This interview was conducted by researcher María Cristina Valera with Miguel von Dangel, the Venezuelan artist born in Germany, in which he comments on the background, character, and the possible interpretations of his exhibition De engaños y otras lidias. Von Dangel states that his initial interest centered on the role reversal between the feminine (bullfighter) and the masculine (bull), which occurs towards the end of the bullfight. In the development of the concept, multiple meanings are apparent: the idea of the divine sacrifice; the bull as a metaphor for the cruelty and sadism perpetrated in Latin America by the culture from which it descends, etc. Von Dangel notes a change in his use of materials due to a reduction of natural elements, and reaffirms his commitment to a Baroque aesthetic. Finally, he emphasizes his commitment to being a “cultural laborer,” a spokesman for the anguish of man. 

The text consists of an interview conducted by art critic and researcher María Cristina Valera with Miguel von Dangel (b. 1946) for his exhibition De engaños y otras lidias (Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Maracay Mario Abreu, 1993). The dialogue offers an opportunity to look beyond the distinctive features of the works shown in the exhibition, the complexity of the elements and the processes involved in von Dangel’s creations: the intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and aesthetic features. The artist seems to have a clear sense of the elements of his work, and he also is capable of expressing them intellectually. Von Dangel reviews the chief elements at play in his series La Tauromaquia, acting as an interpreter for his own work and leaving little to clarify. He expresses his worry regarding the danger that his work could be seen as a defense of bullfighting.

The interview also touches on other areas of von Dangel’s interest. He offers explanations for the origin of his aesthetic, including information on his family history and immigrant background, as well as the importance he places on the role of the artist in society.

For other critical texts on von Dangel’s work, see in the ICAA digital archive the essays by María Luz Cárdenas from 1990 “La Batalla de San Romano de von Dangel (I)” (doc. no. 1154028) and “La Batalla de San Romano de von Dangel (II)” (doc. no. 1154092); the preface from 1997 by Julio Ortega “La iridiscencia del ojo de la materia o cómo leer un objeto artístico procesal” (doc. no. 1155251); Axel Stein’s 1999 “Interview with Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1102348); Yasmín Monsalve’s text “Mi obra ha tenido que luchar contra muchos prejuicios: un premio nacional visto con la luz de Petare” (doc. no. 1102125); the texts by Elsa Flores “Miguel von Dangel: la respuesta latinoamericana (I)” (doc. no. 1155150), “Miguel von Dangel: la respuesta latinoamericana (II)” (doc. no. 1154906), and “Miguel von Dangel” (doc. no. 1056044); the 1996 essay by Ruth Auerbach “Hoy, el paisaje es aquí y ahora” (doc. no. 855314); the interview by María Josefa Pérez “Miguel von Dangel: no creo el cuento de que Reverón era loco” (doc. no. 1154012); and finally, the article by Víctor Guédez “Lo barroco y lo simbólico en la obra de Miguel Von Dangel” (doc. no. 1154124).