In this interview with Sérvulo Gutiérrez, the painter states that the European tradition is the most advanced in the world, showing his preference for both the School of Paris and Surrealism. In his opinion, the return to European models is the correct path for Peruvian painting to follow, thus opening up the possibility that it might achieve its “own identity” apart from anecdotal art. Responding to his interviewer Eduardo Moll, Gutiérrez rejects “nonfigurative painting,” denying that it is predominant in Modern art. He also declines to define this trend, since “I cannot define something to which I have no emotional response.” In addition, he contends that Abstract art shows no evidence of any ability to draw. He perceives a formulation of a “modern Classicism” that defines the very creative process: it must bring together the emotions and knowledge, which rules out technical virtuosity lacking “poetry.” In turn, he revives the model of the “bohemian artist” that fits him so well. Gutiérrez points out that there is no such thing as a poor artist in Lima, since “almost all the painters [here] are living bourgeois lives. They lead quiet lives, most of them with a home, children and employees, and they are committed to living in peace. I find none of this particularly suitable for an artist.” 

This is an interview with the painter Sérvulo Gutiérrez (1914–1961) conducted by Eduardo Moll, a German artist and critic living in Peru. What is interesting in this text is the rejection the artist expresses here of the “bourgeois” stability he sees in his colleagues. He was the artist who most identified with the model of the “bohemian artist” in art circles in Lima, with a lifestyle that in fact led to his early death, which of course nourished the romantic myth about him that lives on even today.

In late 1952, Eduardo Moll (b. 1929) conducted a series of interviews with well-known Peruvian artists that were broadcasted on Radio Callao and subsequently published in the Semanario Peruano 1952. The prior year, the debate about Abstract art—stirred up by statements made by the painter Fernando de Szyszlo (b. 1925)—made the public aware of the issues under discussion by Lima’s intelligentsia. [See the ICAA digital archive, “Dice Fernando Szyzlo [sic] que no hay pintores en el Perú ni América : el joven pintor peruano declara sentir su pintura y la de los demás pero no puede explicarla” (anonymous) (doc. No. 1137793).] Such issues included the artist’s social commitment and the possibility of truly “Peruvian” painting. These matters were the focus of the interviews performed by Moll, who was able to gather a broad spectrum of opinions due to the diversity of the trends to which the artists interviewed belonged. On the one hand, Moll’s interviews feature artists who were open to the “nonfigurative” concept, such as Szyszlo himself [“Me parece que no hay otra pintura que la europea” (doc. No. 864956)], Ricardo Grau (1907–70) [“Encuesta: Ricardo Grau expone sus puntos de vista sobre la pintura y sus escuelas” (doc. No. 1150493)] and Alberto Dávila (1912–88) [“Reportajes” (doc. No. 865093)]. On the other hand, the series includes interviews by Moll with artists who were critical of Abstract art, such as Juan Manuel Ugarte Eléspuru (1911–2004) [“Pintura : reportaje a Juan Manuel Ugarte E.” (doc. No. 864995)], Sérvulo Gutiérrez (1914–61) and Carlos Aitor Castillo (1913–2000) [“Reportaje a Carlos A. Castillo” (doc. No. 865074)], as well as the academic sculptor Romano Espinoza Cáceda (1898–1957) [“Reportaje a Romano Espinoza Cáceda” (doc. No. 1227158)].