The editorial categories are research topics that have guided researchers during the recovery phase and continue to be the impetus behind the Documents Project’s digital archive and the Critical Documents book series. Developed by the project’s Editorial Board, each of the teams analyzed this framework and adapted it to their local contexts in developing their research objectives and work plans during the Recovery Phase. Learn more on the Editorial Framework page.
In this text, Sérvulo Gutiérrez asserts that any classification that entails “dividing art” is conventional and falls into pigeonholing. It is misguided since it implies taking “a part for the whole.” Sérvulo Gutiérrez questions whether the young painters (partisans of abstraction, a part) have duly demonstrated their craft as painters (the whole). On those grounds, he asserts that “in painting, to be abstract, one must have gone through a whole pictorial process that leads to that position.” Sérvulo Gutiérrez asserts that artist Fernando de Szyszlo’s lacked respect in his polemic statement “there are no painters in Peru” insofar as he didn’t restrict himself to a value judgment but denied his colleagues’ very status as “painters.” It is an injurious offense of “the so-called ‘Coca Cola’ generation” “to read without knowing the first letters [of the alphabet].” While Sérvulo Gutiérrez recognizes the importance of written culture for the artist, he asserts that that has degenerated into a bookishness on the part of young people lacking the vital experience that being an artist requires. In closing, he says that a painter’s crowning characteristic is “technique” gained thanks to strictly personal grappling and searching. That does not mean, however, that the space in which the artist produces his work is beyond comprehension. Sérvulo Gutiérrez is convinced that, in all of de Szyszlo’s vagueness, “what he makes amounts to nothing at all.”
This text is the contribution of painter Sérvulo Gutiérrez (1914–61)—who signed his journalist pieces with the name Sérvulo—to the debate unleashed by Fernando de Szyszlo’s polemic statements published in La Prensa newspaper (Lima, June 2, 1951) on the occasion of his show of abstract paintings at the Asociación de Arquitectos del Perú in Lima.
In early 1951, Peruvian painter Fernando de Szyszlo (b. 1925) returned to Lima after having spent almost two years in Paris. His time in the French capital proved decisive to a turn towards Abstract Expressionism in his work, largely due to the influence of German artist Hans Hartung (1904–89). In May 1951, de Szyszlo exhibited his most recent works at the Sociedad de Arquitectos in Lima, in a show held under the auspices of the Agrupación Espacio, a group that spearheaded innovation in art and architecture in the country. [For further reading, see in the ICAA digital archive “Expresión de principios de la Agrupación Espacio” (doc. no. 1126309)].
De Szyszlo’s show was, generally speaking, favorably reviewed, though influential Peruvian critic Carlos Raygada (1898–1953) did have some reservations [see “De arte: exposición Szyszlo” (doc. no. 1150738)]. The overall belligerent tone of de Szyszlo’s rebuttal was overshadowed by his now-famous statement in La Prensa newspaper: “there are no painters in Peru” (doc. no. 1137793). His open contempt for contemporary art from his country gave rise to an irate reaction from Peruvian artists and intellectuals and earned him a leading role in the first debate in Peru on non-figurative art. [For additional information, see the following articles: (unsigned) “Pintores peruanos hay, lo que aún no hay es pintura peruana: dice Juan Ríos y agrega que la pintura abstracta es pobre e inhumana” (doc. no. 1137808); (unsigned) “Cristina Gálvez opina que sí hay pintores en el Perú: citó a cuatro: ‘Hay que ser muy intelectual para ser abstracto’ dijo y añadió luego ‘Szyszlo no es intelectual’” (doc. no. 1150897); (unsigned) “Gran problema del arte peruano es la falta de críticos: ‘Xanno’: Alejandro Romualdo Valle agregó que los que escriben sobre arte son improvisados o huachafos” (doc. no. 1150928); Federico Costa y Laurent’s “La ‘polémica de los pintores’” (doc. no. 1150866); (unsigned) “‘Julia Codesido y Sabogal son buenos pintores’: Aquilles Ralli cree, además, que muchos sólo buscan la fama por medio de la publicidad” (doc. no. 1150882); Juan Ríos’s “El debate sobre pintura: carta del Sr. Juan Ríos R.” (doc. no. 1150912) and “Balance de una polémica: cuatro preguntas fundamentales” (doc. no. 1137882); and Ángel Guido’s “A los pintores peruanos” (doc. no. 1150943)].
Though intentionally provocative, the statement “there are no painters in Peru” made reference to the lack of local points of reference for any artist interested in participating in the most recent international trends. The most ornery issues in the debate were the terms that should be used to define local modern art, suggesting early differences among Peruvian progressive intellectuals. By defending “earthly abstraction” as the sole option for Peruvian art, critic Samuel Pérez Barreto (1921–2003) found himself up against fellow former members of the Agrupación Espacio, a group that vehemently rejected any partisan and totalizing view that identified “the national” with “the Andean.”