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.
Together with an article published by David Alfaro Siqueiros in México en el arte [Mexico in Art], the current document is part of a conversation between the artist and the Guatemalan critic Luis Cardoza y Aragón, concerning the current state of Mexican painting. Cardoza states the reasons why he feels close to Siqueiros’ œuvre, as well as what aspects distance him. He asserts that Siqueiros is the greatest, and perhaps the only experimenter in Mexico, by arguing that unique art forms may emerge even if the basis is the assimilated European culture. In that respect, the art critic describes both Mexican painting and Mexican Muralism as simultaneously traditional and revolutionary. He even places them at a very up-to-date crossroads for the year 1948, when the article is published. According to him, there are two options: to either follow the traditional trend of mural painting, or else to strive to broaden the tradition through intrinsically plastic/visual research.
Rafael Solana was the coordinator of the publication México en el arte where this “conversation” between Luis Cardoza y Aragón (1901-1992) and David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974) concerning the state-of-the art of painting in Mexico was published. The article allows us an insight into the debate between a leftist critic and a revolutionary painter, during which each one sets the limits between agreements and discrepancies. This polemic covered several essays written during the year 1948. See also Siqueiros’ answer published in the same issue of the magazine [doc. no. 733030].