In the context of remarks on an exhibition of work by painter Mario Urteaga and the public acquisition of a large set of works by academic portraitist Carlos Baca-Flor, this text by Luis Miró Quesada Garland voices criticism of nationalism in art. In his view, “the Peruvian-ness of painting is not a quality but a description” that entails only a few “common traits” among fairly heterogeneous artists. He asserts that there is no relation between the value of a given work and its degree of adherence to the dubious “Peru-painting” equation. He envisions the human being as an individual, product of an environment that cannot be reduced to the nation; art and politics are, he argues, two distinct realms. From that perspective, Miró Quesada condemns any systematic valorization of Urteaga’s landscape paintings; the “value” of the work does not reside in the fact that it represents certain places. Similarly, Miró Quesada questions the decision to acquire works by “famous” painter Baca-Flor, works that he considers merely academic. He believes that art must address the picture “as chromatic plane.”

This document marks the beginning of one of the culminating debates between the faction of Peruvian modernists known as “artepuristas” and supporters of “socially committed art.” Here, architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland (1914–94) discusses the problem of nationalism in painting. In the modernist debates over this issue—debates that began in June 1951 with statements by painter Fernando de Szyszlo (b. 1925) [see in the ICAA digital archive “Dice Fernando Syszlo que no hay pintores en el Perú ni América: el joven pintor peruano declara sentir su pintura y la de los demás pero no puede explicarla” (doc. no. 1137793)]—critic Samuel Pérez Barreto (1921–2003) defended earthly abstraction as the only possible means to devise art both “Peruvian” and modern [see his texts “Pintura: la guerra de los pintores: plumas por pinceles” (doc. no. 1137839), “Arte: la guerra de los pintores” (doc. no. 1137856), and “Polémica: ‘polémica Espacio’” (doc. no. 1137916)]. Despite Pérez Barreto’s position, the terms of the debate that ensued over the course of the fifties pitted programmatic and figurative nationalism against an abstract language committed solely to art (the position upheld by Miró Quesada Garland in this text). The exhibition of work by independent Indianist artist Mario Urteaga (1875–1957) in mid-September 1955 brought back to the table the relationship between “nation” and “art”; while local critics were unanimous in their praise for Urteaga, they were divided on the grounds for it. Still more problematic was the case of Carlos Baca-Flor (1867–1941), an academic painter whose work was acquired by the Peruvian State because considered “of national interest”—this despite the fact that, as an adult, the painter had only resided in the country for three years. Writer Sebastián Salazar Bondy (1924–65) even projected the tensions between “the visual arts” and “nationalism” onto the past. He gave a lecture entitled “Cómo la pintura ha buscado al Perú” that constructed a systematic history on the basis of the “Peru-painting” equation (Lima, September 12, 1955). The lecture was later published in three parts: [“El arte colonial entendido como represión” (doc. no. 1138058), “Los que intentan vencer el complejo” (doc. no. 1138075), and “Hallazgo de la realidad perdida: siglo XX” (doc. no. 1138092)]. It suggests Salazar Bondy’s negative opinions of Peruvian colonial art, opinions he would later voice in his Lima la horrible (1964)—a book pivotal to the generation of artists from the sixties. This column by Miró Quesada Garland—a major framer of modern art and architecture in Peru—is one of the most acute questionings of the nationalist discourse. In it, he makes ironic reference to the “Peru-painting” equation as a contradictory comparison of terms political and artistic. Salazar Bondy’s response led to an extensive exchange of articles between the two men [for additional information, see another article of “En blanca y negra” (doc. no. 1138772)]. In mid-1954, Miró Quesada Garland and Salazar Bondy had clashed on the question of nationalism in art [see the following texts by Salazar Bondy: “En torno al desarraigo” (doc. no. 1138565), “Artes plásticas” (doc. no. 1138582), and “Punto final” (doc. no. 1138231); and the following texts by Miró Quesada Garland written for his column: “En blanca y negra...” (doc. no. 1138599), “En blanca y negra...” (doc. no. 1138620), and “En blanca y negra…” (doc. no. 1138248)].