This is an anonymous art-criticism article (by R. M.) about the Salón de 1910 [1910 Salon], published on the first page of the conservative newspaper, La Unidad. The writer begins with the hypothesis that the senses are the essential instrument for an artist, and that is why an artist’s work is bound to the imitation of nature. Based on this naturalist idea, the critic analyzes the work of three of the artists participating in the exhibition. The first is Ricardo Acevedo Bernal, about whom it is stated that none of his works was executed for this event; however, his presence was justified, because he was already a well-known artist. The critic points out several of his portraits in which we can see the artist’s commitment to imitation and perspective. Moreover, the article assures us that Acevedo Bernal is “the most idealistic of the Colombian painters,” while deploring the artist’s limited “effectiveness in color.” Moving on, the critic maintains that as a painter, Andrés de Santamaría is much more realistic than Acevedo Bernal. Granted that Santamaría’s work is well executed and the artist has a suitable mastery of anatomy, in general, the writer finds the paintings to be largely based on simple and common ideas. He points out one Santamaría painting on independence, emphasizing the proper use of the drawing, but in this case, the critic regards the landscape as haphazardly placed in the composition. The article also highlights other paintings by this artist, especially some portraits in which the use of color is deemed indiscriminate. In the critic’s opinion, Santamaría also uses excessive blurring, which takes importance away from the figure represented. The last artist discussed by the anonymous writer is Eugenio Zerda; here the critic focuses in on some of Zerda’s works. In his opinion, the painter has gradually become “the artist of domestic scenes,” whose task is unique and identifiable. In general, the critic refers to the good stances in which the artist has placed his figures and the proper perspective; however, the handling of color remains weak. He refers to several portraits in which the lines are well executed, though [again], the use of color is weak. Finally, the article highlights several landscapes in which the writer laments the violent, exaggerated color tones.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Bogotá, art criticism was performed by a group of non-professional critics. Most of these attorneys, linguists, politicians and writers who were art aficionados commented, discussed or put forth arguments about exhibitions held in the Colombian capital. La Unidad was a newspaper published by Laureano Gómez, who, in addition to being a well-known politician (and president of Colombia during the 1950s), was himself a connoisseur and arts enthusiast. This newspaper published four articles about the 1910 Salon. What is unique about these texts is that the writers are completely unknown to us today, whether because they did not sign their articles or because they used pseudonyms. Or perhaps they are unknown because their names were not among the regular critics of the time; for the most part, art criticism was written by Max Grillo (1868–1949) and Gustavo Santos (1892?1967). Going beyond the identity of those who wrote about the Exposición del Centenario [Centenary Expo], what was most important was both the content and the defense mounted about certain aesthetic postulates. For example, in the document at hand, the reviewer emphasizes the imitation of nature as one of art’s main objectives. Therefore, the criticisms applied to the artists, Ricardo Acevedo Bernal (1867?1930), Andrés de Santamaría (1860–1945) and Eugenio Zerda (1878?1945) rest on the mimetic nature of their works; this is turned into an explicit defense of realism and the concept that art themes must be tied to reality.

Regarding the 1910 Salon, the person in charge of the Expo was Andrés de Santamaría, the Colombian artist trained in Paris, which did not prevent him from entering works into the event. As one of the few criticisms that report on the presence of the painter, this document reaffirms a problem that existed since 1904, both for adherents of Impressionism and for Santamaría and his critics. For all these artists, the academic aesthetic was the only path available to a Colombian artist of that time. In general, the critic who wrote this article had an unfavorable opinion of Santamaría’s works. While he stated that the artist could draw with mastery and displayed evident knowledge of anatomy, he emphasized that these works could be reduced to simple ideas, with no need for the deep contemplation that paintings should inspire. Undoubtedly, this criticism of Santamaría corroborated the traditional art-language trend that prevailed during the early twentieth century in Bogotá. It is worth mentioning that in 1911, one year after the Colombian Centenary of Independence, Santamaría permanently relocated to Europe, with no intention of exhibiting his works in his country of origin ever again.