The Revolution and
Cultural Problems in Cuba
Republic of Cuba
Ministry of Foreign Relations
1962
Year of Planning
This unsigned forward comes from the 1962 Cuban pamphlet published by the
Ministry of Foreign Relations.
The pamphlet also contained speeches to same conference by the poet Nicolas
Guillen, who was also
president of the Cuban Union of Artists and Writers (UNEAC) and Cuba's
then-President Oswaldo Dorticos Torrado.
Gulllen's
comments:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2007.html
Dorticos's comments:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs1120.html
Foreward scanned by Walter Lippmann, January 2007
Foreword
The general adherence of all classes in our country to the revolutionary
movement which triumphed on the first of January, 1959. was followed, along with
its radicalization and its measures on behalf of the common people, by first
vacillation, then retreat, and lastly frank repudiation of the Revolution by
those who up to then had enjoyed special privileges. The attitude of the
intellectuals who represented the official culture of previous periods, the
culture of the classes affected by the Revolution, was in keeping with the
attitude of their patrons. These pseudo-intellectuals had a defined position:
they were against the Revolution.
On another side, regarding the Revolution from another point of view, were the
intellectuals who were loyal to it. However, even many of these honest
revolutionaries, enthusiastic workers, men of working and middle class
backgrounds, found that the march of the Revolution, that unfamiliar and rapid
march animated by an unsurpassed, constructive rhythm, that tide that swiftly
wrote in or erased names, institutions, events, moved only by social justice,
that growing wave amazed them, and, in a certain sense, awoke certain fears in
them.
When Dr. Fidel Castro, meeting with the writers and artists on the eve of their
First Congress, referred to the Yenan Forum, he revealed the nature of the
cultural problems, in our country.
In the famous Yenan Forum in 1942, Mao Tse-tung could, in the midst of a bloody
war of yet unforeseeable results, orient the honest intellectuals to participate
along with men of other classes, the workers and peasants, in the construction
of a new society in China. In Cuba, when the Revolution began its work, that
clear, firm orientation was lacking, But the Revolution itself
proved to be an exceptional school. Therefore,
conscious of the need for all sympathizers with the Revolution to participate in
its work, on November 19, 1960, the most advanced of the Cuban artists and
writers issued a manifesto -- "Towards A National Culture Serving the
Revolution". that only a few months later would be regarded as historic.
Its publication marked the beginning of the enthusiastic work of artists and
writers to unite, to take a position, to play a specific role in the
revolutionary process.
The publication of the manifesto was very timely. Events that filled us with
great hopes but that marked directions fraught with difficulties and obstacles
for our Revolution, obliged us all to formulate clear, unmistakable definitions.
The promulgation of the First Declaration of Havana shortly before by the people
of Cuba, gathered in a National General Assembly, and the adoption of measures
such as the nationalization of large foreign and domestically owned companies in
Cuba, marked steps of unprecedented importance for the Revolution. It was the
exact moment to either state adherence to the cause of the workers and farmers
or to rise against them. The Cuban writers and artists formulated an
unmistakable declaration. In the November document they proclaimed their
irrevocable commitment to the Revolution and to the people.
In the introduction to the statement of their points of view and the formulation
of their immediate program, the writers and artists considered it their first
duty to state their public creative responsibility to the Revolution and the
Cuban people, "in a period," they proclaimed, "of united struggle to achieve the
complete independence of our country as a nation." They declared that "the
victory of the Revolution has created among us the essential conditions for the
development of national culture, a liberating culture, capable of encouraging
revolutionary progress." In accordance with the above premises and the fact that
"the unity of purpose of contemporary Cuban intellectuals is obvious in their
works as well as in their of efforts to spread culture among the people
throughout the revolutionary period and during the years of struggle that
preceded it," the intellectual clearly defined their revolutionary position.
The immediate program set forth by the writers and artists was in keeping with
these declarations. They stated, as the first point, that they aspired to the
"recovery and development of our cultural tradition, which is rich in human
content and was wrested away from our people by the colonialists and the
imperialists." The second point of the program was to "preserve, encourage,
purify and utilize our folklore, spiritual wealth of the Cuban people, which the
Revolution is liberating and reevaluating." They added that they "consider
sincere and honest criticism indispensable to the work of artists and
intellectuals," and that they "should try to achieve full identification between
the character of our works and the needs of our advancing revolution. The
purpose is to bring the people close to the intellectual and the intellectual
close to the people, which does not necessarily imply that the artistic quality
of our work must thereby suffer." The declaration pointed out, concerning Latin
America, that "exchange, contact, and cooperation among Latin American writers.
intellectuals and artists are vital for the destiny of our America." And from a
still more far-reaching point of view, "Mankind is one. national heritage is
part of world culture, and world culture contributes to our national
aspirations."
On the basis of these ideas, the preparatory work of he First National Congress
of Writers and Artists began. But the mobilization in January, 1961, when
aggression by imperialism seemed imminent, took many intellectuals to the
trenches; the mobilization, and later the aggression itself, with its historic
defeat at Playa Giron, forced the postponement of this great assembly. But the
Revolution advanced constantly. On April 16, the Prime Minister, Dr. Fidel
Castro, proclaimed the socialist character of our Revolution.
The new orientations called for new meetings to be held previous to the
Congress. Dr. Fidel Castro, accompanied by high figures of the Revolutionary
Government, met with. the intellectuals and dealt with their problems. Many
questions dealing with cultural activity were discussed on June 16, 23, and 30,
in the auditorium of the National Library; there the Prime Minister dispelled
fears and clarified the Revolution's policy in regard to culture and
intellectuals.
Thus, with the assurance that artistic freedom was guaranteed absolutely and
totally, the Congress opened on August 18, anniversary of the death of Federico
Garcia Lorca. The motto adopted for the Congress proclaimed: "To Defend the
Revolution is to Defend Culture." The agenda was based on the program set forth
in the November Declaration.
On the opening night, the President of the Republic, Dr. Osvaldo Dorticos
Torrado, spoke about the road that the delegates to the Congress must take.
"Artists and writers must go to the people .—,not descending, but ascending to
them. . . in the people is to be found the source of future works, the daily
inspiration and the supreme inspiration.. And to the people the literary or
artistic products must finally return: a return of the treasures which the
people give In the artists every day."
On the morning of August 19th, poet Nicolas Guillén took a journey through Cuban
history, from which he returned asking the artists and writers to create a
"socialist, humanist culture that will give the ordinary man in the street
everything that was denied him by the Colony in the 19th century and monopolized
by an exclusive sector of the ruling class of that society... a culture that
will liberate and exalt us and distribute both bread and roses without shame or
fear".
The publication in this book of Fidel's words to the intellectuals and the
speeches by Dorticós and Guillen will enable English-speaking friends of Cuba
throughout the world to form a clear idea of the spirit with which the
Revolution is tackling the problem off culture. Without exception, the only
condition that of being unequivocally on the side of the people, the Cuban
Revolution protects the rights of creators, of scientists, of intellectuals.
Even more, it stimulates their work and opens new horizons to them. With a
better world in view, writers and artists, side by side with the people of whom
they are a part, are helping to build the society of the future
Words to the intellectuals
FIDEL CASTRO
Prime Minister of the Revolutionary Government.
General Secretary of the National Committee of ORI
(Integrated Revolutionary Organizations) Leader of the Cuban Revolution
On June 16, 23, and 30, meetings were held in the auditorium of the National
Library in Havana, in which participated the most representative figures of the
Cuban intelligentsia. Artists and writers had full opportunity to discuss and
expound their points of view on different aspects of cultural activity and
problems related to creative work. Present at the meetings were the President of
the Republic, Dr. Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado; the Prime Minister, Dr. Fidel
Castro: the Minister of Education, Dr. Armando Hart; members of the National
Council of Culture, and other representatives of the government.
source:
http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro/1961/19610630
Male and female Comrades:
It is now time for us to take our turn, following three Sessions at which
various problems related with culture and creative work were discussed, and at
which many interesting problems were posed and the various different opinions
represented were expressed. We are not doing this as the person most qualified
to speak on the matter, but as a question of a meeting between you and us, out
of the need for us to express certain points of view here.
We were greatly interested in these discussions, and I believe that we have
demonstrated what could be called "great patience" with this. Actually, however,
it was not necessary to make a heroic effort, because it has been an instructive
discussion for us, and I would say sincerely that it has been pleasant. Of
course, in this kind of discussion, we men of the Government are not the most
qualified people to express opinions on the matters in which you are
specialists. At least, that is the case with respect to me.
The fact of being men of the Government and agents of this Revolution does not
mean that we are obliged to be experts in all subjects, something which we
hardly are. It is possible that if many of the comrades who have spoken here
were to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss the problems
with which we are more familiar, they would find themselves in a position
similar to ours.
We have been agents of this Revolution, of the socioeconomic revolution that is
taking place in Cuba. This economic and social Revolution must inevitably
produce a cultural revolution in turn in our country.
For our part, we have tried to do something (perhaps during the first moments of
the Revolution there were other more urgent problems to be seen to). We could
also perform a self criticism by saying that we have put the discussion of a
matter as important as this one somewhat to one side. This does not mean that we
neglected it entirely. This discussion was already in the Government's mind, and
perhaps the incident to which reference has been made repeatedly here
contributed to accelerating it. We have had the intention for months of calling
a meeting like this one for the purpose of analyzing the cultural problem, cents
have been taking place, and it was especially the recent events that prevented
this meeting from being held earlier. Nevertheless, the Revolutionary Government
had been taking certain measures which expressed our concern with this problem.
Something has been done, and several comrades in the Government have persisted
on the matter on more than one occasion. It can be said provisionally that the
Revolution in itself has already wrought certain changes in the cultural
atmosphere: the working conditions of artists have changed.
I believe that there has been a slight emphasis here on certain pessimistic
aspects, I believe that there has been concern here which goes beyond any real
justification for this problems There has been hardly any emphasis on the
reality of the changes which have taken place with respect to the environment
and the present situation of artists and writers. In comparison with the past,
it is undeniable that Cuban artists and writers cannot feel as they did in the
past, and that the conditions in the past for artists and writers were truly
depressing in our country. If the Revolution began by bringing a profound change
in the environment and in the situation in itself, why suspect that the
Revolution which brought us these new working conditions might stifle the
conditions? Why fear that the Revolution would eliminate precisely those
conditions that it has brought with itself?
It is true that the problem being discussed here is not a simple one. It is true
that we all have an obligation to analyze it carefully. This is an obligation of
yours as well as of ours. It is not a simple problem, since it is a problem that
has been posed many times and that has been posed in all revolutions. We might
say that it is a skein, that it is quite tangled and not easy to disentangle. It
is a problem that we shall not be able to solve easily either.
The various comrades who have spoken here expressed an infinity of points of
view, and they expressed them with their arguments. There was some fear of
entering into the matter on the first day, and so it was necessary for us to ask
the comrades to delve into the subject, and for everyone to say what it was that
troubled him.
Unless we are mistaken, the basic problem hovering in the background of the
atmosphere here was the problem of freedom for artistic creation. This matter
has been brought up more than once by various writers visiting our country,
especially political writers. There is no doubt that it is a matter which has
been argued in all countries where profound evolutions such as ours have taken
place.
By coincidence, a comrade brought us a pamphlet a moment before we returned to
this salon. On the cover of it, or at the end, there is a short dialogue which
we had with Sartre which Comrade Lisandro Otero collected in the book entitled
Conversaciones en la Laguna (Conversations at La Laguna) (Revolucion, Tuesday 8
March 1960).
A similar matter was posed to us on another occasion by Wright Mills, the US
writer.
I must confess that these matters took us somewhat by surprise, in a certain
sense, We did not have any Yenan conference with Cuban artists and writers
during the Revolution. Actually, this is a revolution which took place and
attained power in what might be called record time. Differntly from other
revolutions, it did not have all the principal problems solved.
Consequently, one of the characteristics of the Revolution has been the
necessity of facing many problems hastily. We are just like the Revolution, that
is, we have improvised a great deal. Consequently, it cannot be said that this
Revolution had neither the stage of gestation that other revolutions have had,
or that the leaders of the Revolution did not have the intellectual maturity
that the leaders of other revolutions have had. We believe that we have
contributed to the present events in our country to the extent of our forces. We
believe that we are carrying out a genuine revolution with the efforts of
everyone, and that this revolution is developing and appears to be destined to
become one of the important events of this century. In spite of this reality,
nevertheless, we who have had an important part in these events do not believe
ourselves to be theoreticians of revolution nor intellectuals of revolution. If
men are judged by their deeds, then perhaps we shall have the right to
consideration for the merit which the Revolution means in itself. Nevertheless,
ye do not think this way, and I believe that all of us should have a similar
attitude, whatever our deeds have been. No matter how meritorious they may seem,
we must begin by placing ourselves in the honest position of not presuming to
know more than others do, of not presuming that we have learned everything that
can be learned, of not presuming that our points of view are infallible, and not
presuming that those who do not think exactly the same way are mistaken. That is
to say, we should put ourselves in this honest position -- not out of false
modesty, but rather from true evaluation of what we know. Because if we put
ourselves in this position, I believe that it will be easier to march forward
correctly. And if all of us -- both you and we -- adopt this attitude, personal
attitudes will disappear, and that certain dosage of personalism which we inject
into the analysis of problems will disappear. Actually, what do we know? We are
all learning. Actually, we have a great deal to learn, and we have not come here
to teach. We have come to learn also.
There were certain fears in the atmosphere, and certain comrades expressed those
fears.
We had the impression at times that we were dreaming a bit as we were listening.
We had the impression that we had not yet put our feet on the ground well.
Because if there is some concern and some fear that restrains us today, it is
with respect to the Revolution itself. The great Concern which all of us must
have is the Revolution in itself. Or is it that we believe that we have already
won all the revolutionary battles? Is it that we believe that the Revolution has
no dangers? What must be the primary Concern of all citizens today? The concern
that the Revolution might reveal its measures, that the Revolution would
asphyxiate art, that the Revolution is going to asphyxiate the creative genius
of our citizens? Or should not the Revolution itself be the Concern of everyone?
The real or imaginary dangers that night threaten the creative spirit, or the
dangers that might threaten the Revolution itself? It is not a matter of our
invoking this danger as a simple argument, we are merely pointing out that the
state of mind of all citizens of the country and the state of mind of all
revolutionary writers and artists, or of all artists and writers who understand
and justify the Revolution, must be: what dangers might threaten the Revolution,
and what can are do to help the Revolution? We believe that the Revolution has
many battles yet to wage, and we believe that at first thought and our first
concern should be what we can do so that the Revolution can emerge victorious.
Because this is the first thing. The first thing is the Revolution itself, and
after that, we can concern ourselves with the other matters. This does not mean
that the other matters should not concern us, but that the basic Concern in our
state of mind must be the Revolution -- as it is in mine, in any case.
The problem which has been discussed here and which we are going to touch on is
the problem of freedom of expression for writers and artists.
The fear has been stirred up here that the Revolution could stifle that freedom,
whether the Revolution is going to smother the creative spirit of writers and
artists.
Formal freedom was spoken of here. Everyone agreed with respect to formal
freedom. I believe that there is no doubt concerning this problem.
The matter becomes more subtle and actually turns into the essential point of
the discussion when freedom of content is involved. It is the most subtle point
because it is exposed to the most diverse interpretations. The most debatable
point of this question is whether or not there should be absolute freedom of
content in artistic expression. It seems to us that some comrades are defending
that hint of view. Perhaps it was out of fear of the prohibitions, regulations,
limitations, rules, and authorities ties to decide on the matter which they
visualized.
In the first place, permit me to tell you that the Revolution defends freedom;
that the Revolution has brought a very large number of freedoms to the Country;
that because of its essence, the Revolution cannot be an enemy of freedoms, and
that if anyone fears that the Revolution is going to stifle his creative spirit,
that Concern is unnecessary and has no reason for being.
Where can the raison d'etre of that Concern lie? Only someone who is not certain
of his revolutionary convictions should truly concern himself with this problem.
Someone who lacks confidence in his aim art and in his real capacity for
creating might be concerned about this problem. And it might well be asked
whether a genuine revolutionary, an artist or intellectual who sympathizes with
the the Revolution and is certain that he is capable of serving the Revolution
could pose this problem. That is to say, whether or not that doubt would be
present in truly revolutionary writers and artists. I believe not; that the
field of doubt is left to the writers and artists who are not
counterrevolutionary, but who do not feel themselves to be revolutionary either.
(Applause.)
It is proper that a writer or artist who does not feel himself to be a genuine
revolutionary would pose himself thin problem. That is, that an honest writer or
artist who is capable of understanding the raison d'etre and the justice of the
Revolution without joining into it would posit this problem. Because the
revolutionary puts something above all other matters. The revolutionary puts
something above even his aim creative spirit. He puts the Revolution above
everything else, and the most revolutionary artist will be that one who is
prepared to sacrifice even his own artistic vocation for the Revolution.
(Applause.)
No one has ever assumed that all men, or all writers, or all artists must be
revolutionaries, just as no one can assume that all men or all revolutionaries
must be artists, or that every honest man must be a revolutionary because of the
fact that he is honest. Being a revolutionary is also an attitude toward life.
Being a revolutionary is also an attitude toward present reality, and there are
men who are resigned to that reality. There are men who are adapted to that
reality. And there are also men who can not resign themselves to or adapt to
that reality and who try to change it, and thus are revolutionaries. However,
there can be men who adapt to that reality and are still honest men. It is just
that their spirit is not a revolutionary spirit. It is just that their attitude
to reality is not a revolutionary attitude. And, of course, there can be artists
and good artists who do not have a revolutionary attitude to life. It is
precisely to that group of artists and intellectuals that the Revolution in
itself is an unforeseen event, a new event, an event which could even affect
their state of mind profoundly. It is precisely this group of artists and
intellectuals to whom the Revolution could be a problem.
It would never be a problem to a mercenary artist or intellectual, or to a
dishonest artist or intellectual. Such a person knows what he must do, knows
what is of interest to him, and knows in which direction he must go. The problem
truly exists for the artist or the intellectual who does not have a
revolutionary attitude to life and who, nevertheless is an honest person. Of
course, someone who has this attitude to life -- whether he is a revolutionary
or not, and whether or net he is an artist -- has his purposes and objectives,
and we may all inquire into those purposes and objectives. To the revolutionary,
these purposes and objectives are directed toward changing reality. These
purposes and objectives are directed toward the redemption of man. The objective
of revolutionaries is man himself, one's fellow beings, the redemption of one's
fellow beings. If we revolutionaries are asked what is most important to us, we
will say the people, and we will always say the people. The people in the real
meaning of the word, that is, that majority of the people which has had to live
in exploitation and in the most cruel neglect. Our basic concern will always be
the great majorities of the people, that is, the oppressed and exploited classes
of the people. That is the prism through which we look at everything. What is
good for them will be good for us, whatever is noble, useful, and beautiful for
them will be noble, useful, and beautiful to us. One does not have a
revolutionary attitude if he does not think this way, if he does not think for
and about the people -- that is, if one does not think and act for that great
exploited mass of the people, that great mass for whom redemption is wanted.
At least, that is the crystal through which we analyze the good, the usefulness,
and the beautiful in every action.
We believe that it is tragic when someone understands this and yet has to
acknowledge himself to be incapable of fighting for it.
We are, or we believe ourselves to be, revolutionary men. Someone who is more an
artist than a revolutionary cannot think exactly as we do. We are fighting for
the people, and we are not hurt by any conflict because we are fighting for the
people, and we know that we can achieve the objectives of our struggles. The
people are the principal goal. We must think of the people before thinking of
ourselves, and this is the only attitude that can be defined as a truly
revolutionary attitude. The problem to which we referred exists for the ones who
cannot or do not have that attitude, but who are honest persons. It is also to
them that the Revolution constitutes a problem, and it is they who constitute a
problem for the Revolution, a problem with which the Revolution must concern
itself.
The case was correctly pointed out here of many writers and artists who were not
revolutionaries, but who nevertheless were honest artists and writers and who
also wanted to help the Revolution and in whose help the Revolution was
interested; people who wanted to work for the Revolution, and in whose knowledge
and efforts to its benefit the Revolution was interested.
It is easier to evaluate this when individual cases are analyzed, There are many
of these individual cases that are not easily analyzed. However, a Catholic
writer spoke here, He stated what it was that concerned him, and he said it
quite clearly. He asked whether he could make an interpretation of a certain
problem from his idealistic point of view, or whether he could write something
defending those points of view. He asked quite frankly whether he could express
himself in accordance with those feelings within a revolutionary system. He
posed the problem in a form which might be seen as symbolic.
The thing which concerned him us finding out whether he could write in
accordance with those feelings or in accordance with that ideology, which is not
precisely the ideology of the Revolution. That he was in agreement with the
Revolution on social or economic matters, but that he had a philosophical
position different from the philosophy of the Revolution. This is a case which
greatly merits Consideration, because it is precisely a case representative of
the type of writers and artists who show a favorable disposition toward the
Revolution, and who wish to know what degree of freedom they have in a
revolutionary situation to express them selves in accordance with their
feelings. This is the sector which constitutes a problem for the Revolution,
just as the Revolution constitutes a problem for them. The Revolution has a duty
to be concerned with these cases. The Revolution has the obligation to be
concerned with the situation of these artists and these writers, because the
Revolution must aspire to having not just all the revolutionaries and all the
revolutionary artists and intellectuals marching alone with it. It is possible
that the men and women who have a truly revolutionary attitude toward reality do
not constitute the majority sector of the population. Revolutionaries are the
vanguard of the people, but the revolutionaries must aspire to having all the
people march along with them. The Revolution cannot reject having all honest men
and women march alone with it, whether writers or artists, or not. The
Revolution must aspire to having everyone who has doubts become a revolutionary.
The Revolution must try to win the major part of the people over to its ideas.
The Revolution must never renounce having the majority of the people with it,
having not just the revolutionaries, but also all the honest citizens who are
with it even though they are not revolutionaries -- that is, even though they do
not have a revolutionary attitude toward life. The Revolution should reject only
those who are incorrigible reactionaries, who are incorrigible
counterrevolutionaries. And the Revolution must have a policy for that part of
the people. The Revolution must have an attitude for that part of the
intellectuals and writers. The Revolution must understand that reality, and
consequently must act in such a way that the entire sector of artists and
intellectuals who are not genuinely revolutionary find a place to work and to
create within the Revolution, and so that their creative spirit will have an
opportunity and freedom for expression within the Revolution, even though they
are not revolutionary writers or artists. This means that within the Revolution,
everything goes; against the Revolution, nothing. Nothing against the
Revolution, because the Revolution has its rights also, and the first right of
the Revolution is the right to exist, and no one can stand against the right of
the Revolution to be and to exist, No one can rightfully claim a right against
the Revolution. Since it takes in the interests of the people and Signifies the
interests of the entire nation.
I believe that this is quite clean. What are the rights of revolutionary or
non-revolutionary writers and artists? Within the Revolution, everything against
the Revolution, no rights at all. (Applause.)
This will not be any law of exception for writers and artists. This is a general
principle for all citizens. It is a basic principle of the Revolution.
Counterrevolutionaries -- that is, the enemies of the Revolution -- have no
right against the Revolution, because the Revolution has a right: the right to
exist, the right to develop, and the right to win. Who could have any doubt
about this right of a people which has said: "Fatherland or Death," that is,
Revolution or death?
The existence of the Revolution or nothing, of a Revolution which has said "We
Shall Win," that is, which has posed an objective for itself very seriously. No
matter how respectable the personal reasoning of an enemy of the Revolution is,
the rights and the reasons of a Revolution are to be respected much more,
especially since a Revolution is a historical process, since a Revolution is not
and cannot be the work of the caprices or will of any man, and since a
Revolution can be only the work of the need and the will of a people. The rights
of the enemies of an entire people do not count in comparison with the rights of
that people.
When we spoke of extreme cases, we did so simple to express our ideas more
clearly. I have already said that there is a great variety of mental attitudes
between those extreme cases, and there is also a great variety of concerns. This
does not necessarily mean that harboring some concern means not being a
revolutionary. We have attempted to define essential attitudes.
The Revolution cannot attempt to stifle art or culture when the development of
art and culture is one of the goals and one of the basic objectives of the
Revolution, precisely in order that art and culture will come to be a genuine
partrimony of the people. And just as we have wanted a better life for the
people in the material sphere, so do we also want a better life for the people
in all spiritual spheres and a better life in the cultural sphere. And just as
the Revolution is concerned with the development of the conditions and the
forces which permit the satisfaction of all the material needs of the people, so
do we also want to develop the conditions which will permit the satisfaction of
all the cultural needs of the people.
The people have a low cultural level? A high percentage of the people do not
know how to read or write? A high percentage of the people is also going hungry,
or at least is living or lived in difficult conditions. It lived in conditions
of poverty. A part of the people lacks a large number of material goods which
are essential to them, and we are attempting to supply the necessary conditions
so that all these material goods will reach the people.
We must supple the necessary conditions for all these cultural goods to reach
the people in the same way. This does not mean that the artist has to sacrifice
the value of his creations, or that their quality must necessarily be
sacrificed. It means that we must conduct a struggle in all senses in order to
have the creator produce for the people, and to have the people raise their
cultural level in turn, so that they might also draw closer the creators. No
rule of a general nature can be indicated.
Not all artistic manifestations are of exactly the same nature, and we have
sometimes posed matters here as if all artistic manifestations were of exactly
the same nature. There are expressions of the creative spirit which by their
very nature can be much more accessible to the people than other manifestations
of the creative spirit. Thus, no general rule can be laid down, because in which
artistic expression is it that the artist must go to the people, and in which
one must the people go to the artist? Can a statement of a general nature be
made in this sense? No. It would be too simple a rule. Efforts must be made to
reach the people in all manifestations, but everything that is within our soon
must also be done in turn so that the people will be able to understand ever
more and ever better, I do not believe that this principle contradicts the
aspirations of any artist, and much less so if one takes into account the fact
that men should create for their contemporaries.
Don't say that there are artists who live with their thoughts on posterity,
because without, of course, claiming infallibility or anything of the sort for
our opinion -- I believe that anyone who operates in this way is engaging in
auto-suggestion. (Applause.)
This does not mean that someone who works for his contemporaries must renounce
posterity for his work. Because it is in precisely creation for ones
contemporaries that works have acquired historical value and universal value,
independently even of whether or not the contemporaries have understood it. We
are not making a Revolution for future generations. We are making a Revolution
with this generation and for this generation, independently of whether or not
the benefits of this work benefit future generations and become a historical
event. We are not making a Revolution for posterity. This Revolution will pass
into posterity because it is a Revolution for the present and for the men and
women of the present. (Applause.)
Who would follow us if we were making a Revolution for future generations?
We are working and creating for our contemporaries, but this does not deny the
merit of aspiring to eternity to any artistic creation.
These are truths which we all must analyze honestly, I believe that we must set
out from certain fundamental truths in order not to draw erroneous conclusions.
We do not see that there is any reason for concern on the part of any honest
artist or writer. We are not enemies of freedom. No one here is an enemy of
freedom. Whom do we fear? bat authority is it that we fear will stifle our
creative spirit? Is it that we fear the comrades on the National Cultural
Council? In our conversations with the comrades of the National Cultural
Council, we have observed points of view and feelings that are very alien to the
concerns about limitations, nooses, and such things imposed on the creative
spirit which have been posed here.
Our conclusion is that the comrades on the National Council are as concerned as
all of you are to see that the best conditions for the development of the
creative spirit of artists and intellectuals are achieved. The Revolution and
the Revolutionary Government have a duty to have a highly qualified agency which
stimulates, encourages, develops, and orients -- yes, orients -- that creative
spirit. We consider this to be an obligation, and could this possibly be an
attack on the rights of writers and artists? Could this constitute a threat to
the rights of writers and artists, for fear of engaging in arbitrariness or an
excess of authority? We might harbor the fear in like manner that a policeman
would attack us when we pass a traffic light. We might also harbor the fear that
the judge would sentence us. We might also harbor the fear that the force which
exists in the Revolutionary Power would commit an act of violence against us.
That is, we would then have to be concerned about all these things.
Nevertheless, the citizen's attitude is not that of believing that a militiaman
is going to shoot at him, that a judge is going to sentence him, or that the
Power is going to indulge in violence against his person.
The existence of an authority in the cultural sphere does not mean that there is
any reason to be concerned with abuse of that authority, because who is it that
wishes or desires for that cultural authority not to exist? One might aspire
along this same route to the non-existence of the militia, to the non-existence
of the police, to the non-existence of State Power, and even to the
non-existence of the State. And if anyone is so concerned about the existence of
the slightest state authority, he should not worry and he should be patient,
because the day will come when the state does not exist either. (Applause.)
A council which orients, stimulates, develops, and works for the creation of
better conditions for the work of artists and intellectuals must exist. Who is
the first defender of the interests of artists and intellectuals, if not that
very Council? Who is it that proposes laws and suggests measures of various
kinds to improve these conditions, if not the National Cultural Council itself?
Who is proposing a National Printing Law to clear up the deficiencies that have
been pointed out here? Who is proposing the creation of an Institute of
Ethnology and Folklore, if not the National Council itself? Who pleads for the
availability of budgetary provisions and the necessary foreign exchange to bring
in books, which have not come into the country for many months, and to acquire
the materials with which painters and artists can work? Who is concerned about
economic problems, that is, the material conditions of artists? Which agency is
it that is concerned with a large number of the present needs of writers and
artists? Who is it that defends the budgets, construction, and projects within
the Government that are directed precisely toward raising the level of the
conditions in which you will work? It is precisely the National Cultural
Council.
Why look on that Council with reservations? Why look on that authority as one
which presumably is going to do the opposite, to lit our conditions, and stifle
our creative spirit?
It can be understood that persons without any problems of any kind would be
concerned about that authority. Actually, however, those who can appreciate the
need for all the activity and all the work that the Council must do should never
look on it with reservation. Because the Council also has an obligation to the
people and an obligation to the Revolution and to the Revolutionary Government.
That obligation is to fulfill the purposes for which it was created, and it is
just as much interested in the success of its work as every artist is interested
in that of his own.
I do not know if there are any of the basic problems that have been pointed out
here which I have not dealt with. The problem of the film was discussed a great
deal here. I have not seen the film, but I would like to see it. I am curious to
see the film. Was the film mistreated? Actually, I don't believe that any film
has received so many honors, or that any film has been discussed so much.
Even though we have not seen the film, we have submitted to the judgement of
comrades who have seen it, among them the opinion of the Comrade President and
that of various comrades of the National Cultural Council. It would be
superfluous to say that this is a judgment and an opinion which merits complete
respect for us. However, there is something which I believe cannot be disputed,
and that is the right established by law to exercise the function which the
Cinematography Institute or the Review Commission carried out in this cased Is
it possible that this right of the Government is being disputed? Does the
Government have or not have the right to exercise that function? In this case,
the basic thing to us above all is to establish whether or not that right
existed on the part of the Government. One might argue about the matter of the
procedure, as was done, determining whether or not it was suitable and whether a
cordial kind of procedure would have been better. One can even argue about
whether or not the decision was just. However, there is one thing which I do not
believe anyone disputes, and that is the right of the Government to exercise
that function. If we impugn that right, it would then mean that the Government
does not have the right to review the films which are going to be shown to the
people.
I believe that this is an indisputable right. And there is something else which
all of us understand perfectly well. Among manifestations of an intellectual or
artistic type, there are some which are more important with respect to the
education of the people or the ideological instruction of the people than are
other kinds of artistic manifestations. I do not believe that anyone would
dispute the fact that the cinema and television are one of these basic and very
important media. And in reality, can the right of the Government in the midst of
a Revolution to regulate, review, and censor the films shown to the public be
disputed? Is it possible that this is what is being argued?
And can the right of the Revolutionary Government to censor those media of
communication which influence the people so greatly be considered as a
limitation or a prohibitive formula?
If we were to impugn that right of the Revolutionary Government, we would be
incurring in a problem of principles. Because denying that power to the
Revolutionary Government would mean denying the Government's functions and
responsibility to lead the people and to lead the Revolution, especially in the
midst of a revolutionary struggle. At times it has seemed that this right of the
Government were going impugned. And if that right of the Government is being
impugned, we believe that the Government does have the right. And if it has this
right, it can make use of it. It may do so mistakenly, because we do not claim
that the Government is infallible. The Government does not necessarily have to
be infallible in exercising a right or a function that is its. But who is it
that has so many reservations with respect to the Government, who is it that has
so many doubts, who is it that has so many suspicions with respect to the
Revolutionary Government, and who is it that mistrusts the Revolutionary
Government may always be mistaken? I am not claiming that the Government was
mistaken in this decision, not by any means. What I am stating is that the
Government was acting in use of a right. I try to place myself in the position
of those who worked on this film. I try to understand even their sorrow,
displeasure, and pain in the fact that the film was not shown. Anyone can
understand that perfectly well. However, it must be understood that the
Government was acting in use of a right. And that this judgment had the support
of competent and responsible comrades in the Government, and that there is
actually no well-founded reason for mistrusting the spirit of justice and
fairness of the men of the Revolutionary Government, because the Revolutionary
Government has not given any reasons for anyone to put its spirit of justice and
of fairness in doubt.
We cannot think that we are perfect, and we cannot even think that we are alien
to strong feelings. Some persons might say that certain comrades in the
Government have strong feelings, or are not devoid of feelings. But can those
who believe such a thing really claim that they are devoid of feelings?
And can attitudes of a personal nature be attributed to certain comrades without
acceptance of the fact that those opinions themselves might also be inspired by
attitudes of a personal kind? We might say here that the person who thinks
himself to be perfect or who feels himself to be devoid of feelings should cast
the first stone.
I believe that there have been personalism and strong feelings in the debate.
Weren't there personalism and strong feelings in these discussions? Did everyone
come here absolutely stripped of strong feelings and of personalism? Have
absolutely all of us come stripped of a group spirit? Haven't there been
currents and trends within this discussion? This cannot be denied. A six-year
old child sitting here would have noticed the various trends, points of view,
and strong feelings that were confronting each other here.
The comrades have said many things. There were interesting things said. Some
have said brilliant things. Everyone has been very "erudite." There has been a
reality, however, above all else -- the very reality of the discussion and the
freedom with which everyone has been able to express and defend his points of
view. The freedom with which everyone has been able to speak and explain his
opinions here in an extensive meeting, one which has been more extensive every
day. A meeting which we consider to be a positive meeting; a meeting at which we
were able to dissipate a number of doubts and concerns. Were there any quarrels?
Who could doubt it? Were there any wars and skirmished between the writers and
artists here? Who could doubt it? Were there any criticisms and
super-criticisms? Who could doubt it? And have certain comrades tested their
weapons and proved their weapons at the cost of other comrades? Who could doubt
it?
Those who have been harmed have spoken here, expressing their resentful
complaints against what they considered to be unjust attacks. Fortunately, the
wounded rather than the corpses have passed by here. Even some comrades who Ire
still convalescing from the wounds received. And some of them have submitted as
an obvious injustice the fact that they were attacked with heavy caliber guns
without their even being able to return the fire. Did any hard criticism take
place? Who could doubt it? In a certain sense, a problem was posed here, one
which we will not attempt to explain in a few words. Cut of the things which
were posed here, however, I believe that one of the most correct things is the
fact that the spirit of criticism should be constructive and positive, and not
destructive. That is, insofar as we understand it. This is not generally taken
into account, however. For some reason, the word "criticism" has come to be
synonymous with attack, when it actually does not mean any such thing. When
someone is told, "So-and-so criticized you," that person becomes angry before
asking what it was that he actually said. That is, he thinks that he has been
destroyed, Actually, if someone of us who have been a trifle removed from these
problems and these struggles, to these tests and proofs of weapons, is told
about the case of certain comrades who have been virtually on the brink of
irremediable depression because of devastating criticisms levelled against them,
we might possibly sympathize with the victims, because we have a tendency to
sympathize with victims. We sincerely wish only to contribute to the
understanding and unity of everyone, and so we have tried to avoid words which
might harm or discourage anyone. One fact, however, is unquestionable -- that
there might occur cases of these struggles or controversies in which equal
conditions for everyone do not exist. From the point of view of the Revolution,
that cannot be just. The Revolution can not give some people weapons against
others, The Revolution must not give weapons to some people to use against
others, and we believe that writers and artists should all have the opportunity
to express themselves. We believe that writers and artists should have a
cultural journal through their association, a broad one to which everyone has
access, Doesn't this seem like a just solution to you? However, the Revolution
cannot put these resources in the hands of a group, The Revolution can and must
mobilize these resources in such a way that they can be extensively utilized by
all writers and artists. You are soon going to form the Artists' Association.
You are going to convoke a congress. That congress should be held with a truly
constructive spirit, and we are confident that you are capable of carrying it
out in that spirit. From it will arise a powerful Association of Writers and
Artists to which everyone should come with a truly constructive spirit. Because
if someone thinks that there is any desire to eliminate or to stifle him, we can
assure him that he is absolutely mistaken.
It is now time for you to contribute in organized fashion and with all your
enthusiasm to the tasks which are yours in the Revolution, and to form a broad
organism of all writers and artists. I do not know whether the matters posed
here will be discussed at the congress. However, we do know that the congress is
going to meet, and that its deliberations, the deliberations which the
Association of Writers and Artists should have, will be a good subject of
conversation for our next meetings. We believe that there should be other
meetings. At least, we would not like to deprive our selves of that pleasure and
of the usefulness of these meetings, They have also been an occasion for
attention to all these problems. We must meet again. What does this mean? That
we must continue discussing these problems. That is, that there is something
which should be the motivation for tranquillity on the part of everyone, and
that is learning of the interest which the Government has in the problems and of
the opportunity to discuss all the matters in broad assemblies that there will
be in the future. It seems to us that this should be a motive for satisfaction
on the part of writers and artists. Along with this, we shall also continue to
acquire more information and better knowledge.
The National Cultural Council must also have another informational organ. I
believe that things are taking shape, This cannot be called guided culture, nor
stifling the creative artistic spirit. How can anyone who has his five senses
and is also a true artist think that this constitutes stifling the creative
spirit? The Revolution wants artists to put their utmost effort into the service
of the people. It wants them to put their maximum interest and effort into the
revolutionary undertaking. We believe that this is a just aspiration of the
Revolution.
Does this mean that we are going to tell the people here what they have to
write? No. Let everyone write what he wants to, and if what he writes is no
good, it doesn't matter. If what he paints is no good, it doesn't matter. We are
not forbidding anyone to write on the subject that he prefers. On the contrary.
And everyone should express himself in the manner which he believes proper, and
express the idea that he wants to e express. We shall always evaluate their
creation through the prism of the revolutionary crystal. This also is a right,
one of the Revolutionary Government, and one to be respected as much as the
right of everyone to express what he wishes to.
A number of measures are being taken, and we have pointed out some of them. For
those who are concerned with the problem of the National Printing House, we can
report that a law which will regulate its operation is under consideration, one
that will create various publishers who will see to the various Publishing
needs, correcting the existing deficiencies of the present time. The recently
created National Printing House had to come forth under difficult working
conditions, because it had to begin its work at the plant of a newspaper which
suddenly ceased publication. We were present on the day when that newspaper
plant became the country's first printing plant, with all its workers and
writers, It also had to take care of urgently needed works, many of them of a
military type. And so it has shortcomings that will be rectified. There is no
need to repeat the complaints which have been expressed about the National
Printing House at this meeting. The relevant decisions are also being taken for
the purpose of acquiring books and acquiring working material to solve all the
problems which have concerned writers and artists, and on which the National
Cultural Council has been quite persistent. You know that there are various
departments and various institutions in the state, and that everyone within the
state requests and aspires to have the necessary resources for being able to
satisfy his aspirations and fulfilling his functions fully. We would like to
point out certain aspects in which progress has already been made and which
should be the occasion for encouragement for all of us. For example, there has
been the success achieved with the symphony orchestra, which has been
reconstructed and totally reintegrated, and which has attained high levels not
only artistically, but also revolutionarily, because 50 members of the symphony
orchestra are already militiamen.
The Cuban Ballet has also been reorganized, and it has just completed a foreign
tour in which it received the admiration and acknowledgment of all the countries
visited.
The modern dance group is also having success, and it also has received very
valuable praise in Europe.
For its part, the National Library is developing a cultural policy, engaging in
arousing the people's interest in music and painting. It has organized a
department of painting for the purpose of publicizing these works to the people.
A music department, a young people's department, and also a children's section.
Shortly before coming to this hall, we were visiting the children's department
of the National Library. We saw the number of children who are already
associated with it, the work that is being done there, and the progress which
the National Library has achieved. This is motivation for the Government to
supply the Library with the resources that it needs in order to continue
developing that work. The National Printing House is already a reality, and with
the new organizational forms which it is going to take, it also is a conquest of
the Revolution which will contribute greatly to the training of the people.
The Cinematography Institute is also a reality. The basic investments for
supplying it with the equipment and material that it needs in order to work have
been made during this entire first stage. At least the Revolution has
established the foundations for the cinema industry. This has been a great
effort, if one takes into account that it is not a question of an industrialized
country, and that the acquisition of all that equipment has meant sacrifices and
if there are no more resources for the cinema, this does not mean a restrictive
policy of the Government, but simply is due to the shortage Of current economic
resources for creating a fan movement which would permit the development of all
talents in the cinema, and which will be put into practice when we have those
resources. For its part, the policy at the Cinematography Institute will be the
object of discussion and of emulation among the various working teams. The work
of the ICAIC [Instituto Cubano da Arte e Industria Cinematograficas; Cuban
Institute of Cinema Arts] cannot yet be judged. The Cinema Institute has not yet
been able to have enough time to carry out a task which could be judged, but it
has worked, and we know that a number of its documentaries have contributed
greatly to publicizing the work of the Revolution abroad. However, the thing
that is of interest here is to emphasize that the foundations for the cinema
industry are already established.
Publicity, conference, and cultural extension work through the various agencies
have also been carried out. In the end, however, this is nothing compared with
that can be done and with what the Revolution hopes to develop.
A number of problems of interest to writers and artists remain to be solved.
There are problems of a material nature -- that is, there are problems of an
economic nature. The previous conditions do not exist at the present time. That
small Privileged sector which bought the works of artists no longer exists here.
They bought them, of course, at poverty prices, because more than one artist
ended up a neglected indigent. These problems remain to be faced and solved. The
Revolutionary Government must solve them. They should also be the concern of the
National Cultural Council, as should be the problem of the artists who are no
longer producing and are completely forsaken. The artist must be guaranteed not
only the proper material conditions at present, but also security for the
future. In a certain sense, the reorganization of the Copyright Institute has
already achieved a considerable improvement in the living conditions of a number
of authors who were miserably exploited and whose rights were mocked. These
people now have incomes which have permitted many of them to emerge from the
situation of extreme poverty in which they were.
These are steps which the Revolution has taken. However, they are nothing but
some steps, and we must go on to other steps which will create still better
conditions.
There is also the notion of organizing some recreational and working site for
artists and writers, on one occasion as we were traveling about the national
territory, the idea occurred to us in a very beautiful place -- the Isle of
Pines -- of constructing a district, a hamlet in the midst of the pine trees for
the purpose of rewarding and paying homage to writers and artists. At that time,
we were thinking about establishing some kind of prize for the best progressive
writers and artists of the world. That project did not take shape, but it could
be revived, The idea would be to build a hamlet or village in a backwater of
peace which invites one to rest, which invites one to write. I believe that it
would be well worth the trouble for artists, including architects, to begin to
design or conceive an ideal resting place for a writer or an artist, and to see
if they can reach agreement on that. The Revolutionary Government is prepared on
its part to put the resources in some part of the budget, now that everything is
being planned. And will Planning be a limitation imposed on the creative spirit
by us revolutionaries? Because don't forget that in a certain sense we
revolutionaries see ourselves situated somewhat rashly before the reality of
planning. And that poses a problem for us, because up to the present we have
been creative spirits of revolutionary initiatives and of revolutionary
investments which must now be planned. Don't think that we are exempt from the
problems. From our hint of view, we might also protest against that. That is, we
now know what is going to be done next year, the following year, and the next
year. Who will dispute the fact that the economy must be planned? There is room
within that planning, however, for the construction of a resting place for
writers and artists, and it would truly be satisfying if the Revolution could
count that accomplishment among its undertakings.
We have been concerned here with the present situation of writers and artists.
We have neglected the prospects for the future somewhat. And we, who have no
reasons to complain about you, have also devoted a moment to thinking about the
artists and writers of the future. We think about how it would be if we met
again in 5 or 10 years, as the men of the Government should meet again with
writers and artists in the future. This does not mean that it would be we
ourselves necessarily. This would be at a time when culture had acquired the
extraordinary development which we hope for it to achieve when the first fruits
of the present academy and school plans emerge.
The Revolutionary Government had been concerned about the extension of culture
to the people long before these matters had been posed. We have always been very
optimistic, I believe that one cannot be a revolutionary without being an
optimist, because the difficulties which a Revolution has to overcome are very
serious and one must be an optimist. A Pessimist could never be a revolutionary.
The Revolution has had its Stages. The Revolution had a stage in which a number
of initiatives originated from various organisms. Even the INRA [Instituto
National de la Reforma Agraria; National Institute for Agrarian Reform] was
carrying out cultural extension activities, We did not even fail to clash with
the National Theater, because work was being done there and we were suddenly
doing other work on our own account. This is all being fit into the framework of
an organization now, and so the idea of bringing culture to the countryside, to
the farms, and to the cooperatives arose with respect to the peasants of the
cooperatives and the farms.
How? Well, by bringing in comrades and turning them into instructors of music,
of ballet, and of the theater. We optimists can launch only initiatives of this
kind. But how can an inclination for the theater be aroused in a peasant, for
example? Where were the instructors? Where did we get them, that we could send
them later on to 3,000 people's farms and 600 cooperative? All of this presents
difficulties, but I am sure that you all agree that it will be positive if it
can be achieved, especially in the sense of beginning to discover talents in the
people and in turning the performing people into a creator, because in the end,
the people are the great creator. We must not forget this, and we also must not
forget the thousands and thousands of talents which must have been lost in our
countryside and in our cities for lack of conditions and opportunities to be
developed. Unless we presume that we are the most intelligent people that have
ever been born in this country -- and I will begin by saying that I do not
presume any such thing -- we can all be sure that many talents have been lost in
our countryside. I have often cited the example of the fact that in the place
where I was born, I was the only one of some 1,000 children who was able to
pursue a university career, I was poorly prepared, of course, since I was not
freed of having to go through a number of colleges with priests, etc. I do not
wish to hurl an anathema at anyone, but I do say that I have the same right to
say what I please as everyone else here had. To complain. I have the right to
complain. Someone said that he was shaped by bourgeois society, and I can say
that I was shaped by something still worse. That I was shaped by the worst
reaction, and that a large part of the years of my life were lost in
obscurantism, superstition, and falsehood.
That was the time in which they taught one not to think, but rather forced him
to believe. I believe that when an attempt is made to truncate man's capacity
for thought and reason, man is turned from a human being into a domesticated
animal. I am not revolting against man's religious feelings. We respect those
feelings, and we respect man's right to freedom of belief and of religion.
However, that does not mean that my own freedom was respected. I did not have
any freedom of belief or of religion. A belief and a religion were imposed on
me, and they were domesticating me for 12 years.
It is natural that I must speak somewhat complainingly about the years that I
could have used -- at the time when young people have the greatest interest and
curiosity about things -- in systematic study which would have permitted me to
have acquired that culture which the children of Cuba today will have an ample
opportunity to acquire.
That is, in spite of everything, the only one among a thousand who was able to
get a university degree had to pass through that grinding mill in which only by
a miracle will one not be mentally pulverized forever. The only one out of a
thousand had to go through all that.
Why? Ah, because I was the only one out of the thousand for whom a private
college could be afforded, so that I could study. Now should I believe for this
reason that I was the cleverest and most intelligent among the thousand? I
believe that we are a product of selection, but not so much natural as social. I
was selected socially to go to the university, and I am speaking socially here
now about a process of social and not natural selection. Natural selection left
who knows how many tens of thousands of young people, superior to all of us,in
ignorance. That is the truth. Someone who believes himself to be an artist
should think about the fact that many others, much better artists than he, may
not have become artists. It would be unrealistic of us not to admit this. Among
other things, we are privileged because we were not born as vagabond children.
What has been said proves the enormous quantity of intelligences which have been
lost simply out of the lack of opportunity. We are going to bring opportunity to
all those intelligences We are going to create the conditions that will permit
every artistic, literary, scientific, or any other kind of talent to be
developed. Think of what it means that the Revolution is permitting this, and
that the entire people will be literate by the next school year, with schools
everywhere in Cuba, with achievement campaigns, and with teacher training. This
will make it possible to find and discover every talent, and this is just a
beginning. In the countryside, all these instructors will know which child has a
calling, and they will indicate which child should be given a scholarship to the
National Academy of Art At the same time, however, they will arouse artistic
taste and cultural inclinations in adults. Some experiments which have been
carried out prove the ability of the peasant and the man of the people to
assimilate artistic matters, to assimilate culture, and to put himself
immediately to producing. There are comrades in certain cooperatives who have
already succeeding in forming theatrical groups. In addition, the interest which
the peasant has in all these matters was proven recently with the performances
given in various parts of the Republic and the artistic work which the men and
women of the people did. Think, then, what it will mean when we have instructors
of theater, of music, and of the dance in every cooperative and at every
people's farms.
We shall be able to send a thousand instructors in each of these categories in
the course of only two years -- more than a thousand, for the theater, for the
dance, and for music.
The schools have been organized They are already in operation. Imagine what it
will mean in terms of cultural extension when there are a thousand dance groups,
music groups, and theatrical groups in the countryside all over the island. We
are not speaking of the city, because it will be a bit easier in the city.
Because some people have said here that it is necessary to raise the cultural
level of the people, but how? The Revolutionary Government has taken an interest
in this, and the Revolutionary Government is creating the conditions so that the
culture and the level of cultural training of the people will have been raised
greatly within a few years.
We have selected these three fields, but one could continue selecting other
fields and continue to work to develop culture in all its aspects.
This school is already in operation, and the comrades who work at the school are
satisfied with the progress of this group of future instructors. In addition,
however, construction has already begun on the National Academy of Art, aside
from the National Academy of Annual Arts. Cuba is certainly going to have the
most beautiful Academy of Arts in the entire world. Why? Because that academy is
situated in one of the most beautiful residential districts of the world, where
the most extravagant Cuban bourgeoisie lived; in the best district of the most
ostentatious and most extravagant bourgeoisie, and also the most uncultivated --
let it be said in passing -- because while none of these homes lacked a bar,
their occupants, with some exceptions, did not concern themselves with cultural
problems. They lived in an incredibly extravagant manner, and it is worthwhile
to take a tour of the area to see how those people lived. However, they did not
know that they were building an extraordinary Academy of Arts, and that is what
will remain of what they did, because students will live in the homes that were
the residences of millionaires. They will not live cloistered. They will live as
if in a home, and they will attend classes at the Academy. The Academy will be
situated in the middle of the Country Club, where a group of architectartists
have designed the construction work that will be done. They have already begun,
and they are committed to complete it by December. We already have 300,000 feet
of caoba lumber. The music, dance, ballet, theater, and painting schools will be
in the middle of the golf course, in a site of natural beauty that is a dream.
That is where the Academy of Arts is going to be located, with 60 homes situated
about it, and with the social club at one side. The latter in turn has dining
halls, assembly rooms, swimming pools, and also a floor for visitors in which
the foreign professors who come to help us can be lodged. This Academy will have
a capacity of up to 3,000 children -- that is, 3,000 scholarship students -- and
we hope that it will begin to operate in the coming school year.
The National Academy of Manual Arts will also begin to function, with other
homes, another golf course, and with similar construction. That is, they will be
academies of a national type. This does not mean that they will be the only
schools or anything of the sort. However, the young people who show the greatest
ability will come to them as scholarship students, without it costing their
families anything at all. These young people and children will have ideal
conditions for developing. Anyone would want to be a boy now, to be able to
enter one of these academies. Isn't that true? Mention was made here of painters
who live on coffee with milk alone. Imagine what different conditions there will
be now, and let us say whether the creative spirit will now find ideal
conditions for developing. Instruction, housing, board, general culture. . .
.Some children will begin to study in these schools at the age of 8 years, and
they will receive general education along with artistic training. . . . Won't
they be able to develop their talents and their personalities fully there? . . .
These are more than ideas or dreams, They are already realities of the
Revolution. The instructors that are being trained, the national schools than
are being prepared, and the schools for amateurs that will also be established.
This is what the Revolution means. It is for this reason that the Revolution is
important for culture. How could we do this without the Revolution? Let us
suppose that we are afraid that "our creative spirit will wither, crushed by the
despotic hands of the Stalinist Revolution," (Laughter) Gentlemen, would it not
be better to think of the future? Are we going to think about the fact that our
flowers are withering at a time when we are sowing flowers everywhere? When we
are forging these creative spirits of the future? And who would not exchange the
present, who world not even exchange his own present for that future? Who would
not exchange his own things, who would not sacrifice his own for that future?
And who that has artistic sensitivity does not have the readiness of the fighter
who dies in a battle, knows that he is dying and that he will cease to exist
physically, but who knows that his blood will fertilize the path of victory of
his fellow-beings, of his people? Think about the fighter who dies in battle and
who sacrifices everything which he has. He sacrifices his life, he sacrifices
his family, he sacrifices his wife, and he sacrifices his children, and for
what? So that we can do all these things. And who is it that has human feelings
and artistic sensitivity who does not think that doing this is worth all the
sacrifices that may be necessary? However, the Revolution does not ask for the
sacrifice of creative geniuses. On the contrary, the Revolution says that this
creative spirit should be put into the service of this undertaking, without fear
that the undertaking will be truncated. However, if you should some day think
that dour work could be cut short, you should say: it is well worth it for my
Personal work to be cut short so that we can do something such as that which we
have ahead of us (Applause.)
We ask the artist to develop his creative effort to the maximum. We want to
create the ideal conditions for the creation of the artist and the intellectual,
because if we are creating for the future, why would we not want the best for
the present artists and intellectuals? We are asking for the maximum development
for culture and, very precisely, in function of the Revolution, because the
Revolution means precisely more culture and more art.
We ask intellectuals and artists to put their grain of sand into this
undertaking, which in the end will be an undertaking of this generation. The
next generation will be better than ours, but we shall be the ones who have made
that better generation possible. We shall be the forgers of that future
generation. We, those of this ageless generation into which we all fall; both
the bearded ones and the beardless, and those who have plenty of hair and those
who have none, or who have white hair. This is the under taking of all us. We
are going to wage a war against lack of culture. We are going to wage a battle
against lack of culture. We are going to launch an irreconcilable dispute
against lack of culture. We are going to fight it, and we are going to test our
weapons, Someone does not want to take part? Well, what greater punishment is
there than depriving oneself of the satisfaction in what others are doing? [Ye
said that we had been privileged. Because we were learning how to read and to
write in a school, and could go to an institute or a university, or at least
acquire the sufficient rudiments of education necessary in order to be able to
do something. And can't we call ourselves Privileged for being able to live in
the midst of a revolution? Didn't we devote ourselves with great interest to
reading about revolutions? And who is it that has not read the history of the
French Revolution or the Russian Revolution with great interest? Who has not at
some time dreamed Of having been a personal witness of those revolutions?
Something has often happened to me, for example. When I read about the War of
Independence, I regret not having been born at that time, and I am sorry not to
have been a fighter for independence and not to have experienced that action,
because all of us have read the accounts of our war for independence with
genuine feeling We envied the intellectuals, the artists, the warriors, the
fighters, and the commanders of that age. Nevertheless, it has been our
privilege to experience and to be personal witnesses to a genuine revolution, a
revolution whose power is still developing outside the boundaries of our country
and whose political and moral influence is making imperialism on this continent
shudder and stagger, (Applause.), and for which reason the Cuban Revolution is
becoming the most important event of this century for Latin America, the most
important event since the wars for independence of the 19th century, a genuinely
new era of the redemption of man Because what were those wars for independence
except the replacement of colonial rule by the rule of the ruling and exploiting
classes in all those countries?
The experience of a great historical event has been ours. It could be said that
it is the second most great historical event which has taken place in Latin
America in the last three centuries. And we Cubans have been participants in it,
knowing that the more we work, the more inextinguishable flame the Revolution
will be and the more it will be destined to play a great historical role. You
writers and artists have had the privilege of being eyewitnesses of this
revolution. And a revolution is such an important event in human history that it
is well worth the trouble to experience one, even if just to be a witness to it
This is a privilege also. Consequently, those who renounce the Revolution are
those who are incapable of understanding these things, those who let themselves
be deceived, those who let themselves be confused, and those who allow
themselves to be perplexed by falsehood. What can be said about those who have
renounced it, and how can one think of them except with grief? To leave this
country in full revolutionary development in order to be submerged in the
entrails of that imperialist monster where no expression of the spirit can have
any life? And they have forsaken the Revolution in order to go there. They have
preferred to be fugitives and deserters of their fatherland rather than to be no
more than spectators. And you have the opportunity to be more than spectators,
to be participants in this Revolution, to write about it, to express yourselves
about it what will future generations demand of you? You might be able to
execute magnificent artistic words from the technical viewpoint, but if a man of
a future generation, a man 100 years from now is told that a writer or an
intellectual of this age lived during the era of the Revolution but outside of
it, and did not express the Revolution and was not part of the Revolution, that
would be difficult for him to understand. This is especially so when there will
be so many, many people in coming years who will want to paint the Revolution
and write about the Revolution, and will want to express themselves about the
Revolution, compiling data and reports in order to find out how it was, what
happened, and how we lived. . . . We had the experience recently of coming
across an old lady 106 years old who had just learned how to read and write, and
we Proposed that she should write a book. She had been a slave, and we wanted to
know how a slave viewed the world when she was a slave, what her first
impressions of life, of her masters, and of her companions were I believe that
this old woman could write something more interesting about her age than any of
us could. It is possible that she will become completely literate in a year and
will also write a book at age 106. This is the stuff of revolutions! Who could
write better than she about what the slave saw, and who could write better about
the present than you? And how many people will begin to write in the future
without having experienced this, at a distance, collecting written materials? On
the other hand, we are not hurrying to judge our work, because we shall have an
excess of judges. It is not that supposed authoritarian judge, the imaginary
hangman of culture which we have fashioned here that is to be feared You should
fear other, much more fearful judges -- fear the judges of posterity! Fear the
future generations, which in the end will have the last word! (Great ovation.)
-END-