This article, which is the virulent response by Argentine art critic Marta Traba (1923–1983) to a column by Colombian artist Gonzalo Ariza (1912–1995), reveals Traba’s thinking on the autonomy of art criticism, and on the importance of its theoretical basis. She states bluntly that “painters should not express their opinions of art critics, whether they are for or against them, in public.” In Traba’s view, Ariza’s article entitled “Tango y pintura” [see doc. no.1129558] is entirely lacking in ideas. Traba defends the independence of her criticism as well as its basis, stating that the only criteria she uses to judge a work of art is axiological—mainly, the work’s pictorial or visual value.
In defining the critic as an “intellectual who works with aesthetic concepts,” Traba distances herself from the Colombian art tradition established in the late nineteenth century. According to historian and critic Carmen María Jaramillo, in that tradition art criticism was not entrusted to those versed in the visual arts, but to men of letters who lacked an innovative vision of art and rarely engaged in reflection on the artistic expressions of the moment [see doc. no. 1094156].
In the article that gave rise to the polemic—“Problemas del arte en Latinoamérica” [doc. no.1061697]—Traba asserts that a Latin American artist has two options: either “to err patriotically […] or to imitate a foreign model.” Ariza picks up on that assertion in his column. Traba’s statement must be understood within the context of her categorical condemnation of Mexican muralism, which she considered a conventional system of representation, and of her insistence that Latin American art would find its own identity through dialogue with universal art.