According to the essayist Pedro Lobos, the exhibition of works by the young painter Gabriel Bracho represents an evolutionary trend in the history of art in which the subject and its anecdotes play an essential role; the difference being that, in earlier times, those features reflected the lives of the ruling classes. Bracho’s painting, however—in Lobos’ opinion—acknowledges a legitimate desire to reflect the ambitions and honor the struggles of ordinary people as part of the drama of human life. Lobos thus sees Bracho’s painting as part of a progressive universal aesthetic, mainly on the basis of its social themes, communicative power, and passionate ideological commitment. The essayist nonetheless sees certain technical inconsistencies in some of Bracho’s works, suggesting that the artist need only hone his command of the formal expression that breathes life into his art.

The author of this essay, Pedro Lobos (1918–68), was a Chilean essayist and mural painter who received a grant to study in Mexico in the 1930s. His subsequent work focused on traditional and rural themes, influenced by the Mexican muralist movement of the period. Lobos claims to know Gabriel Bracho’s work very well, and explains that he and the painter are friends. The essayist’s critique draws on aspects of historic materialism and applies them to art, thus drawing attention to the intent of Bracho’s work and placing it in a social context that reflects his concept of universal modern culture. In his essay, Lobos mentions the work that Bracho did in Chile in terms of the example he set for young Chilean painters, implying that Bracho was politically active and spoke out on political issues, seeking to spread revolutionary ideals on his extensive travels during that period. Although Lobos critiques some of the artist’s technical awkwardness, he speaks favorably about his subject matter, and seems to justify the awkwardness in terms of the power, passion, and communication that are required of this kind of political art. Lobos thus suggests that, though Bracho’s work is irregular, it has the potential to move on to greater achievements. In so doing, he refutes some art critics—in Chile and in Venezuela—who sought to diminish or discount this young Venezuelan’s paintings. Lobos’ review also echoes the opinions of others who distrust the “abstractionist aesthetic.” This shows that the dispute between the Figurative and Abstract camps raged far and wide in those days.  

For more information on Bracho’s work, see the article by Juan Liscano “Gabriel Bracho” [doc. no. 850217]; the article by Héctor Mujica “Excelencias de un pintor comprometido” [doc. no. 845986]; the article by Guillermo Alfredo Cook “Bracho sacrifica lo más caro a todo artista: la Libertad” [doc. no. 850751]; and the review by Manuel García Hernández “El mensaje de Gabriel Bracho es neo-americano: cartas de Buenos Aires” [doc. no. 1101870].