To Sebastián Salazar Bondy, as part of his public defense of socially committed art versus abstract artwork, in judging a painting, we must consider its dimensions as well as its quality and aesthetic value. Regarding the mural option chosen by some Peruvian artists, he believes that large-format works produce a “public resonance,” while a small format, which limits work to the private sphere, “diminishes both the force and depth” of an artwork. Bondy responds to several questions posed by Garland, defining the social as that which “pertains to society” and his mission as that of “bringing about a change in people’s world view.” This is precisely why the inspiration of some of the large canvases under discussion, such as those shown by Sigfrido Laske, goes beyond “the limits of an easel painting.” The writer thus postulates the “lack of significance” of abstract paintings and still lifes. In his opinion, “a figurative mural is not relegated to that secondary role,” since it aims to stimulate an awareness of the circumstances of the viewer’s own life.

In this text, Sebastián Salazar Bondy responds to the comments of the architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland (El Comercio, Lima, May 8, 1955). In that column, Garland ironically questioned Bondy’s statements about a vocation for murals as related to the themes of paintings shown by Sigfrido Laske in a recent exhibition.

In April 1955, Sigfrido Laske (b. 1931) exhibited a set of paintings along social realism lines at the Galería de Lima. By way of response, a laudatory text was written by Sebastián Salazar Bondy (1924–64), a writer and art critic who played a key role among those intellectuals who deplored Abstract art. Published under the pseudonym “Juan Eye” in the capital city’s daily newspaper La Prensa (April 30, 1955), the article concluded that such a “significant” theme—that is, a presentation of social problems—could only be fully expressed in the form of a mural. Bondy’s statement represented a clear reaffirmation of the Mexican paradigm that prevailed in leftist circles in Peru at the time. [See the ICAA digital archive, “Artes Plásticas,” por Bondy (doc. No. 1150342); and “En blanca y negra,” de Luis Miró Quesada Garland (doc. No. 865218">865218)]. His comments elicited an ironic mention from Peru’s leading ideologue of Modern art and architecture, the architect Luis Miró Quesada Garland (1914–94) [“En blanca y negra” (doc. No. 865218">865218)]. There followed a brief but intense exchange between Garland and Bondy, in which both addressed the relationships between form, theme and significance in art, as well as the possibility of an art hierarchy based on art’s social implications. [“En blanca y negra,” by Garland (doc. No. 860011)]. The discussion extended to the different opinions of the two critics about another exhibition presented at the same time by Alfredo Ruiz Rosas (1926–2002), who was also a Peruvian painter associated with realism of the social sort, sometimes called “Neo-Realism.” [“Artes Plásticas,” by Bondy (doc. No. 1150376) and one more article written for Garland’s column “En blanca y negra” (doc. No. 1150360)].