trabalho Final de Graduação, FAU-USP. São Paulo, 1994. Free translation.
  • 14
    See. CORONA, Eduardo. Que audácia!. Revista Acrópole 232: 3. São Paulo, 1958. Free translation.
  • 15
    The humiliation that the family experienced after the company’s collapse mixed with the fact of Artacho’s being, in a certain way, an emerging immigrant building in the neighborhoods of the established Paulista elite; of not being an architect and having had a commercially successful career in the industry. The parents of Aurélio’s classmates forbade them to visit the Jurado’s home, especially after Monções began to be the target of attacks against its supposed commercial integrity; a fact that, of course, deeply troubled João. The family justified these events by adjusting the portions of apartments in accordance with inflation, which took off in Brazil at that time.
  • 16
    See. FORTE, Fernando. Polêmico Artacho do Kitsch ao Cult. Revista aU, edição 174, setembro 2008.
  • 17
    For the modernists, meaning should be transmitted by characteristic inherent to the form. Form should follow function, structure, and method of construction. On the other hand, the exaggeration of structure and program can be considered as an ornament of modern architecture. In truth, this is not a criticism of ornament itself, but its supposed bad taste in relation to the aesthetic inventions of the modernists. It is also a strategy of erasure.
  • 18
    See. LATOUR, Bruno; WOOLGAR, Steve. La vie de laboratoire: La production des faits scientifiques. Paris: La Découverte, 1988 [1979].
  • 19
    Artacho was the contemporary, for example, of the architect Gregori Warchavchik, who was heavily criticized by the mayor of São Paulo at the time, Cristiano Stockler das Neves, who was also a founder of the Mackenzie architecture school, and who later would become closer to Artacho. “Imagine what will become of the Garden City if these tomb-like homes of reinforced concrete continue to appear. The devaluation of this land would be inevitable, which would seem to be more of an extension of Araçá.” On the other hand, and during another time, he decalred that “Monções is to be congratulated. They made a building for the body and for the spirit, which is not only a machine for living – the kind invented by materialism, that mimicry adopted, that snobbery fomented”(Debes, op. cit.)
  • 20
    There were, however, other aesthetic movements developed in Brazil during the twentieth century that are marked by mixture, ignoring any ideology of purity, especially Antropofagia and Tropicália. It seems evident that Artacho did not read about or come to know this aesthetic production, but intuitively he shared their thoughts.

/