The Venezuelan critic Juan Carlos Palenzuela examines the career trajectory of Alejandro Otero from the perspective of the notions of “innovation” and “renewal.” [According to Palenzuela,] the lucidity that the Venezuelan artist and sculptor demonstrates in his creations positioned him as a worthy representative of Latin American art and its capacity for “reinvention.” Palenzuela recounts the different stages of Otero’s trajectory: his academic beginnings, his trip to Paris, and ultimately with his involvement in geometric abstraction with the production of his series, Las Cafeteras, a series of colored lines on a white background, and the Coloritmos. Additionally, the text examines the artist’s informal stage that ultimately lead to his large-scale sculptural projects and urban interventions, and later, his investigation and application of information technology into the design and documentation of those projects.

In 1990, the Venezuelan artist and sculptor Alejandro Otero (1921−1990) died in Caracas. That same year, two posthumous exhibitions would pay homage to the forerunner and pioneer of abstract art and a key figure in the development and evolution of urban art integrated into public spaces and the landscape. Overall, during this period, the critic Juan Carlos Palenzuela (1954−2007) provided an overview of the artist’s career that ended with his latest project: the exhibition Saludo al siglo XXI (1990), its peculiarities and the publication of the book (1989). In his new series, Otero had translated his [large-scale] civic sculptural designs into computerized images making evident the connection and adaptability of art and science. The text delves into examining the time during which Otero worked at the IBM Research Center of Venezuela; an experience that somehow provided continuity for his pursuits when he studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1971). The analysis also makes it evident that his investigations and interest in astronomy went far beyond his work in sculpture. In a way, it was his intention in unfolding the understanding of astronomical behavior and its relationship to the elements. At this point, the author rescues Otero’s investigative continuity, expressed in a language whose accuracy would allow the understanding and the realization of his work under any circumstances. Unquestionably, Otero introduced novel ways of appreciating both preparatory drawings and final works as well as exposing the possibility of preserving artistic legacies.   

[For other critiques of Otero’s work, refer to the following texts on the ICAA digital archive: by J. R. Guillent Pérez (another member of  Los Disidentes), “Realidad e irrealidad: El postigo de Alejandro Otero” (doc. no. 1172158); Guillermo Meneses, “La exposición de Alejandro Otero Rodríguez” (doc. no. 1097092); Roberto Guevara, “La vertical vibrante de Maracay, 1968” (doc. no. 1168201); the text from the exhibition catalogue Alejandro Otero (1949) (doc. no. 850732); the article “La nueva plástica venezolana” by Héctor Mujica (doc. no. 850512); María Elena Ramos, “Alejandro Otero: indagar en las estructuras de la realidad” (doc. no. 1167733); Ernesto Guevara, “Sólo quisiera ser puntual. El tiempo en la pintura de Alejandro Otero” (doc. no. 1163813); Damián Bayón, “El espacio dinámico en la obra de Alejandro Otero” (doc. no. 1167828); the texts by Juan Calzadilla, “Exposiciones en Caracas: Alejandro Otero-Galería Mendoza” (doc. no 1172174) and “Alejandro Otero y la enseñanza del arte” (doc. no. 1167940); the article by Miguel Otero Silva, “Sobre unas declaraciones disidentes del pintor Alejandro Otero Rodríguez” (doc. no. 813737); and lastly, the review by José Ratto-Ciarlo, “En pro y en contra de Alejandro Otero” (doc. no. 850770)].