Bernardo Pinto de Almeida was always involved in
institutional collections. Been linked to the collection of Serralves in the
buying commission between 85 and 92, then in 92-95 was linked to the group that
organized the MEIAC collection in Badajoz, from 1996 to 2002 in the Cupertino
de Miranda Foundation. As critical was linked to the Portuguese collector
activity and its transformation over 25 years.
As curator of collections was connected to the
Serralves Foundation, a committee that included Fernando Pernes, Alexandre Melo
and architect Nuno de Almeida, the program was to equip the future museum of
modern art in a consistent collection from the viewpoint of modern art without
ever losing sight of the contemporary Portuguese art from the 60s to the 80s .
We have several museums of contemporary art that does
not fulfill this function, as Serralves and Chiado. The problem is that they
behave as centers of art and not as museums, with exception of the Gulbenkian
Foundation, which is a modernist collection. Secondly, the state in Portugal don’t
watch as they should cultural practices of museums to which they give money, if
they are to comply with the statutes, we don’t have a commission to examine it,
as there is in England, with the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Art), who
watches in fact, also exists in Spain, France and USA.
For example, at a certain point rose suspicious
relations between the Chiado Museum and Elypse Foundation, for the simple
reason that the director of Chiado was also curator of Elypse Foundation and
many artists who had exhibited in the Chiado were exposed in Elypse Foundation.
The problem is that Portugal 1000 potential collectors,
perhaps only 50 or less have a small idea of what exists in the collections of
museums and aren’t sufficiently clarified the processes that led to it. In
Portuguese institutions are still in the plane of the taste, the museum has
such a director who likes croissant with ham, the other has a museum that just
likes the Portuguese water, and then the artists that aren’t neither in nor
another group can never see their work exhibited.
Nasoni gallery had a great impact on the art market to
inflate prices, because it sought to create a international dynamicl. And early
on I removed myself for not agreeing with it. When the gallery began to create reputation,
visibility and money, some of the greedy founders dropped the boat and enjoy
the gains to go away. First point, the livelihood disappeared; second problem:
the Nasoni had no serious cultural project, many of the artists with whom they
worked by chance, some were good, some were bad, and some were so so. There
were many artists who came and went and those who stayed weren’t the best nor
the most interesting. Therefore, with so many losses Nasoni fell, creating the
illusion that there was a market for art. The market is blind, where judges
will give more.
The art critic is an agent who works on the side of
the artist, which protects them from the bad market, has the role of producing
a thought built on what art teaches that comprises the language of art and
translates for everyone.
Fernando Pessoa, plus a great poet is a great critic
who was constantly challenging the creation that is around him. In Portugal
there are very few critics who currently do. Today there is a regression in
this field, the newspapers were closed. There is moreover a dissemination of
critical reviews on the internet, but that very few people come because they
work in close groups, tend to tribalism. I think I have been part of the last
generation of critics existed in Portugal in the sense that there were several
voices who thought differently and that sometimes digladiat and argued among themselves.
This generation was absorbed almost all by the institutions, and therefore
there was no public space should welcome that, as in other countries.
In Spain and France it is very strong, the newspapers
want young interns who say some things about art at this time there is no art
magazines in Portugal.
