Depuis leur origine, la critique et l’histoire de l’art argentines suivent les modèles européens. Les outils d’analyse et d’interprétation, les critères pour évaluer les œuvres, la périodisation et les façons d’organiser le récit historique respectent les normes établies pour l’historiographie française de l’art moderne en particulier. Les auteurs considèrent que l’art local intègre l’espace mondial de l’art de l’Occident, mais ils comprennent qu’il se place dans une région marginale et qu'il suit une temporalité décalée par rapport à la cadence du développement de l’art moderne des régions centrales. L’art argentin est souvent jugé comme provincial et en retard, comme un art qui ne s’adapte pas aux normes du canon français. Cette perception se nourrit dans le contact des Argentins avec la culture française à travers les voyages, les visites des auteurs étrangers et la litérature francophone. Sauf quelques exceptions, c’est la perception dominant la litérature argentine sur l’art jusqu’aux années soixante.À partir de ce moment, les références françaises sont progressivement contestées, associées à d’autres perspectives et puis abandonnées. Ces transformations ont lieu dans le cadre général des révisions disciplinaires propres du passage entre l’ère moderne et la contemporanéité. Celles-ci ne sont pas uniformes ni monolithiques mais le résultat des révisions graduelles de la fonction, la méthodologie et le style de la littérature sur l’art. La crise touche les modèles d’autorité traditionnels et conduit les spécialistes à chercher de nouveaux fondements dans diverses aires de la connaissance comme la psychologie, la sociologie ou les systèmes théoriques proposés par le structuralisme et la sémiotique. La pensée latino-américaine, ravivée à l’époque, contribue à cette remise en question et donne des éléments conceptuels pour le développement de nouvelles perspectives dans la critique et l’histoire de l’art. / From their beginnings, Argentinian art history and critic have followed European models. Interpretation tools, evaluation criteria upon works of art and the standards to organize and cut into periods the historic account, respect the established norms, especially those given by the French modern art historiography. Argentinian authors believe their local art makes part of the western art world space, yet they understand that it is located at a marginal area and that it belongs to a temporariness sufering from lag in relation to the development of the central modern art’s regions. Terefore, Argentinian art is habitually judged as country-like and out-dated since it fails to tackle the imposed standards of the French canon. Such perception is nourished by the interaction of the Argentinians with the French ulture throughout their travels, the foreign authors’ visits and from their specialized French literature available in Argentina. With few exceptions, this perspective has dominated arts writing since the sixties.From that moment on, Argentine authors increasingly question the French references. Te model is re-visited, criticized, mixed with other perspectives and eventually forsaken. Tese transformations occur within the general frame of the disciplinary revisions of the passing from modern to contemporary era. Tey are not uniformly produced, but the outcome of gradual function, methodology and style of art writing revisions. Te crisis afecting the traditional models leads the specialists to look for new foundations in several areas of knowledge such as psychology, sociology, or in the theoretical systems proposed by structuralism and semiotics. Te « Latin-Americanist » discourses, reactivated during the sixties contribute and give such revision conceptual elements for the development of new perspectives on the art criticism and art history.

Esta pesquisa procurou investigar as tensões teóricas existentes entre o marxismo e o eurocentrismo, a partir de uma análise do pensamento marxista e latino-americano do peruano José Carlos Mariátegui. O eurocentrismo, ao generalizar a experiência europeia para o resto do mundo, produziu distorções e legitimou desigualdades com múltiplas e variadas incidências. Mesmo o marxismo, a mais radical das críticas ao sistema capitalista, reproduziu o problema do eurocentrismo, principalmente na sua versão hegemônica. A América Latina, como continente de enunciação de um marxismo periférico, teve em Mariátegui o primeiro pensador marxista a realizar este desafio. Seu pensamento apresenta aspectos inovadores, provocativos e atuais, ainda que não livre de limites. Ao explorar esta questão controversa, o presente estudo buscou assim analisar a dinâmica de penetração e ruptura do eurocentrismo dentro do próprio campo marxista, principalmente pela sua versão periférica e latino-americana, personificada na obra original de José Carlos Mariátegui. / The present study examines the theoretical tensions between Marxism and Eurocentrism through the Peruvian thinker José Carlos Mariátegui. The great problem of Eurocentrism is its ability to generalize the European experience to the rest of the world and promote inequality regards the non-hegemonic knowledge and thinking. Even the Marxism, the most important critic to capitalist system, was able to reproduce the problem of Eurocentrism in its hegemonic version. José Carlos Mariátegui was the first thinker to consider this challenge in Latin America, which is an important continent of enunciation of peripheral Marxism. The richness of Mariátegui’s thinking brought to Marxist field innovative and current aspects, even with limits. The present study sought to demonstrate the controversial question about the reproduction and rupture of Eurocentrism within Marxism, mostly in the original and Latin American Marxism of José Carlos Mariátegui.

Esta pesquisa procurou investigar as tensões teóricas existentes entre o marxismo e o eurocentrismo, a partir de uma análise do pensamento marxista e latino-americano do peruano José Carlos Mariátegui. O eurocentrismo, ao generalizar a experiência europeia para o resto do mundo, produziu distorções e legitimou desigualdades com múltiplas e variadas incidências. Mesmo o marxismo, a mais radical das críticas ao sistema capitalista, reproduziu o problema do eurocentrismo, principalmente na sua versão hegemônica. A América Latina, como continente de enunciação de um marxismo periférico, teve em Mariátegui o primeiro pensador marxista a realizar este desafio. Seu pensamento apresenta aspectos inovadores, provocativos e atuais, ainda que não livre de limites. Ao explorar esta questão controversa, o presente estudo buscou assim analisar a dinâmica de penetração e ruptura do eurocentrismo dentro do próprio campo marxista, principalmente pela sua versão periférica e latino-americana, personificada na obra original de José Carlos Mariátegui. / The present study examines the theoretical tensions between Marxism and Eurocentrism through the Peruvian thinker José Carlos Mariátegui. The great problem of Eurocentrism is its ability to generalize the European experience to the rest of the world and promote inequality regards the non-hegemonic knowledge and thinking. Even the Marxism, the most important critic to capitalist system, was able to reproduce the problem of Eurocentrism in its hegemonic version. José Carlos Mariátegui was the first thinker to consider this challenge in Latin America, which is an important continent of enunciation of peripheral Marxism. The richness of Mariátegui’s thinking brought to Marxist field innovative and current aspects, even with limits. The present study sought to demonstrate the controversial question about the reproduction and rupture of Eurocentrism within Marxism, mostly in the original and Latin American Marxism of José Carlos Mariátegui.

Esta pesquisa procurou investigar as tensões teóricas existentes entre o marxismo e o eurocentrismo, a partir de uma análise do pensamento marxista e latino-americano do peruano José Carlos Mariátegui. O eurocentrismo, ao generalizar a experiência europeia para o resto do mundo, produziu distorções e legitimou desigualdades com múltiplas e variadas incidências. Mesmo o marxismo, a mais radical das críticas ao sistema capitalista, reproduziu o problema do eurocentrismo, principalmente na sua versão hegemônica. A América Latina, como continente de enunciação de um marxismo periférico, teve em Mariátegui o primeiro pensador marxista a realizar este desafio. Seu pensamento apresenta aspectos inovadores, provocativos e atuais, ainda que não livre de limites. Ao explorar esta questão controversa, o presente estudo buscou assim analisar a dinâmica de penetração e ruptura do eurocentrismo dentro do próprio campo marxista, principalmente pela sua versão periférica e latino-americana, personificada na obra original de José Carlos Mariátegui. / The present study examines the theoretical tensions between Marxism and Eurocentrism through the Peruvian thinker José Carlos Mariátegui. The great problem of Eurocentrism is its ability to generalize the European experience to the rest of the world and promote inequality regards the non-hegemonic knowledge and thinking. Even the Marxism, the most important critic to capitalist system, was able to reproduce the problem of Eurocentrism in its hegemonic version. José Carlos Mariátegui was the first thinker to consider this challenge in Latin America, which is an important continent of enunciation of peripheral Marxism. The richness of Mariátegui’s thinking brought to Marxist field innovative and current aspects, even with limits. The present study sought to demonstrate the controversial question about the reproduction and rupture of Eurocentrism within Marxism, mostly in the original and Latin American Marxism of José Carlos Mariátegui.

O objetivo desta tese é analisar, em uma perspectiva comparada, como nascem, evoluem e são frustrados três projetos de democratização radical na América Latina nos primórdios do imperialismo. José Martí (1853-1895) em Cuba, Juan B. Justo (1865- 1928) na Argentina e Ricardo Flores Magón (1874-1922) no México, lideram esforços intelectuais e políticos orientados a superar os constrangimentos à integração nacional legados pela origem colonial, que se expressam em um pensamento que fundamenta a atuação dos partidos que dirigiram. Vivendo no contexto de difusão das relações de produção capitalistas no continente, estes projetos constituem esforços pioneiros de subordinar o desenvolvimento capitalista aos desígnios da sociedade nacional. A incidência que tiveram para o desencadeamento dos processos que objetivaram a guerra da independência em Cuba, a reforma política na Argentina e a Revolução Mexicana - atesta a sintonia de suas propostas em relação aos dilemas que enfrentaram. O malogro do ideário democrático que representavam indica a prevalência de constrangimentos estruturais que obstam a consumação da nação na América Latina naquela circunstância. Partindo da premissa de que os autores analisados constituem expoentes do pensamento e da política radical em suas conjunturas, nossa hipótese é que a aproximação entre os três casos sugere as balizas que referenciavam a máxima consciência possível no campo da militância democrática no continente naquele contexto histórico. / This research aims to analyse, on a comparative perspective, the rising, evolution and eventual frustration of three projects of radical democratization in Latin America in the beginnings of imperialism. José Martí (1853-1895) in Cuba, Juan B. Justo (1865-1928) in Argentina and Ricardo Flores Magón (1874-1922) in México, led intelectual and political efforts aiming to ovecome the constraints inherited from the colonial past as a premise to assert national integration. an effort that was expressed in their thoughts, which in turn have shaped the political parties which they led. This purpose has been expressed on their thought, which in turn has shaped the political parties they conducted. Living in the context of difusion of capitalist production relations in the continent, these projects constitute pioneer attempts to subordinate the capitalist development to the design of national society. The fact that their political activity contributed to unleash the processes which they aimed to the War of Independence in Cuba, political reform in Argentina and the Mexican Revolution attests that their proposals were well tuned to the dilemmas they faced. The failure to impose the democratic ideals which they represented points to the prevalence of structural constrains that hinder the consumation of the nation in Latin America on that circumstance. Assuming as a premise that the authors analysed in this work are exponents of radical thought and politics in their conjunctures, our hypothesis is that the approach of the three cases suggest the boundaries that referred the maximum posible consciousness of democratic militancy in the continent in that historical context.

O objetivo desta tese é analisar, em uma perspectiva comparada, como nascem, evoluem e são frustrados três projetos de democratização radical na América Latina nos primórdios do imperialismo. José Martí (1853-1895) em Cuba, Juan B. Justo (1865- 1928) na Argentina e Ricardo Flores Magón (1874-1922) no México, lideram esforços intelectuais e políticos orientados a superar os constrangimentos à integração nacional legados pela origem colonial, que se expressam em um pensamento que fundamenta a atuação dos partidos que dirigiram. Vivendo no contexto de difusão das relações de produção capitalistas no continente, estes projetos constituem esforços pioneiros de subordinar o desenvolvimento capitalista aos desígnios da sociedade nacional. A incidência que tiveram para o desencadeamento dos processos que objetivaram a guerra da independência em Cuba, a reforma política na Argentina e a Revolução Mexicana - atesta a sintonia de suas propostas em relação aos dilemas que enfrentaram. O malogro do ideário democrático que representavam indica a prevalência de constrangimentos estruturais que obstam a consumação da nação na América Latina naquela circunstância. Partindo da premissa de que os autores analisados constituem expoentes do pensamento e da política radical em suas conjunturas, nossa hipótese é que a aproximação entre os três casos sugere as balizas que referenciavam a máxima consciência possível no campo da militância democrática no continente naquele contexto histórico. / This research aims to analyse, on a comparative perspective, the rising, evolution and eventual frustration of three projects of radical democratization in Latin America in the beginnings of imperialism. José Martí (1853-1895) in Cuba, Juan B. Justo (1865-1928) in Argentina and Ricardo Flores Magón (1874-1922) in México, led intelectual and political efforts aiming to ovecome the constraints inherited from the colonial past as a premise to assert national integration. an effort that was expressed in their thoughts, which in turn have shaped the political parties which they led. This purpose has been expressed on their thought, which in turn has shaped the political parties they conducted. Living in the context of difusion of capitalist production relations in the continent, these projects constitute pioneer attempts to subordinate the capitalist development to the design of national society. The fact that their political activity contributed to unleash the processes which they aimed to the War of Independence in Cuba, political reform in Argentina and the Mexican Revolution attests that their proposals were well tuned to the dilemmas they faced. The failure to impose the democratic ideals which they represented points to the prevalence of structural constrains that hinder the consumation of the nation in Latin America on that circumstance. Assuming as a premise that the authors analysed in this work are exponents of radical thought and politics in their conjunctures, our hypothesis is that the approach of the three cases suggest the boundaries that referred the maximum posible consciousness of democratic militancy in the continent in that historical context.

Cette étude, qui s'intéresse aux appropriations de l'Antiquité grecque au XXe siècle, se propose d'analyser les impacts de la lecture de Platon sur le développement de la pensée politique et éthique de Hannah Arendt. Notre approche du sujet est historique et philosophique. Premièrement, nous considérerons la toile de fond biographique, intellectuelle et historique de cette lecture. La relation intellectuelle entre Hannah Arendt et Martin Heidegger reçoit une attention particulière, puisque le Platon arendtien présente parfois des similarités avec celui de Heidegger. Nous considérerons également la réception de Platon en Allemagne entre la période de Weimar et l'après-guerre : les lectures idéologiques de l'époque nazie, et le débat autour du statut de Platon en tant qu'ancêtre du totalitarisme, clamé par Karl Popper, ont assombri la réputation philosophique de Platon jusqu'à la fin du XXe siècle. Nous trouvons des échos de ce climat intellectuel particulier dans le traitement de Platon chez Arendt. Dans un deuxième temps, nous examinerons les thèmes et les motifs de la lecture arendtienne en observant minutieusement une sélection d'ouvrages, d'essais, d'ébauches d'Arendt, en plus des notes du Journal de pensée (Denktagebuch) et des extraits de dialogues de Platon sur lesquels s'appuient sa lecture. Arendt déconstruit, transforme, altère et utilise ces textes afin de démontrer que notre tradition de pensée politique s'est édifiée sur un mépris de la politique qui trouve sa source dans la pensée platonicienne. Ce mépris culmine dans la pensée de Marx et le totalitarisme. Mais les réflexions d'Arendt sur la pensée, le jugement et la conscience, et son traitement du cas Eichmann suggère qu'elle s'approprie par moments la pensée de Platon. Des comparaisons avec d'autres penseurs émigrés allemands, qui s'inspirent aussi de Platon et des Grecs pour édifier leur pensée politique, Leo Strauss et Eric Voegelin, vont nous permettre d'affiner notre compréhension du Platon d'Arendt. / This study, which concerns the appropriations of Greek Antiquity in the 20th century, proposes to analyze the impacts of the reading of Plato on the development of Hannah Arendt's political and ethical thought. Our approach of this subject is historical and philosophical. First, we will consider the biographical, intellectual and historical background of this reading. The intellectual relationship between Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger receive a special attention, since Arendt's Plato is sometimes similar to the heiddeggerian one. We also consider Platonic reception in Germany between the Weimar period and the postwar era : the ideological readings of the Nazi era, and the debate surrounding Plato's status as the forebearer of totalitarianism, as claimed by Karl Popper, darkened Plato's philosophical reputation until the end of 20th century. We find some echoes of this particular intellectual climax in Arendt's treatment of Plato. Second, we will examine the themes and motives of arendtian reading by scrutinizing a selection of Arendt's books, essays, drafts, and notes from the Denktagebuch, and excerpts from the Platonic dialogues that informs her reading. Arendt deconstructs, transforms, distorts and uses these texts in order to show that our tradition of political thought was founded on a contempt for politics that finds its source in Platonic thought. This contempt culminates in Marx's thought and totalitarianism. But Arendt's reflections on thinking, judgment and conscience, and her treatment of Eichmann's case suggests that she sometimes appropriates Plato. Some comparisons with other German Émigrés thinkers who also reads Plato and the Greeks to inform their political thought, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, will enhance our understanding of Arendt's Plato.