1. H
ow to begin the
comments about
an artist of zapotec
origin when various critics
of art have already defined
him as part of a surrealist
movement, as a figure of
magic realism or as one
who has given to his art a
mystical vision of the
world?. We know that any
classification runs the risk
of eliminating much of the
rich content that we might
find in the different expres-
sions of his art—engraving,
painting, ceramics, sculp-
ture , on the one hand, on
the other, it would mean to
dispossess him of his histo-
rical dimension. Making an
analogy with literary move-
ments, any new genre or
any new style results from
the combination of pre-
vious manifestations with
movements of the writer’s
time. Octavio Paz said so-
mething similar with res-
pect to Tamayo—also of In-
dian origins, from the state
of Oaxaca:
Francisco Toledo.1
Creator and re-creator of a
New Cosmogony
Adrian S. Gimat e-Welsh H 2
UAM. México
CERRAR/CLOSE/FERMER
2. The style of an epoch is a
syntax, the sum of cons-
cious or unconscious rules
with which the artist can
express everything that
happen around him, ex-
cept common places .
What count is not the regu-
larity with which the syntax
functions, but its variations:
ruptures, deviations, excep-
tions and everything tEat
artist with lndian roots, but with
vast experiences in Paris, New
York and Barcelona, which un-
doubtedly somehow are present
in different expressions of his
work. In Toledo’s own words “ I
am juchiteco but my life is Paris in
the 60s is also present in my
work,”4
which reminds me of Ta-
mayo’s own comments when su-
me of his critics have underlined
that his work is an expression of
the Mexican identity:
In any part of the world I paint
as I am myself, Tamayo the Mexi-
can, the Indian... Mexican I am, I
do not need to think about it, for I
was boro in Oaxaca, because my
parenis were lndian... this is not a
defect nor a merit, it is a fact...I am
an Indian when I work, the terrible
thing is to repeat oneself. Did Cé-
zanne make to much effort to be
French. What he wanted to be was
to be a good painter and since he
was a good painter his work was
also very French. For this same rea-
son. For this same reason my work
my work is very Mexican.5
Both painters acknowledge
their Indian origin, both recognize
the presence of their local roots in
their work as critics also point out.
Fernando Gamboa says, for exam-
ple: “his myths have their roots in
prehispanic Mexico and in his Ju-
chiteco origins,”6
though Toledo
says that his “images might or
might not be juchitecas, they
might come from other places;
makes an artistic object unique.
The combination of these ele-
ments is equivalent to the trans-
formation of a syntax which is im-
personal, historical in a unique
language.3
It is true, Toledo begins his ar-
tistic formation at the age of 14 at
the School of Fine Arts of the Uni-
versidad Benito Juarez of Oaxaca.
And later at the School of Art and
Design of the Fine Arts Institute in
Mexico City, but in 1960 he conti-
nues his formation at the Stanley
W. Hayler Engraving Shop in Paris,
and in 1977 he spends some time
in New York. Toledo is a Mexican
Autorretrato, 1992, óleo y temple con hoja de oro sobre
madera, 38 x 31 cms.
3. miotic constellation where
semiotic functions of diffe-
rent nature come together
to arouse different sensa-
my images are a mixture of in-
fluences, it is the result of expe-
rience.”7
Francisco Toledo, like Ta-
mayo,8
goes much deeper than
the simple topic. He calls to In-
dian roots, to traditions, but his art
is a mixture of two culturas: the
Mesoamerican and the Occidental
cultura. He has a profound know-
ledge of the Mexican cultura, but
also a deep knowledge of univer-
sal art, of universal aesthetics, reli-
gious and ethical values as well as
political dogmas. He himself has
recognized the influence of Paul
Klee, Picasso, Tamayo, Joan Miró,
Marc Chagall, Jean Dubuffet and
Antonio Tapies. His artistic work,
then, has that aesthetic back-
ground9. His art has a Mexican ac-
cent but it is done with a universal
language, as we can see also in
Tamayo’s work.
What is then Toledo’s artistic
work?I would soy, and in this res-
pect there would be a similarity
with Tamayo’s paintings, that it is
a kind of poctry with a message
and human quality, there is a kind
of a chant to natura by means of
metaphors. Teresa del Conde says
in tLis respect: “Until now every
author, myself included, who has
written about the Juchitan born
artist Francisco Toledo, has been
dazzled, primarily, by his unusual
inventiveness, a blossom of ima-
ges so thoroughly interwoven as
to form a metaphor ofthe creation
itself.”10
There is no doubt a constant
metaphoric expressive strength th-
roogh out his work, syntagmati-
cally or paradigmatically. Every ele-
ment of his creative forms is a vi-
sual poetic image. One sees meta-
morphic elemenis everywhere
which transport ones senses into a
universe of meanings, into a se-
4. tions—sphere of firstness, if
you will—. This is so if we
conceive the artistic work
as an opera aperta, in terms
of Umberto Eco. The ele-
cus is a forgotten universe: man’s
microcosms. There is, in sum, a
constant lyrical celebration of life
in its various and multiple forms.
We find here, no doubt, the in-
fluence of Paul Klee who says:
“Dialogue with nature continues
to be for the artist a conditions si-
ne qua non. The artist is a man, he
too is nature, a chunk of nature
within the area of nature.”11
What we have just said, howe-
ver, has to do with semiotics in so
far we try to restitute sense into
Toledo’s artistic work. Our inter-
pretation, product of particular
readings and readings of different
critics of art, can only be seen as
mere working hypothesis of an
unlimited semiosis, where a figu-
re becomes the center of a semio-
tic constellation: one figure evo-
kes a figure, an other figure and
so on. In the end, it is the single
spectator who from various an-
gles of seeing and sensing has the
final word, for he is the one who
will receive the signal from the
work of art.
The conception of space is no
longer the one we have had from
traditional times. The Aristotelian
distinction up vs. down, wilh its
religious counotations — related
to a conception of superiority and
inferiority, linked to the notions of
good and evil and to the distinc-
tion of rationality and irrationa-
lity—, loses its value. What comes
into play instead is rather the no-
ments that constitute every piece
of art as a whole create a scenario
where every actor occupies a mo-
vable place in nature. And every
part maintains a metonimic rela-
tion with the rest of the players, for
they occupy the same space, the
same world. Thus, matter, form
and color create and recreate an
ecological scenario, where the fo-
5. mask. And this goes along
with popular beliefs, for
each man and woman sha-
res a common destiny with
an animal counterpart: “if
the animal suffers injury,
the human being will beco-
me ill, if the animel is
killed, the human being
will die.”14
Man as a glyph says Oc-
tavio Paz. If you decode the
glyph, you decode man. Th-
rough the glyph you create,
recreate and relive myths.
Past, present and future in
a synchronous manifesta-
tion. This is what Francisco
tion of movement and transfor-
mation: the metamorphosis. The
place of man, of animals and ob-
jecis in the universe is only a con-
tinuum. Even death is a conti-
nuum of that process of move-
ment. This is why in Toledo’s work
one finds that the form of objects,
of animals and humans are only
apparent, for there is no form that
is invariably related to living
things. Thns, Toledo’s work is not
seen as art of reproducing reality—
a reflection process—but as a pro-
cess of creating new worlds, new
ways of seeing the world, it is con-
sequently a rupture, a postmo-
dern expression of our times. In
this sense, his work shares a simi-
lar tendency that we have seen in
Rufino Tamayo and in Pablo Picas-
so. Paraphrasing Octavio paz12
and
Carlos Fuentes13
, it is the idea that
the bourgeois world of our time is
closed and sterile because it can
no longer create myths. Myths are
considered indispensable means
for man’s spiritual regeneration.
To survive in such a world one
most resort to a metamorphic
thinking, one must appeal to the
use of masks. The mask as a stra-
tegy for transformation. They may
represent human beings, male or
female—conveying the essential
characteristics or simply sugges-
ting them: violence, virtue, ambi-
tion, simplicity, sympathy, terror—,
animals or supernatural beings
that embody religious concepts or
simply imaginary. In Indian tradi-
tion, zoomorphic masks permitted
the personification of jaguars,
monkeys, dogs, serpents, eagles
and all kinds of birds. But their in-
terpretation should be done in
the context of nature, in the con-
text of the natural chain. Lé-
vi-Strauss says in La Voie des Mas-
ques “Masks, like myths, cannot
be interpreted on their own and
in their own right, as if they were
isolated objects”. And in Mexico
there are 56 indigenous contexts
for there are 56 ethnic groups,
each one with its variations. What
we seem to see in the enormous
variety of masks in terms of perso-
nification and transformation, we
also see in Toledo’s iconography:
a human being behind a fish
mask, a man behind a monkey
maski and man behind a female
6. variation or constancy generate a
figurative syntax. In all these se-
ries—rabbits, elephants, insects,
shit, etc—the title of the art piece
is a symbol—an index—whose se-
mantic existence comes into
being by its integration to the
painting, rather, to its plastic code.
In these pieces one finds figures
of amplification or, in classical
rhetoric, espolitio. As a whole the-
se figures constitute a poetic
structure of the kind:
A rabbit is a rabbit, is a
rabbit, is a rabbit
A bee is abee, is abee,
is a bee
A shit is a shit, is a shit,
is a shit
Sequence that reminds me of
the recursive rules in grammar,
only in this case with much more
liberty. These icons in their para-
digmatic and syntagmatic organi-
zation they project a theme and a
style. Each of the figures finds itself
in a contiguous representation. In
the Shit series, animals as well as
humans are in the same level.
Again, life and death is only a con-
tinuum of the same natural pro-
cess. The title then, is a figure in a
double sense: rhetorical and plas-
tic. A seductive strategy which is
achieved by plastic variables—co-
lor and texture—. The figure of the
title is a designatum, a simile. The
art piece is a figuration of figures.
Toledo does in the multiple
manifestations of his artis-
tic work.
We might define Tole-
do’s work as creative liberb
where one shall find a ree-
valuation of the notion of
space. Form, color and
matter, fundamental units
of his language, coexist to
create an ensemblei they
all provide support—they
become new interpretants-
—for projecting other new
values, for projecting a new
interpretation of the world.
Francisco Toledo postu-
lates, in fact, a new cosmo-
gony, as we can see in The
Rabbits, The Elephants and
The Insecfs, each one being a
poetic text in itself—if we agree
with Salvador Elizondo’s15
ideas
when he proposes that there is a
narrative nature in Toledo’s art.16
Rational thinking is opposed to
mythical thinkingi normative be-
havior is opposed to feeling, emo-
tions and bodily vibrations, space
is the extension of corporal move-
ments’ which is a form of commu-
nication among living beings—hu-
man or non-human—. The ani-
mals body is an extension of my
body, man within nature is only
an other living being. Thns, each
one of these figures—symbolic fi-
gures: the rabbit, the elephant,
the insect—become paradigmatic
figures with a mnemonic function.
The figures constantly remind us
of our basic nature and our basic
instincts, as we can see in the va-
rious works of the Book of Shit
where the figures—icons—in their
7. ting or a watercolor? Each
texture, form or color varia-
tion becomes an hummo
loquens which comes into
a dialogue with the other
Thus in Toledo’s art there is a
dialogue with nature and vvithin
nature What one might see as au-
to-referential is not only the
self-recognition but also an ex-
pression of the condition of hu-
man beings in general, a sort of
synecdoche. For he speaks of
equality among humans and the
rest of living beings within nature.
Modern culture is thus questio-
ned, modern values are also put
in doubt.
Reality and imagination, the te-
rrestrial and the cosmic, they all
come together to release the crea-
tive energy in Toledo. His sense of
freedom takes him into a fantastic
world, much the same as Borge’s
Fanfastic Zoology where imagined
beings wonder through different
regions and different epochs of ti-
me to create illusions and terror.
Borges and Toledo, poesis ef pic-
tura coming together: twin brot-
hers converging into twin arts. He-
re again the horacian analogy that
we find in Arte Poetica17
which re-
fers to human relations with natu-
re. But it refers also to the concept
of totality within nature. Ut pictura
et poesis18
points to the sense that
an image or figure may project in-
side as well as outside a text. Thus
an image may refer to a constella-
tion of prehispanic senses or to
modern meanings. An image may
thos rec~l contents which belong
to different semiotic domains—dif-
ferent semiotic paradigms, in
terms of Hjelmslev—. If the nature
of Toledo’s artistic work is then
the convergence of different se-
miotic systems, our question is
then, the variations refer to the
plane of expression or to the pla-
ne of content? What kind of func-
tion does an image—figure in rhe-
torical terms~ can we find in an
engraving, a gouache, an oil pain-
El Cantar de los Peces (1971). Litografía 53,5 x 41.5 cm.
8. elements of a piece of art.
Let us say, in terms of Lé-
vi-Strauss, an expression is
a content.
His metamorphic princi-
ple is the constant tEroug-
hout Toledo’s artistic work:
a goat becomes a pump-
kin, a saint is an extension
of a fish—fertility symbol
that refers to the sexual act,
origin of creation of all
sorts of living beings. The
Divine is, at the same time,
part of this fertility ritual.
Holiness is the other side
of fertility, as we can see in
New Catechismfor Remiss
What we gather from tLis, once
again, is the uniqueness of one
single being.
But this metamorphic principle
is not really new, its roots go back
to Indian Mythology. It is some-
how a return to a harmonious
cosmos where man and the rest
of nature wore organically integra-
ted. But with the arrival of Chris-
tianity —the humanization of the
Indians would say the eYange-
lists-—and modernity, the old
equilibrium is broken. Primitive
thinking leaves its place to ratio-
nal thinking. The natural balance
is broken. We see it in the ancient
gods, in the masks of modern ri-
tuals where the mask stands for
an animali it is the opening of a
theatrical representation. Each of
the mask’s lines constitutes a na-
rrative text, each gesture refers to
a wide semantic field. The inter-
pretant will result of an imaginary
world: a dream, as Paul Klee
would say: ‘Dream about me... I
am my own style,”19
an experien-
ce, a habit. All of them, in different
levels of semiosis, but the com-
mon trait is the search for a new
harmonious balance in nature
where sexual and religious values
are one and the samei where et-
hical and social values unite
around man and nature, and re-
gulations are but processes of in-
tegration and communication.
In the different expressions of
Toledo’s art, each of the icons gi-
Indians . From this transformation
a new single being emerges. This
is what allows us to understand
any transformation from animals
to humans and form humans to
animals. Non-humans are the
ulter of human beings. In this cos-
mogony, Occidental values lose
their validity, for Toledo questions
old structures, he ridiwles mythi-
cal symbols, as we can see in his
various works about an other Za-
potec Indian: Benito Juárez—Mexi-
can symbol par excellence, or mo-
dern rituals like contemporary ce-
meteries. An example of this can
be seen in his Cemefery of Ani-
muls which we find in the back-
yard of his house in Oaxaca. Life
and death side to side, for the
phallic symbol projects the mea-
ning of fertility. Life aPter death
one would say in Christian terms.
9. of an analysis of the most
representative art pieces.
However, considering the
time available, I shall pass
ves birth to others or is devoured
by larger ones. Some are inhabited
by other beings. The recurrent to-
pic seems to be birth and death.
Giving birth and transformation
are the frequent themes. In short,
the permanent question appears
to be our origin. The mouth, the
anus or the vagina?20
Where are
we coming from? What are we
made of? We are dust, seems to
be the message. We see it in the
materials he uses, in the color va-
riationsi the sand in its different
textures and tonalities What is our
place in nature? Furthermore, his
icons do not seem to have a be-
ginning, they start from somet-
hing: an animal, a texture, an ob-
ject and human being. The themes
and characters of his scenario do
have continuity, like in a narrative
text. And he seems to agrce with
this idea when he says: “In the
process of creation, the artist uni-
tes his sequences. What he does
in a disorderly way in the end has
an order and he sees f~nally a co-
herent body of ideas.”21
The universe is in constant
transformation. Tt is no longer fi-
xed, it is in movement. An animal,
an object or a man may be muta-
ted into almost anything: a living
being comes out from an other li-
ving being to find shelter in an ot-
her one.
The constant movement that
we see in Toledo~s art besomes
an allegory. lt can be a journey
from the known to the unknown,
from the real to the fantasy. Rea-
lity and fantasy interwoven, like
Borge~s Fantastic Zoology. Chains
of metaphors that arouse our sen-
ses into our history, our present or
our expectations.
What l have said up to now can
only be seen as the prolegomena
La olla de la madre de los camarones, 1990 , cerámica al
alto fuego.
10. review of a couple of them
to highlight some of the
ideas that we have already
put forward in lines before.
Let us look in The Visit
(1970).
First of all, what we see
is an illogical and irrational
representation of reality A
man in a duality of nature:
the fish is a man, is a man,
and is a man. Or, the man
is a fish, is a fish, and is a
fish. What is la head of the
fish, is also the head of the
man. The man is sitling
down and leaning over ca-
ne. A woman is undressing,
without shoes. There is a
nes with a metaphor—the fish’s
head—to rehumanize the man sit-
ting in the chair, who, by the pre-
sence of the cane we get the idea
that he is a very old man. An old
man contrasting with the youth of
the man in the mirror. Old age
means death, but also signifies li-
fe Man within mani restitution of
the human spirit and vitality to old
age. By beheading modern man,
Toledo reintroduces the animal
nature in old age which in mo-
derr1 times it means retreat and
self-communion. This reminds me
of Luis22
Zarate’s Ar~cfud as Pe-
nis.23
The rafio loses before the
anamal instinct. Nature triumphs
over reason. An aesthetic messa-
ge is projected by the grotesque.
Old age suffers a metamorphosis
but it is done in communion with
other human beings: the woman
and the young man. We find so-
mething similar in the watercolor
bed and a washstand. The first
stands as a symbol of sexuality
and the second as an emblem of
the origin of life, for water stands
for life. The glass of closet reflecis
an other man who is dressing or
undressing. On top of the close
there is a dog watching with a
malicious smile. The floor of the
room seems to be inclined. The
man with the cane exhibits an
erected penis. What we have here
is the theme that the human figu-
re is deeply united to nature and
its manifestations which in this
case it is the fish which symboli-
zes fertility—new life—but also the
beginning of life. It is the integra-
tion of the human world and na-
tural world. It is also a questioning
of rationality and certain religious
values. We see nature re-humani-
zing man. The old and traditional
and ideological structure which
underlies man’s superiority is re-
defined, for man loses its rationa-
lity—the head is no longer the
head of a human being—. Thus
man recovers his animal nature
and the animals recover their hu-
manity. But this is an allegory.
What the icons project is the idea
of a new attitude towards the
world. It is a poetic drawing whe-
re metaphors combine to create
fantasy, where the real and unreal
fuse to project the sense of union
between animals and man. It is a
challenge to logic and rationality.
An iconic representation combi-
11. tant of all the people of
Mescamerica”.24
Alberto
Blanco, poet, in a clear ana-
logy of the structure of the
human brain, says: “From
the beginning... the Oaxaca
artists...have worked with
two hands: the right hand,
which has dealt with the vi-
sible world, real, rational,
has described his environ-
ment, the plants and ani-
mals of its geography... And
Portrait of Armando Colina (1966)
where the human face also pro-
jects the fusion of man with natu-
re. Toledo’s intention is not to spi-
ritualize nature but an act of crea-
tion—poiesis—in terms of Horace,
placing the artist in the historic
and cultural perspective, as we
can see in so many other art pie-
ces: Night and Bird (1973), The
Smging of Fish (1971). Again we
have here a plastic poem singing
to the humanizing of man th-
rough the free interaction with na-
ture. There is a new logos. Natu-
re’s speech is re~iscovered. Mo-
dern subjectivity gives way to a
new subjectivity. There is a new
force that emerges with a new na-
tural relations among humans
and animals and objects. Paraph-
rasing Walter Benjamin, the I has
been weakened as if it were rot-
ten tocth. In this metamorphic
process the objects of modern era
project a new sense which is no
longer their utilitarian function.
Toledo does not seem to want the
elimination of reason. Rather, he
proposes some kind of balance
between ratio and natural forces.
Man is rational but he also be-
longs to the forces of nature. From
this perspective, nature is not only
a place pleasure and beauty, it is
also a place for building life in a
wider sense. It is not an idealiza-
tion of nature but the possibility
of new micro-cosmogony. It is a
proposition for a more equal so-
ciety where the human being is
not superior to the rest of the li-
ving beings, even those that dan-
gerous to man. Mythical thought
does fuse with realism. Pre-Hispa-
nic thought feeding modern
thought. In this line of thought,
man is no longer afraid of nature
and of his natural thrives.
Allow me to finish these com-
ments on Francisco Toledo un-
derlying the idea that for the
pre-Hispanic civilizations art was
never apart form ordinary life. In
terms of Octavio Paz: “The fusion
between the literal and the sym-
bolic, matter and idea, natural
reality and supernatural, is a cons-
12. the leflc hand has taken for
task the decipherment of
the lePt side of Creation,
the side of the myths, le-
gends and dreams with
their fantastic creatures,
Adrian S.
Gimat e-Welsh
Berlin, Febrnary 17, l999
1) National Prize Winner in Art,
1998
2) President of the Mexican As-
sociation for Semiotic Studies and
Member of the Scientific Commit-
tee of the International Associa-
tion for Semiotic Studies (IASS
-AIS).
3) See Rufino Tamayo, Myth
and Magic, National Endowment
for the Art, Instituto Nacioral de
Bellas Artes,
Waschington D.C., México,
1988, p.12.
4) Interview that Adrián S. Gi-
mate-Welsh held with Francisco
Toledo at the Graphic Arts Institu-
te of Oaxaca in February 4, 1999.
5) Textos de Rufino Tamayo,
Alianza Madrid, 1994, p.35
6) Francisco Toledo. Exposición
retrospectiva 1963/ 79, Instituto
Nacional de Bellas Artes, Mexico,
198, p.7
7) Interview with Francisco To-
ledo at the IAGO
8) See, Adrián S. Gimate-Welsh,
“Correspondecias y símbolos en
el arte de Tamayo”, en Varia Lin-
güistica y Literatura pages 287-
303, editores Rebeca Barriga y Pe-
dro Martin Butragueño, E1 Cole-
gio de México, 1997.
See Blanca Gutiérrez Galindo,
Francisco Toledo. Hisforia y natu-
raleza, tesis de Maestría Artes Grá-
their imaginary beings, metaphors
in a constant transformation.”25
Which hand is dominant? That re-
mains to be seen, for much of his
work still needs to be studied in
many different aspects. In any ca-
se, Toledo is what his critics have
said, but much more if we stop to
exarnine no only his spontaneous
creatiYity but also his plastic lan-
guage.
La verdadera tentación, 1981, del albúm Nuevo Catecismo
para indios remisos, grabado, aguafuerte, punta seca,
mezzotinta y buril sobre papel, 40 x 56 cms.
13. ficas, Especial en pintura, UNAM,
1996 en pintura, UNAM, 1996.
10) Francisco Toledo. A Retros-
pective of his Graphic Works, July
22-October 9, 1988.
11) See Paul Klee, “Caminos di-
versos en el estudio de la natura-
leza”, en Teoria del Arte Moderno,
Buenos Aires, 1979, p. 67.
12) Nobel Prize in Literatue.
13) Distinguished Mexican
writer.
14) See Ruth Lechuga and
Chloë Sayer, Mask Arts of México,
Chronicle Books, San Francisco,
1994, p. 48.
15) Mexican poet. He is also a
National Prize Winner in Linguis-
tics and Literature.
16) See Francisco Toledo Expo-
sición retrospectiva 1963/ 1979,
Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes,
México, 1980.
17) See Quinti Horatii Flacci, De
arte poetica, White, Gallaher, Nue-
va York, 1828, p. 38.
18) See Arnullo Herrera “Ole:
“Ut pictura poesis” in Escritos. Se-
miótica de la cultura, Adrian S. Gi-
mate-Welsh (Universidad Autóno-
ma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, Mé-
xico, 1994, pages 447-460.
19) Francrsco Toledo, Galeria
Arvil, XXV Aniversario, México,
l999, p. 8
20) See Veronica Volkow, La
mordedura de la risa. Un estudio
sobre la gráfica de Francisco Tole-
do, Editorial Aldus, México, 1995,
p. 22.
21) Interview with Francisco
Toledo.
22) Also from Oaxaca Born
in 1951.
23) Drawing of my own
collection.
24) See Fernando Solana Oiva-
res, “Cien años en Oaxaca”, in His-
toria del arte de Oxaca, . Arte con-
temporáneo, Volumen ll:, Gobier-
no del Estado de Oaxaca, Oaxaca,
México, 1997, p. 97.
25) Fernando Solana, art. Cit.,
p. 97,
