In 1971 Clemencia Lucena issued a statement of principles on what Latin American art has been and what it should be. According to Lucena, an active member of MOIR (Movimiento Obrero Independiente Revolucionario) [Independent Revolutionary Workers Movement], the “Americanist” spirit engaged in defending “our” cultural independence has been swept away by the imported ideology of certain political parties. In her opinion, the same process is apparent in art; Latin American artists accept and embrace foreign cultural capital, claiming that such actions are justified by the universality of art. Lucena considers that “all truly authentic art leads us back to reality,” and therefore condemns art that seeks to distance itself from that reality and become simply an opiate for the masses. Art should be used as a weapon against alienation; it should promote social transformation and avoid “corrupting the mind.” 

In the early years (the late 1960s) of the career of Colombian artist Clemencia Lucena (1945–1983), she was producing work that was aggressively political. After she joined MOIR (Movimiento Obrero Independiente Revolucionario) [Independent Revolutionary Workers Movement] in 1971, her painting began to reflect the influence of Marxist-Maoist theories concerning culture and art, which she expressed in her paintings and in her sharply critical written documents as well. This was an unusual course of action for an artist during that period, but a natural one for a politically active artist such as Lucena. Several of her essays are critical of the most representative art exhibitions of the time, including some in which she participated, such as the one of concern here: the II Bienal de Coltejer [II Biennial at the Coltejer Center], Medellín (1970).    Lucena addresses her concerns from the perspective of a Latin American artist. On one hand, she considers the possibility of making art that questions the presumed “universality” issue, such as the zero-point concept, which in her mind means surrendering to a Eurocentric art form. On the other hand, she considers art with a serious commitment to continental interests, which implies an attitude of cultural and political resistance, which over the course of time, would become radicalized in her discourse. This is one of Lucena’s earliest essays. Though it does not yet use the pamphleteer style of language she perfected in her later work, it already expresses her vision concerning the need for art that combines fervent political content with Latin American revolutionary realities. Though the Coltejer Biennial in Medellín (1968, 1970, 1972, and 1981) was an important event for the local artistic milieu because it allowed a considerable number of Colombians to see firsthand a sample of international contemporary art, the final one of the series generated some heated controversy. Some Latin American critics even went as far as to question its validity as a vehicle for promoting the art of the region. Lucena’s statement is representative of the negative reaction expressed by contemporary Latin American artists and theoreticians vis-á-vis the foreign cultural and ideological impositions that were involved.