Art with Revolution! Political mobilization in artistic practices between 1974 and 1977 in Portugal

This article analyzes the relationship between Portuguese artists and bodies of power and the popular masses after the Revolution of 25 April 1974 and until 1977. The analysis of this period in Portugal will consider the dynamics surrounding socially engaged artistic practices integrated in the public space, within its historic and social framework. The article argues that the Portuguese artistic context under consideration arose from the politicians and artists motivation to bring art and the popular masses closer to the ongoing revolutionary process. In this approach, I identify collaboration as the most frequent attitude used by artists in relation to the political system and population. This approach decreased since 1976, at which time there was an increase in conflict with the political power structures. Regarding the relationship with the population, from that moment on there was also a decrease in the use of collaborative tools and an intensification of transgressive and provocative tools in artistic practices. These changes will be articulated in the article based on the country's objective political and social conditions

Ces changements seront articulés dans l'article en fonction des conditions politiques et sociales objectives du pays, et de leur influence sur les nuances comportementales identifiées dans les pratiques artistiques socialement engagées en analyse.

Introduction
Since the late 1950s, strategies for bringing art and society together have been discussed throughout Europe. Integrating art in the public space and public sphere were assumed as essential. Philosophical and sociological thought, particularly in France, determined in this period a concern for the definition of concepts, such as space, place or context. There was a reflection on heterogeneous space, by Michel Foucault in 1967 and other authors, including Henri Lefebvre and Michel De Certeau.
In the artistic context, the realization that our experience of the world is dependent upon our spatial experience heightened the connection between work of art and context. As occurred in other fields, several European artistic practices assumed this understanding as poetic, leading to a growth of action art, happenings, performance art and public art.
In the 1960s and 1970s, sociological analyses of art -interested in understanding cultural production in relation to political and social structures -were also decisive.
Hervé Fischer, founding artist of the Collectif d'Art Sociologique, reiterated in this regard: "consciousness of the dialectical relationship between infrastructures and superstructures also allows one to hope that artistic work can really intervene in the social field and eventually modify its values and structures [...]" (Fischer, 1977, p.60).
In the late 1980s, this impulse led to a growth in artistic practices of public interest, with a careful reflection on concepts such as community or public. The artist's interest in working on community issues and a wide variety of social issues prompted a special attention given to local needs, and turned the artist into a figure of proximity. But this same interest also determined the community's involvement in developing the artistic work, leading to a "shift from site specificity to community specificity" (Kwon, 2002, p.6). Thus, the use of collaborative work methodologies and processes became one of the essential issues of these practices and since then, different nomenclatures for artistic practices involving collaboration have been proposed, including "socially engaged art, community-based art, experimental communities, dialogic art, littoral art, participatory, interventionist, research-based or collaborative art." (Bishop, 2012, p. 1), as well as several proposed definitions. For example, for Miwon Kwon, collaborative art is tied to forms of political representation, as well as political and social activism through art, and to involving the community in discussion and reflection, with no concern for producing something concrete (Kwon, 2002). Claire Bishop proposed two models of collaboration: one where artists resort to the creation of artistic objects and the use of traditional exhibition devices, seeking a balance between political and aesthetic issues; and another model where artists tend to replace traditional means of producing and exhibiting art with public discussions, local actions, debates and presenting the process's documentation, privileging the involvement of local vol 63, nr 10 October the 10th 2021.
ISSN on-line: 1139-7365 DOI: 10.1344/waterfront2021.63.10.01 Cristina Pratas Cruzeiro: Art with Revolution! Political mobilization in artistic practices between 1974 and1977 in Portugal stakeholders and ethical issues, rather than the production of artistic objects (Bishop, 2012, pp. 11-40). For Grant Kester, collaborative art operates on multiple levels, such as co-authorship, collaboration with the public, and projects where artists work directly with local communities (Kester, 2010).
Regarding Portugal, these reflections emerged mainly after the revolution of 25 April 1974, which ended a forty-eight year long fascist dictatorship. Like other fascist regimes, the Portuguese dictatorship was characterized by the socio-economic dominance of monopoly capitalism and, politically, by the liquidation of freedoms and rights, by repression, and the state's militarist and colonialist domination. During the course of the Portuguese revolutionary process, the desire to establish an anti-capitalist democracy that would open the way to socialism became evident 1 . This desire was publicly expressed not only by parties such as the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and the Socialist Party (PS), but also by parties from different distinct sectors, such as the Popular Democratic Party (PPD).
During this period, there was a rapprochement of several socialist countries with Portugal, including from the Eastern Bloc and Cuba, whose close cooperation took place especially until the counter-revolutionary coup of November 25, 1975. This cooperation extended to the cultural level. The experience of the Cuban revolutionwhich was gathering enthusiasm among the most progressive European circles -was particularly influential for the country. In addition to representing a recent example of success in the fight against imperialism (López, 2015, p.6), some of the strategies, procedures and cultural models developed in Cuba were imported to Portugal, such as the artistic dynamics, similar in several aspects: active participation in the political system under construction; direct intervention in society -without traditional mediation and exhibition formats; an increase in collectivism; or even the use of collaborative production methods that extend the creative experience to non-artists.
The process following the Portuguese Revolution immediately garnered popular support, and that of many intellectuals. Although there was no extensive politicized movement in the arts and many artists were not politicized (Ribeiro, 1974, p.11), there was a complex but intense process to democratize art and culture during this period.
Together with the emergence of a profusion of forms of artistic expression, often performed in the streets, the period between 1974 and 1977 stimulated a discussion about artistic structure, formats, models of exhibition and methods of artistic production. The Portuguese artistic practices in the public space, part of a lineage of socially engaged art, engraved a consciousness and direct political implication upon the proposals they developed, even if marked by contradictions. The Portuguese political and social period in focus was complex and changed rapidly, and included different moments that are important to note. The revolutionary process inaugurated on April 25, 1974April 25, ended in 1976, with the approval of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (April 2, 1976). However, "within this chronology, there was a more intense sub-period between the failed attempt of the regressive coup of March 11, 1975 and the moderate coup of the following November 25 [...]" (Loff, 2006, p.168).
For the cultural sector -particularly with regard to the political mobilization of artists and other cultural intellectuals -, the revolutionary process was the period of greatest commitment and of closer convergence with government forces. The decline of this approach became noticeable during the first Constitutional Government, composed by PS, and increased further after it fell -following the rejection of a motion of confidence in parliament, on December 9, 1977 -and the second Constitutional Government, composed by PS and the Social Democratic Centre (CDS), took office in January 1978.
Although Grant Kester argues that there are two problematic assumptions in the analysis of socially engaged art: "the assumption that any given art project is either radically disruptive or naively ameliorative [...]" and "that any form of art practice that produces some concrete change in the world is developed in alliance with specific social movements [...]" (Kester, 2019, p.78), the inherent contextualization cannot be ignored. As Remesar said "Public Art, regardless of its practices, has the mission of signifying the city, endowing it with a certain "senses" and that in two ways not necessarily complementary and often antagonistic: As an exercise of the power of ruling classes or, on the contrary, as an exercise of power -understood as capacity -of citizenship." (Remesar, 2019, p. 11).
So, the spatial and temporal nature of a given artistic practice has a decisive influence on the attitude regarding power, on the social change it aspires to, and on the interrelational structure it builds. Thus, the context of the objective conditions under which these artistic practices develop can not be disregarded.
This article uses the assumption of contextualizing socially engaged artistic practices in their contemporary social conditions, and applys it to Portugal and the period between 1974 and 1977, after the 25 April Revolution. We seek to reflect upon the relationship between artists and political power and upon artistic production with a colaborative character or involving the population, within the public space. Revolution is in the streets Collective action and the invasion of urban space (Mascarenhas, 2004, p.6) flourished soon after the Revolution. The revolucionary process "was accompanied by the multiplication of channels for political expression, and by the development of new mechanisms for civil participation. Cityscapes experienced profound changes with the newly acquired freedoms of expression, which assumed several different forms." (Madeira et al., 2021, 318).
The visual street manifestations of popular feeling, as on walls, represented an espontaneous act of political speak, the will to communicate, which "is a fact that truly reveals the liberty of a PEOPLE and a collective manifestation of the communicative force of its will" (Melo e Castro, 1977, p.49 Acre, Puzzle, 5+1, Cores/GICAP or the Alvarez Group were references in this regard, among others 2 . In addition, several cultural and recreational associations, as well as cooperatives, were created, with the participation of several artists in their governing bodies. Although several of the new collectives and informal groups developed collective artistic projects, as well as cultural initiatives and events, often their main function was discussing forms of social intervention, thus outlining "the first steps towards political awareness at the group level" (Ribeiro, 1974, p.10). For example, MDAP's activity was aimed at acting "on a more general front of cultural democratization" (Gonçalves, 1974, p.38). Although this movement was short-lived, it established a close dialogue with the first democratic governments and carried out a series of artistic actions in the public space, such as drafting bulletins addressed to the cultural sector, fostering working committees, and promoting collective artistic initiatives (Gonçalves, 1974, p.38). In Porto, the action of the Comissão para uma Cultura Dinâmica [Commission for a Dynamic Culture] was also significant. For example, on June 10, 1974, in a "demonstration-protest" (Couceiro, 2004, p.24 In the various disciplines of artistic practice, the use of public space was intensified, as a demonstration of the freedom and democracy then conquered. While during the fascist dictatorship control of the population was also exercised on the street, now the right to the city was claimed as a collective right to social construction, enabling a surge of practices, such as mural paintings and other forms of visual communication on walls and street furniture, and also consolidating practices such as performance art. In summary, "amidst the effervescence of the political struggles, regular visual arts nearly disappears and 'life itself' seems to gain protagonism" (Caeiro, 2014, p.117).

Some initiatives and events became engraved in
The scope was so significant that -in addition to the "exceptionality of the emotions (pathos) in play [...] involving countless creators in operations of concrete and immediate change for the populations through art"-it simultaneously extended to the "ethos", through government policy, and the "logos" (related with precise theoretical, political and conceptual assumptions, applied with intensity)." (Caeiro, 2014, pp. 117-118).  One of the tools created to strengthen the relation between civil society and MFA were the CDCAC 5 . Part of the People-MFA partnership (Santos, 1992, p.60), it sought to contact the population, stimulating a dialogue with rural communities regarding MFA's program, the anti-fascist struggle, and the ongoing process of democratization 6 .
The CDCAC covered different areas of culture and the arts, including theatre, visual arts, cinema, music, circus and dance.
In a way, the CDCAC reflected the "need for a Cultural Revolution [...] present on everyone's lips" (Correia et al.,p.16). Therefore, they were joined by other initiatives with intense mobilization of several sectors of the population 7 . The creation of some of these structures and initiatives was inspired by the experience of the literacy brigades and the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution [CDR] developed in Cuba (Cervelló, 1996, p.263). Despite its uniqueness, plurality of experiences and originality, the CDCAC took the Cuban model as its international reference (Almeida, 2009, p.94). This is corroborated by Rodrigo de Freitas, who coordinated the visual arts sector of CODICE and who pointed to the CDRs of Cuba as a 'starting point' that was attempted to "adapt to the Portuguese reality" (Almeida, 2009, p.94).
Soon after the beginning of the CDCAC, on 6 November 1974, MDAP expressed its "position of unity, understanding and active participation with MFA in the country's process of cultural democratization" (Correia and Gomes, 1984, p.145  were several intellectuals involved in its conception, the initiative never had the circle's unanimous support. The art critic Egídio Álvaro argues that the criteria to select artists revealed a "Lisbon-centred and circumstantial parochialism" (Álvaro, 1977, p.57).
Manuel Augusto Araújo recounts that several artists rebelled "against the criteria used for that exhibit" and that "decisions, not always correct, and the opportunism of many (...) polluted the possibility of serious controversy, which would inevitably lead to rethinking the precocious but necessary cultural policy for the burgeoning new country" (Araújo, 1977, p.11).  (Couceiro, 2004, p.30 (Pinho, 2013, p.72).
Operating within DGAC were the Animation Services, Theatre Services, the Visual Arts Services and the Music Services, directed at various times by visual artists, playwrights, and writers 10 . Associated with DGAC were, for example, the exhibits in the Modern Art Gallery (Lisbon), namely the exhibit Alternativa Zero, curated by Ernesto de Sousa, in 1977. The emphasis on sociocultural animation in the government's program did not mean this practice did not exist in the country before 1976. However, the sociocultural animation that "began to flow intensely with the winds of change of May 1968", founded upon "the premise of citizens with full citizenship conferred by a participated democracy, not ritualized and scheduled", was substantially consolidated only after 25 April 1974 (Lopes, 2006(Lopes, -2007, in particular with the support of local authorities. Sociocultural animation found fertile territory among the goals of the Revolution. The democratization of culture implied the development of mechanisms for geographic decentralization and the development of a participatory and creative consciousness in populations, with animation playing a fundamental role in these objectives. In this period, animation was characterized by the animator's militancy, that is, the understanding that an animator's work had a social and political cause. Despite ideological, procedural or other disagreements, one can say that the vast majority of artists who assumed the production of a socially engaged artistic practice during this period, simultaneously adopted a position of collaboration with institutions of central, but also local power. But this attitude was neither uncritical nor uniform in its intensity. Precisely for this reason, Portuguese reality in this period is rich and fertile, articulating more theoretical and conceptual discussions with an artistic practice of concrete, in-place (and therefore dialectical) implementation.  The conflictual attitude of artists is present in the texts they wrote but also in some artistic actions. The first of these actions occurred on 28 May 1975, in Foz Palace (Lisbon), with the participation of about a hundred artists (Gonçalves, 2004, p.110).
The action consisted in climbing "the stairs of Foz Palace clandestinely" (Almeida, 2009, p.111), covering the statue of Salazar (by Francisco Franco) and the bust of António Ferro with black cloths and tying them with rope, placing a banner with MDAP's inscription, and distributing a pamphlet 12 , which stated the initiative was "at the same time a symbolic destruction and an act of artistic creation in a gesture of revolutionary freedom. Fascist art harms your vision" (Almeida, 2009, p.111). This initiative was followed by a series of other socially engaged artistic actions that, for the most part, were centered upon the State's museological policy regarding contemporary art, the center of an unresolved dispute.
Since the Revolution, several artists tried to answer the need for a modern and contemporary art museum in the country, since the museums most suited to this end -like the Museu Nacional Soares dos Reis [MNSR; Soares dos Reis National Museum of Contemporary Art, Lisbon] -had removed vanguard and contemporary art from the scope of their collections. In addition to texts written by artists, historians and art critics in defense of this need, there were some direct actions by artists. In Porto, in June 1974, the aforementioned "Burial" of the MNSR -which should give rise to a "new «living» museum, more guided towards the artistic community and the population" ("Artistas e escritores no «enterro» do Museu de Soares dos Reis: pediram a criação dum museu activo e válido para toda a gente.", 1974), p. 2) -was the first action, in democracy, to demonstrate this desire, although "more through slogans than the presentation of a specific project" (Oliveira, 2013, p.84). In Lisbon, there was also a protest action by the group ACRE, in April of 1975, which consisted in the occupation of the Mendonça Palace and the placement of a poster calling it the "Museum of Modern Art" ("Uma Casa para a Arte Moderna", 1975).
Although "the debate about the non-existence of a museum of modern art in Portugal had remained until then within specialized circles" (Oliveira, 2013, p.93) and was not exactly an expression of popular voices, there are indications that this discussion also took place in the government. The creation of the Centro de Arte Contemporânea [CAC; Contemporary Art Centre], in the MNSR, in operation between 1976 and 1980, was thought to satisfy this need. According to Etheline Rosas, its existence was already being discussed in the cultural environment of Porto, following a government initiative (Oliveira, 2013, p.102). Amidst the fragile Portuguese museological context, this center assumed importance within intellectual circles.
Discontent regarding government cultural policies grew mostly after 1976, when the relational dynamic between artists and political bodies decreased markedly. A weariness regarding political disputes may have contributed to this change (Chicó, 1999, p.264), or the fact that during the revolutionary process the prevailing idea of culture was that of a "practice that encouraged paternalism and contributed towards the marginalization of alternatives [...]" (Ribeiro, 1986, p. 20).
Nevertheless, the main reasons were the lack of a cultural policy and the State's gradual unaccountability towards culture, product of an ideological reorientation and the greater prominence of right-wing parties in power. In 1976, Francisco Bronze declared that "in this sea we swirl, submerge, return to the surface; in the midst of various currents, we wave our arms, fight for survival, try to grab the current that will take us to the beach (in the new world? the old world?). All of us. Artists as well." (Bronze, 1976, p.66). In 1977, Manuel Augusto Araújo said that "policy of the Secretariat of State of Culture, taking care to not define any policy" is destroying "the possible promotion of cultural activity at a national scale (...)" (Araújo, 1977, p.11 Cristina Pratas Cruzeiro: Art with Revolution! Political mobilization in artistic practices between 1974 and1977 in Portugal "in the responsible commissions", for the creation of the country's cultural policy and that government rulers were following the same plan since 1977, that of hiding "in their offices" and casting aside the "advisory commissions" (Gonçalves, 1980, p.64).
The progressive removal of artists and other intellectuals from the governmental decision-making centers dictated the end of a commitment thought possible soon after the Revolution.

Artistic practices with the popular participation
If the relation between political authorities and artists who intervened politically in the artistic landscape after 25 April was largely one of collaboration and/or communion, the relation between the popular masses and the artistic practices implemented in the public space, those of a participatory nature that involved the population, was more complex.
After the Revolution, the explosion of artistic practices seeking the participation or collaboration of the population was mainly associated with experimental poetry and performance art, but also the visual arts, such that "The street, the mural and the situation, the debate and confrontation, the installation and intervention, however sporadic, replaced the gallery and museum, the painting and sculpture on plinth, the academic lecture and art criticism" (Caeiro, 2014, p. 112).
New terms entered the art lexicon, such as popular participation, collaboration, public space or urban space and the participation of non-artists in socially engaged artistic practices became a "clearly new movement […] considering the more specific component of the «arts of April" (Silva, 2009, p.28). The desire by artists was, in many cases, matched by popular participation, but it is important to point out that participatory methodologies were, in most cases, applied intuitively. Also, the desire to get closer to the populations was made through artistic practices that encouraged the participants to a collaborative action but also to a confrontational attitude.  In country's history, this was the first initiative under freedom attempting "a set of actions [...] that proposed a new relationship between art and the public." (Almeida, 2009, p.113). This relationship, of proximity, occurred during several moments of the event, namely in the construction of "towers of painted bricks" and of an "extensive wall, scribbled scratched and written upon by a compact crowd that filled the Belém Gallery [...]" (Gonçalves, 1974, p.40). The "great collective joy" (Gonçalves, 1974, p.40), the "contagious feast and power of creativity" (Gonçalves, 2004, p.110) did not, however, nullify the critical spirit of the artists. During the event, as it was broadcast live on public television (RTP), the session was interrupted by government order.  (Gonçalves, 1974, p.40). Júlio Pomar, a participating artist, upon learning of the occurrence "grabbed his brushes, tied them to his painting [...] and painted upon it: «censorship exists" 15 . There were other, more ideological, criticisms questioning the intentions of MDAP and the artists organizing the event. Egídio Álvaro described the event as a "political, cultural, plastic and economic operation" (Álvaro, 1974 p.10), suggesting that the choice of participating artists had been questionable. Regarding the artists involved, Alfredo Queiroz Ribeiro questioned whether this was "a sudden action by well-intentioned characters or, instead, a way for them to associate their names to an event they surrounded with publicity so everyone knew that they, artists, have something to say?" (Ribeiro, 1974, p. 35). This event can be understood as a prime example of an "experiment in direct democracy" (Caeiro, 2014, pp. 116-117), which from then on would repeat itself more coherently, for example in the Encontros Internacionais de Arte em Portugal [International Meetings of Art in Portugal], held between 1974 and 1977. Organized by Jaime Isidoro and Edígio Álvaro, the meetings were part of their project of cultural dynamization and decentralization, to which they associated the development of performance art in the country. The emphasis on "approaching to the local communities was a structuring factor for the organization of all the Meetings, being the factor that possibly explains the massive participation of artists in all their editions." (Guéniot,2019, p.56).
According to Egídio Álvaro, these events sought "a space of liberty capable of fostering contact between artists of divergent tendencies [...] and to establish (or research) an effective dialogue with the different social and cultural classes that constitute an urban community" (Álvaro, 1979).
The structure, divided into three types of activities -exhibits, colloquia and interventions -, was conceived to mobilize the community's participation, although interventions best fulfilled this aim (Silva, 2019, p.24).
While the first Meeting (Valadares, July to August 1974) "had the audacity of intervening more by reflexive action than by its ability to exercise street art" (Silva, 2019, p.32), progressively, the following meetings gave this aspect greater prominence.  (Silva, 2019, p.35).. Other interventions attracted popular curiosity, such as the work of Albuquerque Mendes, although the level of participation of his contribution was small. Also during the Meeting, the population was invited to 16.-The Colletif d'Art Sociologique (1974 was, in the European context, one of the more explicit examples of socially engaged artistic practice. In Portugal, the collective was known among intellectuals and Colóquio Artes magazine had published, since 1974, some articles about the artists involved in the collective, discussing their ideological and artistic principles. Among Portuguese art historians and critics, José Augusto França was a very frequent participant in this matter. intervene plastically with artists on a wooden panel installed in a city square. Although Egídio Álvaro considered there was an active participation that "awoke a dumbfounded, suspicious, curious and, sometimes frankly enthusiastic population" (Álvaro, 1979), the interventions were restricted to a fixed location in the city, and rapprochement with the community ended up being small and of reduced effectiveness (Ferreira, 2017, p.254 (Silva, 2019, p.48). Other participatory actions occurred during this event, although they did not summon popular collaboration.
The fourth Meeting (Caldas da Rainha, August 1977) was the last organized by Jaime Isidoro and Egidio Álvaro. In this edition, the area for interventions was expanded and the "the event organizers communicated directly with the public, through a permanent information center located in the Praça da República, near Café Zaira" (Silva, 2019, p.65).
Contrary to previous editions, the actions in this meeting were more individualistic, not seeking forms of participation or collaboration and, when they did, they denounced a disruptive or provocative interaction with the population. For example, for his intervention Armando Azevedo positioned himself at the center of an hexagonal space -made with superimposed newspapers on the floor delimited by streaks of paint of different colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet) -where he painted, wrote, drew and cut shapes from the newspapers. To observe the actions, the public had to enter this space, step on the paint and leave a mark on the newspapers. ORLAN Also in this regard, we note the statements and open letters written by the City Hall of Caldas da Rainha, as well as political parties, formulating aesthetic judgments, such as "false manifestations of art'" and "disgraceful 'spectacles'" (PCP, 1977), questioning compliance with the aims announced by the Meeting's organization (CMCR, 1977) or even raising political suspicions 17 . Regardless of the denunciations and accusations, their emphasis was always on the population's reactions, underlining they were 17.-The statement released by PSD (July/17/77), the Social Democratic Party, which held City Hall, refers that "behind this demonstration of art was also a political objective", suggesting PCP was its orchestrator, as "some demonstrations ostensibly reflected communist ideology" and "some of the 'artists' did not hide their affiliation with the Communist Party "unfavorable" and that the population's sensibility was injured (CMCR, 1977;PSD, 1977).
Overall, during the span of four years when the Meetings took place, there was a significant variety of performative acts, happenings and performances, collective paintings, discussions and debates, among other initiatives, that reflected an understanding of cultural and artistic democratization associated with the use of public space -"a hitherto disregarded support" (Álvaro, 1977, p.28 (Álvaro, 1977, p.28).
Although one can't state this occurred across the board, a behavioral context undoubtedly fostered these objectives.

Conclusion
Since the late 1950s, strategies for bringing art and society together have been discussed throughout socially engaged artistic practices. Integrating art in the public space were assumed as essential. Collectivism and the use of participatory and collaborative work methodologies and processes became one of the essential issues of these practices.
The forms of collective organization marks "a shift within the practices of visual artists from a focus on art as a given institutional and linguistic structure to an active intervention in the world of mass culture." (Stimson and Sholette, 2007, p.9). In Portugal, this change happened with the revolution of 25 April 1974. Its duration was closely tied to the revolutionary process, a period when political and artistic motivation coincided regarding the political rapprochement between art, artists and the popular masses. In this decisive moment for building democracy, collaboration was the most frequent attitude used by artistic practices in relation to the political system and to the population. However, the construction of democracy was also made up of dissent and confrontation. In the aforementioned artistic practices, provocation deliberately served to instigate this confrontation, considered to be constructive. contributed to the establishment of models of participatory local governance" (Vicente, 2016, p.75).
Like these examples, there were Portuguese socially engaged artistic dynamics that thought of the "public dimension not as an abstract work methodology (...) but as a strategy that broadens and enables the social objectives (...), based on the concept of participatory democracy, for which every citizen is a political being." (Cruzeiro, 2012, p.384).
In this sense, although embryonic, there was an awareness of the transforming capacity of artistic practice itself, which, as Grant Kester refers, has the "ability to produce new perspectives, against normative perspectives, on the constitution of power and subjectivity." (Kester, 2019, p.79). The importance of this specific moment in Portuguese history goes beyond the national context. As Stimson andSholette said: "Between 1945 and1989, culture took on a definite political heft in the undeclared war between capitalism and socialism. And reciprocally, politics took on a cultural cast of its own." (Stimson and Sholette, 2007, p.9). In the midst of the Cold War, the Portuguese revolution represented yet another beacon of hope and a hammer colliding with the capitalist system and neo-liberal thought. The socially engaged artistic practices in Portugal during the revolutionary process were part of this political stance. If the "collective social form during the cold war became political [...]" (Stimson and Sholette, 2007, p.10), one must integrate this Portuguese period within the context of the wider cultural radicalism of "denigration of the individual, who becomes synonymous with the values of Cold War liberalism [...]" (Bishop, 2012, p.12). These values implied that the "virtuosic contemporary artist has become the role model for the flexible, mobile, non-specialized, laborer who can creatively adapt to multiple situations, and become his/her own brand." [so, a] "collaborative practice is perceived to offer an automatic counter-model [...]" (Bishop, 2012, p.12) to these values.
This radical dynamic will decrease in Portugal during and after the first Constitutional Government (since 1976), with artists a distancing themselves from political power, a movement coinciding with an increased use of transgressive and provocative tools in their relationship with the population. Therefore, the departure from the values brought by the revolution was proportional to the country's approximation to neoliberal thinking and capitalist system.