This is an essay on Miguel von Dangel by curator Lourdes Blanco, written for the exhibition Cincoincidentes (Museo de Barquisimeto, 1984), wherein she defines his creation as a “desahogo para un torrente de sensaciones que presionan su conciencia”[relief from a torrent of emotions that weigh on his conscience]. She comments von Dangel’s first shows, in 1965, analyzing different aspects: his style “agresivamente expresionista” [aggressively expressionistic], his context within the currents of universal art, his artistic maturity, and his psychological motivations. She analyzes in detail the work he exhibited in Diario (1979) and she considers that the artist’s “cuya obra ha sido objeto de mayores escrutinios” [whose work has been object of the greater scrutiny] within his generation. She reaffirms this by quoting Venezuelan critics of different generations.

For the Cincoincidentes exhibition catalogue, Venezuelan critic and curator Lourdes Blanco (n. 1941) wrote an individual essay for each of the five participating artists: Miguel von Dangel (n. 1946), Eugenio Espinoza [See the ICAA digital archive: (doc. no. 1097342)], Felipe Márquez (doc. no. 1097374), Alfred Wenemoser (doc. no. 1097390), and Roberto Obregón (doc. no. 1097358). The show, held at the Museo de Barquisimeto, in the state of Lara, Venezuela in 1984, was organized by the designers Álvaro Sotillo and Ibrahim Nebreda. The author does not establish relationships among the five artists, she only highlights individual characteristics rather than similar features [among them]. Although the essay follows a monographic structure, it is clear that — while [the artist] began his career in the mid-1960s— he actually belongs to the “artists of the 1970s.” In other words, his work does not fall within conceptualism, and instead he is linked to the other “cincoincidentes.” In her judgment, von Dangel’s art coincides with “Nordic expressionism” and “the cry of the wild,” and she stresses that von Dangel’s work has continued to create a mysterious fascination among artists and critics “who frequent it.” Blanco bases her text on an axiology whose valuation and judgments have been produced by traditional critics such as Francisco d’Antonio and Perán Erminy, as well as by “his most recent historian”, Francisco Márquez. Blanco’s vision of this “inquiring artist,” since he was devoted to the study of the predecessors with whom he shared affinities, is of interest. She explains his work from an aesthetic, symbolic, and psychological perspective —and even with regard to form in the tradition of narrative sculpture (in line with North American Edward Kienholz)— and concludes that Diario is the “most important and personal work of the artist through 1984” (the year of the exhibition) when he undertook “a search for a connection with the tradition of modern Western art.” [For other critical writing on his work, see the ICAA digital archive: by Yasmin Monsalve “Mi obra ha tenido que luchar contra muchos prejuicios: Un premio nacional visto con la luz de Petare” (doc. no. 1102125); by Elsa Flores, both “Miguel von Dangel: La respuesta latinoamericana (I)” (doc. no. 1155150) as well as “Miguel von Dangel: La respuesta latinoamericana (III)” (doc. no. 1154906) and “Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1056044); by Roberto Montero Castro “Transfiguraciones de Miguel von Dangel”  (doc. no.1153996); essays by María Luz Cárdenas “La Batalla de San Romano de von Dangel (I) (doc. no. 1154028) and “La Batalla de San Romano de von Dangel (II)” (doc. no. 1154092); by Ruth Auerbach “Hoy, el paisaje es aquí y ahora”  (doc. no. 855314); and by Lourdes Blanco “Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1097326); and the following interviews, by Axel Stein “Interview with Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1102348); “Entrevista con Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1154060); and by María Josefa Pérez “Miguel von Dangel: No creo el cuento de que Reverón era loco”  (doc. no. 1154012); and finally the article by Víctor Guédez “Lo barroco y lo simbólico en la obra de Miguel von Dangel”  (doc. no. 1154124)].