The author of this article, Francisco Abril de Vivero, claims that the decision to send arts and crafts instead of “fine arts” to represent Peru at the 1977 Bienal de São Paulo was an act of “infra-Marxist populism.” In his opinion it was a misinterpretation of the philosophical ideas expressed by Augusto Salazar Bondy since, though there were similarities between Bondy’s thesis and the ideological perspective of the INC (Instituto Nacional de Cultura) of Peru, the shipment sent to São Paulo revealed discrepancies in Peru’s cultural policies. Abril de Vivero refers to his book Entre Escila y Caribdis (1969) where it states that “folk art’s appeal to Creole productions, to local institutions (...) in fact means relegating the country’s originality and creative power to limited sectors that barely reflect Peruvian culture as seen through a classical or modern lens.” Abril de Vivero thinks the INC’s policy also shows signs of alienation by assuming that the “essence of Peru” could be represented by works  that “satisfied the appetite for the exotic” among Europeans, Americans, and even “our own cultured classes.” Referring to Salazar Bondy again, the author says that populism makes Peruvians seem juvenile, an attitude that is endorsed by “those who attempt to dazzle us with the beauty and variety of folk art.”

This is the second of two editorials in which the artist Francisco Abril de Vivero (Lima, 1919–2004) criticized the decision taken by the INC (Instituto Nacional de Cultura del Perú) to send a collection of folk art to the XIV Bienal Internacional de São Paulo (1977), excluding any examples of the “fine arts,” which, in his opinion, undermined the thesis written by Augusto Salazar Bondy (1925−74) upon which the INC was founded. [Please refer to the ICAA digital archive for more about this article in “Populismo inframarxista” (doc. no. 855232)]. 

In 1977, a collection of folk art was sent to the XIV Bienal de São Paulo as Peru’s sole contribution to the event. The biennial’s organizing committee had invited Peru to participate as part of the “Retrospective Exhibitions,” one of the event’s three sections, whose objective, according to the rules, was to show works that would “reflect a participant’s cultural and artistic past” through works by a recognized artist or a collection of works from a particular movement, period, or place.” [XIV Bienal Internacional de São Paulo (São Paulo: Prefeitura do Municipio, Governo do Estado, Governo Federal, 1977), pp. 3 y 8]. In Peru, however, it was thought that the INC (Instituto Nacional de Cultura del Perú) had specified the nature of the shipment. This misunderstanding revived the controversy that had arisen in late 1975 when the same Peruvian institution granted the art prize or Premio Nacional de Cultura to the folk artist Joaquín López Antay (1897−1981), a retablista who created traditional altarpieces. What happened in the case of the São Paulo biennial once again prompted a group of “highbrow” visual artists (or those with greatest access to the market) to air their complaints, on the grounds that the so-called “arts and crafts” were not real works of art and that the INC was blocking the development of true art.

[Regarding this Brazilian event, please see following texts in the ICAA digital archive:

“Protesta contra INC manifiestan plásticos” (no author) (doc. no. 855211); “Perú: a presença da arte popular” by Leslie Lee (doc. no. 857190; “Humillados y ofendidos” by Ismael Pinto (doc. no. 855252); “El Perú en la Bienal de Sao Paulo” by Jorge Caillaux (doc. no. 855937); “Arte popular peruano en Sao Paulo” by Alfonso de la Torre [Seymour] (doc. no. 855899); “Presidente de Bienal de Sao Paulo elogia participación peruana” (no author) (doc. no. 855956); and “Arte popular do Peru: 14a. Bienal Internacional de Sao Paulo ’77” (no author) (doc. no. 857172)].