Writing in the ironic style he affects in his articles, the columnist Luis Rey de Castro deplores Luis Zevallos Hetzel’s attitude, which reminds him of an old word game that, in Spanish, is based on a repetition of the letter P: “Peruvian pop painter plagiarizes publicity painting to partake of paltry prize payment…” The author reminds his readers that the craftsmen who produce advertisements are “obscure people, whose names are unknown, who have no reputation, and who do not exhibit their work in fashionable galleries […]. Those who produce advertisements are not “artists,” they are simply illustrators, poster designers, almost manual laborers;” their anonymous work, however, is being appropriated by artists, painters, and creators. Continuing in the same vein, the columnist mentions the round-table event organized by the Cultura y Libertad gallery to discuss this matter, describing it as a debate “about authors’ rights and plagiarism rights.” One of the items he suggests should be on the agenda for this discussion is: “To create a ‘Department of Plagiarism’ as part of the Administration of Public Morality at the Ministry of the Interior.” 

This is the columnist Luis Rey de Castro’s contribution to the debate concerning Motociclista No. 3, the painting by Luis Zevallos Hetzel that took first prize at the competition organized by the Festivales de Ancón, a resort on the outskirts of Lima. The controversy erupted after Caretas magazine published the motorcycle advertisement upon which the winning painting was based. The furor was further fueled when it was reported that other supposed acts of plagiarism had been committed by Ugo Camandona, who received an honorable mention at the same event.

The jury’s decision concerning the first prize (for painting) at the Festivales de Ancón in 1969 was extremely controversial, and marked both the peak and the turning point for the Peruvian cosmopolitan avant-garde in the local art scene in the 1960s. At that time Ancón was the most fashionable resort on the outskirts of Lima. During the summer it hosted musical and theatrical events, as well as lectures and a painting competition which (on that occasion) attracted a great deal of attention. When the results were announced, Caretas magazine published a letter accusing the winning painting—Motociclista No. 3, by Luis Zevallos Hetzel—of plagiarism because it was a “faithful copy” of an advertisement published in the United States for a brand of motorcycles. An honorable mention at the contest went to a (playfully erotic Pop) painting by Ugo Camandona, an Italian painter and ceramicist who lived in Peru, who was also accused of supposed plagiarism. Both accusations sparked a heated debate about the value of “originality” in modern art, and about Pop Art’s role and function in consumer society. The apparent anachronism underlying the controversy clearly revealed the very limited penetration of avant-garde ideologies that had been achieved in a cultural milieu that was still reluctant to embrace the radical transformations that art was already experiencing in the rest of the world. All this was taking place in an environment that was increasingly having to adjust to the socialist and nationalist policies of the Gobierno Revolucionario de las Fuerzas Armadas (1968–75), the military regime led by General Juan Velasco Alvarado.

Zevallos was one of the pioneers of Pop Art in Peru, and was a member of Arte Nuevo, one of the avant-garde groups at that time. But controversial reactions and other factors subsequently led him to stop experimenting with innovative styles.

[For additional information, see the following articles in the ICAA digital archive: by Alberto Valdivia Portugal “¡Pop!” (doc. no. 1142123); by Augusto Ortiz de Zevallos “El caso de Luis Zevallos” (doc. no. 1142139), “Arte Actual: El pop y un artículo” (doc. no. 1142347), and “En Ancón: significativa muestra insignificante” (doc. no. 1142364); (anonymous) “Opiniones divididas motivó el debate sobre pintor Zevallos” (doc. no. 1142269); and by Emilio Hernández Saavedra “A propósito del ‘plagio’” (doc. no.  1142331)].