This essay by the art critic Roberto Suárez clearly demonstrates some of the resistance to modern art that existed in Colombia in the 1920s and 1930s. Suárez expresses his resistance to modern art based on language; in his essay, he endorses and describes a vision of “synthesist art” that he considers to be the legacy of an enduring artistic tradition. He thinks that in particular, Futurism, Cubism, and Dadaism will not lead to the development of an aesthetic tradition, much less an undying culture. On the contrary, he claims that these movements break with “the traditions” that, according to him, are the only vehicle capable of building civilizations.
Suárez only appreciates and mentions the artists whose work falls within the parameters of his own preferred vision of art. This essay clearly indicates the kind of resistance to modernism that flourished in the early twentieth century in Colombia. This critic does not base his opposition to modern art on political considerations, as according to some art historians, in the case of the Colombian politician Laureano Gómez (who was president in 1950–1951), who criticized certain Expressionist artists in the 1940s. Neither does Suárez resort to partisan distinctions (as when the tag “liberal/conservative” is linked to the notion of “progressive artist/reactionary artist”), let alone to epithets such as “nationalist,” “indigenist,” and/or “regional customs” art, as traditional art historiography tended to label the work of many artists in Colombia during that period.