Jean Charlot and Luz Jiménez John ChaRlot

Jean Charlot and Luz JiménezJohn ChaRlot

�

Summary

When JeanCharlot discovered Luz Jiménez among the Indianmodels attheartschoolofCoyoacán,shebecameforhimthewomanhesawinallthewomenofMexico.StudyingherbodyenabledhimtodevelopatrulyMexicanesthetic.Followingherintoherdailylifeallowedhimtoparticipatein the age-old activities of theAztec household, child rearing, pilgrimage,andprayer.The languageof thoseprayersbroughthim into livingcontactwiththecondiceshehadstudiedasayouthandrevealedthecontinuityofMexicanIndianculturethatwastheultimateandheroicachievementofLuzandherpeople.

JeanCharlot(18981979)andLuzJiménez(18971965)eachhadanindependentcareer;heasanartistandwriter,andsheasamodel,informant,and author.They also had a long relationship thatwas important for thehistoryofartandculture.Theyfirstmetinlate1921orearly1922,whenCharlotwaseither twenty threeor twenty fouryearsoldandLuzwasayearolder.1Luzbecamehismodelandvisual inspiration.ShealsobecamehisteacherofNáhuatlandAztecculture,bringinghimintoherfamilyintheirvillageofMilpaAltaandtakinghimontheirpilgrimagetoChalma.Eventu-ally,LuzaskedCharlottobethegodfatherofherdaughterConcha,whichplacedhiminacompadrerelationtothefamily,withimportantobligationsforitsspiritualandmaterialwelfare.2CharlotandLuzmaintainedthatspecialconnectionthroughouttheirlives,andtheirrespectivedescendantsremainclosetoday.

The relationship of Charlot and Luz was, therefore, not the normal,unequalonebetweenartist andmodelor researcher and informant. LuzwasCharlot’smodel,butalsohisteacher.Attimes,Charlotemployedher;atothers,sheandherfamilyreceivedhimasaguest.CharlotwasalwaysawareofwhatheowedLuz:3

She’sbeenagreatinfluenceonmyart.She’sbeenagreatinfluenceinintroduc-ingmetowhatIcouldcallmyancestors,that is,theAztecIndians,becauseIampartIndian.

BeyondhisowndebttoLuz,Charlotwaswellawareofherbroadcul-turalcontribution,whichisbeingincreasinglyrecognized.4

shewasapersonofimportanceinherIndianworld,certainly,andthisseepedout,Iwouldsay,totheothercirclesinMexico,andshewasconsideredlikequiteanimportantperson.Ithinkthatwhenshediedtherewas,byAnitaBrenner,asortofsummaryofherlifeinMexico This Weekthatsuggeststhatshehadputoverthatqualityasapersonthatshehadthatwasoutstanding...Shehadcertainthingsthatwereobviously importantthings,oneofthemthemasteryoftheNáhuatllanguage,sothatshewasconsideredbytheethnologistsandarcheolo-gistsasanimportant,wecouldsay,“livinglink”withtheIndianpast.Andasapersonshewasagrandperson.That’stheonlythingonecansay.

1March5,1922, isCharlot’sfirstnonshorthanddiaryentrythatmentionsLuz.

2Karttunen1994:197.Later,Fernando Leal, another closefriend of the family, would be-comethegodfatherofLuz’sfirstgrandson, Alfonso (VillanuevaHernández 2004). Charlot didhis best, within his own strait-enedcircumstances,tohelpLuzand her family financially.Theirneedswerereal.MaryandRubyMcKibbin wrote the Charlotson September 9. 1948: “onedaywhenshe[CorneliusRuht-enberg]waswithRicardoMar-tinez and they were discussingLuzandwhoshouldtheyseeatthesamemomentbutLuzsell-ingembroideriestothetouristsaroundtheGeneve”.

I call Luz Jiménez by herfirstnameinthisarticlebecauseshe used it as her professionalname.Concha’s full name afterher marriage was ConcepciónHernándezdeVillanueva.

Charlot’s letters to AnitaBrennerareintheHarryRansomHumanities Research Center attheUniversityofTexasatAustin.Iamgratefulforaccesstothoseletters.Undatedlettersarecitedby incipit.All other unpublishedmaterials are in the Jean Char-lot Collection, Hamilton Library,University of Hawaii; includingcopies of the Charlot Jiménezcorrespondence, being editedby Jesús Hernández Villanueva,Luz’sgrandsonandConcha’sson.Charlot1970-1978willbecitedas“interview”anddate.Charlot1970-1979willbecitedas‘Table-talk”anddate.Charlotn.d.willbecited as“checklist”withnumber.I have not corrected Charlot’smistakesinSpanish.

I am grateful for the com-ments,criticisms,andinformationofFrancesKarttunenandSusan-nahGlusker,daughterandbiog-rapher of Anita Brenner. JesúsHernándezVillanueva provided

�

Luzmostobviouslytranscendedtheroleofartist’smodelinherexten-siveworkinlanguageandculture:

ShespokebeautifulAztec.Infact,lateron,whenshewasolder,shewaswhatiscalledaninformantonAzteclanguagesintheSchoolofEthnology.

Luzworkedasan informant,amongothers, forBenjaminLeeWhorf,RobertBarlow,andFernandoHorcasitas.5Luzwasimportantalsoasatrans-mitteroftraditionalNáhuatlstoriesandasawriteroforiginalnarrativesinthatlanguage.6AscensiónH.deLeónPortillawrites:“Posiblementehasidolapersonaquemáshacontribuidoconsupalabraalrescatederelatosennáhuatl”.ShehaspossiblybeenthepersonwhohascontributedmostwithherlanguagetotherescueoftalesinNáhuatl.7CharlotfollowedLuz’slin-guisticworkthroughoutherlifeandafterherdeath,rememberinghisstudieswithherandBarlowinthe1940s:8

Horcasitasmemandóellibronahualteco,losrecuerdosdeLuzenMilpaAlta;ymediogustovertusbellosdibujos,recordándomenuestrostiemposenEtno-grafia,tratandodeaprender—enmicasoenvano—elnáhuatl.HorcasitassentmetheNáhuatlbook,thememoirsofLuzinMilpaAlta;andI was pleased to see your beautiful drawings, remembering our time in theSchoolofEthnography,tryingtolearnNáhuatlinmycase,invain.

Charlotappreciatedalsohercompositions“The last taleswrittenbyLuzareverybeautiful”andaskedBrennertosendhimtheNáhuatltextofherpoem.9

CharlotworkedwithLuzandAnitaBrenneronapublicationofhertalesinEnglish,The Boy Who Could Do Anything.10Discussions“onLuzbook”fillCharlot’sletterstoBrennerbesidethoseonherconcurrentprojectIdols Behind Altars.11CharlotconsideredLuzatruecollaborator:12

1 am very desirous myself to publish the story book, specially because Luzwritesmethatshebadlyneedsthemoney.IaboutarrangedwithSheedandWard,635thAveforit.Theyhavethedrawings.YoucouldgoorwritetheretoMiss.M.Huntwhoknowsaboutit.Myonlychangefromtheoriginalplanwouldbetoincludeafewstoriesthatyouhadexcluded,becauseIamveryfondofmydrawingsforthem(thechoiceofdrawingsthatSheedhasismychoiceforthestories).Alsotosplitwhatevermoneywouldbecomingin3parts,soastosendsometoLuz.Iwouldlikealsotohaveahandindesigningthebook,havingdoneprettywellwiththeAmeliadelRiobook.Ultimately, beyondher accomplishments, Luz impressedCharlot as ahumanbeing,“agrandperson”.ImyselfknewLuzwhenmyfatherwasinMexicofrom1945 to 1947, working on his book The Mexican Mural Renaissance: 1920-1925(1963).LuzandsometimesConchalivedwithus,helpingwiththefamily,

mewithvaluablefamilyandvil-lage information and revealedhislatestresearchdiscoveriesinhisemailtomeofDecember19,2004.1amgrateful forhisper-mission to use them and awaittheirpublicationinthearticleheis preparing.Tatiana Flores pro-videdhelpfulcriticisms.

3Charlot1972.Tabletalk,July89,1971.Unusualrelationshipsofmanykindsbetweencollabo-rators of different cultures canbefoundinKarttunen1994.

4Interview August 7, 1971.Karttunen 1994: 192 214. Luz Jiménez, símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000.

5A. de León Portilla 1988:178f,200,237.Karttunen,2000.

6Horcasitas 1968. Horcasi-tasandFord1979.

7A.H.deLeónPortilla1988:213. See also M. de León Por-tilla,2000.

8Carta a Alberto Beltrán,17deabril,1969.Tabletalk,De-cember6,1978:CharlotstudiedwithBarlowwhileLuzwasoneoftheinformants.

9“Yourlastlettersaresome-thing sad”. Poem: “Received agood letter”;“Mehizomucho lanoticiamuerteAmado”:“Muy im-portante:MandametextoaztecadelpoemaLuz,eldelcomal”.

10Brenner,1952.LaterChar-iotandBrennercollaboratedonBrenner1966.

11Brenner, 1970. Mentionsof Luz´s cuentos project inCharlot’s letters: e.g.,“I didnotwriteyouforalittlewhile”;“Justawordaboutthesize”;“Comoquenuncaescribes”;March29,1925;April8,1925;May8,1925.InBrenner1970,illustration188on page 359, is a drawing byCharlotdescribedonpage351as“toillustratenativetale.”

12Charlot to Brenner“I amvery desirous myself.” CharlottoldmehethoughtLuzshouldhavebeenlistedasanauthorofthebook.

�

especiallywithuschildren.Luzhadunusuallylargeeyes,brightandactive.Herfacewasexpressiveandanimated,andinthekitchenwithherfriends,shewasconstantly,talkingandlaughing.Herbodywasstocky,andstrong,whiskingoneormoreofus childrenup inherarms tomoveusaround.She radiatedanimpressivesenseofphysicalandpersonalstrength.

Intheircorrespondence,Luzisalwaysrespectfulandformal;Charlotismorefamiliar,butnotpatronizing.InhislettertoherofJune18,1962,sheistreatedasacolleagueoftheartists:

Quebuenoquetúestésdandopláticasenlatelevisión.Esciertoqueyamuchosestáninteresadosenestosdíasdenuestrajuventud,yenloquedecíanyhacíanDiegoyClementeynosotrosentonces.Contantosañospasados,yaparecequeloquehacíamosentonceserabueno.Aunquelagentenosedabacuenta.

Howgoodthatyouaregivingtalksontelevision.CertainlymanyareinterestednowinthosedaysofouryouthandinwhatDiegoandClementeandweoth-ersweresayinganddoingthen.Nowthatsomanyyearshavepassed,itappearsthatwhatweweredoingthenwasgood.Althoughpeopledidn’trealizeit.

CharlotgreatlyadmiredLuz’sstrengthofcharacter,whichhefoundinherwholefamily.WhenConchawastroubledbyarelative’sgivingbirthtoanille-gitimatechild,CharlotrecalledLuz’sproblemswithConcha’sownillegitimacy:

Estristeperonotangrandetragediaestasituación.Tumamá,lacualeragrandeyfuertepersona,encontrótalsituaciónycuandofuimosallevartealbautismo,nadamasdospersonasfueron,túmamáyyoyelsacerdotetuvoqueponer‘nombredesconocido’adondedebíadeescribirelnombredetupapá.YavesquetumamáIlegóaserpersonasumamenterespetadayapreciadaportodoslosquelaconocieronycongrandedificultadmanejoeducartesiendotupersonabuenayfuerteycontodatufamiliaeducadaydisfrutandoempleosinteresantes.

Jean Charlot, 1926, plata sobre gelatina, Colección Familia Charlot. Foto: Edward Weston.

�

Heconocidocincogeneracionesdetufamiliaysequeencadageneraciónhayproblemasqueresolver.

Thissituationissadbutnotsuchagreattragedy.Yourmama,whowasagreatand strongperson,met sucha situation, andwhenwewent to takeyou toyourbaptism,nomorethantwopeoplewerethere,yourmamaandI,andthepriesthadtoput“nameunknown”wherethenameofyourpapashouldhavebeenwritten.Nowyouseethatyourmothersucceededinbecomingapersonmosthighlyrespectedandappreciatedbyallthosewhoknewherandwithgreatdifficultymanagedtoeducateyou,youbeingagoodandstrongpersonandwithallyourfamilyeducatedandenjoyinginterestingemployment.Ihaveknownfivegenerationsofyourfamilyandknowthatineachgenerationthereareproblemstosolve.13

Charlot always spokeof Luz as anequal friendwith a special familyrelationship.Shewassomeonewithwhomhecouldtalk:14

Estoyenmisdíasdetristezaetc...Yesterdaythewholeafternoonhemoshabla-dodetiwithLuz.Sheseemstheonlyone(entrelosqueyoconozco)toreallylikeyouandtheonlyone,porconsequencia,conquienpuedohablardeti.

Iaminmydaysofsadness,etc...YesterdaythewholeafternoonIspokeaboutyouwithLuz.Sheseemstheonlyone(amongthoseIknow)toreallylikeyouandtheonlyone,inconsequence,withwhomIcanspeakaboutyou.

EvenwhenLuzwasworking inour family in the1940s,Charlotdidnotthinkofherasanemployee.WhenIaskedhimhowshehappenedtocomeandlivewithus,hetoldmethatwhensheheardwewerearrivinginMexico,she“cametohelp”.Thatis,heemphasizedhergivingaidasafriend.Indeed,Charlot’smemoriesofLuzfromthattimewerefamiliar.InalettertoAlfonsoVillanueva(February9,1965),hedescribedhowhissonMartinrememberedLuz:

CuandodechiquitoenMéxicoluz[sic]siempreleponíaanocheadentrodesurebozoyleponíaadurmircantando.Esunrecuerdodelosprimerosquetienedesuvida.

WhenhewasalittleboyinMexico,Luzwasalwaysputtinghimatnightinsideherrebozoandputtinghimtosleepbysinging.It’soneofthefirstmemorieshehasofhislife.15

Later, Luz lulled her grandchildren to sleepwith French songs shehadlearnedinourfamily(VillanuevaHernández2000:33).Finally,CharlotidentifiedwithLuzindeath,writingConcha:“Lamuertedetumamámeayudaadarmecuentadequeyasoybastantecercadelfindemivida”.ThedeathofyourmotherhelpsmerealizethatIamnowcloseenoughtotheendofmylife.15

Asanartist,CharlotcouldthinkofLuzandportrayher“asasortofearthmother”(Morse1976:44).Shecouldbe“thewomanofdeep,compel-

13February 20, 1972. Char-lot’sownfatherHenriwasillegit-imate.ContrarytoCharlot’slet-ter,Concha’sbaptismalcertificatedoes contain the father’s name,Manuel Hernández Chaparro.According to her son, Conchaandherfamilyknewtheidentityofherfatherbutkeptitasafam-ilysecret.ThatAnitaBrenner,thegodmother,knewwhothefatherwas,isprovenbyalettertoherfromLuzofAugust30,1928, inwhich he is named (VillanuevaHernández 2004). Charlot alsomust have known the name ofthe father, but kept the fam-ily secret. When I questionedhim, he said that most peoplethought it was Fernando Leal.Tomyknowledge,heneversaiddefinitelythatLealwasthefather.That Charlot would evade myquestionbyveryuncharacteristi-callyrepeatinggossiprevealsthelengthstowhichhewouldgotokeep the family confidence, notbetraying iteventomymother.Charlot’s inaccuracy inhis letterof February 20, 1972, could bedueto faultymemoryor tohisuncertaintyaboutwhetherCon-chaknewthesecret.

Forsomereason,whenIwasvery young and probably won-deringabouttheunusualclose-

10

lingmystery”(Karttunen1994:202)andthe“arquetipodelamujerindígenamexicana”.ArchetypeofthenativeMexicanwoman(VillanuevaHernández2000: 27). But first and foremost, Luz was for Charlot“a grand person”,whichisthekeytotheirrelationshipandtotheartsheinspired.Thatis,forCharlot, relationshipshadtobetrulyhumanandarthadtobebasedonreality.BydeepeninghisrelationshipwithLuz,Charlotwasachievingatrueunderstanding,oftheMexicanwayofbeinghuman.Byportraying,herinhermanfacets,hewasexpressingthatunderstanding.

Thespecialinspirationanartistcanreceivefromamodelorcolleaguehasbeenstudied,forinstance,inPicassoandGeorgeBalanchine;periodsoftheirworkcanbedefinedbythepersontheywereworking,with.DiegoRivera’s portraits clearly reveal which subjects excited his brush. CharlotworkedwithseveralmodelsattheEscueladePinturaalAireLibreatCoyo-acán,butrecognizedLuzimmediatelyasspecial.BrennerwritesthatCharlot“discoveredanIndianmodelwholargelybecauseofhispaintingsbecamea‘classic’nativefemaleinmodernMexicanpainting”(1970[1929]:304).Char-lotrememberedthat“shehadbeenalreadythemodel,aspecialmodelwecouldsay,ofFernandoLeal,andshecertainlywasmyfavoritemodel”:16

There is awhole image there that sheprojected.Nowmanyof theothergirlscouldputtheirvillageclothesonandposewithapotontheirshoulders,buttheydidn’tdoit,sotospeak,tothemannerborn.AndLuzhadonethingthatwasimportant:shecoulddoitbothnaturally,astheIndiangirlthatshewas,andknowenoughsothatshecouldimaginefromtheoutside,sotospeak,whatthepaintersorthewriterssawinher,andshehelpedbothseethingsbecauseofthatsortofdoubleoutlookshecouldhaveonherselfandhertradition.Ithinkthatnotonlyinartbut,asIsaid,inethnology,shehasbeenaveryimportantlinkbetweenpastMexicoandpresentMexico.

Charlot’sdescriptionofLuz’sactiveroleinmodelingparallelsthatofherwork as a linguistic informant; Karttunenwrites (2000: 152):“Theprocessrequired the same sort of intuitive interaction between two people thatmodelingandpaintingrequires”.Bothasamodelandaninformant,Luzhadtobeaninsideranauthenticmemberofhercultureandanoutsidercapableofemergingfromherownculturalenvironmentandapproachingapersonofadifferentculture.Shewasamodelwhocouldmovetowardsanartist’svi-sioncouldcollaborateinhiscreationjustasagooddancercanmovetowardsthestyleofachoreographerandsuggestitsfurtherdevelopments.

This“doubleoutlook”ofLuzemergesfromherverypersonality:shewas reared traditionally inMilpaAltabutmostunusually fromher child-hood,madeanintenseefforttoreceiveaWesterneducationinordertopracticethenontraditionalprofessionofschoolteacher.Herrespect forandappreciationofhermainstreamandWesterncolleaguescamefromherlongingtobeconnectedtotheirworld.HerunderstandingoftheirneedscamepartlyfromherlimitedformalWesterneducationwhichincludedartbutprobablymorefromhercontinuallearningexperienceofworkingwiththem.17Sincehercolleaguesweresomeofthegreatmindsofthetwentieth

nessofourtwofamiliesIaskedmymotherifConchacouldhavebeenmyfather’schild.Mymoth-erdeniedstronglythattherehadeverbeenanyromanticfeelingsbetweenJeanandLuz.Shealsoemphasized that ifConchahadbeenhischild,my fatherwouldhaverecognizedherandfulfilledall his duties towards her.Thedevout Catholicism of Charlotand Luz certainly was a factorintheirfriendship.Consequently,no sexuality intruded on theirrelationship;Charlotwasalwaysperfectly respectful. This is animportant reason, I believe, forLuz’s consenting to pose nudeforCharlot.

Whenlaterobjectionswereraised to the baptism of thesicklychilddiscussed inthe let-terofFebruary20,1972,Char-lot wrote Concha very practi-cally(n.d.):

En cuanto a la cuestióndel bautizo, acuérdate de que,en caso de enfermedad grave,puedes tú misma bautizar, po-niendoelaguasobre lacabezade la enfermita y diciendo,“TebautizoennombredelPadre,ydelHijo,ydelEspirituSanto.”Estanvalidoesebautizocome[sic]elhechoporunPadre.Siemprecuando se alivia la niña, puedepedirbautizoenlaIglesia.

“Astothequestionofbap-tism, remember that in caseofgraveillness,youcanbaptizethechildyourself,puttingthewaterontheheadofthelittlesickoneandsaying,‘Ibaptizeyou inthenameoftheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit’.Thisbaptism isasvalidastheonedonebythe

11

century,thiswasarichcompensationfortheschoolingshehadmissed.Ontheotherhand,Luzdidnotrejecthertraditionalculture inorderto jointhemodemworld;rathersheworkedasanexperttoenableforeignerstounderstandandappreciateit.

IbelievethatonereasonCharlotandLuzunderstoodeachothersowellwasthattheywerebothinsideroutsiders.AmemberofaFrancoAztecMexicanfamily,CharlothadbeenrearedinFrancesurroundedbyrichcol-lectionsofhisfamily’sdiverscultures.InFrance,hewasneverwhollyFrench;inMexico,hewasneverwhollyMexican.LuzandCharlotcouldmeetasfewpeoplecanbeyondtheirculturalborders.

TounderstandhowCharlotlearnedfromLuzasamodel,Idividethesub-jectverygenerallyintothreeapproaches.Anartistcandoarealportraitofamodel,thatis,emphasizingtheindividualperson.Themodelcanalsobetreatedasarepresentativeorembodimentofaparticularculture.Finally,themodelcanbeusedforanexerciseinartisticstyleperhapsaninnovationoranexplorationofaparticularartisticelementthatthemodelbringstotheartist’smind.AllthreeapproacheswereimportantinCharlot’sworkandareultimatelyinsepa-rable;thatis,theyareallpresentinvaryingdegreesineachindividualworkofart.Charlotwasneverunawareoftherealpersonhewasportraying,ofthatperson’sculturalbackground,orofthefactthathehimselfwascreatingaworkofart.Hecould,however,emphasizeoneormoreaspect.

Charlot’smethodsand interestscanbestudied inhisFrenchperiod,fromhis childhoodworks to his departure forMexico in 1921.Workingfromthemodelwasan importantpartofacademicarteducation,whichCharlotexperiencedwithhisearlytutorsandasanadolescentattheEcoleNationaledesBeauxArts.Charlotwasalsointerestedearlyinportraiture,whichheconsideredaparticularstrengthofFrenchart.HecontrastedPierodellaFrancescatoHenrideToulouse-Lautrec.TheItalianwasprimarilyinter-estedinthemodelforstyle,turningtheheadasmuchaspossibleintothegeometricshapeofanegg.TheFrenchmanneverallowedhisrecognizablestyletooverpowerhisinterestintheparticularcharacteristicsofthemodel.ToulouseLautrec“savedthesubject”,Charlotargued,becausehelikedthemodelasaperson.Asaresult,muchofToulouseLautrec’sartisticinterestwasinsearchingouthismodel’sindividuality.Insayingthis,Ibelieve,Charlot,asdescribinghisownattitude.Portraitswerehiswayofunderstanding apersonandasituation,boththemodel’sandhisown.

Charlot’sportraitsofhismaternalgrandfather,LouisGoupil,illustratetheapproachesdescribedabove.Charlotstarteddrawingcareful,realisticportraitsofLouisin1914,theyearCharlot’sfather,Henri,sufferedabreak-downandenteredintothedeclinetowardshisdeathin1915.Charlotwasseeking,Ibelieve,toconnecthimselfmorecloselytohisfamily,toseekhisfamily roots. In1920,Charlot returnedhome fromhis service inWorldWarIandtheOccupationoftheRhineland.Hewastryingtofindhim-selfagaininhishomesettingandturnedoncemoretoLouisasamodel.InCharlot’smonumentalgouacheportraitof1920,Louis isdefinitelyan

Priest.Whenthelittlegirlisbet-ter,youcanalwaysrequestbap-tismintheChurch”.

14CharlottoBrenner“Comoque nunca escribes.” See also“Received a good letter”: “MemandoTinaConchitamuyboni-ta.DileaLuzquepiensomuchoen ella y no le escribo porquetendría yo demasiado que de-cirle”.Tina[Modotti]sentme[aphotograph of] Conchita, verycute.TellLuz I thinka lotabouther and don’t write because Iwouldhavetoomuchtotellher.

15June 5, 1965. Also Char-lot to AlfonsoVillanueva, Luz’sgrandson,February9,1965.

16InterviewAugust 7, 1971.Karttunen 1994: 197, 199.AnaLiliaRoura1999:131,statesthatCharlotgaveLuzanothernameby which she became known,Luciana; however, shedoesnotprovide a source. Concha toldVillanueva Hernández (2004,and personal communication)thatLealprovidedthenameLuz and that both Leal and Charlot gave her the name Luciana at the school of Coyoacán.

Compare on the followingquotation Tuñon Pablos 2000:74,“Poseedoradeesaenormefuerza interior, fue capaz deproyectar su imagen comoprototipode lamujer indígena,paradigmapatrióticode lamu-jermexicana...”Possessorofthisenormousinteriorstrength,shewas capable of projecting herimageasaprototypeofthena-tivewoman, patriotic paradigmoftheMexicanwoman.

17Horcasitas, 1968: 37, 87.Karttunen,1994:213.

12

individualdespitethestrongsimplificationandstylizationofhisprofile.ButLouisisobviouslyamanofacertaintimeandculture,bundledupintheindoorclothesandcapofanoldFrenchman.Louisrevealedevenhisracialbackground:thehoodedeyesandlong,squarejawthatremindedCharlotoftheportraitsoftheAztecemperorshehadstudiedinthecollectionofcodicesgivenbyhisgreatuncleEugéneGoupiltotheBibliothéqueNationale.WhenCharlotlookedatLouis,hesawhisfamilyhistoryindepth,hisgenealogicalconnectiontotheirMexicanpast.Finally,start-ing,in1916,CharlotusedsuchportraitsofLouisasthebasisforextremestylisticexperimentations.

Similarly,Charlot’sSelf Portrait, Cubist Style(January21-24,1919)wasdoneaftertheArmistice,whenhewastryingtounder-standhisexperiencesduringtheWar.Inacontemporarypoem,hedescribedthelinesofsufferingthathadbeenengravedinthefacehecontemplatesinthemirror :

etc’estpourquoisurmafacejeune,imberbelesouvenirsculpteurderideshabiteetaunoirdemesprunellesdusanggerbe.

andthatiswhyonmyyoung,beardlessface,memory,sculptoroflines,lives,andintheblackofmypupils,bloodgathers.

CharlotusedthoselinestocreateaCubistlikeanalysisofhisface,ex-ploringatoncestyleandself.

Reared in a multi cultural household amid art works from Europe,theAmericas,andAsia,Charlotwasearlyawareofculturaldifferencesandmeansofexpression.Herememberedthathisfirstdrawingofahumanbe-ingwasacopyofaprintbyHokusai.HischildhoodsketchbookcontainsadrawingofaNativeAmerican,whomhemayhaveseeninBuffaloBill’sWildWestShowwhenitperformedinParis.

Moreover, in Charlot’s youth even more than today, French Culturewasnotmonolithic.Classesandregionsmaintaineddifferentwaysofspeak-ing,dressing,andacting.ThevillageofPoissy,wheretheCharlot’shadtheirsummerhouse,hadlongbeenfamousforthestrengthofitspeasantculture.Charlotexperiencedthatculture intimately inhisownhomewiththe lo-calpeasantwomenemployedas servants. In fact, this relationshipstartedshortlyafterhisbirthwhenhismotheremployedasawetnurseMadameLeNohan,apeasantfromtheneighborhoodofPoissy.Charlotrememberedhervividly(interviewOctober31,1970):

shewasclosetotheearth,closetothesoil,certainlymorethanthepeoplewhoweremoreateaseinasalonatthetime.Therewasspeciallysomething

Louis Cyriaque Goupil, (1883-1926), Plata sobre gelatina, 20.5 x 20 cm, Archivo Museo Estudio Diego Rivera, Original Familia Charlot.

13

terrificallyartificial in thewomenofacertain,well,economicstatusorclass,andtheyweresoheavilydressedandcorsetedandperfumedandsoonthatIthinkIenjoyedthegoodearthsmellofmywetnurse,whichIdorememberindeed, as a contrast to themore exquisite perfumes that the ladieswoulddrenchthemselvesin.

CharlotremainedclosetotheLeNohanfamily,stayingwiththeminJuly1916beforegoingintothearmy,anddoingrealisticportraitsofMadameandherhusband.Ibelievehewantedanaccurateremembranceofthemtokeepduring,theturmoiloftheWar.

Charlotstartedearlytodepictpeasantsasculturalrepresentatives.In1905,whentheCharlotsvacationedat thewateringplaceRoyat,Charlotdrewthelocalpeasants intheirtraditionalclothing:awomanmaking, laceandabathattendant in folkcostumeandhat, reading,anewspaper.Evenearlier,inoneofhisfirstwatercolors,Charlotdepictedthefamily’scookinPoissywalkingtothemarketwithalarge,colorfulbasketforherpurchases(interviewOctober31,1970):

thecookwouldgotomarketinPoissywithabasket,verymuchthewaytheMexican cooks go tomarketwith their baskets.Andmyfirst color paintingwithoutpreparatorydrawingthatgavemethatnewsensuousapproachtoartwasofthecookandherbasket.

Charlot thus saw a basic connection between his French andMexi-cansubjects.InlargehouseholdsinFrance,thechildrenwouldgravitatetothekitchen,where thewomenwereengaged in their interesting talkandactivities.Similarly,inMexicoasachild,IwouldloiterinthekitchenwhereLuz,Concha,andtheirrelativesandfriendswerecarryingonananimatedsociallife.Moreover,inFranceasopposedtoEngland,womenparticipatedinallthesocialactivitiesofthehome.Francehadlongrecognizedwomenascreativewritersandartists.Charlot’sownmotherwasapainter,andhejoked that he spread his first colors on the floor of her studio. Charlotconsequentlyfeltthat“women’swork”wasimportantandworthyofbeingportrayed.WhenhemovedtoMexico,thelifeofwomenprovidedsomeofhismajorthemes.

TwoportraitsoneearlyandonelatecanservetosummarizeCharlot’sworkinFrance.Mathilde,probablyof1911whenCharlotwasthirteenyearsoldisaportraitofthefamilycookatPoissy.Shewasworkinginthekitchen—sheseemstobesewing—andCharlotusedthequietmomenttopainther.Thiswashisfirstoil,hisfirstessayatexploitingthepeculiarstrengthsofthatmedium:theglutinousqualityofthepaintandtheeffectsproducedbyaddingthinlayersofdifferentcolors.HeisfascinatedbyMathilde’speasantcapandcarefullysculptsitwiththepaint.Buttheviewerisstruckmostbythestrongpersonalcharacterofthesubject;theartist’srespectandaffec-tionforherareevident.Allthreeapproachestothemodelaresynthesizedinthisjuvenilework.

1�

ThesamesynthesiscanbefoundinCharlot’sfirstmatureportraitofanonEuropean,hisorderlyintheMoroccanDivisionduringtheOccupa-tion:BihainofFebruary13,1920.Bihainisanoldermaninuniform,whohasseenmanybattles,buthasnotbeentraumatizedbythem.Heissettledandmature;hisfaceisstrong.Bihainissmokingapipe,andthesmoketurnsintoarabesquesbehindhim,suggestinghisculturalbackground.Butastronglinebetween Bihain’s profile and the pipe relegates such iconography to thebackgroundaway fromthe face.Charlot isacknowledgingBihain’sculture,butheisemphasizinghimasanindividualhumanbeing.

Althoughyoung,Charlotarrived inMexicowithmuchexperience inportraitureandinworkingfrommodels.HehadalsostudiedMexicancul-tureandhistoryandwasfamiliarwithawidevarietyofMexicanartworks.Hementionedoften the little nineteenth century figurines displayed in alargeglasscaseintheirhomeinParis(interviewSeptember28,1970):

QuiteanumberofthoserepresentationsareofIndiansattheirwork,andthoseIndiansattheirworkaretheverysamepeoplethatIfoundattheirworkwhenIwenttoMexicoandtheverysamepeoplethatIpaintedattheirworkwiththesamegesturesthatthosewaxfigureswereusing.Themostobviousthingswerethewomenworking,attheirmetateswiththeirchildrenontheirback,wrappedinarebozo.Wehavethatinthatcollection...

Nonetheless,livinginMexicoforcedCharlottoreevaluatehisideasandtobeginamoreintenseexplorationoftheculture,aboutwhichhestillhadmuchtolearn.

Luzwasakeypersoninthisprocess.CharlotfirstencounteredLuzinherroleasaculturalrepresentative(interviewAugust7,1971):Well,theopenairschool,ofcourse,existed,wasnearlyasurvivaloftheImpres-sionisttimesoftheAcademyofArt,andRamosMartinezhadworkedoutthatideaof having themodels pose inwhat they call natural Surroundings, verydifferentfromtheAcademy,ofcourse,whichhadeverythingwithastandandamodelposingSohehadthepeopleinMexican,moreorlessregularpeas-antclothesorSundayclothes,perhaps,withalittlemoreembroideryandsoonthaneverydaythings,posing,themenwiththeirserapesandsombrerosandthewomenintheirvillageclothes,andtheyposedusuallywithasortofsemiaestheticarrangement.Thewomencouldperhapsholdapotontheirshouldersandsoon.Ihadratherlittlerelationswithmostofthem.TheoneIknewbestwasLuz,LucianaJiménez.

Inthatrole,sheremindedCharlotofthefigurineshehadseenasachild(interviewSeptember28,1970):

AndsomeofthosewomenweredressedupactuallyinthesamehandwovenandhanddyedcostumesoftheregionofMilpaAltawhereLuciana,Luz,whohadbeenmymodelforalltheIndianwomenthatIpainted,camefrom.AndLuz

15

herselfwasdressedupinthatbeautifulskirt,whichiswrappedupinaratherelaboratewaywithfolds,thatisaverydarkblue,indigoblue,withblacklinesatthebottomandatthetopcreamywhite,andallthefoldsaregatheredtogetherintoahandwovenandembroideredbelt,whichisaratherstiffbeltofwhiteandpurplered.NowthosecolorsbeforeIsawthemonher,beforeIsawthemonhermother,andsoon,whenIvisitedthevillage,Ihadseenalreadyinthoseminiaturewaxfigures.Andthewaythefoldsfolded,thewaythearmsinactionworked,eithergivingthebreasttothechildorworkingwiththestone,handonthestonemetatewiththemaizeflour,IwasreadyforallthatbecauseIhadseenitalreadyinthoselittletableaux.

VillanuevaHernándezwrites(2004):“Luzseconviertenosóloenunamusasinoenalgomás,enunresurgimientodelpasadohechorealidadenelpresente”‘Luzturnsherselfnotonlyintoamusebutintosomethingmore:intoaresurgenceofthepastmaderealityinthepresent.

Luz with Toy Parrot(1922)wasCharlot’sfirstpaintingattheschoolatCoyoacán,doneinLeal’sstudio.18TheyoungLuzisportrayedinthegold-enmorninglight,dressedinherlovelyvillagecostumeandholdingaworkoffolkart.CharlothasalreadystartedhisstylisticexplorationindepictingMexicanIndians:theheadhasthehardsolidityheadmiredinAztecsculpture(interviewMay18,1971):

18Luz with Parrot,oil,33-1/2”X24”,checklistno.2.

Jean Charlot, Luz sentada, 1924, óleo sobre tela, 36 x 28 cm. Colección Andrés Blaisten. Foto. José Martín Sulaimán.

1�

lookingatthosepeople,Ididn’tthinkofthemasfleshbutashardmatter,hardobsidianandsoon.Thatis,afacetingthattheFrenchhadusedwith-outanysenseofweightortexture, Iwouldsay, inearlyCubism,withmebecameawayofchangingthefleshintohardstone.AndIthinkthatalreadyisMexican.

Buttheaccoutrementsarefolkloristicinaccordancewiththeestheticof the School.Charlot saidof hisTrinidad, done shortly thereafter, that itrevealed(interviewMay18,1971):

acertainuncertaintyaboutthenewaccessories,paraphernalia.Forexample,theserapethat themanwiththecigarettehason isnotsomethingthat Iwouldchooselateronbecauseit’ssomethingwhichisalittlebittouristicbythestandardsacquiredwhenIknewmoreaboutserapes.Actually,thelargehatoftheman,thesombrero,alsoissomethingthatlateronIusedlessandlessasIlookedatIndiansintheirdailylife,intheirhomeandsoon.Sothereisacertainuncertaintyorsurpriseaboutthesubjectmatterthatdisappearslateron...

CharlotwantedtoseethenormallifeoftheIndian(interviewSeptem-ber28,1970):

Iwouldn’tsaythatIwasagainstpicturesqueness,butIwouldacceptonlywhatpicturesquenesswaspartofthemakeupoftheeveryday lifeofthepeople,andI’veneverbeenawfullyfondoftheunusualnessoffiestadays,thatis,whenallthetouristsgointoseetheIndiansdancingandsingingandwhatnot.That’snotfalse,ifyouwant,butit’sunusual,liketheKermessofFlanders,whichisnottypical certainlyof theeveryday lifeof theFlemishpeasant.So Iused thingsthat Iconsideredonlydeeplyengrained.Someofthem,forexample,arethekitchenchores.

Charlot’ssecondoilportrait,Luz en buste,1924,illustratesthedevelop-mentofhisview.Luzisnotinherfiestagarbbutinhereverydayclothes,ablouseandarebozo(similartothosepaintedbyRamónAlvadelaCanalin1919).19CharlotisnolongerusingthebrightcolorsusuallyassociatedwithMexico;hedescribesthepaintinginhischecklistas“Verydark.”Thefaceisstrongerandmore individual.Charlotwould followthat face through theyears,notingthechangeslifemadeinit.Hewoulddothesamewiththefaceofhiswife,Zohmah.Theyareportraitsofrealpeople,whomCharlotknewwell,astheymovedthroughtheirdistinctiveexperiences.

LearningtoknowLuzmeantlearningaboutherworld.Charlotrecog-nizedLuzbothasarepresentativeofandauthorityontheAztecculturehehadlong,beenstudying.InFrance,Charlothadstudiedthelanguagefromthecodices;nowhecouldactuallyconversewithLuzintheunusuallyclassicaldialectofMilpaAlta(Whorf1971:368).PabloO’Higginsprovidesastrikingpictureoftheartiststudentwiththemodelteacherin1924(1974):

19Luz en buste,VeryDark,oil,16”X13”,1924,checklistnum-ber26.LuzJiménez,simbolodeunPueblomilenario2000:67.

1�

whenIfirstknewJean,Diegosaid,“YououghttogetintouchwithJeanCharlot”“GodowntoseeJean.Jeanisaveryfinepersonandcantellyoumanythings.Andhe’sdoing,importantwork”.AndsoIsaid,“Well,I’mhappytoknowhim.Givemehisaddress”.SoIrangthefrontdoorbell,andJeanwasshaving[Laughs]Itwas about nine in themorning, I guess.Andhe said,“Comeback at fouro’clock”.Atthesameplace.“BecauseIhavetogoout”or“Ihavetodosome-thing”.SoIsaid,“Fine”,andwhenIcamebackheinvitedmein.AndyouknowLuciana?Well,LucianaisanIndianwoman,averybeautifulwomanthatDiegopaintedinChapingo.AndLucianawassittingonapetate,completelynude,verybeautiful,andJeanwaspaintingherAndtheyweretalkingNáhuatl.

Inamostimportantcontributiontothenewnationalistmovement,LuztookCharlotandotherartistsandwriterstoMilpaAlta,whichasaresultbecameknowninartisticandintellectualcirclesasaplacenearMexicoCitywhere theycouldexperience thenativeculture still verymuchalive.Theinhabitantsmaintained:20

muchasdesuscostumbres:lamedicinatracional,losbañosdetemazcal,lavidadoméstica,laorganizaciónfamiliar,laconfeccióndeprendascontelardecintura,lavestimentayprincipalmentesuidioma,elnáhuatl...

manyofitscustoms:traditionalmedicine,sweatbaths,domesticlife,familyor-ganization,themanufactureofclothingwithaloomattachedtothewaist,tradi-tionalclothingandespeciallyitslanguage,Náhuatl...

Jean Charlot, Desnudo de Chalma, 1925, óleo sobre tela, 129 x 90.5 cm, Colección Galería Tobeu C. Moss. Foto: Jose Martín Sulaimán.

20VillanuevaHernández,2000:19;seealso28.

1�

Thesocialorganizationofthevillagewasprobablyestablishedinclas-sical times.Certainly, theoldreligionwith itsoral traditionswaspracticedalongwithfolkChristianity,resultinginsyncretisms.21Luzherselfperformedreligiousceremoniesandpracticedherbalmedicineandwas thusable toinstructtheartistsinmanyaspectsofvillagelife(VillanuevaHernández2000:31). Charlot was particularly impressed by Luz’s mother, Juana ManuelaGonzález,whotoldhimagreatdealaboutAztecreligion(Tabletalk,March17, 1977). Luz’smotherwas oneof several olderwomenwhoprovidedCharlot with religious instruction, like the Christian mystic MademoiselleMarchaisinParisandtheclassicalhuladancerAuntJennieWilsoninHawaii.AdevoutCatholichimself,he felt thatreligionwasbasic toacultureandunderstandingitwasessentialtoenteringintothatculture’swaysofthink-ing and acting.VillanuevaHernández holds that Luz andCharlot’s sharedCatholicdevotioncreated“unarelaciónaúnmásprofunda”,anevendeeperrelationship (2004):“Luzeramuycatólica yCharlot también,esabondadquemanifiestanlosfielescatólicoslamostrabanmutuamente”LuzwasveryCatholicandCharlotaswell;thatgoodnessthattheCatholicfaithfulmani-fest,theyshowedtoeachother.

The artists were very impressed by MilpaAlta. Leal’s first mural, La Fiesta de Nuestro Señor de Chalmaof1922-1923,isbasedonhisexperiencesthere.22FermínRevueltasreturnedtothevillagemanytimes,eventuallymar-ryingtheschoolteacherthere,MariaIgnaciaEstrada,andteachingarttherehimself.HeorganizedexcursionstothevillagealongwiththepoetManuelMaplesArce(Zurián2002:23).

CharlotwasoneoftheartiststobeinvitedearlytoMilpaAlta:23

Lasnoticiasdetumamánotanbuenas,perodebedeseryamuyanciana.MeacuerdodeellayadeancianaenmiprimeravisitaaMilpaAlta,¡queeraenelaño1921!

Thenewsofyourmother’shealthisnotverygood,butshemustbeveryan-cientbynow.IrememberheralreadybeingoldatmyfirstvisittoMilpaAlta,whichwasin1921!

Charlot spokeoften about the impact of this experience (interviewMay14,1971):

ThecontactorthedirectcontactwithIndianscamelateron,andmuchofitreallywasfunneledthroughtheonepersonofLuciana,orLuz,whichstarted,Ofcourse,justasapictorialthing,becauseshewasoneoftheIndianmodelsattheAcademy,butlateron,going,tohervillage,meeting,hermotherespecially,andherfamily,itbecamesomethingmoreimportantandmorehuman.(Charlot’sinterviewonAugust7,1971):1didalotofdrawingsfromher,andthensoonafter Iwenttothevillagethatshewasbornin,that isMilpaltaorMilpaAlta,andmethermother,sisters,family,andsoon.AndformethatwasabigexperienceofgettingclosetotheIndiansoftheplateauofMexico,thatis,ofAztecstock…

21Horcasitas, 1968: 22 29(old religionand teachings);75,81, 123, 125 (folk Christianity);61, 63, 71, 75,133 (syncretism).Luzhadtorefusesomeelders’requesttoofferConchaasahu-mansacrifice.SheexplainedthesituationandaskedCharlotandBrennerforadvice;theyadvisedagainst it; Tabletalk March 17,1977;Brenner,1970[1929]:140;VillanuevaHernández, personalcommunication.CompareKart-tunen, 1994: 212 f VillanuevaHernández2004holds this re-questwasafamilypretexttoridthemselves of an embarrassingchild; Luz’s asking Charlot andBrennertohelpwiththechild’sbaptismmarkedherdecisiontosaveandrearConcha.

22Charlot, 1963: 168. Kart-tunen,1994:196.

23Charlot to Luz, n.d. Luz’smother,JuanaManuelaGonzález,diedonAugust28,1958.Char-lot’sdateismostprobablyearly.

1�

So, it’s simply, I would say, as far as is possible with the differences of race,perhaps, to an extent, and background, being part of the family.That was atremendousthingforme.Itgavemeaninkling,aninsideview,ofIndianMexicothatIwouldcertainlyneverhavehadwithevenallthestudiesIcouldmakeofarcheology,ethnology,orlanguage,whichIdidattheMuseumofEthnology.AcceptanceinMilpaAltahadtobeearned(VillanuevaHernández,2004):

Losextrañossonrecibidosamablementeperosonestudiadosmeticulosamente.Lagentenoabresuscorazoneshastaquelosextrañoshanmostradoserdeconfianza.AladistanciapareceserqueCharlotseganóelcariñoyrespetodelafamiliadeLuzprincipalmenteporseramistaddeLuz,pintor,católico,ayudareconómicamenteysobretodoporhablarlalenguanáhuatl.AsíCharlottuvounarecepciónmásqueamistosayconviviócontodoslosmiembrosdelafamiliadeLuzincluyendoalgunosparientesquevivíanenpuebloscercanosaMilpaAlta.

Strangersarereceivedamicablybutarestudiedmeticulously.Thepeopledonotopentheirheartsuntilthestrangershaveshownthemselvesworthyofcon-fidence.Atthisdistance,itappearsthatCharlotwonforhimselftheaffection

andrespectofLuz’sfamilyprincipallybecausehewasinarelationshipoffriendshipwithLuz,apainter,Catholic,aidedeconomically,andaboveallbecausehespokethenáhuatllanguage.ThusCharlotwasgivenarecep-tionmorethanfriendlyandlivedwithallthemembersofLuz’sfamily,includingsomerelativeswholivedinvillagesnearMilpaAlta.

Charlot does seem to have been accepted more closelythananyoneelseinto“lacalidezdelhogarazteca”‘thewarmthof theAztechearth (VillanuevaHernández2004). Significantly,hedidnotignorethedifferencesofraceandbackground,andIsuspectthatthishelpedtoestablishtherelationship.Inmyownexperience,Hawaiiansdonotenjoyhavingnon-HawaiiansclaimtheirCultural identity,anotuncommonoccurrence.Thewordho’ohawai’idesignatespejorativelyanon-HawaiianwhomimicsHawaiians or even thinks he isHawaiian.Hawaiians aremorecomfortablewithpeoplewhoareateasewiththeirownculturalidentity.TheNáhuatlscholar,FrancesKarttunen,assuresmethatmostNativeAmericansfeelthesameway.Charlotwasalwaysverymuchhimselfandcouldappreciatepeopleofothercultureswithoutimpingingonthem.Hecouldcertainlyseethedifferencebetweenhispart-AztecancestryandthenativesofMilpaAlta.

Charlotpainted a familyportrait, basedon aphotograph(Luz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000:103)andpor-trayedLuz’ssisterseveraltimes.Moregenerally,healsousedhisobservationoffamily lifetodevelophismajorthemes,suchas

Mexican Kitchen, Tortilla Makers, Learning to walk, Temascal, Tying Child to a Chair,andSunday Dress.JesúsHernándezVil-lanueva,Luz’sgrandson,identifiesMilpaAltaasthebasisforCharlot’sthemeLavanderas,Washer-Women(2004):

Luz con canasta, 1924, óleo sobre tela, 36 x 28, Colección Familia Charlot.

20

Recuerdotodavíaenmiinfanciaverlalargafilademujereslavandoalaorilladelríoquecruzaalpueblo.Estetambiénesunmomentodondesecombinaeltrabajoylapláticaentrelasmujeres.Istillrememberseeinginmychildhoodthelong,lineofwomenwashingclothesonthebanksoftheriverthatrunsthroughthevillage.Thisalsoisamomentthatcombinesworkandconversationamongthewomen.

TheviewerseestheinnerlifeoftheAztechome,notasatouristsightorfolklore,butasarevelationofbasichumanrelationshipsastheyareex-pressedbeautifullyinaparticulartraditionalculture.CharlotsawAztecprac-tices as translucentwith universal values. Seeing theAztecmother batheherchildinthetemascal,sweatbath,inspiresasenseofkinshipinallthosewhohavebathedchildreninwhateverwayshavebeendevelopedbytheirownculture.CharlotportrayedasWork and ResttheAztecmotherkneel-ingonthefloorandsimultaneouslygrindingcornandrocking,tosleepthechildboundtoherback.Aztecculturehadprovidedaparticularlycompactrepresentationoftherelationofparentandchild:theparent’slaborprovidesthechild’speace.StudyingtheAztecwayofbeinghumanhelpstheviewerunderstandhisown.

InFrance,Charlothadappreciatedthekitchenasa familycenter ;herecognized its special importance inMexico.Asothernativecultures,Az-teclifehadlongbeenthreatenedbythemainstreamculture,economy,andsociety.Insuchsituations,Iwouldargue,thepublicmalerolesareattackedfirst:warrior,chief,doctor,nativepriest,andsoon.Astraditionalmalerolesarediminishedorevendestroyed,theCultureretreatsintothehomeandespecially into theworldofwomen.Notonlydo theybear andnurture

Autor desconocido, Luz y familiares después de un entierro en la Iglesia de la Asunción, Milpa Alta, Distrito Federal, ca. 1929, plata sobre gelatina, Colección Familia Charlot.

21

thechildren,theytransmittothemtheirCulture.Thelifeofthewomeninthehome—centeredonthekitchen—wasthestrongestrefugeofAzteccultureandthebasisofitssurvival.

In Charlot’s depiction of tortilla-making, a child imitates her motherwhoglancesdownunobtrusivelyatherdaughter.CharlothadseenaneventImyselfwitnessed intheNáhuatlvillageofCanoa in1992.The familyre-ceivingourgrouphadmaintaineditsancestralmilpa,cornpatch,thatpro-ducedaparticularlydeliciousandbeautifullybluecornfortortilladough.Fivewomen,twoofwhomwereelderly,werepattingthedoughintotortillasinthekitchen.Thenforthefirsttime,thetwelve-year-olddaughterofthefam-ilystartedhelpingwiththetask.Thewomenbeamedandwatchedthegirlwithoutremarkingonherwork.Thentheyreturnedtotheirown. Iaskedoneofthewomenlaterwhethertheywereteachingthegirl.Shesaid,no;girlsjustwatchedwomenworkingandjoinedinwhentheyfelttheimpulse.Once girls started, however, theywould continuemaking tortillas for therestoftheirlives.

Charlot felt that thepeoplewhoweremaintaining their familiesandtheirculturesundergreatoutsidepressurewereheroicandshouldberec-ognizedandmemorialized.Theywerefitsubjectsformonumentaltreatmentonamuralscale.Moreover,theculturetheyweremaintainingwasatreasurefortheworld,withtheuniquebeautyof its ideas,creations,andpractices.Suchculturesandtheirmembersdeserveourrespect,gratitude,andappre-ciation.Allhislife,Charlotopposedthealltoocommonviewthatmembersofminorityculturesshouldabandonthemandassimilatethemselvesintothe

Jean Charlot, Peregrinos de Milpa Alta, 1932, óleo sobre tela, 127 x 101, Academia de las Artes de Honolulu, Hawai. Donación del Doctor Robert Browne y señora.

22

mainstream.Anysolutionstotheproblemsofminorities,anyschemes fortheirbetterment,muststartfromabasicrespectfortheirculture.

Luz’s family also took Charlot out of the home on their traditionalpilgrimage to Chalma on January 2-8, 1925:“With Luciana, we went forexample to Indian pilgrimages which were really pagan business and notwhiteman’s business,24 or tourist business. From this experience,CharlotdevelopedsuchthemesasChalmaBathers,theProcessionatChalma,andtherelatedchildren’sdances.Suchworksare informedbyCharlot’sdeepappreciationofIndianreligion.Infact,Charlot’sexperienceofIndianspiritu-alitytransformedhispreviousviewsaswellasthestyleofhisreligiousart.HecontrastedhiswoodblockseriesChemin de Croix(1918-1920)andhisFrenchreligiouspoetrytohisnewviewsandvisualexpression(interviewNovember6,1970):

Therewas,forthem,therewasaspiritualityinelongation,andillthatWay of the Cross,Iamworkingwithinthatworldofthoughtthat,wecouldsay,thinpeoplearemorespiritualthanfatpeople.Sincethen,andIthinkbeforethatandafterthatalso,Ihavehadotherideasaboutspirituality,andIwentbackveryquicklytothestockybodiesIhadlearnedofinlookingatMexicanantiquities.NowadaysIamhorriblyworriedbycertainwaysofthinkingthatcomeoutinthewordsinthosepoems.Ialwaystiespiritualitywith,forexample,whiteness.IspeakofthewhitefingersofourLordandthewhitethisandthewhitethat,anditremindsmeofsomething,thatIfoundinBloy,Ithink,whenhewasveryannoyedatsomebodywhosaidthat“hewasentrancedbythewhitenessoftheHost”.AndthereMusthavebeeninmesomethingthatdisappearedsome-whereonthewayinliving,becausenowadaysIreallythinkthatblack,probably,andcertainlybrownhavemoreofatiewithspiritualitythanwhite.

HefeltsostronglyaboutthesedifferencesthathetendedlaterinlifetodepreciateunjustlymuchofhisFrenchwork.

IfAztecculturecouldhavesuchapositiveimpactonhimacultivatedFrenchmanithadacontributiontomaketoworldculture.Charlotcontin-uedtodevelophisMexicansubjectsincludinghisdepictionsofLuzuntiltheendofhis lifefortworeasons.First,hewasthekindofartistwhoisablecontinuallytoexploreandtodeepenhisthemes.Evenmoreimportant,hisMexicansubjectswerenotjustlocalsightsbutrevealedthefullnessofhu-manlife(interviewSeptember28,1970):

from the beginning up to now, the themes have enlarged around the samethings:theveryfewcostumesandaccessoriesandtheveryfewmotionsofthehousework,forexample,ofthewomen,andthathasbeensufficienttoguidereallymywholeart.Notsomuchperhapsassubjectmatter :asageneralstate-mentaboutmaybenotpleasantlifebutgoodlifeasIunderstanditandsummedupinthelifeoftheIndians.

Mostimportant,hefeltthathisownperceptioncoincidedwiththatoftheIndianartiststhemselves:25

24Charlot 1972. VillanuevaHernández,2000:31.Karttunen1994:196;emailtoJohnCharlotJuly25,2000:“JC,AnitaBrenner,andFrancesToorwenttoMilpaAltaonJanuary2,1925to joinLuz’sfamily,andtheyallsetoutfor Chalma the next morning.Theysleptoutonenightontheway and reached Chalma thenext. The local priest offeredthem a room, and they stayeduntilJanuary8.”Morse,1976:4.Onthepilgrimage,seeHorcasi-tas,1968:54-69.

25InterviewOctober1,1970.Morris, Charlot, and Morris,1931:311ff.

23

Itcertainly is trueof thepainter that therearemanythings thatgetbottledup inhimtocomeout lateron.However, in thecodices,ofcourse,which IlookedatwhenIwasyoung,therearemanyoftheactualpostures,mostlyofthewomen,thatIsawinMexico.Againthere,thatwasadoubleimage.Thatis,whenIwaslookingattheMexicoofmydayandoftheactualpeopledoingthehousechores,Ihadatthebackofmyheadthevisionofthemanuscripts,ofthedrawingsoftheancientAztecpainters,representing,similarmovements,similarmotifs,somefivehundred,sixhundredyearsbefore.IwasveryimpressedwhenIwas inYucatándoingthecopiesof thecolumnsof theTempleof theWar-riors—therewereperhapsthreehundreddrawingsofbasreliefsthere—tofindthatoneofthesignswhich,ofcourse,wasn’tAztec,itwasMayanbuttoillustratetheverbactionortheverbaccomplishment,therewasahandofawoman,justthewristandthehandofthewomanholdingtheroller,thestoneroller,androlling,thedoughonthemetate. It’sofcoursenotexactlyrepre-sentational,itisjustahieroglyph,likeanEgyptianhieroglyph,butitwassuchasummingupofsomanythingsthatIhadstoredinmymindandexteriorizedinmypicturesthatitwasinteresting,theretoseethatinthetemplethatmayhavedatedofthethirteenthcentury.TheAztecsinMexicoinsometemplesandtheMayansinthatparticularTempleoftheWarriorshadcomemoreorlesstothesameconclusionsthatIhadcometowhentheythinkofsummingupinonegesturetheverbactionintermsessentialtoIndianlife.

Basictoacultureisitswayofseeing,whichcanbestudiedinitsvisualexpressions.AsaFrenchartist,Charlotwasalwaysconvincedoftheimpor-tanceofstyleforthetypeofworktobedone,theoccasion,andthesubject.HeandtheothermembersoftheMexicanMuralRenaissancefeltthattheyhadtodevelopanewstyletodepicttheMexicooftheirtime.Thatis,theirinnovationwasnotfindingnewsubjectmatter ;infact,theirsubjectscanbetraced fromPre-Columbian art throughColonial andnineteenth centuryartuntil theirownday.WhatCharlot andhis colleagues criticized inear-lierdepictionswastheiradoptionofforeignstylesthatassimilatedMexicansubjectsintoaEuropeanwayofseeing.AmodernMexicanstylehadtobecreatedtodojusticetoMexico.

Inthissearch,Charlotwasapioneer,bothinhisstudyandinhisvisualart.SeveralartistsmentionCharlot’stakingthemtoseePre-Columbianartat the National Museum, writing on folk art, discovering José GuadalupePosada,andarticulatingtheideasofthegroup.Evenmoreimportant,hewasdemonstratinginhisownvisualarthowsuchstudycouldbeusedtode-velopanappropriatestyle.LuzwasanimportantfactorinCharlot’sesthetic,stylistic search,as seenabove in thequotationabouthisfirstMexicanoilportraitLuz with Toy Parrot(interviewMay19,1971):

Iwas already verywell awareof thepre-Hispanic formsof art, both in themanuscriptsandinthesculptures,terracottasandsoon:thatis,theIndian’sownwayoflookingathimself.Andthereisadefinitesculpturesquequality,facetinginhardmaterial,wecouldsay,inthoseearlyportraits.AndIthinkthereisintherealotofobviousdignitythatIhadlearnedfromthepre-Hispaniccollections.I

2�

alwayscomeback tomyUncleEugeneGoupil,because Iknewthosethingsverywell.Soit’samixtureofmyknowledgeofantiquitiesand,sotospeak,thefirstcontactswith live Indians in theirhabitat.Now, that isafirst impressionthat,sotospeak, Icouldn’trecapture,becausewhenImadefriendsandwasinvitedinIndianhomesandsoon,somethingelseemergedwhichwas,perhapsas Isuggested, lessacademicandmoresimplyhuman.That is, thethingsthatwehadincommonratherthanthethingsthatseemedforeigntomyselfinthefirstcontact.

CharlotunderstoodhimselfasamemberoftheFrenchclassicaltradi-tion,fromPoussin,throughDavidandIngres,toCézanne.ThattraditionwasbasedonClassicalartwithitsgeometricapproachanduseofthenudehu-manbodyasthebasicsubject.Fromthehumanbody,theGreeksdevelopedtheiresthetics,theirsenseofstyleandproportion,whichtheythenextendedtofieldslikearchitecture.CharlothadworkedwithnudemodelsinFranceandattheAcademyofSanCarlosbothonhisexploratorytriptoMexicoin1921andafterhesettledtherelaterinthesameyear.Thosenudesprovideabase-lineforunderstandinghisworkwithLuz.Thatis,Charlotwasfollow-inghisClassicaltraditionwhenheturnedtothenudeinordertocreateaMexicanesthetic,andhewouldmakeLuztheclassicAztecnude.

TheresearchofVillanuevaHernández(2004)hasrevealedthat“Char-lotmereceserelprimerartistadentrodelmuralismomexicanoenpintarunaindígenadesnuda”,CharlotdeservestoberecognizedasthethefirstartistinMexicanMuralismtopaintanindigenouswomannude.VillanuevaHernándezisexploringtheevidencetoseehowfarbackthisjudgementcanbeextendedintime.TherewascertainlynotraditionofthefineartsnudestudyofMexican Indianwomenas such.However, latermuralistswouldmakethenudeIndianwomananimportantsubject.VillanuevaHernándezemphasizeshowsociallydifficultLuzwouldhavefoundposingnude;infact,shekeptthatworksecretfromherfamilyandneighbors.Ibelieveherspe-cialrelationwithCharlotencouragedhertodosoforthefirsttime.Later,shewouldposenudeforotherpaintersandforEdwardWeston.AmajordifferencefromEurope,however,wasthatCharlot’sMexicannudescouldbeplacedwithinanormal lifesetting.Publicnudityhadbeennormal fortheGreeks,who,forinstance,exercisednude.ButacademicnudestudyaspracticedinCharlot’stimehadnosocialcontextapartfromartmakingitself.Charlotwasdisturbedbytherarefiedcharacterofthissetting.However,inIndianculture,therewereseveraloccasions inwhichnuditywasnormal,andCharlotmadetwoofthesemajorthemesofhiswork.Inthetemascal,sweatbath,womenofallageswouldbathetogethernaked.The Chalma BatherwasbasedonCharlot’sobservationofthepilgrimsbathingtogetherin a river to cleanse themselves from their journeybeforeentering thetown.Indepictingsuchpractices,CharlotcouldstudytheIndianbodyandIndianlifetogether.

CharlottookthebodyofLuzasdiagnosticfortheAztecwoman.Ed-wardWeston’sphotograph,fromtheback,ofLuznuderevealssomeofthe

26Antonio Rodriguez, 2000:90; 94, nude photographs ofMexicanIndiansareunusual,ex-ceptforthefewdoneforethno-graphic purposes.Amy Congerhas speculated that Weston’scould have been made as anartist’said.IsuggestthatWestonbecamebrieflyinterestedinthesubject through Charlot’s con-temporarywork.

25

qualities that attractedCharlot. In comparisonwith theClassicalWesternbody,Luz’sheadislarge.Herstrongshoulders,broadback,andslimhipsformablock.Herarmsarethin,andherlegstaperevermorenarrowlydowntoherfeet.26Classicalpracticeformajorworksprescribednudestudiesofthefigureswhowouldthenbecoveredwithclothing,theshapeofwhichwouldbedeterminedbythebodyinside.TheAztecbodywhenrobedcouldberenderedasthecubewithroundededgesthatCharlotwoulddevelopinmanymedia.Charlotdiscussedwithmeanimportantseriesofnudedraw-ingshemadeofLuzin1923:27

Well,thoseweredoneearly.Mostofthemweredonein‘23,Ithink.Butin22,IwasextremelybusywiththefrescointhePreparatoria.In‘23,1finishedthefrescoearlyintheyear,orunveileditearlyintheyear,andthenIhadasortofaleisureuntil‘24,whenIdidafewfrescoesintheMinistryofEducation.ThatiswhenIdidquiteanumberofdrawingsfromlifefromLuz,kindofmixing,upboththesighting,youcouldsay,oftheIndiannudeandthethingsIknewaboutAztecIndians.TheanalysiswhichshowstomeI’vebeensuccessfulisthatitwouldbehardtofindclassicalhangovers,sotospeak,of,shallwesay,classicalGreekstatuesinmyviewsofIndiannudes.SoIknowthatit’snotentirelyanegativething,andifitdoesn’thavetheelementsthatyoulearninschool,let’ssay,attheBeauxArts,

27InterviewAugust 7, 1971.CharlotandLeal seemtohavebeenworkingonthesameIines.Charlot, 1963: 168, publishedLeal’smemoir :“Iaimedatgivingtheirracialtypesamonumental-ityundilutedbyoccidentalstan-dards”; Karttunen, 1994: 201.Charlot showedWeston“thirtyor so” drawings of Luz, Kart-tunen, 1994: 199; 1 rememberaboutthisnumberinmyfather’sstudio before they were dis-persedinindividualsales.

Jean Charlot, Por la señal… Luz y Concha, 1936, Tinta china, carbón y sanguina sobre papel, 65 x 49 cm, Colección Zohmah Charlot.

2�

itmusthaveotherpositiveelementsthat,ifImaysay,wereratherhardtorootoutofthedailylifeofmymodels.Forexample,perhapsformethemoststrikingthinginretrospectperhapsaretheseriesofnudesIdidwhicharenottainted,Iwouldsay,bytheideaofaclas-sicalGreekorRomannude,andassuchIthinkgoratherdeepintothepointofviewoftheIndian.Thewholepointofthepictureswastoputthingsinformandcolorthathavenotorcannotbeputintowords.

Again,Charlot felt thathisown thinking andartistic explorationhadbeenvalidatedby thediscovery that they coincidedwith thoseof Indianartists.WhenCharlotvisitedthefamousPandurofamilyof folkpotters inTlaquepaque,hewasgivenastatuetteofawomanmakingtortillas,anun-usuallypersonalworkthatwasprobablya familyportrait.Hetreasured itanddepicteditmanytimes:28

Well,Ithinkitwasasortofasecurityformethatthoseseriesofdrawingsandwoodcutsofthenudehadbeenontherightline,becausethatlittlestatueis,ofcourse,asortofapraiseofthefemininebody,butintermsthatcertainlyare untouched by Greek and Roman classical beauty. Between the bulk, forexample,ofthebodyandthelimbsthatarerepresentednotforthemuscleformationbutfortherhythmofthework,andtherelationofthesmallheadonthelargebody,allthosethingsareformeasortofapleasantreminderthatwhatIhadfoundonmyownwassomethingthatalsoexistedintheheadoftheIndianartist,oftheIndianpotter.

ForCharlot,theIndianestheticwasthesubjectofanendlessquest:

Well,Ihaven’tachievedityet.Thatis,it’ssortofamonumentalidea.Andgiventhat it isnot inanatomical terms, that ideaof Indianestheticdoesn’t remaininsideorskin-deepwiththeformofabodybutpervades,orshouldpervade,everythingaround.AnditissuchasortofnearlyencyclopedicaffairthatIhavebeenworkingforit,well,prettymuchalifetime,andIstillfeelthatIcouldworkforitanotherlifetimeandnotettotheendofit.It’snotaquestionofsaying,“Eureka!”It’sjustaquestionoffollowingandfindinginthingssaytheshapeoftreesortheearsofamuleoransuchthingthesameestheticqualitieswhichIfeltarepartoftheIndianworld.

Thecomplexityof thisquest is suggestedbyastoryCharlot toldofpaintingLuzwithBasketof1924:29

Iknewverywellthevalueofcubes,butIalsoknewthatIcouldnotflauntartinthefaceofmyIndianfriends,becauseitwouldbewrong,itwouldbepride-ful,anditwouldendbyalienatingthem.SoIhadtolearn,asIsaid,Ihadtobebornanew.OfcourseoneofthegreatinfluencesonmeatthetimeisLuciana,whowasmyIndianmodel.IwouldaskherwhatshethoughtaboutthethingsIdid,andIwouldcorrectthemverycarefully.Forexample,IrememberonceIhadputahighlightinherhair.Shewasinhertwenties,andherhairwasabeautifulblack,andthosehighlightswereofcoursewhite,andshesaid,“Whydoyouputwhite

28InterviewAugust 7, 1971.Charlot, 1963: 30 f, figure 5.Morse,1976:64.ThestatuetteisnowintheJCC.

29Charlot, 1972. Luz Seated, with Basket, oil, 14” X 10-3/4”,1924,checklistno.40.

2�

hairinmyhead.Idon’thavewhitehair.”SoIhadtolearnandtrysomethingelsebywhichIcouldmakeherheadgoroundwithouthighlights.Itwasn’teasy.ThisisaportraitofherinthatparticularstylethatIworkedhardtodoasifIhadneverknowninParis.

CharlotisconsultingLuzasfarmorethanamodel.Intheirspecialrela-tionship,hisworkhadtopleaseher,topassherjudgment.Sheisafullhumanbeing,participating in thecreationof theartwork. Shehelpedhim recog-nizethoseconventionalWesterndevicesthatweresoengrainedthathehadceasedtobeawareof them.AbandoningWesternconventionsandfindingmeansthatwouldbeacceptabletohisAzteccollaboratorhelpedhimdevelopanon-European,Mexicanstyle.TheircollaborationdemandedauthenticityandarticulationfromLuzandhumilityandsincerityfromCharlot.Thesuccessoftheirworktogetherspeaksforbothofthem.

AninterestingconsequenceofCharlot’sattitudewasthatheavoidedus-ingextremedistortionsofLuzorhisotherIndianmodels.Charlotcouldusehisowngrandfatherforsuchexperiments,becausehebelongedtoaculturethatwouldunderstandthem.Indiansubjectswouldnot,andthisculturaldif-ferencehadanimpactonthestyleCharlotdeveloped.HedislikedtheprintBanana Vendorinwhichhefelthehadgonetoofar(Morse,1976:40).

AfterMexico,Charlotwouldexploretwoothercultures,andportraitsandmodelswouldagainprovebasictohiswork.Whenin1930CharlotmetayoungAmericannamedGrace,hethought:“Shewasthemostun-Indianthingwehadevermet.Ithoughtshewouldbeniceforacontrast.30Withherwhiteskin,blueeyes,sharpfeatures,andlong,thinneck,sheistheop-positeofLuz.Charlothasherweara“pilgrimcap”toprovidehercultural,historicalcontext.SimilarlyinHawaiiandFiji,hewoulddepictPolynesianandMelanesianbodiesintheirworld.

Luzwas,however,themost importantsinglemodel inCharlot’s life.Thereasonforthiswasundoubtedlythedepthoftheirrelationship.LuzshowedCharlotnotonlywhatitwasliketolookAztec,buttobeAztec.Thepeopleofthe landwerenotartifactsorMuseumpieces.Reared in

Autor desconocido, Luz con Jean Charlot y sus hijos Ana, Juan, Martín y Pedro, 1946, plata sobre gelatina, Colección Familia Villanueva Hernández.

30Morse, 1976: 113. Alsotwo paintings: Grace (American girl), oil, 12” X 8”, June 1931,checklist230;Grace,1931,26”X18”,checklist239.

2�

thetraditionalwayoflife,survivoroftheRevolution,LuzprovedthatAz-teccourageandstrengthsurvivedinthemodernworld.TheimpactshehadonartistsandthinkerslikeJeanCharlotdemonstratedhowmuchherculturestillhadtocontribute.Asquotedabove,CharlotwrotethatLuz“llegóaserpersonasumamenterespetadayapreciadaportodoslosquela conocieron”, succeeded inbecoming apersonmosthighly respectedandappreciatedbyallthosewhoknewher.Shedidthisalsoforherpeople.LuzandCharlotsharedthesamemission.

Bibliography

AntonioRodríguez,José,“LuzJiménez.Susimágenesparaunanación,”inLuz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.8998.

Temascal, 1925, México, litografía sobre piedra transferida a papel, 70.4 x 55.3 cm. Colección Fundación Jean Charlot.

2�

Brenner,Anita, Idols Behind Altars: The Story of the Mexican Spirit, [reprint1929],Boston,BeaconPress,1970.

,The Boy Who Could Do Anvthing, illustratedby JeanCharlot,(retoldby),NewYork,WilliamR.Scott,Inc.,Publisher,1952.

, The Timid Ghost or What would you do with a sackful of gold?,NewYork,WilliamR.Scott,1966.

Charlot,Jean,The Mexican Mural Renaissance: 1920-1925,NewHavenandLondon,YaleUniversityPress,1963.

Horcasitas, Fernando, De Porfirio Díaz a Zapata: memoria náhuatl de Milpa Alta,SeriedeHistoriaModernayContemporánea,Mexico,UNAM,InstitutodeInvestigacionesHistóricas,1968.

Horcasitas,F.,andS.0.deFord(eds.),Los cuentos en náhuatl de doña Luz Jiménez,México,UNAM,1979.

Luz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario 1897-1965,MéxicoCity,InstitutoNacionaldeBellasArtes,2000.

Karttunen,Frances,Between Worlds: Interpreters, Guides, and Survivors,NewBrunswick,RutgersUniversityPress,1994.

Karttunen,Frances,“TheLinguisticCareerofDoñaLuzJiménez”,inLuz Jimé-nez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.151ff.

León-Portilla,AscensiónH.de,Tepuztlahcuilolli: impresos en náhuatl,México,UniversidadNacionalAutónomadeMéxico,1988.

León-Portilla,Miguel,“LecturasdelapalabradedoñaLuzJiménez”,enLuz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.151ff.pp.99-120.

Morris,EarlH,JeanCharlot,andAnnAxtellMorris,The Temple of the Warriors at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, 2 volumes, Carnegie Institution ofWashington,number406.Washington,D.C.,CarnegieInstitutionofWashington,1931.

Morse,Peter, Jean Charlot’s Prints: A Catalogue Raisonné,Honolulu,TheUni-versityPressofHawaiiandtheJeanCharlotFoundation,1976.

Roura,AlmaLilia,“Aguas,Diego,¡ahíVieneLupe!LasModelosdeDiegoenSan Ildefonso”, en Memoria Congreso Internacional de Muralismo: San Ildefonso, cuna del Muralismo Mexicano: reflexiones historiográficas y artísti-cas,México,AntiguoColegiodeSanIldefonso,1999,pp.119-147.

TuñónPablos,Enriqueta,“LuzJiménez,mujerymusa”,enLuz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario,2000,pp.71-76.

VillanuevaHernández,Jesús,“Tecualnezyolehua:Laquesublimacosasbellasa la gente”. en Luz Jiménez, Símbolo de un pueblo milenario, 2000, pp.19-36.

Whorf,BenjaminLee,“TheMilpaAltaDialectofAztecwithNotesontheClassicalandtheTepoztlánDialects”,enHarryHoueret al.,Linguistic Structures of Native America, NewYork, London,Viking Fund Publica-tions inAnthropologynumber6, JohnsonReprintCorporation,1971,pp.367-397.

Zurián,Carla,Fermín Revueltas: constructor de espacios,México,InstitutoNa-cionaldeBellasArtes,MuseoMuralDiegoRivera,EditorialRM,2002,(BibliotecadeIlustradoresMexicanos).

30

Unpublished

Charlot,Jean,n.d.ChecklistofPaintings.Charlot,Jean,1970-1978,InterviewswithJohnCharlot.Charlot, Jean,1970-1979,Tabletalk,NotesonConversationsbetweenJean

CharlotandJohnCharlot.Charlot,Jean,1972,“AnArtistLooksBack”,LecturedeliveredattheHono-

luluAcademyofArts,March8,1972,editedbyJohnCharlot.O’Higgins,Pablo,1974,InterviewedbyLesterC.Walker,Jr.,March21.VillanuevaHernández,Jesús,2004,EmailtoJohnCharlot,December19.