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 critical article, Roberto Guevara reviews the retrospective exhibition of works by the Venezuelan visual artist Antonio Moya at the Museo de la Rinconada [Museo de Artes Visuales Alejandro Otero] in 1990. Guevara begins by recalling the “disrespect and provocations” of Moya’s early years in the Venezuelan visual arts in the 1960s and 1970s. He mentions Moya’s participation in exhibitions organized by the group El Techo de la Ballena, and his involvement in the local version of the international movement nouvelle figuration [New Figuration]. This latter experience, in Guevara’s opinion, inspired Moya to develop an aesthetic that embraced the revisions of the “Figurative” style that he was still working with in the 1980s. The brutal urban violence of that period and the syncretism of Moya’s works that documented those events reflected his concerns and influenced the tone of social protest that distinguished his work. Guevara ends his review with a brief mention of the stylistic-evolutionary series of works that pinpointed emblematic periods in Moya’s career.
In his review of works by the visual artist Antonio Moya (b. 1942), the curator and art critic Roberto Guevara (1932–98) seeks to define the Venezuelan periods in the evolution of Moya’s work, thus indicating Venezuelan critics’ interest in acknowledging his long career which, at that time, represented three decades of work. Guevara’s description and analysis, however—which focus on the conceptual interests that Moya had developed up to that point—present a haphazard litany of solo exhibitions, stylistic series, and key aesthetic moments that, ultimately, complicate the chronological identification of his works. In his attempt to summarize three decades of work, Guevara distills Moya’s formal, conceptual, and aesthetic achievements down to a collection of symbolic and metaphorical clues that can be deduced from the suggestive titles of his exhibitions and series. But the critic does not delve deeply into the artist’s intentions or try to determine what motivated him to choose such evocative names.