Painter and sculptor Alejandro Otero [Rodríguez] develops the third and final part of his response to Miguel Otero Silva (“Conceptos concretos sobre el arte abstracto”) [Specific Concepts of Abstract Art]; within the text he discusses how Kandinsky and Mondrian were part of the new artistic expression in Europe and how it has conceptually and formally changed through the years. These changes can be explained with reference to those observed in Western art and according to the needs of man. Alejandro reiterates his admiration for medieval art here, wherein artisans and artists worked on common projects against the individualism of the Renaissance that would favor isolated works; in his judgment, abstract art is an innovative language that expresses a totally new reality.

Of the three parts into which Venezuelan artist and critic Alejandro Otero (1921–1990) divides his lengthy reply to the “Conceptos concretos sobre el arte abstracto” [Concrete Concepts of Abstract Art] by journalist Miguel Otero Silva, this last part could be considered the most purist and doctrinaire. The language assumes a tension that reflects a deep faith in what is preached and practiced; it is not a coincidence that [the author] defends medieval art, so reviled by Miguel’s “humanist” and secular posture. The modernity of Alejandro’s thinking is based within the German Bauhaus movement prior to World War II. The painter, while promoting changes to naturalistic representation, rejects the journalist’s antiquated vision of abstract art as if the latter had been limited to the original ideas of its European creators. On this occasion (once he had moved beyond the simple confrontation of ideas with his opponent), Alejandro explains with greater freedom the deep and sincere motivations that inform his art; explaining the lack of comprehension of this same [art] to “prejuicios de la incultura” [prejudice born of ignorance] or to the “falta de difusion de la obra artística” [lack of dissemination of the artwork]. He does not overlook the opportunity to affirm that cooperation on collective work is more in accordance with the modern world than to create in a solitary fashion for the enjoyment of an exclusive owner. The debate was covered abroad (Colombia, Cuba, and Argentina) and these sources have been reproduced on various occasions (1957, 1967, 1976, 1980, 1993, 2001).

To continue reading [Alejandro Otero’s] response to Miguel Otero Silva, see the ICAA digital archive: “Réplica a Miguel Otero Silva: I” [Response to Miguel Otero Silva: I] (doc. no. 1097124); y “Réplica a Miguel Otero Silva: II” [Response to Miguel Otero Silva: II] (doc. no. 1097140)].

To see more on Miguel Otero Silva’s arguments against abstract art published in 1957, see the ICAA digital archive:  “I : Un Relato necesario: Conceptos concretos sobre la pintura abstracta” [A Necessary Account: Specific Concepts of Abstract Painting] (doc. no. 855537); “II: Una división sin contenido plástico: Conceptos concretos sobre la pintura abstracta” [II: A Division Without Artistic Content: Specific Concepts of Abstract Painting] (doc. no. 855992); “III: Aparición y desarrollo del abstraccionismo: Conceptos concretos sobre la pintura abstracta” [III: The Appearance and Development of Abstract Painting: Specific Concepts of Abstract Art] (doc. no. 856012); and “IV: Ubicación social del abstraccionismo: Conceptos concretos sobre la pintura abstracta” [IV: Social Position of Abstract Art: Specific Concepts of Abstract Painting] (doc. no. 856031].