The writer Luis Miró Quesada Garland considers it wrong to brand any painting as either “Neo-Realist” or “Social Realist” based on a subjective interpretation of reality, with idealized figures and/or deformation as (a) technique(s). The evident mark of Expressionism on the work of Alfredo Ruiz Rosas—recently exhibited in a gallery in Lima—makes it more appropriate to call his work “Neo-Expressionist” or “social Expressionist.” These categories better capture the artist’s thematic realism, with clear figurative elements. Moreover, Garland rejects the link drawn by Sebastían Salazar Bondy between “the Peruvian essence” and “Neo-Realism” —which the writer deems a trend with origins in Italy and Mexico. He also believes that we may only consider a work “to represent us” based on its artistic quality. Garland defines “social truths” as those “that concern the relationships of human beings as members of a society.” That is why he rejects the idea that “significant” themes—experienced as such by individuals—always have social repercussions.

This particular weekly column by Luis Miró Quesada Garland set forth the writer’s opinions on the painting of Alfredo Ruiz Rosas, adding reflections regarding the concept of “social art.” Garland uses these ideas to challenge the articles written by Sebastián Salazar Bondy on the subject. This column includes comments on several recent exhibitions in Lima by the painters Horacio March (from Argentina), Jean Lurcat (from France) and the Peruvian Fernando D’Ornellas, respectively.

In April 1955, Sigfrido Laske (b. 1931) exhibited a set of paintings along social realism lines at the Galería de Lima. By way of response, a laudatory text was written by Sebastián Salazar Bondy (1924–64), a writer and art critic who played a key role among those intellectuals who deplored Abstract art. Published under the pseudonym “Juan Eye” in the capital city’s daily newspaper La Prensa (April 30, 1955), the article concluded that such a “significant” theme—that is, a presentation of social problems—could only be fully expressed in the form of a mural. Bondy’s statement represented a clear reaffirmation of the Mexican paradigm that prevailed in leftist circles in Peru at the time. [See the ICAA digital archive, “Artes Plásticas” (doc. No. 1150342)]. His comments elicited an ironic mention from Peru’s leading ideologue of Modern art and architecture, the architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland (1914–94) [“En blanca y negra” (doc. No. 865218)]. There followed a brief but intense exchange between Garland and  Bondy, in which both addressed the relationships between form, theme and significance in art, as well as the possibility of an art hierarchy based on art’s social implications. [“Un ‘crítico’ y el arte mural,” by Bondy (doc. No. 859990) and “En blanca y negra,” by Garland (doc. No. 860011)]. The discussion extended to the different opinions of the two critics about another exhibition presented at the same time by Alfredo Ruiz Rosas (1926–2002), who was also a Peruvian painter associated with realism of the social sort, sometimes called “Neo-Realism.” [“Artes Plásticas,” by Bondy (doc. No. 1150376)]. [Note that Garland’s regular column was called “En blanca y negra.”]