While Garland points out administrative and economic problems that beset art competitions in Peru, his emphasis is on the art standards that must remain important after all. This column alludes to comments written by the poet Alejandro Romualdo Valle (published on January 9, 1955) about the first prize awarded to the painter Alfredo Ruiz Rosas at the Second Salón Moncloa. Garland questions the use of the category “integral art” as a term exclusive to the trends represented by both the work awarded the prize or, for that matter, any other work. Moreover, he believes that art must not be considered in political or social terms. To the writer, the artistic sensibility is the determinant of a work’s quality; therefore, it is a mistake to use the term “integral art” for one particular painting trend, thus disdaining other artworks. In his opinion, what matters in art is that the reasons for creating it are spontaneous, rather than intellectual, and that the art avoids ideology, whether chosen or imposed.

In this particular issue of his weekly column, the critic Luis Miró Quesada Garland discusses the problems he observes in various art competitions in Peru, whether those held by the Fomento a la Cultura and sponsored by the government or the Salón Anual de San Marcos. 

In January 1955, the canvas Pan by Alfredo Ruiz Rosas (1926–2002) won the first prize at the Second Salón de Pintura Manuel Moncloa (Lima). [In the ICAA digital archive, see the article by Manuel Jesús Orbegozo, “Un “pan” común de todos los días, amasado por Alfredo Ruiz Rosas, ganó diez mil soles” (doc. No. 859785)]. Awarding the prize to the main representative of social realism in Peru had major repercussions in an art milieu polarized by the debate about Abstract art. Those who opposed nonfigurative art saw a model for contemporary painting in his work, even though it was tied to “reality” and to the general viewing public. For the journalist inspired by Marxism, Alejandro Romualdo Valle (1926–2008), Ruiz’s painting represented “integral art,” combining visual-art experimentation with human commitment. Thus, the winning artwork was a far cry from abstract, aestheticist “specialization” [see “Ruiz Rosas y un arte integral,” by Alejandro Romualdo (doc. No. 1227027)]. This reading led to an extended debate with the Modernist art critic and architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland (1914–94), who—as a member of the jury at the Second Salón Moncloa—supported the prize winner for strictly artistic reasons [“En blanca y negra...” (January 16, 1955), by Garland (doc. No. 859805)]. The resulting debate revealed the intensity of the intellectual and political tensions unleashed by the eruption of nonfigurative art in Peru [see the following articles: by Garland, “Sobre un arte integral” (doc. No. 859917) and “Sobre un arte integral” (doc. No. 1227195); and by Alejandro Romualdo, “Sobre un arte integral (respuesta al arquitecto Luis Miró Quesada G.)” (doc. No. 1227139) and “Sobre un arte integral: punto final” (doc. No. 1227176)]. This exchange of opposing opinions can be compared with a debate about a year later when the first prize at the third round of the same competition was awarded to an abstract work by Fernando de Szyszlo (b. 1925) [see the articles: by Sebastián Salazar Bondy, “Artes Plásticas” (doc. No. 859662); by Garland, “En blanca y negra” (doc. No. 859754), and one more in his regular column “En blanca y negra…” (doc. No. 1137283); by Szyszlo, “Cartas al Director” (doc. No. 1227064); by Alejandro Romualdo, “Cuidado con la pintura: el arte por el arte abstracto —comentario al premio ‘Manuel Moncloa y Ordóñez’” (doc. No. 1227101); by Manuel Jesús Orbegozo, “Entrevista concreta a un pintor abstracto” (doc. No. 1227120); “La pintura abstracta: proceso de subjetivación —Szyszlo trata de explicar lo que pocos entienden” (unsigned) (doc. No. 1227046); and by Juan Manuel Ugarte Eléspuru, “12 meses de artes plásticas en Lima” (doc. No. 1137301)].