{"id":46193,"date":"2000-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/archivos\/46193"},"modified":"2026-03-10T08:34:54","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T08:34:54","slug":"arte-degenerado","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/arte-degenerado\/","title":{"rendered":"Arte \u201cdegenerado\u201d \/"},"content":{"rendered":"

Autor:<\/strong> Jes\u00fas Galiana<\/p>\n

Revista:<\/strong> L\u00c1PIZ Revista Internacional de Arte n\u00ba 212<\/p>\n\n

Se podr\u00eda afirmar sin dudarlo que un chimpanc\u00e9 con cuernos y plumas verdes no es un chimpanc\u00e9. En todo caso, es un no-chimpanc\u00e9 <\/em>, un ejemplar \u201cdegenerado\u201d dentro de la familia de los chimpanc\u00e9s. Es decir, un individuo que ha mutado tanto que ha perdido las caracter\u00edsticas esenciales de los chimpanc\u00e9s y, por ende, no es posible seguir consider\u00e1ndolo como parte integrante de esa especie. Tambi\u00e9n podemos afirmar que un hombre que abusa sexualmente de un ni\u00f1o es un degenerado. Es algo en lo que, con seguridad, podr\u00eda ponerse de acuerdo la pr\u00e1ctica totalidad del mundo civilizado. <\/p>\n

Pero, aplicado al arte, el t\u00e9rmino \u201cdegeneraci\u00f3n\u201d se vuelve mucho m\u00e1s complejo. Al fin y al cabo, para considerar que el legado art\u00edstico de una \u00e9poca concreta o de un grupo de artistas es \u201cdegenerado\u201d, primero tendr\u00edamos que definir cu\u00e1les son las caracter\u00edsticas propias del arte, y esto no es tarea f\u00e1cil. Es f\u00e1cil ponerse de acuerdo sobre qu\u00e9 caracter\u00edsticas son propias de los chimpanc\u00e9s, pero no sobre qu\u00e9 hace que una pintura, un objeto, o una sinfon\u00eda sean considerados fen\u00f3menos art\u00edsticos, y otros no. <\/p>\n

No obstante, el concepto \u201cdegeneraci\u00f3n\u201d ha estado muy presente en el arte de los \u00faltimos dos siglos. Cuando, en 1865, Manet expuso por primera vez su Olympia <\/em> en el Salon des Refus\u00e9s, esta obra fue considerada degenerada. Ante la tela, se formaron largas colas de irritados espectadores que agitaban col\u00e9ricamente sus bastones exigiendo su inmediata retirada. A estos airados se\u00f1ores no les bastaba con que el cuadro hubiera sido rechazado en el sal\u00f3n oficial; lo consideraban inaceptable y quer\u00edan verlo destruido. Recordemos que el Salon des Refus\u00e9s (\u201cSal\u00f3n de los Rechazados\u201d), por usar un t\u00e9rmino actual, era un sal\u00f3n \u201calternativo\u201d, donde a los artistas rechazados por los jurados del sal\u00f3n oficial se les permit\u00eda exponer sus obras. \u00bfQu\u00e9 hab\u00eda en Olympia <\/em> para provocar tales altercados? \u00bfC\u00f3mo es posible que el p\u00fablico se sintiera tan molesto por su mera existencia? No pod\u00eda ser \u00fanicamente porque pon\u00eda en tela de juicio los pilares del arte acad\u00e9mico. En aquellos momentos, Olympia <\/em> fue percibida por la sociedad m\u00e1s conservadora como un aut\u00e9ntico atentado terrorista contra la decencia, el cual deb\u00eda ser combatido a sangre y fuego, pues retrataba a una \u201cmujer de la calle\u201d \u2013la modelo era una conocida prostituta\u2013 mostrando su cuerpo desnudo, sin ninguna coartada mitol\u00f3gica y mirando con descaro al espectador. Aquello era un esc\u00e1ndalo intolerable que la burgues\u00eda parisina no estaba preparada para digerir. <\/p>\n

Pero Manet, a pesar del rechazo que suscit\u00f3 su obra, fue un artista visionario, un hombre adelantado a su tiempo cuya trabajo abonar\u00eda el jard\u00edn donde pocos a\u00f1os despu\u00e9s florecer\u00eda el Impresionismo. Por otra parte, muy pocos de aquellos artistas acad\u00e9micos cuyas obras eran aceptadas en el sal\u00f3n oficial son recordados en nuestros d\u00edas. <\/p>\n

Unos a\u00f1os despu\u00e9s del episodio de la Olympia <\/em>, Vincent van Gogh protagoniz\u00f3 un cap\u00edtulo esencial para entender las vanguardias del siglo xx . Entre 1884 y 1890, su paleta recorri\u00f3 el largo camino que va desde los oscuros colores de Los comedores de patatas <\/em> a los cielos azules y los campos de trigo inundados de sol de sus cuadros de Arles. Su obra abrir\u00eda una de las puertas m\u00e1s transitadas por el arte moderno, la del color como expresi\u00f3n de los estados de \u00e1nimo, y servir\u00eda de lanzadera, entre otros, al Expresionismo alem\u00e1n, al Fauvismo y al Futurismo. Sin embargo, Van Gogh sufri\u00f3 en vida la indiferencia de un p\u00fablico que ve\u00eda tras sus fieras pinceladas la mente de un lun\u00e1tico, de un individuo degenerado. Ir\u00f3nicamente, m\u00e1s de cien a\u00f1os despu\u00e9s de su muerte, sus obras alcanzan cifras astron\u00f3micas en las subastas. <\/p>\n

En 1892, el periodista y cr\u00edtico de arte alem\u00e1n Max Nordau escribi\u00f3 el tratado Entartung <\/em>(Degeneraci\u00f3n), en el que atacaba duramente a los prerrafaelitas y a los simbolistas, acus\u00e1ndoles de perturbados mentales \u2013de nuevo, degenerados\u2013, y proclamaba la superioridad de la cultura alemana. \u00c9ste y otros tratados racistas fueron cruciales en la forja ideol\u00f3gica del Nacionalsocialismo, cuyas riendas llevaba \u2013no debemos pasarlo por alto\u2013 un pintor frustrado, Adolf Hitler. En los a\u00f1os treinta, el gobierno nazi clausur\u00f3 museos de arte moderno por toda Alemania, confiscando m\u00e1s de 16.000 obras de arte consideradas, una vez m\u00e1s, \u201cdegeneradas\u201d. En palabras del propio Hitler: \u201cEs deber del Estado, y de sus l\u00edderes, impedir a un pueblo caer bajo la influencia de la locura espiritual\u201d. Para el F\u00fchrer, aquellas obras estaban tan sumamente alejadas de los c\u00e1nones tradicionales del realismo alem\u00e1n que no pod\u00edan ser sino abortos de cerebros enfermos, de jud\u00edos o de agitadores bolcheviques. Todos los \u201cismos\u201d cab\u00edan en aquel saco: Cubismo, Surrealismo, Dada\u00edsmo… Todos y cada uno de ellos deb\u00edan quedar simple y llanamente excluidos de la Historia del Arte. Muchas de estas obras confiscadas, las m\u00e1s valiosas, fueron reunidas en 1937 en la exposici\u00f3n itinerante Entartete Kunst <\/em> (Arte Degenerado) y posteriormente vendidas a marchantes extranjeros. El resto, aquellas que sus tasadores determinaron como obras menores, fueron quemadas en el \u201credentor\u201d fuego de Berl\u00edn de 1939. Artistas de la talla de Otto Dix, George Grosz, Paul Klee, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso y muchos otros fueron considerados como individuos peligrosos para el r\u00e9gimen nazi, y sus obras, eliminadas de los museos en aras de la purificaci\u00f3n de la cultura alemana. <\/p>\n

Han pasado m\u00e1s de sesenta a\u00f1os desde que finaliz\u00f3 la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Ha habido profundas revoluciones en el sentir, en el pensar, en el vivir en Occidente. Muchos de aquellos artistas anta\u00f1o vilipendiados son reconocidos hoy como grandes maestros. Las \u201cvanguardias\u201d se han convertido en cl\u00e1sicos. Est\u00e1n en las enciclopedias y pueblan las paredes de los museos. Hemos visto el auge y la ca\u00edda del expresionismo abstracto, del arte pop, del hiperrealismo, del op art, del arte cin\u00e9tico, del arte minimal, del arte conceptual, del neoexpresionismo de los ochenta… Si a principios del siglo xx, con las vanguardias, los caminos del arte se bifurcaron en una decena de direcciones distintas, despu\u00e9s de la Segunda Guerra Mundial lo hicieron en un centenar… Hasta llegar a la actualidad, donde hay tantos caminos como artistas. <\/p>\n

Ahora bien, est\u00e1 claro que Manet luchaba contra el academicismo, contra aquellas poses amaneradas carentes de sentido, contra aquel clasicismo est\u00e9ril que hu\u00eda de la realidad. Los expresionistas alemanes, por su parte, criticaron duramente los abusos de aquella sociedad decadente y fan\u00e1tica que encendi\u00f3 la mecha de la Primera Guerra Mundial. Pero, \u00bfcontra qu\u00e9 luchan los artistas de hoy? \u00bfQu\u00e9 nuevas formas de ver las cosas quieren mostrarnos? \u00bfQu\u00e9 pretenden hacer evolucionar? <\/p>\n

En 1989, Jeff Koons present\u00f3 al p\u00fablico una escultura de porcelana que mostraba a Michael Jackson con un chimpanc\u00e9. A\u00f1os despu\u00e9s, se casar\u00eda con la actriz porno italiana Cicciolina, editando para la ocasi\u00f3n un pornogr\u00e1fico libro de boda en el que los reci\u00e9n casados interpretaban sin tapujos todo tipo de acrobacias sexuales. En 1991, Marc Quinn se extrajo tres litros de su propia sangre para hacerse un autorretrato, un grotesco molde de su propia cabeza en sangre coagulada. La pieza fue adquirida por un coleccionista privado, el magnate de la publicidad Charles Saatchi. Tambi\u00e9n de 1991 data The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living <\/em> (La imposibilidad f\u00edsica de la muerte en la mente de alguien vivo), de Damien Hirst, un enorme tanque de cristal con un tibur\u00f3n muerto flotando en formaldeh\u00eddo con el que el artista pretend\u00eda mostrar que nadie sabe qu\u00e9 son en realidad los sentimientos. Un a\u00f1o despu\u00e9s, en 1992, Sarah Lucas expuso la obra Two Fried Eggs and a Kebab <\/em> (Dos huevos fritos y un kebab), que consist\u00eda en una mesa con dos huevos fritos de verdad y un kebab, que cada ma\u00f1ana se compraba en un \u201cd\u00f6ner kebab\u201d cercano. Y este mismo a\u00f1o, en arco , una galer\u00eda ha exhibido una r\u00e9plica tridimensional de la soldado Lynndie England torturando a un prisionero en la c\u00e1rcel de Abu Grahib. <\/p>\n

Evolucionar implica entrar en un mundo incierto y oscuro donde hay que dejar de lado los viejos principios y aceptar otros nuevos. Es un trance doloroso, como todos los cambios, y hay que ser valiente para recorrerlo. Quiz\u00e1s sea ese el motivo por el cual la visi\u00f3n de lo nuevo perturba a aquellos que est\u00e1n c\u00f3modamente asentados en los usos del pasado, aquellos que se niegan a evolucionar. No obstante, el arte actual parece tan ef\u00edmero como aquellos huevos fritos de Sarah Lucas que hab\u00eda que reponer cada d\u00eda. Todo tiene fecha de caducidad, cada pocos a\u00f1os el fen\u00f3meno art\u00edstico fluct\u00faa, muta, da giros de 180\u00ba. No hay movimientos, hay individuos, y sin que tengamos tiempo de saber qu\u00e9 nos quieren contar, aparecen otros y nos cuentan lo contrario. Los mensajes se superponen unos a otros, sin orden ni concierto, y las galer\u00edas est\u00e1n llenas de obras que nadie entiende. <\/p>\n

Me planteo la siguiente cuesti\u00f3n: Si un espectador cualquiera, cuando ve en una galer\u00eda, por ejemplo, el tibur\u00f3n de Damien Hirst se pregunta \u201c\u00bfQu\u00e9 tiene que ver esto con el arte?\u201d, o, yendo a\u00fan m\u00e1s lejos, \u201c\u00bfRealmente es esto reconocible como arte?\u201d, y concluye que ese objeto no es reconocible como arte y que, por lo tanto, es no-arte <\/em> o arte \u201cdegenerado\u201d, \u00bfqu\u00e9 podr\u00edamos deducir de esta apreciaci\u00f3n? \u00bfAcaso que este espectador es un infecto reaccionario aferrado como una lapa al pasado? \u00bfO, por el contrario, que tiene raz\u00f3n y aquello es una degeneraci\u00f3n de lo que se entiende como arte? A priori, la soluci\u00f3n a esta pregunta no parece f\u00e1cil. Unos pensar\u00e1n que no es arte, y otros, que s\u00ed, y ambos encontrar\u00e1n sobrados argumentos para defender sus posturas. Al fin y al cabo, son muchos los artistas incomprendidos en su \u00e9poca que fueron considerados genios por las generaciones posteriores. Qui\u00e9n sabe si, al igual que en su d\u00eda no se entendieron la Olympia <\/em> de Manet y los encendidos colores de Van Gogh, muchos no entendemos el tibur\u00f3n de Damien Hirst o las esculturas de Jeff Koons. Qui\u00e9n sabe si tampoco entendemos determinadas obras supuestamente \u201cvanguardistas\u201d que forman parte de las colecciones del Guggenheim, del Institut Valenci\u00e0 d’Art Modern o del Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona… o las que ganan cada a\u00f1o el prestigioso Premio Turner, o muchas de las que se exhiben en cada edici\u00f3n de arco . <\/p>\n

Pero lo que sinceramente me extra\u00f1a es que nunca se formen largas colas de irritados espectadores exigiendo la retirada de ninguna obra, ni siquiera la de aquellas que nadie comprende. Parece que, en general, el p\u00fablico de nuestros d\u00edas prefiere acariciarse suavemente el ment\u00f3n y entornar los ojos, queriendo hacer ver que comprende y aprecia todo lo que los artistas muestran, ya sea un animal disecado, una caca enlatada o un rostro de sangre coagulada. <\/p>\n

Degeneraci\u00f3n <\/strong>. 2. Pat <\/em>. Alteraci\u00f3n de los tejidos o elementos anat\u00f3micos, con cambios en la sustancia constituyente y p\u00e9rdida de sus caracteres funcionales. 3. Pat. <\/em> P\u00e9rdida progresiva de normalidad ps\u00edquica y moral y de las reacciones nerviosas de un individuo a consecuencia de las enfermedades adquiridas o hereditarias. ( rae ) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00abDegenerate\u00bb art<\/strong><\/p>\n

One could unquestionably say that a chimpanzee with horns and green feathers is not a chimpanzee. If anything, it is a non-chimpanzee <\/em>, a \u201cdegenerate\u201d example in the chimpanzee family. That is to say, an individual that has mutated to the extent of losing the essential characteristics typical of chimpanzees. Therefore, there is no way it can still be considered as part of that species. We can also say that a man who sexually abuses a child is degenerate. This is something which, quite certainly, almost the whole of the civilised world can agree on. <\/p>\n

Yet, applied to art, the term \u201cdegeneration\u201d becomes a lot more complex. In all, so as to state that the artistic legacy of a specific era or a group of artists is \u201cdegenerate,\u201d we would first have to define the characteristics of art, which is no mean feat. It is easy to agree on the characteristics common to chimpanzees, but not on what makes certain paintings, objects or symphonies be considered artistic phenomena, whilst others are not. <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the term \u201cdegeneration\u201d has been very present in the art of the last two centuries. When, in 1865, Manet exhibited his Olympia <\/em> for the very first time in the Salon des Refus\u00e9s, the work was considered degenerate. Contemplating the canvas were long queues of angry spectators who furiously waved their walking sticks demanding it be taken down immediately. For those irate men, it was not enough that the painting had been rejected in the official salon; they considered it unacceptable, and wanted it destroyed. We must bear in mind that the Salon des Refus\u00e9s (\u201cHall of Rejects\u201d) was, to use a contemporary term, an \u201calternative\u201d hall, where artists that had been rejected by the judges of the official salon were allowed to exhibit their works. What was it in Olympia <\/em> that caused such upheavals? How could the audience feel so uncomfortable merely by its existence? It could not be simply because it questioned the pillars of academic art. At the time, the most conservative part of society considered Olympia <\/em> a genuine terrorist attack against decency, which had to be combated with blood and fire, since it portrayed a \u201cwoman of the street\u201d \u2013the model was a well-known prostitute\u2013 showing her naked body, devoid of mythological alibis, looking straight at the viewer. It was an intolerable scandal that the Parisian bourgeoisie was not about to digest. <\/p>\n

Yet Manet, despite the rejection his work aroused, was a visionary artist, a man before his time, whose work would fertilise the garden where Impressionism bloomed a few years later. On the other hand, very few of those academic artists whose works were accepted in the official salon are remembered nowadays. <\/p>\n

Years after the Olympia <\/em>episode, Vincent van Gogh played the starring role in a chapter that is essential to understand the 20 th century avant-gardes. Between 1884 and 1890, his palette travelled the long route that separates the dark colours of The Potato Eaters <\/em> from the blue skies and the fields of wheat flooded with sunlight of his Arles paintings. His work would open one of the doors most used by modern art: the door that led to colour as the expression of moods, and would act as a launching pad for, among others, German Expressionism, Fauvism and Futurism. Nonetheless, whilst he was alive, Van Gogh experienced the indifference of an audience who saw in his fierce brushstrokes the mind of a lunatic, of a degenerate individual. Ironically, over one hundred years after his death, his works are currently auctioned for astronomical prices. <\/p>\n

In 1892, German journalist and art critic Max Nordau wrote the treaty Entartung <\/em>(Degeneration), in which he harshly attacked pre-Raphaelites and symbolists, calling them mentally disturbed \u2013once again, degenerates\u2013, and proclaimed the superiority of the German culture. This document and other racist treaties were essential in the forging of National Socialism, whose reigns were in the hands of \u2013lest we forget\u2013 a frustrated painter, Adolf Hitler. In the 1930s, the Nazi government closed modern art museums throughout Germany, confiscating over 16,000 artworks considered, once again, \u201cdegenerate.\u201d According to Hitler himself: \u201cThe State, and its leaders, must stop the people from falling under the influence of this spiritual madness.\u201d In the F\u00fchrer’s opinion, those works were so removed from the traditional canons of German realism that they could be nothing but abortions created by sick minds, by Jews or Bolshevik agitators. There was room for all the \u201cisms\u201d in that sack: Cubism, Surrealism, Dadaism… All and every one of them should be clearly and simply removed from Art History. Many of the confiscated works of art, the most valuable among them, were gathered in 1937 in an itinerant exhibition Entartete Kunst <\/em> (Degenerate Art) and then sold to foreign art dealers. The rest, those which the assessors considered minor works, were burnt in the \u201credeeming\u201d fire of Berlin in 1939. Artists as important as Otto Dix, George Grosz, Paul Klee, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso and many others were considered dangerous individuals by the Nazi regime, and their works were removed from museums in the interests of achieving the purification of the German culture. <\/p>\n

It is now over sixty years since the end of World War II. Many profound revolutions have risen in terms of feeling, thinking and living in the West. Many of the artists insulted in times gone by are now recognised as great Masters. The \u201cavant-gardes\u201d have become classics. They appear in encyclopaedias and inhabit the walls of museums. We have seen the rise and fall of abstract expressionism, pop art, hyperrealism, op art, kinetic art, minimal art, conceptual art, the neo-expressionism of the eighties… If in the early 20 th century, with the avant-gardes, the paths art travelled forked out into dozens of different directions, after World War II they diverged into hundreds… Until our times, when there are as many paths as there are artists. <\/p>\n

Nonetheless, Manet evidently fought against academicism, against those affected poses lacking in meaning, against that sterile classicism that fled from reality. On the other hand, German expressionists strongly criticised the abuses of that decadent and fanatical society that lit the wick of World War I. Yet, what are contemporary artists fighting against? What new ways of seeing things do they want to show us? What do they want to develop? <\/p>\n

In 1989, Jeff Koons presented a porcelain sculpture that depicted Michael Jackson with a chimpanzee. Years later, he married Italian porn star Cicciolina, and published a wedding book to mark the occasion, in which the newlyweds unabashedly performed all types of sexual acrobatics. In 1991, Marc Quinn extracted three litres of his own blood to paint a self-portrait, a grotesque model of his own head painted in clotted blood. The piece was bought by a private collector, advertising tycoon Charles Saatchi. The year 1991 also saw the arrival of Damien Hirst’s The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living <\/em>, an enormous glass tank with a dead shark floating in formaldehyde with which the artist aimed to show that nobody really knows what feelings are. A year later, in 1992, Sarah Lucas exhibited the work Two Fried Eggs and a Kebab <\/em>, comprising a table with two real fried eggs and a kebab, which she bought each morning at a nearby \u201cd\u00f6ner kebab house.\u201d This year, at arco in Madrid, a gallery has exhibited a three-dimensional replica of Private Lynndie England torturing a prisoner at the Abu Grahib jail. <\/p>\n

Evolving means entering an uncertain, dark world where one has to put old principles aside and accept new values. It is a painful trance, as are all changes, and requires courage. Perhaps that is why the vision of the new perturbs those who are comfortably positioned in the uses of the past, those who refuse to evolve. Nonetheless, contemporary art seems as ephemeral as Sarah Lucas’ fried eggs that had to be replaced everyday. Everything has a sell by date, every few years the artistic phenomenon fluctuates, mutates, makes a 180\u00ba turn. There are no movements, there are individuals, and without us having the time to find out what they want to tell us, others appear and tell us the opposite. Messages overlap, without rhyme or reason, and galleries are full of works that nobody understands. <\/p>\n

I wonder, if a viewer, any viewer, walks through a gallery and contemplates, for example, Damien Hirst’s shark and asks him or herself \u201cWhat does this have to do with art?,\u201d or, taking it a step further, \u201cCan this actually be recognised as art?,\u201d and comes to the conclusion that said object cannot be recognised as art and that it is, therefore, non-art <\/em> or \u201cdegenerate\u201d art, what can we make of this opinion? Perhaps that the viewer is a foul reactionary hanging on to the past with all his or her might? Or, on the contrary, perhaps he or she right, and said object is a degeneration of what is considered art? A priori, the solution to this question is far from simple. Some will think it is not art, others will think it is, and both will find a more than enough arguments to defend their opinions. Altogether, many artists have been misunderstood in their era and considered geniuses by subsequent generations. Who knows if, just as nobody understood Manet’s Olympia <\/em> and Van Gogh’s vibrant colours, many of us do not understand Damien Hirst’s shark or Jeff Koons’ sculptures. Furthermore, who knows if we do not understand certain so-called \u201cavant-garde\u201d works that are part of the collections on show at the Guggenheim, the Institut Valenci\u00e0 d’Art Modern or the Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona… or those that are awarded the prestigious Turner Prize, or many of the works exhibited at each edition of arco . <\/p>\n

Yet what genuinely astounds me is that there are never long queues of angry spectators demanding the withdrawal of any of the works, not even those which nobody understands. It seems that, in general, the audience of our times seems to prefer to fondle their chin softly and half close their eyes, acting as if they understand and see everything the artists display, be it a stuffed animal, a canned shit or a face with clotted blood. Translation: Laura F. Farhall <\/p>\n

Degeneration <\/strong>. 2 a: progressive deterioration of physical characters from a level representing the norm of earlier generations or forms : <\/strong> regression of the morphology of a group or kind of organism toward a simpler less highly organized state b: deterioration of a tissue or an organ in which its vitality is diminished or its structure impaired; especially <\/em>: <\/strong> deterioration in which specialized cells are replaced by less specialized cells or in which cells are functionally impaired (Merriam-Webster).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Autor: Jes\u00fas Galiana Revista: L\u00c1PIZ Revista Internacional de Arte n\u00ba 212 Se podr\u00eda afirmar sin dudarlo que un chimpanc\u00e9 con cuernos y plumas verdes no es un chimpanc\u00e9. En todo caso, es un no-chimpanc\u00e9 , un ejemplar \u201cdegenerado\u201d dentro de la familia de los chimpanc\u00e9s. Es decir, un individuo que ha mutado tanto que ha […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[444,351,400],"class_list":["post-46193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articulos","tag-arte","tag-articulo-html","tag-lapiz-revista-internacional-de-arte"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46193"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46193\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48418,"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46193\/revisions\/48418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/formacionsimple.com\/revistasculturales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}