This is the response of the Peruvian Modernista architect, Luis Miró Quesada Garland, to a series of three articles by the writer, Sebastián Salazar Bondy, published in the Lima daily newspaper, La Prensa,in September 1955. The writer describes that article as “una extemporánea declaración de un nacionalismo exaltado” [an untimely declaration of an exalted nationalism]. Miró Quesada rejects the idea that the nation always constitutes a “comunidad humana” [human community], understood as a congregation of individuals with something in common. Nations such as Peru could better be defined as a “conglomerado humano” [human conglomerate], incapable “de determinar ningún sentimiento o categoría ontológica” [of determining any feeling or ontological category]. In fact, if we define nation as a “continuidad en el tiempo y una totalidad en el espacio” [continuity in time and a totality in space], we would have to reject the existence of [the nation of] Peru. Given its discontinuous history, it could only be called a nation after it appeared as a State. It is this error that underlies the mystification of what is pre-Columbian in terms of “peruanidad” [Peruvian identity]. In the opinion of Miró Quesada, all these facts make it untenable to state that the motherland must be transformed into “un sentimiento con categoría ontológica que llega a formar ‘parte esencial’ de la ‘persona individual” [a feeling, with an ontological category that becomes an “essential part” of the “individual”]. In other words, under no circumstances “puede convertirse en un determinante de la obra artística” [may this be turned into a determinant of the work of art], since nation and motherland are historically recent concepts. Regarding a reference by Salazar Bondy, the writer explains: “[t]anto para el Perú creo para Francia, como para cualquier país, que la nacionalidad es valedera como calificación y no como condición de calidad” [I believe that for France, as well as for Peru or any other country, nationality is valid as a category, but not as a condition of quality]. This would be shown by the “Escuela de París” [School of Paris], a term that, far from referring to localist restrictions, would allude to an open cosmopolitanism.

This was the second article by the Peruvian Modernista architect, Luis Miró Quesada Garland [(1914–1994)], published in his weekly column, “En blanca y negra” [In Black and White] in the Lima daily newspaper, El Comercio. It was written at the height of one of the debates between those who supported art for art’s sake and those who believed in art with a social commitment [see also documents: # 1151027, 1138736, and 1138790]. The specific problem addressed in this article is nationalism in painting. There had already been Modernista discussions held on this issue, started in June 1951 by the painter, Fernando de Szyszlo (Lima, born in 1925). In response, the critic, Samuel Pérez Barreto (Lima, 1921–2003), defended terrestrial, Abstract art as the only art that could be both “Peruvian” and modern. Nevertheless, the debate would be continued right through the decade between a program-driven, figurative, nationalist art and an Abstract art language, with no commitment beyond art. The tensions between the visual arts and nationalism would even be projected into the past by the writer, Sebastián Salazar Bondy (1924–1964). On September 12, 1955, under the title, “Cómo la pintura ha buscado al Perú” [How Painting Sought Peru], Salazar Bondy gave a lecture in which he outlined history around this theme, starting with the equation “Perú-pintura” [Peru-painting]. One of the clearest, most confident interrogations of the nationalist discourse was presented by Luis Miró Quesada Garland—a leading ideologist of Peruvian artistic and architectural Modernismo. He would ironically allude to this equation as a contradiction in terms—comparing a political concept with an artistic one. Salazar Bondy’s response would generate a significant exchange, including the publication of his lecture in three parts [See documents: # 1138058, 1138075, and 1138092]. Among other subjects, in these articles, he set forth his negative comments on Peruvian Vice-Regal art, which he would later expand in his book-length essay, Lima la horrible [Lima, the Horrible] (1964), a touchstone for the generation of 1960. Actually, the debate about nationalism in art had already led to a confrontation between Miró Quesada and Salazar Bondy a year earlier, in 1954.