In his introduction, Juan E. Ríos—the author of this overview of Peruvian painting from the first half of the twentieth century—describes Peruvian art as “the creation of a visual equivalent of reality, rather than a mere copy of it” denying, on those grounds, the existence of a “National School of Painting.” The author also holds that Peruvian academic painting from the beginning of the century is insignificant. In his view, the nationalist stance of pictorial Indianism in Peru is intrinsically bound to Mexican muralism—though in Peru there was no revolution and exploitation of the indigenous masses continues. Ríos sees value in universal influences. In his opinion, the Indianist painting movement revolves around the problem of theme, though he does recognize the existence of a group of painters concerned with the aesthetic quality of their work. The author identifies a third group—the independent Indianists—as well. Though that group may seek inspiration in national themes and have sound pictorial technique, it has yet to come together to form an “aesthetic Peruvianism.” In Ríos’s view, what is required is an essentially pictorial restoration. In other words, neither the Indian nor the sierras provides an aesthetic foundation. At the same time, the independents represent “an elite painting with more than a few suggestions of decadence, [a strain of painting] not rooted in the Peruvian tragedy.” What Ríos formulates, then, is a fusion of the national and the universal—neither the foreign-looking uprootedness of the independents nor the Indian as passive pictorial background. Indeed, the full integration of the Indian into Peruvian society is the sine qua non for a truly dynamic conception of Peruvian painting.

This text by poet and playwright Juan Ríos is an overview of Peruvian painting from the first half of the twentieth century. 

Born in Bordeaux, France in 1907, painter Ricardo Grau returned to Lima permanently in early 1937 after having studied at the École Royale des Beaux-Arts in Brussels and the École Supérieure des Beaux-Arts in Paris, as well as in the private studios of painters André Favory, André Lothe, Fernand Léger, and others. Characterized by conservative figuration, his technically sound work formed part of the rappel à l'ordre that emerged in France after World War I. Though Grau timidly incorporated some avant-garde resources, his formalist and cosmopolitan approach to painting was seen, in the Lima milieu, as an antidote to the Indianism advocated by José Sabogal at the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes (ENBA). Back in Lima, Grau played an important role in the I Salón de Independientes, where opposition to Indianism was first expressed publicly by a diverse group of artists not bound by an overriding agenda but, rather, by interest in providing an alternative to the ENBA’s hegemonic vision. Soon after the salon, Grau was able to voice his criticism of Indianism in no uncertain terms in the context of the Exposición Interamericana de Pintura Chilena, on exhibit in Lima in June 1937. That show consisted of a body of works in keeping with the École de Paris. At Grau’s first solo show, which took place the following month, he consolidated a leading position in a movement to renew the local art scene. While Carlos Raygada (1898–1953)—the only intellectual of the day to work consistently in art criticism—read that show in solely formalist terms, radical critics of Indianism like Luis Fernández Prada (1917–73) saw it as an authentic renovation; they believed the show put the local scene in synch with new developments in international art. Grau’s commitment to “pure painting” constituted a serious questioning of the thematic restrictions and technical crudeness of the “Peruvian School” advocated by the Indianists. It was for that reason that an article praising Grau as the prime representative of Peruvian art was signed only with the initials “C. M.” (the author was likely painter Carlos More [1904–44], who years before had begun questioning José Sabogal’s Indianist group). According to the reviewer, Grau’s austere and formalist understanding of painting—as opposed to superficial and decorative Indianist works—was truly modern.

[For additional information, see in the ICAA digital archive the following articles: Raúl María Pereira’s texts “Ensayo sobre la pintura peruana contemporánea (doc. no. 1293152) and “Consideraciones sobre la pintura peruana” (doc. no. 1293103); Carlos Raygada’s “La exposición de Ricardo Grau” (doc. no. 1146716); Carlos More’s “Ricardo Grau ha demostrado con su exposición ser el mejor representante de la plástica en el Perú” (doc. no. 1146600); Ricardo Grau’s “Lo que nos demuestra la Exposición de pintores chilenos: qué es lo que de ellos podemos aprender” (doc. no. 1146583); Luis Fernández Prada’s “Ayer se inauguró una exposición de gran aliento” (doc. no. 1144189); and Froylán Miranda Nieto’s “Elogio en forma de fusta” (doc. no. 1144173)].