Between the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s, the time was ripe for an artistic avant-garde in Montevideo. During these years, an important group of artists increased their commitment to the aesthetic paradigms of the contemporary world. At the same time, as new artistic languages were progressively distanced from public reception and understanding, this commitment entailed a crisis in the role of the artist as a social interlocutor. The avant-garde consciousness is thus the result of a double tension: between individual freedom and the social function of the artist, and between individualistic introspection and the need for a dialogue with a middle-class audience that was avidly accessing the new cultural productions.

The intellectual sectors, which had expanded their influence among the enlightened petty bourgeoisie in the early 1960s, acted as a bridge for the gradual acceptance of “modern art.”

The first group shows of abstract art established a dialogue with this new audience. Thus, slowly, the avant-garde imaginary flourished with its identifying aesthetic codes. In 1955, the exhibition 19 artistas de hoy (19 Artists of Today) took place in Montevideo, marking a turning point that brought together the most diverse tendencies of abstract art of the time. The show included artists who had been part of the Taller Torres-García, others who had turned to Geometric Concretism, and also artists who, through the deconstruction of figurative representations, practiced moderate forms of abstraction. Similar exhibitions followed between 1955 and 1957, such as 6 pintores modernos (6 Modern Painters) at the Facultad de Humanidades de la Universidad de la República and 15 pintores abstractos (15 Abstract Painters) at the Sociedad de Amigos del Arte, among others.

Grupo 8: Avant Garde Leadership

Toward the end of 1958, a group of avant-garde painters, led by Carlos Páez Vilaró (Montevideo, 1923–Punta Ballena, Uruguay, 2014), began to gather. Their aim was to devise a strategy for making an impact on both the national and international stages. They did not share a specific doctrine; they were united by an innovative sentiment, and they intended to lead a renewal of both the predominant aesthetic paradigms in the local environment and the role of the artist in the new mass society. These artists aimed to create new opportunities for contemporary artists to exhibit abroad, while also challenging the jury system that was responsible for national art awards, which they deemed to be conservative and outdated. 

Initially, besides Páez, the group included Oscar García Reino (Montevideo, 1910–1993), Américo Spósito (Montevideo, 1924–2005), Julio Verdié (Montevideo, 1900–1988), Lincoln Presno (Montevideo, 1917–1991), Alfredo Testoni (Montevideo, 1919–2003), Raúl Pavlotzky (Haifa, Palestine, 1918–Montevideo, 1998) and Miguel Ángel Pareja (Montevideo, 1908–1984). They took on the name Grupo 8 (fig. 1), and, given that the work of its members was very diverse, they defined their main aspiration only in broad terms: “To put art in life … with the techniques of today and the consciousness of today.” 1 

Right from the start, the group received backing from cultural patron Carlos Eugenio Scheck (Montevideo, 1920–1999), who was keen on promoting “modern art.” He offered the facilities of El País newspaper’s Centro de Artes y Letras (which he owned) for the group’s gatherings and initiatives. More than thirty years later, in 1995, Raúl Pavlotzky said: “The group was the brainchild of Carlos Páez, who, together with Presno, decided to create an avant-garde nucleus to stir up the scene. International connections and opportunities for exhibitions abroad were secured by Páez, through his diplomatic and business relationships in other countries. He served not merely as a public relations agent, but as an entity unto himself.” 2 

Thanks to these international connections, shortly after its formation, Grupo 8 was able to showcase its work around the globe. In 1959 alone, the group held exhibitions in diverse locations including Cairo, Damascus, Alexandria, Prague, New Delhi, La Paz, and Concepción (Chile), as well as in Argentina and Uruguay.

The first exhibition took place in the Uruguayan beach town of Punta del Este in 1959. The show already signaled their intention of blurring the lines between art and craft, featuring not only paintings but also ceramics (Páez Vilaró), tapestries (García Reino), silkscreen prints (Pavlotzky), and mosaics (Pareja). Thus, the image of an avant-garde nucleus was established in a location that was a hub for international tourism.

In April of that year, the group was invited to exhibit at Galería Rubbers in Buenos Aires, and two months later, they traveled as the only foreign delegation to present their work at the Museo de Arte Moderno de Buenos Aires. Directed since 1956 by Rafael Squirru, the museum at the time utilized the gallery rooms of the Museo Sívori.

In June 1959, the first issue of Boletín del Grupo 8 was published, featuring texts that presented general ideas and goals (fig. 2). In its editorial, under the title “Tenemos voz” (We Have a Voice), they stated: “A whole plot unravels and from its remains emerges Man. Today we know that we have broken down our borders to the world, and that we can go around with our works without waiting for time to fall upon them and annul their relevance.” 3 The statement refers to certain ideas that were crucial at that time. Firstly, the concept of breaking down borders reflects an awareness of art’s internationalization in the Western world, a phenomenon that emerged in the postwar era and accelerated since the 1960s. Secondly, this sudden expansion of planetary space for culture intensified an awareness of the transient nature of aesthetic values, along with their rapid transformation and obsolescence under the latest phase of modern capitalism.

If, on the one hand, the group championed the autonomy of individual art practices, on the other it proposed a deliberate approach to the field of contemporary design and industry. A different article of the same Boletín issue, titled “Arte vinculado a la industria” (An Art Linked to Industry), stated: “There is room for an artist in every factory. An artist who… comes with experience, with an aesthetic concept, and with a fine sensibility.” Pavlotzky pointed out that “our interest in industrial design was primarily directed toward the textile industry, the only well-established industry in Uruguay. [However,] design itself did not captivate them, as they imported already manufactured goods.” 4 

The Boletín concluded with a piece by Pareja, in which he advocated for the formation of a collaborative team between artists and architects. To support his point, he recalled the initiatives carried out by the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes and the Facultad de Arquitectura in 1958, which aimed for “an integration of the arts.”

In essence, the Boletín sought to spotlight the new social role of contemporary artists, tasked with responsibilities traditionally not theirs, integrated in a collaborative effort with other artists and architects both for the design of everyday objects and for specific artistic interventions into architectural spaces. Both things contributed to consider the role of the artist as an educator in aesthetic matters.

On the other hand, Grupo 8 emerged with the intention of creating a space for public interventions that were independent of existing institutions, especially outside the Comisión Nacional de Bellas Artes and its jury system, which depended on the Ministerio de Instrucción Pública.

In 1960, during the XXIV Salón Nacional organized by the Comisión, the group chose not to participate. At that time, an Asociación de Artistas Plásticos was being created with the purpose of bringing together artists who were dissatisfied with the selection and award criteria in the Salones. Grupo 8 joined it. In July of the same year, the Asociación formally announced its separation from the Comisión Nacional de Bellas Artes. This declaration was signed by over forty artists, including the eight members of the Grupo and their latest addition, Antonio Llorens (Buenos Aires, 1920–Montevideo, 1995). Llorens was an artist previously involved with the “invencionista” movement in Argentina and the Río de la Plata region, notably with Madí.

During this period, one of the major intellectual debates involving Grupo 8 centered around the international contest for the construction of a monument dedicated to José Batlle y Ordóñez, former president of Uruguay and a pivotal figure in the country’s politics between 1903 and 1915. The jury announced its decision on June 1, 1960, deciding not to award the first prize and giving a third mention to the project by the Spanish artist Jorge Oteiza. This project was regarded by “advanced” artists as the sole representative of modern aesthetic values, praised for its integration with the landscape, its unique symbolic depth, formal simplicity, and as a paradigmatic example of avant-garde ideas. Grupo 8 had an active role in the episode: the group met with Oteiza (who spent six months in Montevideo), it expressed their support to his project and to the texts that defended him. The incident was a milestone in the disputes of the local avant-garde, since the public arguments put forward by the Basque artist in his own defense brought together all Uruguayan artists, art critics, architects, and writers who were in solidarity with the ethical and doctrinal principles of the avant-garde.

In 1960, Grupo 8 exhibited in the galleries of Subte Municipal, in Montevideo, and again on August 25, 1961 (fig. 3), this time alongside José Cuneo Perinetti (Montevideo, 1887–Bonn, Germany, 1977), who had recently joined the group. In November of that year, the Primera Exposición Internacional de Arte Moderno, sponsored by the Museo de Arte Moderno, took place in the building of the Palacio San Martín in Buenos Aires. The painters of Grupo 8 were invited, although they did not attend as a group. The exhibition featured 268 artists from Latin America, the United States, Europe, England, and India. Uruguay sent a delegation of fifteen participants. 5  In mid-1961, Grupo 8 declined an invitation from the Comisión Nacional de Bellas Artes to participate in De Blanes a nuestros días, a group exhibition showcasing Uruguayan painters. However, the fact that García Reino, Spósito, and Testoni did not sign the rejection letter 6  marked that internal discrepancies were already emerging within the group.

Pareja shared a special bond of confidentiality with Presno, who had originally invited him to be a part of the group in 1958. They also shared their work as teachers, and therefore an awareness of social and pedagogical issues raised by public art education. This close relationship led Pareja, in 1961, to confide in his friend about the unease he was experiencing within the group and, consequently, the possibility of his resignation: “Dear Presno: García Reino, Spósito, Testoni, perhaps Verdié, perhaps Pavlotzky, all may think that my ideas are responsible for the crisis faced by the group. I feel the attack (and, I would add, the rage …) is increasingly directed at me. We have made mistakes. The first was creating the group without knowing each other better … I don’t want to cause trouble. It would distress me to do so. Don’t miss the chance, Presno, announce my resignation before everyone else’s departure becomes final.” 7  The letter documents the existence of a “crisis faced by the group,” the one that would lead to its dissolution in 1962. In the statement that was eventually presented to publicize the reasons behind the crisis, one could detect a collective frustration regarding the initial aim of driving change in the field of visual arts. The presence of discrepancies and the absence of clear, shared objectives were also apparent. The document read: “As we reach the dissolution of Group 8, we do so not with feelings of triumph or defeat … Everything we did was aimed at enhancing the way issues are debated in art … Even though we succeeded in establishing norms that improved certain facets of national artistic activity, perhaps we must admit that in other aspects arbitrariness persists. This leads to the conviction that improving relationships and procedures is not worth our effort.” 8 

In addition to the accelerated institutional crisis, there was a particular situation that could have been a triggering factor for the dissolution, to which Pareja refers in a letter addressed to Rafael Squirru, many years later. He said: “The Comisión Nacional de Bellas Artes sent a delegation to offer me the top prize if I agreed to participate in the Salón. Needless to say, I refused. Subsequently, Spósito was chosen to compete for a biennial award from the Banco de la República, marking the moment of Grupo 8’s dissolution. As a group, we couldn’t persuade Spósito to decline, nor could we convince those who supported him. Only Presno, Páez, Llorens, and I opposed the submission.” 9 

Grupo 8: The Artists and Their Works

Most of the self-proclaimed avant-garde artists in 1960 assimilated contemporary languages with an eclectic approach. “Informalist” painting was the predominant style, characterized by some key features: the crude materiality of surfaces, the inscription of signs or graphic marks through “dripping” paintbrushes, and the juxtaposition of large, amorphic stains of raw colors. In some instances, these elements converged simultaneously within a single artwork.

Within Grupo 8, while García Reino, Spósito, Pavlotzky, Verdié, and Cuneo aligned with certain trends of Informalismo, there was also a geometric tendency with Presno, Páez and Llorens. Other artists, such as Testoni and Pareja, focused on form as Gestalt.

Oscar García Reino’s education was based on the legacies of the Paris School of the mid-1930s, as a disciple of the Escuela Taller de Artes Plásticas (ETAP), active between 1933 and 1937 in Montevideo. García Reino was not an orthodox abstract painter, as he never distanced himself completely from figurative gestures. But at the time of his participation in Grupo 8 he practiced Informalismo, with graphic marks and fine color trails imposed over large splatters. Even if his stains were free-form and rather arbitrary, they were not the result of carelessness, as the artist always sought to ensure the structural coherence of his compositions (fig. 4).

Américo Spósito, a member of the Taller Torres-García from 1945 to 1949, developed an interest in scientific questions concerning the structure of matter and quantum physics by the late 1950s. This curiosity led him to publish three lengthy artist books. As part of Grupo 8, he explored surface textures within the “black space,” creating works with asphalt painting, as seen in Olimar IV (1959) and the Sauces series (Willows, 1960–61) (fig. 5). He connected these paintings to biblical narratives.

Raúl Pavlotzky had been a student of José Cuneo around 1940 and, soon after, on top of painting he began to practice silkscreen printing. In 1960 he created a portfolio of silkscreen prints with works by Grupo 8 artists, which he created especially for the exhibition of the group at the Museo de Arte Moderno de Buenos Aires (Museo Sívori), with a print run of two hundred copies. In the late 1950s, he was a consistent advocate of geometric abstraction. Toward 1960, he experimented with Informalist painting (fig. 6) and, since 1961, he became one of the Uruguayan painters most deeply committed to an Informalism based on matter (fig. 7).

Since the 1920s, Julio Verdié engaged in multiple roles as a poet, journalist, playwright, and painter. He practiced painting sporadically and eclectically. During the 1960s, including his time as part of Grupo 8, he developed an Informalist work through emulsified enamels that generated random stains of strong colors (fig. 8). Verdié, along with Pavlotzky, was among the artists in Grupo 8 who utilized the free stain technique. However, while Pavlotzky applied dripping and linear brushstrokes, Verdié positioned his emulsified color stains as “clouds,” creating turbulent combinations.

José Cuneo Perinetti is the artist within Grupo 8 with the most extensive career. Around 1920, he was a pioneer among the group of landscape artists who advocated for rural motifs as central themes in Uruguayan painting. In the 1940s, he developed his lunar landscapes series (or Lunas), which he had begun a few years earlier (fig. 9). In the mid-1950s, he shifted toward abstract works with sandy textures and organic forms that could be seen as a continuation of the lunar series (fig. 10). This was the type of painting he was working on when he joined Grupo 8, in 1961.

Lincoln Presno was also a member of Taller Torres-García between 1944 and 1946. The idea of “structure” emphasized in the workshop had a significant influence on Presno’s work in both painting and sculpture. During his time as part of Grupo 8, he engaged in a style of geometric painting defined by simple shapes, articulating curves, and straight lines (fig. 11) and reaching, in some instances, large compositions.

At the age of twenty, Carlos Páez Vilaró established himself in Montevideo’s “Barrio Sur,” a vibrant neighborhood inhabited by many families of African descent who infused Uruguayan carnivals with color and musical rhythm. It was there, toward 1945, where he began his painting and musical activities, drawn to the spectacle of dances and “candombes”, a theme that had also captivated the work of Uruguayan painter Pedro Figari (Montevideo, 1861–1938) in the 1920s and 1930s.

In the early 1960s, Páez developed a painting style with some figurative elements and a synthetic language. His rhythmic and schematic drawings echoed the formal qualities of African art (figs. 12–13). He also created mural paintings featuring these elements and, at times, incorporated metal rods, iron pieces, and bicycle wheels into the wall, as a sort of mechanical parody.

In 1962, the same year Grupo 8 disbanded, he ventured to Africa, visiting Nigeria, Senegal, Congo, and Cameroon. During his travels, he discovered symbolic forms that he later integrated into his paintings, sculptures, and ceramics, all marked by a distinct ethnographic influence. In September 1962, he visited Congo; two months later, Cameroon. From both countries he corresponded with Lincoln Presno and Miguel Ángel Pareja. In one letter, he wrote: “These days I’ve been thinking a lot about Grupo 8, those not-so-distant days that feel like just yesterday. We came together like a family, debated like brothers, and our collective toolbox for painting was brimming with a deep sense of unity, of sharing with one another, of striving to improve ourselves, much like Pareja often mentioned in his renowned prologues.” 10 

In the late 1940s, Antonio Llorens had been involved in the Madí movement alongside Uruguayan artists Rodolfo Troncone (Montevideo, 1919–2007), Rhod Rothfuss (Montevideo, 1920–1969) and Camilo Arden Quin (Rivera, Uruguay, 1913–Savigny-sur-Orge, France, 2010). Between 1952 and 1953, his works were part of the first group shows of non-figurative painting in Montevideo. During the time of his participation in Grupo 8, he was making geometric abstractions, mostly using acrylic paint on hardboard (fig. 14). He also extended this abstract language to silkscreen printing, producing a portfolio of around ten works in this medium in 1960.

Alfredo Testoni began his professional career as a photographer, at the age of sixteen. In the mid-1950s, he started capturing photographs of surfaces with reliefs that highlighted the interplay of light and shadow, creating a dynamic effect of sharp chiaroscuro. Toward the end of the decade, as the Spanish Arte Otro movement gained traction, he initiated his series of photographs of walls—often captured during his travels in Europe and Asia—which he dubbed Murosmagorías (fig. 15). This photographic endeavor, which connected him with painters and sculptors through numerous dedicated portraits, fostered his association with Grupo 8. Testoni’s fascination with capturing the texture of material fragments through lighting, coupled with his meticulous focus on the composition of the frame, could be seen as examples of the “photographic objet trouvé.” 11 

In the late 1930s in Paris, Miguel Ángel Pareja was a student of Roger Bissière. Nearly two decades later, he returned to the city to study mosaics and ultimately produced a mural in this medium that had been designed by Fernand Léger (fig. 16). This fact is far from trivial, as it highlights the profound influence this artist had on Pareja’s work. Indeed, upon his return to Uruguay, between 1958 and 1962, Pareja produced large paintings that employed formal strategies reminiscent of Léger’s style (see fig. 17). His concern for his social role as both an artist and educator inspired him to advocate for collaborative projects, which often blurred the lines of individual authorship. This approach ultimately underscored his differences within Grupo 8.

Grupo 8’s Fleeting Reunion

Following the 1973 coup d’état, there was a swift and significant decline in the cultural activities that had been flourishing until then. The Salones Nacionales saw a drastic reduction in participants, and opportunities for gatherings such as group shows and other events that brought artists and audiences together became scarce. Under these conditions, there was a growing sense of nostalgia for the dominance and sociability that had once characterized the art scene. In October 1979, the gallery Aramayo, in Montevideo, invited the artists that had been part of Grupo 8 for an exhibition called Veinte años después (Twenty Years Later, fig. 18). The reunion took place in an atmosphere marked by enforced silence, steering clear of any political claims about the past. It was, essentially, an effort by the hosting gallery to invigorate the stagnant local art market. Thus, the event marked not only the end of the group’s public activities but also concluded the polemical era of the artistic avant-garde in Uruguay, which had spanned from 1955 to 1975.