In response to the aesthetic opinions expressed by the architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland, who vehemently denied any influence between society and art, the author states that it is obvious that “the great art movements have had an influence on the society of their period,” as in the case of Romanticism and the Renaissance. Those who take the opposite view fail to grasp that the influences between art and the spiritual mood (or “cosmo-vision”) of a period are “functionally reciprocal.” The author also disputes the architect’s view that art is “a way of being and not a way of behaving” since, according to Francisco Miró Quesada Cantuarias, one of the most distinguishing features of modern thought “is having overcome the hiatus between being and acting.” He also rejects the notion that art’s sole function should be political, and deplores the tone of the debate between “two camps” (abstract vs. figurative) that judge art according to “proselytizing” rather than “cognitive” criteria.

In this article Cantuarias responds to the modernist architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland’s comments concerning the conclusions that he (Cantuarias) drew from the survey about “classical” painting and “modern” painting that appeared in the “Cátedra Libre” section of the Sunday supplement published by El Comercio, a Lima newspaper, from May 29 to July 10, 1955. From May 29 to July 3, 1955 the “Cátedra Libre” section of the Sunday supplement of the Lima newspaper El Comercio published a survey about the aesthetic value of “modern” art as compared to “classical” art. [See the following articles in the ICAA digital archive, written by Cantuarias and published in El Comercio: “Pintura clásica y pintura moderna” [Classical painting and modern painting] (doc. no. 1137375); “¿Por qué se ha transformado la pintura?” [Why has painting changed?] (doc. no. 1137463); “¿Qué prefiere Ud., pintura clásica o pintura moderna?” [Which do you prefer, classical painting or modern painting] (doc. no. 1137399); “¿Es la pintura moderna respecto de la clásica, culminación o retroceso?” [As compared to classical painting, is modern painting an improvement on what came before or a step back?] (doc. no. 1137431); “En blanca y negra (19 de junio de 1955)” [In Black and White (June 19, 1955] (doc. no. 1137495); and “¿Por qué se ha transformado la pintura?” [Why has painting changed?] (doc. no. 1137512)]. The subject remained controversial after a year of almost continuous debate on the question of abstract art. A number of Peruvian intellectuals and artists replied to the survey, many of whom played leading roles in the discussions about non-figurative art that were taking place at that time, including the architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland (1914–94), the abstract painter Fernando de Szyszlo (b. 1925), the poet Alejandro Romualdo Valle (1926–2008), and the social-realist painter Alfredo Ruiz Rosas (1926–2002). According to Francisco Miró Quesada Cantuarias (b. 1918)—the lead writer of the section and editor of the supplement—the replies indicated an understanding of the differences and similarities between “modern” and “classical” art, but also reflected the polarization of local opinion that was radically split between supporters and critics of abstract art. Despite the objective nature of his comments, Cantuarias also took a position when he identified “figuration” with “significance.” [See “Cátedra libre: en el Perú se reconoce el valor de la pintura moderna. Dos direcciones de importancia: pintura moderna y pintura significativa” (doc. no. 1137563)]. This prompted an immediate response from the main ideological champion of modernist art in Peru, Luis Miró Quesada Garland, who described abstraction as art that was both “significant” and transcendent on its own terms. On a theoretical level, however, the debate revealed ambiguities in many basic areas of the discussion, such as the actual concept of “abstract” [see the five articles by Garland entitled “En blanca y negra” (doc. no. 1137612 ), (doc. no. 1137595), (doc. no. 1137661); (doc. no. 1137678); (doc. no. 1137712); and two others, entitled “En blanco y negra” (doc. no. 1137761) and “Sobre el significado del arte” (doc. no. 1137695). See also the articles by Cantuarias: both entitled “Sobre el significado del arte” (doc. no. 1226970) and (doc. no. 1137729)].