In this [1986] article, Miguel von Dangel contemplates contemporary Venezuelan art, as he sees it in the evolution of Western art. He believes that there has been a certain arbitrariness and exhibitionism in contemporary art practices in Venezuela in the past two decades; these will have no long-term impact in relation to the issues of Western art. In addition, von Dangel thinks that the visual arts express a system of thought. The writer observes (through the filter of Western art history) that today’s artists sign up for one trend or the other: one that finds or “protests and confirms the loss of God” or another that pertains to the “technocrat” sank in an aligned world of its own invention. The article concludes with a review of and homage to the work of Joseph Beuys.

In this article, the Venezuelan artist born in Germany, Miguel von Dangel (b. 1946), states his perspective on the history of Western art, whose paradigm represents the ideals his work upholds. It is a paradigm seen as a symbolic manifestation of a higher, transcendent order, based on nature, God and Latin American mythology. Thus, von Dangel classifies the debates and confrontations that arise in contemporary art into two trends: one that is naturalistic (including his own work); the other, technocratic (which he rejects). In the artist’s opinion, technocracy is at the heart of the problems of art today, when man, having turned his back on God, they denature the “object and objective” of the art. Although he does not specifically develop the theme identified in the title (“Demonología y arte”), we may infer that those two terms encapsulate the two trends of his diatribe. From another point of view, this article entails a new rejection of abstract art trends, understood by Dangel as trends that denaturalize objects. He believes these trends give rise to all the new languages that “collapse” today’s Venezuelan art; examples are Conceptual art, environmental art, happenings and action poetry. Starting in 1985, Miguel von Dangel published a series of articles in the daily newspaper El Universal (Caracas) in which he shared his thoughts on art, Latin American culture and history. In these dense meditations, the artist mixes fragments of his diaries (as in this case) with vehement arguments filled with suggestions, metaphors and memories. All these erupt into the discourse, resulting in a “baroque quality” that is reflective of his own artwork. [For other critical texts on his work, see the ICCA 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); three texts by Elsa Flores: “Miguel von Dangel: La respuesta latinoamericana (I)” (doc. no. 1155150), “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); two 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); by Axel Stein “Interview with Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1102348); and by María Valera “Entrevista con Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1154060). The list includes the text by María Josefa Pérez “Miguel von Dangel: No creo el cuento de que Reverón era loco” (doc. no. 1154012); and finally, there is an article by Víctor Guédez “Lo barroco y lo simbólico en la obra de Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1154124)].