In this essay, the poet Carlos Augusto León writes at length about what is going on in the field of art criticism; he is responding to the debate sparked by an article by Alejandro Otero (“¿Dónde está Guayasamín?” 1953). León does not agree with Francisco Salazar Martínez; he says that every artist has a right to express his or her opinions about other artists because art criticism should not be left entirely to specialists. He likes Otero, the Venezuelan painter, for the technical tone of his Formalist-flavored criticism. He insists that Guayasamín is not precisely a Realist painter, having distorted the human figure in his work. On the other hand, he questions the “Americanist” pretensions of some paintings, though he does think that the country’s national culture should be the basis of the work of art.    

Of the many articles written by the Venezuelan poet Carlos Augusto León (1914–97) on artistic subjects—whether about movies, dance or, as in this case, the visual arts—this one may hew most closely to the principista (principled) line, and reflects both his moderate and his argumentative sides concerning the value of art criticism and Realist art. That is the essence of the article. The exhibition of works by the Ecuadorian indigenist Oswaldo Guayasamín—at the Museo de Bellas Artes de Caracas in 1953—opened at a time when people were feeling a little touchy as a result of the debate on the subject of Realism, a “languid, intermittent” affair, according to the poet. All the more reason when there was a new generation of artists, led by Alejandro Otero (1921–90), who were committed to Abstraction right from the start. What is interesting about León’s point of view is that, though he is a communist, he agrees with Otero’s formal reservations about the Ecuadorian’s Expressionist painting. He is less interested in following an avant-garde trend—since he calls Guayasamín’s painting modern because of its distorted figures—than in denying that an “American content” might, in and of itself, absolve the painter from any formal requirements. The author very lucidly questions the Americanist pretensions of that kind of painting because the “American” aspect only refers to what the continent’s various cultures have in common, whereas true art should be based on what is “local”. The critic believes that “Guayasamín comes from the people, but is not returning to them” because, instead of using a Realist language, he uses one that can only be understood by collectors.       

To read Otero’s essay, “¿Dónde está Guayasamín?: una opinión polémica,” see [doc. no. 850492].