In this article, Samuel Pérez Barreto argues that there is a connection between Fernando de Szyszlo’s polemic statement “there are no painters in Peru” and writer Juan Ríos’s assertion in response that there are excellent painters in the country but not “a school of Peruvian painting.” Making reference to sculptor Cristina Gálvez’s opinions, he voices the position that contemporary Peruvian artists must try to reconcile the deepest expressions of Western culture with the experiences of the remote indigenous past. Looking to his own review of the show of abstract works by Fernando de Szyszlo held in Lima in 1951, he underscores the artistic search for “the depths of Peruvian reality, which has been dormant in this continent for many centuries.” He thus disputes de Szyszlo’s statements and the statements of the Agrupación Espacio, which argues that the correspondence between Peru and the West is absolute. Pérez Barreto states that “our media, our systems, our paths would be of no use for Europe.” He believes that Peruvian painting must pursue its own proposals and look for its own solutions; it must avoid being seduced by appearances. Pérez Barreto disagrees with Ríos that “non-figuration” implies a dehumanization of art because it evades reality since, he argues, the pure visual element is also existent and real. What there is is a clear opposition between an “objective” reality and a “subjective” or internal reality, and on that basis he defines the specificity of abstraction as “leaving painting of human forms for the sake of painting with human contents.”

In this text, critic and librettist Samuel Pérez Barreto sums up and remarks on the debate unleashed by Fernando de Szyszlo’s brazen statement on the “nonexistence” of painters in Peru. That statement, published in La Prensa newspaper (Lima, June 2, 1951), was made in the context of an exhibition of his abstract paintings at the Asociación de Arquitectos del Perú. 

De Szyszlo’s show was, generally speaking, favorably reviewed, though influential Peruvian critic Carlos Raygada (1898–1953) did have some reservations [see in the ICAA digital archive “De arte: exposición Szyszlo” (doc. no. 1150738)]. The overall belligerent tone of de Szyszlo’s rebuttal was overshadowed by his now-famous statement in La Prensa newspaper: “there are no painters in Peru” (doc. no. 1137793). His open contempt for contemporary art from his country gave rise to an irate reaction from Peruvian artists and intellectuals and earned him a leading role in the first debate in Peru on non-figurative art. [For additional information, see the following articles: (unsigned) “Pintores peruanos hay, lo que aún no hay es pintura peruana: dice Juan Ríos y agrega que la pintura abstracta es pobre e inhumana” (doc. no. 1137808); (unsigned) “Cristina Gálvez opina que sí hay pintores en el Perú: citó a cuatro: ‘Hay que ser muy intelectual para ser abstracto’ dijo y añadió luego ‘Szyszlo no es intelectual’” (doc. no. 1150897); Sérvulo Gutiérrez’s “Qué arte abstracto ni que nada, el arte es esencialmente uno... lo que debe hacer el pintor es ‘pintar’” (doc. no. 1150851); (unsigned) “Gran problema del arte peruano es la falta de críticos: ‘Xanno’: Alejandro Romualdo Valle agregó que los que escriben sobre arte son improvisados o huachafos” (doc. no. 1150928); Federico Costa y Laurent’s “La ‘polémica de los pintores’” (doc. no. 1150866); (unsigned) “‘Julia Codesido y Sabogal son buenos pintores’: Aquilles Ralli cree, además, que muchos sólo buscan la fama por medio de la publicidad” (doc. no. 1150882); Juan Ríos’s “El debate sobre pintura: carta del Sr. Juan Ríos R.” (doc. no. 1150912) and “Balance de una polémica: cuatro preguntas fundamentales” (doc. no. 1137882); and Ángel Guido’s “A los pintores peruanos” (doc. no. 1150943)].

Though intentionally provocative, the statement “there are no painters in Peru” made reference to the lack of local points of reference for any artist interested in participating in the most recent international trends. The most ornery issues in the debate were the terms that should be used to define local modern art, suggesting early differences among Peruvian progressive intellectuals. By defending “earthly abstraction” as the sole option for Peruvian art, critic Samuel Pérez Barreto (1921–2003) found himself up against fellow former members of the Agrupación Espacio, a group that vehemently rejected any partisan and totalizing view that identified “the national” with “the Andean.”