Meng - Blog 16

     Guayasamin’s art bore a striking aesthetic resemblance to the art of Pablo Picasso, at least for some of his works. They focused on abstract representations that emphasized key aspects of figures and represented internal characteristics through those emphasized aspects. This meant that, although his paintings were not “life-like” they conveyed the emotions and meanings of the figures very effectively. Politically, all of Guayasamin’s works seemed to be focused on issues that he experienced firsthand in his life, in his country, and in the countries that he visited. He heavily represented the suffering that he saw in South America. However, the ultimate message of his works was not one of despair or hopelessness. According to an interview with Guayasamin’s, the underlying moral of all of his works is “May there be peace one day.”

     Guayasamin is an important artist in Ecuador because he created art that was directly tied to Ecuadorian culture and the issues that every Ecuadorian faced. He strived to draw together the many fragmented ethnic groups of Ecuador and represent them as a single culture, with a single purpose. The Native Americans, the Spanish, Mestizos, and Africans were all represented in Guayasamin’s works.

     The painting of Pinochet was certainly controversial because it is clearly critical of him. The green skin, sharp teeth, and, what appears to be, blood dripping from his face come together to create a portrait that make Pinochet look more like a monster or an animal than a human. To people that are critical of Pinochet, this might seem lie an apt comparison. However, to those that support him, I can see how this would seem like an unfair and crude attack. This controversy reminds me of the photos of Guayasamin meeting with Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro. Clearly, Guayasamin supported these leaders, and would have praised them. However, others would disagree with Guayasamin, and criticize those leaders for abuses or blunders. The primary difference, however, between those pictures and the painting of Pinochet was that the pictures were open to some degree of interpretation, and only made weak claims about whether an individual was to be praised or denounced. The painting of Pinochet, however, made a strong, vehement claim against him that allowed no room for interpretation or rebuttal. I can see how this sort of claim could anger people and how, to avoid conflict, it was easier to simply avoid the subject of the painting altogether.