In her essay, Ida Rodríguez [Prampolini] makes clear that she has not rededicated herself to the new art trends, given that when she did so, there were bitter reactions to her commentaries. She is incapable of hiding her disillusionment with the confusion and mediocrity of the arts in Mexico. In Ida’s judgment, Dr. Justino Fernández was right to affirm (in a text published in 1958) that Mexican art—despite its passion and drama—maintained a good balance, and kept its place among great art along with all the freedoms of contemporary art. Nevertheless, for her, this had changed in a scant three years with the rise of a great variety of trends and the development of a temperament that was constantly changing (in a radical manner) its artistic concepts. All this, in the author’s opinion, disconcerts those who attend the opulent openings of the galleries within the capital and it also obscures the fact that the events are merely social and that no one understands anything of what is presented. Without wholly blaming galleries for these trends in the arts, Rodríguez points to the commercial purpose of galleries, as they attempt to attract the public with important names such as Jose Clemente Orozco (1883-1949) or Rufino Tamayo (1899-1991). Also, they exhibit expensive, pretty paintings that are merely intended to decorate the homes of the wealthy. Among other subjects, she comments on some of the trends followed by Mexican artists, who, in her opinion, only manage to copy elements of international art or the experiments of young artists in other parts of the world. According to the art critic, the artist in general refutes the notion that his work was created for purely commercial ends. Nevertheless, in the interest of being fair, while Mexican artists did not have another explanation for their aesthetic vacillations other than a simple porque sí [just because I did it],it is the critic’sright to say no… porque no [just because I say no].