The art critic Fernando García Esteban points to a local artistic reality that is in grave crisis, as it is out of touch with the concerns inherent to contemporary European artists, in his opinion. This a characteristic was considered to be “negative sign of distance” and was interpreted as a lack of courage and education by the Uruguay artists in regards to the thoughts and practices of the time.

The author, observed new artists as “potential development” with little needed work for a broader vision. He also made noted the absence of artists in spaces of educational discussion. They did not attend lectures, nor classes, nor exhibitions. The so-called “violence outbreak” demonstrated by those returning from Europe two decades earlier became a triviality, bestowing productions as mere remnants of short-lived isms. In short, that event had no consequence in the local art of the second post-world war period.

In the years of the second post- world war period, the artistic critique in Uruguay goes through a process of both professionalism and modernization. Fernando García Esteban (1917–82), and José Pedro Argul, (1903–74) were the ones who in the fifties and sixties worked throughout the years demanding greater national intellectual accuracy to artistic critique until the art critics could flaunt their role as qualified guides. García Esteban, from his Marcha workshop articles and by his teaching steadily as a member of the Faculty of Architecture, strived to modernize a local visual artistic production, which he considered was in grave crisis for being incapable to contrast and balance itself with international creative attitudes and concerns (obviously European), which he understood as a contemporaneous sign. [Please refer to the ICAA digital archive for the following texts: “Acerca de la crítica de arte” (doc. no. 1227280">1227280) and “Esquema del opinador en Artes Plásticas” (doc. no. 1227298">1227298)]

In Uruguay, he mentioned, as exceptional tours of modernization, the ones by Rafael Barradas (1890–1929), Pedro Figari (1861–1938) and Joaquín Torres García (1874–1949), as well as a few other examples such as, José Cuneo (1887–1977) and Carmelo de Arzadun (1888–1968).

In regards to the public, García Esteban felt that it moved without “tone or rhythm” a harsh expression, and at best without information and riddled with biases.

Committed intellectually with a contemporary internationalism, García Esteban does not stop comparing the fruitful and courageous attitude of European artists (who bring with them a long tradition of artistic magnificence) to the meager production by local Uruguayan artists. Thus, his own conception of critique ends up being unquestionably provincial. [Please refer to the ICAA digital archive for other texts by Fernando García Esteban: “Acerca de la crítica de arte” (doc. no. 1227280">1227280), “Esquema del opinador en Artes Plásticas” (doc. no. 1227298">1227298) and “La Escuela de París y Nuestro Medio Artístico” (doc. no. 1227399)]