The subject of this interview is the Peruvian artist, writer, and critic Juan Manuel Ugarte Eléspuru, who was at that time the director of the ENBA (Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes) in Peru. The conversation refers to the institution’s trajectory and methodologies, and Ugarte applauds its goal of developing a “nationalist awareness”: to do so, it “must always be at the service of the country’s collective ideals that are endorsed by the majority.” Until that time, “the general approach” had been of a Eurocentric nature--“looking outside.” This approach would change “to the extent that the country becomes aware of and passionate about the structural changes happening in the country,” according to the interviewee. He also talks about the program of populist reforms launched by the Gobierno Revolucionario de las Fuerzas Armadas [Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces] (in its first phase, 1968–1975) and about his belief that “art must change, it must discard the bourgeoise salon aesthetic.” Ugarte regrets the hegemony of abstraction, which he describes as a “uniformization of art.” Finally, he criticizes the participants in a recent, failed painting competition (where he was a member of the jury). It was organized by the regime to create the official portrait of the indigenous independence hero Túpac Amaru II. Ugarte thinks the rejection was due to an “inability to feel the archetypal, messianic, and heroic nature of the man.”

Despite allegations that, according to the article, he supported the policies of the military regime, two years later Juan Manuel Ugarte Eléspuru was dismissed from his role as director of the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes, a position he had held since 1956. Several of his statements are not true, especially regarding abstract art and the “bourgeoise salon aesthetic.” Ironically, he had experimented with abstract art. Given such blatant contradictions, the interview is interesting because of what was said regarding the controversial competition organized to produce the official portrait of Túpac Amaru II. The prize was ultimately not awarded. The jury was chosen by government decree and included Juan Manuel Ugarte Eléspuru (the director of the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes) [National School of Fine Arts], Franklin Pease (the director of the Museo Nacional de Historia) [National History Museum], Francisco Statsny (the director of the Museo de Arte e Historía de San Marcos) [San Marcos Museum of Art and History], General Felipe de la Barra (the director of the Centro de Estudios Histórico-Militares) [Center for the Study of Military History], and José Miguel Oviedo (the director of Casa de la Cultura del Perú) [House of Peruvian Culture].

The subject of the competition was of great importance. José Gabriel Condorcanqui, Túpac Amaru II, was an Inca curaca (chief) who led the most significant Andean rebellion against the Spanish Empire in 1780. Though relegated to traditional creole history, his image was used as an emblem by the Gobierno Revolucionario de las Fuerzas Armadas led by General Juan Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), a regime that was focused on social reform and that was very keen on symbolic representation.

[As complementary reading on Túpac Amaru II, see the following texts in the ICAA digital archive: “¿Cómo fue Túpac Amaru?” by General EP Felipe de la Barra (doc. no. 865441); “Convocan a concurso: monumento a Túpac Amaru se levantará en el Cuzco,” anonymous (doc. no. 1053438); “Convocan a concurso de pintura para perpetuar la imagen plástica del mártir José Gabriel Condorcanqui,” anonymous (doc. no. 865422); “Declaran desierto el Concurso de Pintura ‘Túpac Amaru II,’” by Alfredo Arrisueño Cornejo (doc. no. 865498); “En busca de la imagen arquetípica de Túpac Amaru,” anonymous (doc. no. 865702); “El retrato de Túpac Amaru,” by Daniel Valcárcel (doc. no. 1052165); and “Túpac Amaru: ¿verdadero retrato?” by A. O. Z. (doc. no. 865460)].