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.
Here, the critic Juan Calzadilla analyzes the work of the Venezuelan visual artist Régulo Pérez, starting with the artist’s adherence to figurative art. The text even clarifies that this is a contemporary artist who has developed his work within a single pictorial concept: realism. The writer goes on to emphasize the importance of the communicative event, which he considers a reflection of the artist’s commitment to reality. He also defines the conceptual elements the artist draws upon in creating his work and style; the artist uses them to combine and synthesize the art elements with the human element.
In 1967, Juan Calzadilla (b. 1931) wrote this text on the occasion of the National Painting Prize at the 28th Salón Oficial, granted to the Venezuelan visual artist Régulo Pérez (b. 1929) for his work Coto de Caza. In this essay, while the critic provides a summary description of Régulo’s painting style, his analysis places more emphasis on the new elements in both his concepts and compositions. Such elements, which can be observed in the work that won the prize, would be used by the artist in the subsequent periods of his work as an artist. In this regard, Calzadilla highlights several aspects: his attachment to “figurative art,” “the communicative event,” “the gesture of protest,” “dramatics” and “a dynamic perception of actual events.” Above all, the critic focuses on the fusion of an integrated style that dissolves the dualism between the creative man and his work. Using precise technical language and a sure knowledge of the creative act, Calzadilla emphasizes the artist’s commitment and his interest in creating work that makes a statement with deep social significance.
In the absence of any in-depth study of this artist, it is important to note Calzadilla’s perspective—along with that of other writers such as Rafael Pineda [see: Naturaleza y cultura (Caracas: Galería Acquavella, 1981), which also appears in the catalogue Régulo (Porlamar: Museo de Arte Contemporáneo Francisco Narváez, 1982), among other essays. Together, they are the most representative contributions focusing on one of this artist’s most creative periods.
[Regarding this artist’s work, see the following texts in the ICAA digital archive: by Rafael Pineda, both “Régulo y el eje Orinoco – Pintura” (doc. No. 1154220) and “Naturaleza y cultura” (taken from the catalogue Régulo en Acquavella, Caracas, 1981)” (doc. No. 1154268); by Bélgica Rodríguez “Un nuevo lenguaje” (doc. No. 1157776); by Roberto Guevara “Régulo y la cultura visual” (doc. No. 1157759); Jesús Sanoja Hernández’s analysis “Prólogo serio para el más serio de nuestros humoristas” (doc. No. 1154188); by Mingui Betancourt “Pinto vampiros porque no sé pintar flores” (doc. No. 1157808); “Conversando con Régulo Pérez: Entrevistado por Berna Parra, María Eugenia Sánchez y Margarita Villarroel” (doc. No. 1154236); a partial chronology by Ivette Villarreal “La salvación por la imagen” (doc. No. 1154300); and Oswaldo Barreto’s analysis “Régulo Pérez: La ciudad se revierte” (doc. No. 1154172).There is also a letter written by the artist, himself, rejecting the First Prize for Painting granted at the Exposición Nacional de Artes Plásticas [five years later,] in 1972 (doc. No. 1157824)].